Choose Well Grasshopper


Aside from a few minor technicalities, like the voting of the Electoral College and being actually sworn in, the election is over; Donald Trump will become our 45th president. There are still those who reject the outcome of the election and there are those who are saying it’s over; get over it. But for the most part, people have moved on with their lives; their concern for all things political going dormant again until the next four year presidential freak show in 2020.

As for me, I am neither angered nor saddened by the outcome of the election. To use a common analogy; I didn’t care one way or the other as I didn’t have a horse in the race. Over the course of this election cycle I got into some pretty heated discussions with folks on both sides of the spectrum; those that supported Trump and those that supported Hillary. In a way it is kind of funny; both sides almost felt that the election of the other would bring about the end of America.

Allow me to let you in on a little secret; America, at least the America as outlined by our founding documents, ended a long time ago. The problem with American voters today is that they are divided along two lines; conservatives and liberals, or Republicans and Democrats. The beliefs of both are based not upon the documents which actually established our Republic, but upon their, or their party’s view on what government should do for the people.

That, in and of itself, is the problem right there; government is not supposed to do anything for the people.
When America first gained her independence we were a Confederation; a loosely joined band of independent Nation States with a central government whose job was to provide certain things for the overall management and protection of the union. Certain of our Founders felt that this Confederation was weak and ineffective; so a convention was called and a Constitution written which replaced the Congress created by the Articles of Confederation with a stronger central government.

Although the Constitution created a stronger central government than the one that existed under the Articles of Confederation, the purpose for which government existed remained constant. Most people don’t realize that the purpose for which governments exist is not found in our Constitution, it is found in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence is more than just a formal declaration stating the intent of the Colonies to sever the ties which bound them to England; it is a universal declaration of the origin of the rights of man and the legitimate purpose for which all governments should exist.

In that document Jefferson states, “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…” (My emphasis)

There you have it, the purpose for which governments exist. You know, I’ve used this quote probably dozens of times, but I don’t think its meaning has ever sunk in. James Wilson, signer of both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, once said, “Government … should be formed to secure and enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government which has not this in view as its principal object is not a government of the legitimate kind.” (My emphasis)

Do you understand that; and I mean deep down inside? If a government is not of the legitimate kind what is it then but illegitimate? Do you know the meaning of the word illegitimate? According to the dictionary one of the definitions for illegitimate is: not authorized by the law. Therefore if our government is not of the legitimate kind, then it is an unlawful one; one whose acts are in and of themselves, violations of the law.

How is it that people call themselves Americans, or patriots, yet still support candidates on either side of the political spectrum who routinely violate the Supreme Law of the Land? You cannot justify voting for corruption because the corruption you vote for isn’t as bad as the corruption others are voting for; that defense does not cut the mustard as far as I’m concerned. Either you vote to uphold your principles or you vote to abandon all principle.

Not only do most not know the purpose for which their government was established, they also do not know how much our Founders despised the ideas of political parties and the origin of the ones we have today. Yet they fall in line behind their respective party and consider themselves good Americans; patriots. What a load of rubbish! A patriot would not vote for any candidate who would support programs which violate the Constitution or infringed upon a single right of the people. A good American would understand the importance of States Rights and seek to ensure that their respective State maintained all its sovereignty as guaranteed by the Constitution and protected by the 10th Amendment.

When our Constitution was written that wasn’t the end of the story; it had to be submitted to each State for ratification before it could go into effect. There was significant opposition to this new system of government by those who were staunch patriots; bulwarks of liberty you might say. Patrick Henry, whose immortal words Give me liberty or give me death stirred the hearts and minds of his fellow Virginians to independence vehemently opposed this Constitution, “It is said eight States have adopted this plan. I declare that if twelve States and a half had adopted it, I would, with manly firmness, and in spite of an erring world, reject it.”

A war of words ensued; with those who supported the proposed Constitution being known as Federalists, and those who opposed it being known simply as Anti-Federalists. Writers on both sides produced letters and commentaries; espousing their views on the proposed Constitution with eloquence and prose.
Among those who supported ratification were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay. They wrote a series of articles which we now know as the Federalist Papers. At first though, they were simply attempts to sway the opinion of New Yorkers towards ratification; not the decisive explanation of the Constitution they are considered to be today.

In Federalist #45 James Madison explained both the balance between State and Federal authority and the powers granted each as follows, “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.”

That is less than 100 words, 97 to be exact. Yet it explains the relationship between the States and the central government and the powers held by both. Now, if you’ll indulge me, compare that to the balance between State and federal authority today and tell me how far out of whack things have become.

Yet this war of words is the seed from which our current political parties sprung. Once our Constitution was accepted by the required number of States, it went into effect and the obvious choice for our first president was the man who led the Continental Army against the British; George Washington.

When Washington retired from public service after two terms as president he delivered what set the precedent for all future Presidential Farewell Addresses. In his Farewell Letter, Washington states, “However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

The man who succeeded Washington as President was John Adams. In a letter to Jonathan Jackson Adams wrote, “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

The man who followed Adams into the presidency was Thomas Jefferson. In a letter to Francis Hopkinson, Jefferson writes, “I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.”

Can you see where I’m going with this?

Yet today in America party takes precedence over principle…EVERY TIME!!! I don’t care if you are a Democrat or a Republican, the Constitution should be your guide in choosing who is best fit to serve as your representative in government; be that representative a member of the House or the president himself. Instead, party platforms dictate the stance candidates take on the issues. Political parties have become, just as Washington feared, “…potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people…”

I remember when the Tea Party first became a movement. I actually began to have a glimmer of hope for this country. Then I attended a Tea Party meeting and saw that it was mostly a bunch of disgruntled Republicans who sought a means to get members of their party into office. Then I saw Sarah Palin as a spokesperson for the Tea Party. Then I saw the candidates who were being elected under the banner of the Tea Party. After all these things I realized that the principle upon which the Tea Party began had been corrupted, infiltrated, and hijacked by the Republicans and turned into a movement which benefitted their cause, their agenda.

Every election I keep hearing the same old tired response to my opposition for run of the mill GOP candidates; that we have to first get our candidate elected; then we can worry about turning things around in this country. Well, when is the turning around going to begin? I heard that nonsense when people voted for Bush; and look what happened; we got the Patriot Act, Department of Homeland Security, and an expanded TSA that all violate our rights.

I tell you what; you guys who voted from Trump can hold your breaths while you wait for all this returning to Constitutional principles you so often talk about; I’ll keep breathing like normal and we’ll see who passes out first.

Trump campaigned on the slogan of Make America Great Again. The problem is this; what do you consider greatness? Do you consider it a booming economy or a return to superpower status? If you do, you’re wrong; because those aren’t the things that made America great. In fact, they are not things the government should have anything to do with in the first place.

Remember how just a few moments ago I mentioned that Patrick Henry opposed the proposed Constitution? Well, the very next words out of his mouth after making that statement were, “You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.”

You see, that right there is where all the problems lie; not in whether we’ve had too many Democrats or Republicans in control of our government; but what we expect out of government. As long as people do not know the limits the Constitution imposes upon government; as long as the States have lost their position as co-equal parts of the government, as long as people continue to ask government to provide them with benefits and protections they are not entitled to, nothing will change.

Sure, we’ll go back and forth between the two parties; taxes may go up and down, jobs might be created, then lost, but the fundamental principles upon which our nation will not be restored until the people themselves are ready to defend them and stop voting for candidates who have no inclination to support them; or stop voting altogether; withdraw all support for a government that has become illegitimate.

You may cry all you want that your government has become corrupt; but that is not the case. The problem is that the principles you adhere to are corrupt; and the sooner you recognize that fact and change it, the sooner America can truly become great again.

However, the reverse is equally true, the longer you refuse to admit that you are part of the problem, the longer America will continue to circle the drain; and along with it will be the loss of all your liberty.

But hey, go ahead and believe whatever you want. I can only provide you with the facts; it’s up to you to think about them and form your beliefs based upon them. Then again, you need to be ready to accept the consequences of those choices; of your ignorance, your apathy, and your complacency. As the rock band RUSH sang in their song Freewill, “You can choose not to decide but you still have made a choice.”

Choose well grasshopper…

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Too Deep For Shallow Minds


“Any fool can make a rule
And any fool will mind it.”

~Henry David Thoreau~

The problem with many people today is that they have been conditioned to believe that anything anyone in a position of authority says or does is gospel and they are obliged to obey. If our government enacts a law we do not like we simply shrug our shoulders and obey it. We are told to support those in agencies whose sole job is the enforcement of the laws government and society passes, regardless of whether the laws are just or not. It has gotten so bad that our national motto needs to be changed from In God We Trust to Do Not Question; Just Obey.

When the United States sought to create the National Seal various phrases were suggested with E Pluribus Unum, (Out of many one) being chosen as the final motto for the seal. That alone is worthy of an article; but it will have to wait for another day; however it is not the subject I intend to discuss right now. Among the suggested mottos was the following: Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Although it was not chosen for the National Seal, Thomas Jefferson liked it so much he incorporated it into his personal seal.

It is funny how time, and generations of indoctrination, change how people view things. Hopefully all who are reading this know the story behind the Shot Heard Round the World; when the King sent his soldiers to Lexington and Concord to confiscate the arms of the Colonists, and how the local militias stood their ground and fought them.

Imagine that happening today. Imagine agents of the BATF showing up en masse to a local community and demanding that the people surrender their privately held firearms. How do you think the media and the people of this country would view those citizens if they stood their ground; going so far as to fire upon the agents of the government in defense of their right to keep their guns?

I’m almost certain most people would view those who resisted the confiscation of their guns as being in the wrong; people who resisted legitimate authority and whose actions were criminal in nature. It is a sad comment on how poorly we have been taught to respect and protect our liberty that those who defend it are considered criminals. Even Woodrow Wilson, the president who gave us the Federal Reserve, once said, “The history of liberty is a history of resistance.”

Had the Colonists not resisted tyranny, had they not taken up arms against their government, we would not have gained our independence; at least not in 1783. Our Founders believed that their liberty was a sacred gift given them by their God and that any who threatened it was to be opposed. Just look at how society treats those who stand up to government today; they are labeled as extremists or some other name that portrays them as being in the wrong.

If I were to mention the name Bundy, what would be your reaction? What about LaVoy Finicum, or Julian Assange…Edward Snowden? If you view these men as dangers to society, you can count yourself among the indoctrinated many who believe that government is omnipotent and whose authority is not to be questioned. However, if you view them as heroes and patriots who either stood up to tyranny, or sought to expose the corruption in government, then you may still have that fire of liberty burning within your breast.

Almost from the moment of its inception our government has sought to expand the powers given it. It was only because there were those who understood the nature of liberty, and opposed any unjust and unconstitutional usurpation of powers, that the growth of government was kept in check.

When our second president, John Adams, signed the Alien and Sedition Acts, his own vice president, Thomas Jefferson, wrote the following, “Resolved, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government . . . . and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”

Laws hold their power over people by one of two means; either they are commonly accepted as being just and the people obey them willingly, or they are enforced by coercion. In the first you have liberty, in the second you have slavery.

The people of this country have been taught so little about the nature of authority, the nature of our rights, and the nature of laws that they mistakenly believe that anyone in a position of authority is to be obeyed whenever they issue a command or an edict. What does it tell you about the laws being passed when it takes a standing army of enforcers to obtain obedience to the laws our government passes?

What are laws; and more importantly, what should be the purpose of laws? The Frenchman Frederic Bastiat wrote that “What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two.”

I know I’ve used the following quote before, in fact I used it in my last article; but maybe now it will make a bit more sense to you. 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.”

It is not only our right to defend our lives against those who would threaten them, but it is also our right to defend our property…and yes, our LIBERTY against all who would threaten it. That, in my personal opinion, is the litmus test for whether a person is a patriot or a slave; the extent to which they understand their rights, and how willing they are to defend them.

I don’t know what goes on in most people’s heads, I really don’t. Only you can say for certain what goes on within your own mind. However, I can make a few guesses; particularly when it comes to how they view their rights. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if someone were to tell me that our rights come from our government. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if someone were to tell me that the Bill of Rights grants us certain rights. Unfortunately, both statements would be incorrect.

First, and foremost, our rights do not come from our government. The origin of our rights can be explained in just two dozen words, words penned by Thomas Jefferson in 1776, “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…”

The belief that government grants us our rights is paradoxical at best. If government granted us the rights we enjoy, then where were those rights before government came into existence? When Thomas Paine wrote his book The Rights of Man, he gave us the following to consider, “It has been thought a considerable advance towards establishing the principles of Freedom to say that Government is a compact between those who govern and those who are governed; but this cannot be true, because it is putting the effect before the cause; for as man must have existed before governments existed, there necessarily was a time when governments did not exist, and consequently there could originally exist no governors to form such a compact with.

The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.”

Going back to Bastiat’s book The Law, we find, “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.”

Therefore, if our rights come from our Creator, and that government came into existence and owes its power to a grant of power given it by the true sovereigns; the people, then what is the purpose for which government, and any law should serve? James Wilson, one of the few Founders to have signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, said this about the purpose of government, “Government … should be formed to secure and enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government which has not this in view as its principal object is not a government of the legitimate kind.”

You are free to choose what you want to believe today, but when our Founders fought for their independence, when they established our system of government, there was one thing they had in common; they believed in the concept of Natural Law. Where someone to go out into the teeming mass of society and ask the average mall walker what Natural Law is, they would probably not find one person who could answer the question; even though it is the origin of all our rights and liberty.

Natural Law differs from Common Law, or Civil Law in that it is, (or at least it used to be), universally accepted and not needing to be codified into written law. Natural Law dictates that certain rights are inherent in the people by virtue of human nature.

Therefore, if Natural Laws are those which are universally understood and accepted, then the rights granted under Natural Law, or Natural Rights, are those rights which also come from our being human beings, and cannot be violated without the grossest of injustices.

In the Rights of Man Paine explains, “A few words will explain this. Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the natural rights of others.”

I have often heard people say that they know their Civil Rights. Yet by the very fact that they make that statement they prove that they don’t. Civil Rights are rights you have by virtue of you being a member of a civil society. The rights protected by the Bill of Rights are above, and the source of, all your Civil Rights. These rights are exempt from the lawmaking process which might restrict them.

This fact was also spoken of by Paine, “Civil rights are those which appertain to man in right of his being a member of society. Every civil right has for its foundation some natural right pre-existing in the individual, but to the enjoyment of which his individual power is not, in all cases, sufficiently competent. Of this kind are all those which relate to security and protection.”

When I hear people talk about rights I often hear them speak of them as if they are these abstract principles that have no real existence of their own. Yet our Founders believed that our rights were just as real, just as tangible, as any property they owned; in fact they viewed their rights as property.

In 1792 James Madison wrote something discussing the nature of property, “This term in its particular application means “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.

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

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

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

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

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

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.”

If rights are in fact property, then it is our right to defend them. As Bastiat said about government in The Law, “If every person has the right to defend—even by force—his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right—its reason for existing, its lawfulness—is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute.”

Government did not come into existence to deprive us of a single right, but to better secure them. The nature of these Natural Rights is such that I cannot deprive you of your rights, nor can you deprive me of mine. Therefore, if governments exist because of a grant of power given them by the people, and if rights are something which no single man has the right to deprive another of, then how can it be that those to whom power is given to govern can deprive anyone of any of their rights?

In his Second Treatise, Locke speaks of it thusly, “This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power, is so necessary to, and closely joined with a man’s preservation, that he cannot part with it, but by what forfeits his preservation and life together: for a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot, by compact, or his own consent, enslave himself to any one, nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another, to take away his life, when he pleases. No body can give more power than he has himself; and he that cannot take away his own life, cannot give another power over it.”

Locke later states, “The great and chief end, therefore, of men’s uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.” If our rights are, as Madison declared, our property, then if government violates those rights then do we not have the right to resist such violations; and how does that make those who resist in the wrong?

That is my biggest gripe with all this ‘Support Law Enforcement’ hype I see on Social Media websites. It implies that we should bow in obedience to those who wear a badge without ever asking if the laws they are E N F O R C I N G are unjust or unconstitutional. These people condemn those of us who question the legitimacy of the laws these law enforcers are enforcing. They suggest we should meekly submit to their authority, seeking justice through the court system if we believe our rights were violated.

In 1785 James Madison wrote, “The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle.”

This principal that Madison speaks of is the authority to enact laws which violates the rights of the people. So basically Madison is saying that the free men of America rejected the authority of their government to enforce laws upon them which violated their rights. Yet were someone today to reject the authority of the government and stand up for their rights…well, all one has to do is look how the media portrays anyone who takes a stand against governmental authority; they are denigrated and their characters are assassinated for the crime of standing up for their rights.

It would seem that society today has answered the question posed by Thomas Jefferson in 1775, “Can it be believed that a grateful people will suffer [individuals] to be consigned to execution, whose sole crime has been the developing and asserting their rights?”

Yet in reality, who are the criminals in such cases; the person who stands up for their rights, or the government that seeks to deprive us of them? It is exactly as Bastiat states in the opening of his book The Law, “The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose!”

If, as the Constitution states, that it is the Supreme Law of the Land, then what does it say when it is routinely violated by those who have taken an oath to support and defend it? Locke tells us, but I’m not sure you are going to like the answer. In Section 202 of his Second Treatise Locke writes, “Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another’s harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command, to compass that upon the subject, which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate; and, acting without authority, may be opposed, as any other man, who by force invades the right of another.”

The media paints those who stand for their rights in such a light to make them appear as criminals. Our elected officials tell us that these people are a danger to society and that it is governments job to protect us from such people. If protection is what the government provided to those at Ruby Ridge or Waco, I don’t want the protection of my government. You see, government painted them as the bad guys too, and their lackeys in the news media went right along with the story and worked their magic; and the whole world fell for the lie; well, most of the world anyway.

Yet doesn’t it always work that way; that those who stand up for their rights, or threaten to weaken the power held by government are labeled as dangers to society, or worse? Is that now what our government did to the Branch Davidians? Is it not what Abraham Lincoln did to the South during and after the Civil War? Is it not what our government did to Edward Snowden, and is currently trying to do to Julian Assange?

Yet, for the life of me, I cannot get people to look beyond their two party paradigm and see that government itself has become our enemy; has declared war upon our liberty. Just as they profess this blind support for law enforcement, they profess this blind support for G O V E R N M E N T.

Locke tells us that “…whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence. Whensoever therefore the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society; and either by ambition, fear, folly or corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who. have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society…”

Sure, government won’t give up the power and control it has amassed without a fight; tyrants never do. But to continue placing your trust in a system that is so corrupt, (and forget about Donald Trump’s promise to drain the swamp), and a system whose only apparent job is to restrict your liberty is insanity.

As Learned Hand said, “I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws, and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it.”

As long as people put their trust in government; as long as people still believe that by voting they can bring about a restoration of Constitutional principles and liberty; as long as people are unwilling to take the time to truly understand the nature of their rights, and to then stand up for them, NOT ONE SINGLE THING WILL IMPROVE. Sure, more jobs might be created, your taxes will go up or go down, but your liberty will continue to diminish until you wake up one day and realize that you are a slave.

But I realize the concepts of which I speak are too deep for certain shallow minds; that they threaten to rip your precious belief systems asunder; and therefore you will ignore and shun me to your dying breaths. That’s okay, I can accept that. All that matters to me is that when I stand before my Maker I can say that I did my best to warn people; they simply would not listen though.

Posted in General | Leave a comment



On Monday a self proclaimed Muslim, Abdul Razak Ali Artan, drove his vehicle into a crowd on Ohio State University, then exited the car with a butcher knife and began slashing pedestrians until he was shot and killed by a University Police Officer. Initial reports stated that officers had been dispatched to an active shooter emergency, only to find there was no firearm involved. Almost immediately the cry went out for tougher gun control laws.

Why is it that whenever something like this happens people automatically assume guns were involved? Why is it that when something like this happens the first thing that pops into people’s minds is that if we had tougher gun laws these things would not happen? Even if a gun had been involved, how many gun control laws would this person have been guilty of violating had he used a gun instead of a car and a knife; one…two….three?

If gun control laws were so effective, why are cities that have the strictest gun control among the most dangerous places to live in America? When are people going to realize that if a person is truly intent on committing a crime, of doing harm to others that no law in the world is going to prevent it from happening? The only people these gun control laws affect are those not inclined to break the law in the first place. The only things these gun control laws do is to make people feel good about themselves, and create a target rich environment in which those who end up the victims of crime are unable to defend themselves against those who commit them.

But there’s something else these gun control laws do; they slowly but surely, whittle away at an unalienable right by people who have zero authority to do so. Whether a person likes guns or dislikes them is irrelevant; the point is that the 2nd Amendment declares that it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms….END OF STORY!

Imagine a right to be like a block of cheese. It doesn’t matter how insignificant a law may appear to you, by passing them it is as if you took a knife and cut away a slice of cheese. Then another and another law gets passed, continually slicing away at the cheese until eventually the cheese/right is gone completely. That may be the ultimate goal of some of the most ardent gun control proponents anyway; the total disarmament of the American people. These people either don’t understand the nature of rights, or they don’t care. To make matters worse the average American accepts that government may pass laws which infringe upon this right; and that once passed we are bound to obey them.

What if they passed a law saying you could not talk about football, or use words with more than 3 syllables, or spoke anything other than English in public? How fast do you think it would be before people started complaining about their freedom of speech being violated? Well, that is how I feel every time the federal or my State government passes a law which, in any way, limits how I choose to exercise my right.

The other day someone posted something on Facebook along the lines that a drivers license in one State is accepted in every State, why shouldn’t concealed weapons permits be the same? The point they were trying to make is that, say you have a concealed weapons permit for the State of Texas, why shouldn’t that permit be valid in another state; say California?

As good intentioned as this person might be, they also do not understand the nature of a right. You do not need a permit to exercise a right. Do you need a permit to leave your home and speak in public? Do you need a permit to go to church? Do you need a permit to call your elected representative and voice your concerns over a piece of legislation? Do you need a permit to receive a fair trial with a determination of guilt or innocence rendered by a jury of your peers? Do you need a permit to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures? Then why should anyone need a permit to carry a gun for their personal protection?

People today have lost all understanding of both the nature and origin of their rights. They believe that government not only can, but ought to restrict rights when it serves the greater public good. What if the greater public good were served by killing people whose IQ’s were not above 120? Would you support such measures if it were you, or your children they decided to execute because they simply weren’t smart enough to serve the greater public good?

What if the tables were turned and support for gun ownership was so strong in America that they passed a law saying that not only must you own a gun for your own protection; but that you must train regularly and carry it on your person at all times? Don’t you think they would be violating your freedom of choice? Well what about those who choose to carry a gun on their person for their own protection; what about THEIR RIGHTS?

When man first made his appearance on this planet; whether he evolved from the apes as per Darwin, or whether he was created by God, he was in full possession of all his rights. This state of nature is the origin of what is known as Natural Law. These Natural Laws are as much a part of our being as the fact that we have two ears, two eyes, one nose and one mouth. That is what is meant when they say certain rights are inherent; they are part of us simply because we are human beings.

When the first man showed up on planet Earth he was responsible for his own needs and his own survival. He did not need to ask permission to hunt, to forage, to defend what was his; that was his Natural Right. He was also responsible for accepting the consequences of the choices he made as there was no one else to blame.

As population grew, man faced new threats from those other men around him. These new threats caused man to form civil societies. You may call them what you will; tribes, clans, societies, but man joined together with other men; all sharing common needs.

Government evolved from man having joined together into civil societies; both as the consequence of the need for some entity to act on the behalf of those within the society, and as the need to enforce certain commonly held beliefs upon the society. Government derives its power by one of two means; it is either granted them by the people, or it is assumed by force. In the former free societies exist. In the latter the people live under tyranny and despotism.

America lives in the former, a society in which government derives its power and authority from the consent of those it governs. (See Declaration of Independence) Any power given government is only by the good grace of the true sovereigns in this country; the people. Any restrictions placed upon government are law which government is bound to obey; and which when they violate the most the people have the right to ignore the law as if it was never written. Such are the nature of gun control laws; they need not be obeyed as they are unconstitutional from the get go. Yet for this concept to work the people must be willing to defend their rights; not meekly submit to laws which violate them.

When President Andrew Jackson delivered his Farewell Address he stated, “But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government.”

When our Constitution was written a great argument ensued in which some felt it created a system of government that was capable of depriving the States of their sovereignty and the people of their rights. To appease those who felt that the government created by this Constitution did not do just that a Bill of Rights was promised if they would but just accept the Constitution as written.

Literally hundreds of suggested rights were submitted for consideration by the States. It is interesting to note that the proceedings discussing which rights to be protected by Constitutional Amendment in the Senate were held in secrecy. Eventually twelve amendments were sent off to the States for their consideration. Ten of those were successfully ratified and now form our Bill of Rights.

Many today believe that the Constitution sits alone in having a preamble. That is not true; the Bill of Rights also has a preamble. Many also believe that preambles are grants of power; they are not. When Joseph Story wrote his Commentaries on the Constitution, he said the following regarding preambles, “§ 462. And, here, we must guard ourselves against an error, which is too often allowed to creep into the discussions upon this subject. The preamble never can be resorted to, to enlarge the powers confided to the general government, or any of its departments. It cannot confer any power per se; it can never amount, by implication, to an enlargement of any power expressly given. It can never be the legitimate source of any implied power, when otherwise withdrawn from the constitution. Its true office is to expound the nature, and extent, and application of the powers actually conferred by the constitution, and not substantively to create them.”

The preamble for the Bill of Rights states, “THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

The Bill of Rights is a list of restrictions upon the scope of powers granted government; things that the government cannot touch through legislation. So, when the 2nd Amendment states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it means that no law can be passed which restricts an individual from freely exercising that right. It does not matter if a majority decides that they don’t like it when people exercise a particular right; or that they fear when people who do. How would these same people feel if a majority decided that a law needed to be passed which banned their favorite activity, or restricted them from exercising another of their rights; such as the freedom of speech?

You have to remember, when the preamble to the Bill of Rights says that the rights listed within that document are free from governmental restriction, that they mean the ENTIRE government; including those nine black robed tyrants commonly known as the Supreme Court.

The government cannot decide what is meant by the word arms. So if it passes a law banning a particular category of weapon; such as automatic rifles, it is defining what is meant by the word arms. Arms are simply weapons, and if you go back and research the meaning of the word as it was used in the 18th century, arms was associated with weapons of war. So any law which bans the private ownership of automatic weapons, or magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, or short barreled, (sawed off) shotguns, is illegal because they are attempting to define what is meant by the word arms.

If I cannot, as an individual, restrict your rights, government cannot do so either. When Locke wrote his Second Treatise he explained this principle as follows, “Though the legislative, whether placed in one or more, whether it be always in being, or only by intervals, though it be the supreme power in every common-wealth; yet, First, It is not, nor can possibly be absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people: for it being but the joint power of every member of the society given up to that person, or assembly, which is legislator; it can be no more than those persons had in a state of nature before they entered into society, and gave up to the community: for no body can transfer to another more power than he has in himself; and no body has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life or property of another.”

Yet how many laws have been written that somehow restrict my right to keep and bear arms? Laws now require I obtain a permit to carry a firearm on my person for my personal protection. Laws limit what type, caliber, magazine capacity, mode of fire and the manner in which a magazine is released from the weapon.

To put it in perspective, had the same number, and manner of laws been passed regarding free speech you would need a permit to speak in public, you would need to limit your sentences to under 10 words, you would need to keep your words hidden from the ears of others and if you violated these limitations you would be imprisoned.

I know people fear becoming the victim of crimes, but that does not grant them the right to deprive anyone of their rights. In 1859 the Texas courts held, “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of those ‘high powers’ delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” (Cockrum v. State)

Then, in the 1878 case of Wilson v State, the Arkansas courts held, “To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm…is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.”

There are those of us who are becoming increasingly angered over those we elect to secure our rights from doing the exact opposite; limiting them to the point of nonexistence. 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…”

In Federalist 28 Alexander Hamilton wrote, “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government…” By our government deciding what is meant by the word arms, by its passing laws limiting what type arms we may own, or requiring that we obtain a permit to exercise our right, they have betrayed the sacred trust we have granted them to secure our rights.

And we’ve just about had enough of their attempt to totally deprive us of the right to keep and bear arms.

I don’t care what you think you know about the 2nd Amendment, you don’t know squat if you think you can ask that my right to own any type gun I want be limited or restricted. You may think that the 2nd Amendment is so we can hunt, or protect our homes from crime; but you are wrong! Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story said this about the 2nd Amendment, “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers…”

That’s right, the 2nd Amendment is there so we can defend ourselves against our government. The 18th century jurist William Blackstone once said, “Free men have arms; slaves do not.” I have no intention of becoming a slave. Keep pushing the issue and you’ll soon find out why the 2nd Amendment was written!

Posted in General | Leave a comment

An American Fairy Tale


Imagine waking up one morning and looking into the mirror and not recognizing the face staring back at you. Imagine how disconcerting it would be to not know who or what you were; essentially having had your entire history erased from your memory. Imagine then that those around you began telling you lies about yourself; how would you know that you were being lied to unless you set out to search for the truth?

History is what gives us our sense of self, and this is true both in regards to individuals and to nations. If that sense of self is to be accurate however, the history has to be both accurate and complete. It is the job of parents to teach their children the history of their family; typically through stories and anecdotes. As children grow their memory stores their own personal history; the decisions they have made and the events which have shaped them.

However, as none of us were alive when back in the earliest years of our nation’s history, we trust our educators to instruct our children in regards to the history of their country. What if, year after year, decade after decade, those educators have slowly been revising the history of this country; omitting certain facts and lying about others? How do you think that distorted and perverted version of history would affect how Americans felt about being American?

Just like almost every other American, I made my way through the public school system; graduating from high school the year of our nation’s bicentennial; 1976. I received the same education, or lack thereof, that every other Californian did. For years, decades even, I accepted that what I had been taught was the absolute truth. It was only when I began researching the history of my country that I began learning that what I had been taught was not truthful, and in some cases was an outright lie.

I could not have done that had I not been willing to accept ideas which conflicted with the beliefs I held at the time I began my research. I could not have done that had I not been willing to compare what I was reading to how things actually are today. That is the process known as thinking; something far too many people are unwilling to do. However, all that knowledge one gains is useless unless the person who obtained it changes their way of thinking. As Johann Wolfgang von Goethe once said, “Knowing is not enough; we must apply.” You can learn all the history, accurate history that is, and unless you act on what you have learned then the knowledge you have gained is useless.

There is a quote by someone that I wholeheartedly agree with, “The sin which is unpardonable is knowingly and willfully to reject the truth, to fear knowledge lest that knowledge pander not to thy prejudices.” I hesitate to mention that it was Aleister Crowley who said that, lest the stigma associated with his name taint the truthfulness of his statement.

Many others throughout history have recorded similar sentiments. The philosopher Plato once said, “We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.” Ben Franklin also said, “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”

I have been trying, for many years now, to share the knowledge that I have acquired with those who still hold to beliefs based upon the revisionist history they have been taught; all to no avail. It would seem that van Loon was correct when he said, “Any formal attack on ignorance is bound to fail because the masses are always ready to defend their most precious possession – their ignorance.”

Oh, from time to time I encounter someone whose mind is open to the truth; but for the most part people cling to the lies they have been told the same way one would cling to a life preserver in the middle of an ocean. I truly believe that, for many, the familiarity of a lie is often more comforting than the stark reality of truth.

Yet were I to go out into a public place and begin spreading lies about a person, their family, or even their favorite football team, I would instantly be attacked and my lies countered with facts. If I wish to retain my integrity as an American can I do anything less when it comes to the lies you have been taught regarding our country and its system of government?

Take for instance the recent holiday we just celebrated; Thanksgiving. Most of you believe it to be a celebration of the first harvest; when Pilgrims and Indians gathered together to share a bountiful harvest. That’s the fairy tale version our textbooks teach us; do you want to know the truth?

Many of those who sought passage aboard the Mayflower and Speedwell, (the two ships that set sail from England for the Americas), could not afford to fully fund the crossing of the Atlantic. So they sought help from two companies; the Virginia Company of London and the Virginia Company of Plymouth. These companies were known as ‘adventurers’, companies who helped fund and equip colonial enterprises.

One of the provisions of the contract between those who made the crossing and these companies was that the colonists were to put all their food, clothing and drink into a common stock; to be handed out to each according to their need. This was very similar to the concept of communism as espoused by Marx. Not only were all the provisions to be placed in this common stock; all profits were to go into it as well. At the end of the seven year period of the contract the profits were to be divided, “…betwixt the Adventurers and the Planters…”

William Bradford, the governor of the Colony, wrote that this system not only hindered the Colony’s growth, it led to starvation and death. Young men resented working for the benefit of other families without compensation; healthy men resented working for those who were unable to work; wives resented doing household chores for single men. When winter found their provisions insufficient, 45 out of the original 102 settlers perished due to disease and starvation.

Had they continued the practice of putting everything into a common stock it is very likely that the entire settlement would have perished. However, Governor Bradford abandoned this practice, instead giving each settler a plot of land to work as his own. When drought threatened they gathered together in prayer to seek relief. That same night the skies opened and rain fell upon their crops; ending the drought.

Later, Governor Bradford would write the following about his decision to abandon the socialist practice of a common stock, “This was very successful. It made all hands very industrious, so that much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could devise, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better satisfaction.

The women now went willing into the field, and took their little ones with them to help plant corn, while before they would allege weakness and inability, and to have compelled them would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.”

By the fall of 1624 the Colony had produced enough corn to export a full boat load of it. This provide them with sufficient funds to pay off their contract with the Adventurers; completing the final transition to private ownership of land and free markets.

That is the true story about what we celebrate on the last Thursday in November, not the fairy tale version taught to us in school. Thanksgiving is about the end of the first attempt at socialism, and thanks to God for the rain that ended the drought.

If you have been lied to about the origin of Thanksgiving, imagine the lies you have been taught regarding the establishment of our system of government; especially when government is responsible for establishing the curriculums to be taught in our public schools. The easiest way to do away with the barriers which restrict the actions of our government is to not teach our children that there are any barriers; and that is exactly what has been done.

When our Founders had finally reached the point which they decided independence was their only option, they did not seek to vote new leaders in to restore their rights; they sought to sever all ties which bound them to their system of government. Of course the King was not willing to let them go without a fight; so we had the Revolutionary War.

There are two things you must realize regarding the end of the Revolution and the independence gained by the Colonies. First, when the Colonies became free of British rule each became a sovereign and independent State. This fact was commonly accepted and attested to by the treaty which officially ended the war, “His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states…”

Each State was not bound to anyone other than the other inhabitants of that State. Residency was not to the United States of America, it was to the State wherein the people resided. Each had its own system of government to regulate the affairs of their State. In essence, each became a sovereign independent nation unto themselves.

Secondly, the ultimate power and authority rested where it rightfully belonged; with the people. As Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, “…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” This fact was later upheld by the Supreme Court in its decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, “…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.”

During the war the Colonies had written and ratified the Articles of Confederation; forming a system of government to pass laws over the whole of the United States. However, there is another thing people need to realize; a confederation is not the same as a consolidation. A confederation is merely an alliance for the common good of all without any of the parties surrendering their independence or sovereignty.

There were some who felt that a confederation wasn’t sufficient to satisfy the needs of a nation such as ours. Due to his experiences as Washington’s aide de camp, Alexander Hamilton felt that the Congress created by the Articles of Confederation was insufficient to fund and equip a military force capable of defending the country. There were others who felt that it lacked sufficient authority to regulate commerce between the States. For whatever reason, they felt that a stronger central government was needed. The question is, how much stronger, and how would it alter the relationship between the States?

Prior to the convening of the convention which would produce our Constitution, James Madison sent a letter to George Washington outlining his thoughts. It is important that we understand what Madison had hoped to achieve before we discuss what actually happened.

Regarding the sovereignty and independence of the States, Madison declared, “Conceiving that an individual independence of the States is utterly irreconcileable with their aggregate sovereignty; and that a consolidation of the whole into one simple republic would be as inexpedient as it is unattainable, I have sought for some middle ground, which may at once support a due supremacy of the national authority, and not exclude the local authorities wherever they can be subordinately useful.”

If you just breeze through that is seems benign enough, but it is those last six words that show Madison’s true intent, “… wherever they can be subordinately useful.” The key word there is subordinately; meaning whatever government he hoped to establish would be above the States.

His desire for absolute authority in the central government is further indicated by the following, “Over and above this positive power, a negative in all cases whatsoever on the legislative acts of the States, as heretofore exercised by the Kingly prerogative, appears to me to be absolutely necessary, and to be the least possible encroachment on the State jurisdictions.” What Madison is basically saying is that if the central government did not like a law passed by any of the States it could simply veto it; claiming sovereignty over the States. Fortunately Madison’s plan was shot down during the convention; something he was saddened by, as he felt that the final product would prove ineffective and weak.

The final product of this convention is, supposedly, a Republic. Under the Constitution, as originally written, both the people and the States were represented in the lawmaking body; Congress. During the convention Madison wanted to give the States representation in the Senate based upon population; the same as in the House of Representatives. The smaller States objected to this plan because it would have given the larger States a dominating voice in the lawmaking process. The compromise they reached was to give each State equal representation in the Senate, and representation based upon population in the House.

Even under the finalized plan there were those who felt that there were insufficient checks against the power given this central government. Yet Madison, in Federalist 45 would argue, “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.”

Read that very carefully, as it is crucial to understanding just how far our government has strayed from the one promised us during the ratifying conventions. First of all, the powers given this government are few AND DEFINED. That means if they aren’t listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, then they do not exist.

Where, may I ask, does the Constitution allow for the government to regulate the production of our foodstuffs; the education of the people within the States; the amount of water used by toilets; the legality or illegality of marijuana, and a host of other laws it has passed? Where does the Constitution authorize the government to require every American participate in a retirement fund, (Social Security) or a health insurance plan, (Obamacare)?

Nowhere, that’s where.

Next, Madison promised that the powers granted the central government would extend to things that affected only the States; such as the defense of them, (war), and the regulation of commerce between then. Back when the Constitution was written the word regulate did not mean what it does today; to micromanage all aspects of commerce. What it meant was to ensure that no one State put barriers up that would interfere with the flow of goods between one State and another; to make commerce flow freely. That is a far cry from what we have today.

Back in the 70’s Norman Augustine, who served as Under Secretary of the Army, said, “A recent government publication on the marketing of cabbage contains, according to one report, 26,941 words. It is noteworthy in this regard that the Gettysburg Address contains a mere 279 words while the Lord’s Prayer comprises but 67.” Almost 27,000 words just concerning the marketing of cabbage. Tell me again how our government does not regulate commerce down to the littlest detail.

The final promise made by Madison was, “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.”

What is liberty if it is not the free and full ability of each of us to exercise our rights? If the power over the lives and liberty of the people was reserved to the States, how is it that our government can pass laws which directly affect each person? How is it that the federal government can ban the recreational use of marijuana? How is it that they can pass laws which define what type guns we may, or may not own? How is it that they can do any of the things that they do which affect each of us directly?

What has happened is that we haven’t been taught this crucial balance of powers; the powers reserved to the States and those granted the central government. We haven’t been taught the importance of our rights and to jealously guard them against all attacks.

We haven’t been taught that the Civil War was not a war fought to free the slaves, but a war for independence fought by those who believed in the principles enshrined 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, 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.”

They haven’t been taught that Lincoln was a tyrant who fought not only to bind the South to a government that was destructive of the ends for which it was established, but that he violated the rights of those who opposed his war in the North. They have taught us to revere Lincoln and put him upon a pedestal; nicknaming him Honest Abe.

In short, all that we have been taught has been one great big lie; a fairy tale designed to keep us dumb and blind to the truth; that our government is far more tyrannical, far more oppressive, than the one our Founders fought to free themselves from.

And you still think that you can change all this at the voting booth. All you’re doing by voting is choosing between one group of slave owners and another. It does not matter one bit that one candidate might not be as bad as the other; unless they begin dismantling the entity that is government; the bureaucracies that regulate, control and restrict our lives, then they are traitors to their country and guilty of violating their oaths of office.

If you do not know the limits placed upon your government; if you do not know the nature of your rights; if you do not understand the delicate balance of power between State and federal authority which was obliterated by Lincoln’s war of aggression, then you can’t change anything. It is like the person who awakes without knowing who and what they are; we Americans suffer from amnesia. Our sense of self has been taught to us by those whose sole goal is the complete usurpation of all power and the complete obliteration of all liberty. Kind of like having the Fox watch the henhouse; having our government decide the extent to which our children will be taught the history and civics of their country, isn’t it?

But you go ahead, keep voting for your Democrats or your Republicans. But, I’d like for you to try an experiment. It matters not which candidate you choose to support, send them a letter and ask them how they intend to work towards the restoration of the liberty they have taken from you. See how they respond, if at all. Ask them when the NSA is going to stop violating the 4th Amendment. Ask them when the BATF is going to stop violating the 2nd Amendment.

Go ahead, I dare you. But just a heads up; if you do you’ll probably end up on a multitude of government watch lists – just like me. But it should also go to show you that they do not care about the limits the Constitution or Bill of Rights imposes upon their actions. And that alone ought to scare the hell out of you and cause you to stop voting for any of them.

But I bet it won’t….

Oh, and just to let you know; I have barely scratched the surface of the lies you have been taught.

Posted in General | Leave a comment



I don’t know how many of you have seen the 1978 remake of the classic 1956 film Invasion of the Body Snatchers, but there is a scene at the very end that I can relate to. In the scene I am referring to, Veronica Cartwright’s character see’s Donald Sutherland’s character Matthew and approaches him with a hesitant smile. Donald Sutherland, having been replaced by an alien pod version of himself recognizes her as being human and lets out this ear piercing shriek. It is the look on Nancy’s, [Cartwright’s] face that I relate to more than the scream. The horror she must be feeling at that moment, realizing that she is utterly alone amongst mindless zombies is what gets to me every time.

I know I’m not alone in being able to think for myself and see beyond the lies that I have been taught about our nation’s history. I know I am not alone in realizing that by omitting certain aspects of our nation’s history our educators, (and I used that term loosely), have may as well been lying to us. I know I am not alone in realizing that the news media are propaganda machines designed to manipulate our emotional responses to the news in a direction which benefits those who own and control them.

I know all this because I have a few friends who feel the same, and from time to time I will encounter someone who, to put it bluntly, doesn’t fit the old saying that the lights are on but nobody’s home. Every once in awhile, a great while but still awhile, I will run into someone who seems to have broken free of the indoctrination they received in school and has their head screwed on securely.

So I know I’m not alone in being able to think; to analyze data and come to base my beliefs upon conclusions reached after examining that data, but it damn sure feels like it sometimes. When I go out into the teeming mass of society and hear them talk about things, particularly of a political nature, I am astounded at some of the things I hear people say; things that have absolutely no basis in fact. When I attempt to correct their misconceptions with factual evidence I am either ignored, or become the victim of insults because I dared threaten their precious beliefs with something as insignificant as the facts.

Let me tell you something about facts; when John Adams was asked to defend the British soldiers accused of murder in what we now call the Boston Massacre, he delivered the following words in his final summation, “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.”

So your beliefs, particularly in regards to our countries history and system of government, can either be based upon historical fact or they can be based upon year after year of lies you have been told; there are no other alternatives. It is up to you to decide which you choose to base your beliefs upon; and it says a lot about your character the choice you make.

In all my years of research there has been one driving force which kept me going; the pursuit of the truth. With every document or speech I read by those who established our Republic I discovered that the things I had been taught had been either outright lies, or half truths. I was forced to make a decision; either stop researching and continue holding onto beliefs I now knew were based upon lies, or change my beliefs; I chose the latter.

You see, I could not go on believing one thing, when I knew the facts tore those beliefs to shreds. You see, the facts contradicted the beliefs I had held for so many years and I was faced with the decision of being honest with myself, or holding belief systems based upon lies.

In her epic novel Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand describes a similar sentiment. When asked why he squandered his fortune, Francisco d’ Anconia responds by saying, “Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.”

For instance, most believe the Civil War was fought to free the slaves; as that is what they have been taught in school. Yet I don’t believe that; not for a minute. Hence, we have a contradiction. You base your belief upon what you have been taught in school; I base my belief upon a study of the events both leading up to, and during, the Civil War. I go to the source for my info, you get yours second hand from your teachers and the authors of some history book.

As we all know, or at least I hope we do, Abraham Lincoln was president when the Civil War took place. What did Abraham Lincoln say about the reason for which this war was fought? In a letter to Horace Greeley, dated August 22, 1862, Lincoln states, “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.” (My emphasis)

Those are the words of the president of the United States on his reasons for fighting the war. Anyone can look them up and verify that he actually said them. Why is it that when I present this to people, they continue to assert that the Civil War was fought over slavery? I base my beliefs upon the facts history provides me with. What are your beliefs based upon?

Another example…

If someone were to come out and publicly say that our Constitution was a piece of garbage there would be a great outrage amongst the people; both Republicans and Democrats. People pay great homage to that document; but not as a guideline for the operation of our system of government. Rather, to them it is a historical treasure, much like the Crown Jewels in England. It is something to gaze upon with awe and reverence; while the things it says are given lip service at best.

How can anyone say that they respect the Constitution; then turn around and vote for a candidate whose platform clearly shows that they have no intention of abiding by the limits that document imposes upon the office they seek?

Voting for the lesser of two evils is no excuse. To me, that’s like having to choose between getting sick or getting violently ill; between getting punched in the face once or twice, and getting my ass seriously kicked; neither option is appealing to me.

Either we have a government which is limited by the specific powers granted it by the Constitution, or we don’t. In Federalist 45 James Madison assured us that “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.” (My emphasis)

Again, the facts would appear to be on my side in regards to this contradiction. Yet why is it that when presented with a candidate who has a proven track record of being a constitutionalist, [Ron Paul], a majority of voters from both sides of the political aisle run from him like he has the plague?

Are their principles of so little importance that they would rather vote for someone who has the backing of corrupt political parties and stands a chance of winning rather than vote according to those principles? Or are their principles so misguided that they believe they are voting for a candidate whom they believe is, in fact, one who will adhere to the limits the Constitution imposes upon them? It has to be one or the other; which one is it? After all, if the so-called Father of our Constitution says that the powers given the federal government are few and defined, and then a candidate is running on a platform in which they say they will do things the Constitution does not authorize, you are basically voting against the Constitution.

What does it say about your character when you continue to believe lies when evidence has been provided which clearly disproves those lies? What does it say about your patriotism when you continue to hold beliefs that are diametrically opposed to those held by the men who established our Republic? What does it say about you as an American when you continue to vote for candidates based upon promises they make which are in clear violation of the powers granted government by the Constitution?

If the truth no longer matters to people, then what does matter? I’m truly tired of arguing with people whose minds are so closed that they refuse to even consider things which might shatter the bubble they live in which protects them from the truth. I’m tired of having insults hurled at me because I dare speak the truth to a bunch of overly sensitive politically correct cry babies.

I’ve gotten to the point that I now look at it this way; you are either part of the solution or you are part of the problem; you either have chosen to open your eyes and see that things are pretty seriously screwed up in this country, or you continue to believe in the lies being spoon fed to you by your teachers, your news media, and the corrupt people you choose to fill the seats of power across this land. Just by the way I hear people talk I can pretty much tell you which choice most of them have made; and it ain’t the right one.

I guess the Dutch-American historian Hendrik Willem van Loon was right, “Any formal attack on ignorance is bound to fail because the masses are always ready to defend their most precious possession – their ignorance.”

I honestly don’t know how much more I can say on the matter without falling into endless repetition; that is if I haven’t already. If the consequences of each person’s decisions were only felt by that person then I suppose I could sit back and let Rome burn, so to speak. But unfortunately the stupid choices people make affect my life as well; as well as depriving me of the liberty fought so hard for by our Founders 240 years ago. I cannot sit idly by while you throw it all away because you refuse to face the truth.

It is said that Edmund Burke once said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.” What I see happening to the country I love I can only describe as evil. The complete eradication of individual liberty and sovereignty; the establishment of an all pervasive police state; the endless borrowing and spending which can lead only to a complete collapse of our economic system; and the endless wars for profit; fighting monsters of our own creation; the continued reliance upon government to provide for all our wants and needs…it has to stop if we wish to remain a free people.

So here’s a final contradiction for you. If being free means the complete and unrestricted ability to exercise your rights, then what do you consider yourself to be; free or in servitude? It does not matter if you wear shackles, live in a jail cell, or if you are free to walk around unrestrained; if you are unable to exercise your God-given rights, you are in bondage. If you need permission from your master, [government], to do something then the thing you wish to do is no longer a right, but a privilege which can be revoked at any time.

So either you are free or you are not. Which is it and if it is the latter, what are you going to do about it?

Posted in General | 1 Comment

Meet The New Boss

Donald Trump is unique in the history of American politics and I’m curious as to how the history books will record his ascent to the presidency and his time as president. Although Trump ran on a Republican ticket, I don’t think Trump is actually a Republican. In fact, I don’t think Trump has any loyalty other than to Trump himself.

To understand what we just witnessed you have to understand Donald Trump as the man. Trump, first and foremost, is a showman; an exhibitionist who likes to stir up a ruckus. He may be thoughtful, logical even; but that’s not why people pay attention to him. People pay attention to Trump because he is outspoken and, often, abrasive. People pay attention to Trump for the same reason millions watched American Idol for Simon Cowell and his brash rudeness.

Donald Trump is the perfect example of the right person being at the right place at the right time. I’m not saying Trump is perfect, or even right for America; just that he came along at just the right time to rise all the way to the top seat in the country. Trump couldn’t have won the presidency ten years ago; no way. But 2016 was his time, and he played the American people magnificently.

Trump tapped into the anger and frustration people, particularly Republicans, have with the ‘system’ and ran with it like an all star running back. Had you not been caught up in the mania and actually stood back and watched him, you would have seen that the more outrageous and outspoken he became the more support he garnered.

Whether the things Trump said are a reflection of the people who voted for him remains to be seen, but Trump could almost sense the things people were upset with, and he zeroed in on them like a shark and made those things the focal points of his candidacy.

But Trump wasn’t the only one to do this; Bernie Sanders did it on the Democratic side as well. Unfortunately for Bernie Sanders supporters the Democratic Party had a much stronger candidate for president whose financial backers were willing to blatantly rig the process to ensure their chosen one got their party’s nomination.

I truly believe that had Sanders gotten the Democratic nomination, he, instead of Trump, would be the one who would be sworn in as our next president this coming January. If you look at the numbers, not that many more Republicans voted for Trump than those who voted for run of the mill Republicans in past elections. What happened is LESS Democrats voted for Hillary because they were disenchanted with their party’s treatment of Sanders. Had they united behind her, she would have beaten Trump…easily. Hell, had Sanders beaten Hillary and taken the Democratic nomination, he would have beaten Trump…easily.

Hillary’s downfall was not Benghazi, her being under investigation for using an unclassified private e-mail server, or her being a pawn to the same special interests as most Republicans. No, her downfall was due to the tactics the Democratic Party had to resort to so as to ensure that she won the nomination. Sanders was too popular, too strong an opponent and they pulled out all the stops to ensure he did not win. That alienated enough Democrats to stay home and swing the election in Trumps favor.

So now we have President-Elect Donald Trump, soon to be President Trump. Trump has two years to accomplish the things he was elected to accomplish before the mid-term elections. With control of the Oval Office and both Houses of Congress, if Trump doesn’t make good on his campaign promises you can bet that he will lose one, if not both, Houses of Congress to the Democrats.

Yet, although Trump has yet to be sworn in, he has already softened his stance on many of the issues he campaigned so strongly upon. He has said he would not pursue charges against Hillary, that she’s been through enough already; a decision that was not actually his to make. Had our Justice System been working properly it should not matter if we have a Republican president or a Democrat, they should seek to ensure that the laws are upheld no matter who violates them. The decision to pursue charges against Madam Clinton should have been made by the Attorney General, not a President-Elect.

Then there is his stance on deporting every illegal alien living in the U.S. On the campaign trail that was one of his strongest talking points with voters; their frustration with years…decades of our government ignoring immigration law and allowing illegal aliens to reside in this country relatively unmolested. Now Trump has said he may incarcerate 2-3 million of the worst of them; drug dealers and gang members, but then take the others on a case by case basis. But according to news sources, there will be no massive deportation of illegal aliens.

Then there is Trumps promise to drain the swamp of corruption. Yet just look at the people he is looking at for positions in his administration. Rudy Giuliani for crying out loud!!! He also just appointed Nikki Haley to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Haley is a cultural Marxist who was outspoken in her efforts to remove the Confederate Battle Flag from the flagpole on the grounds of the capital of South Carolina.

Trump is choosing the very class of people to fill positions within his administration as the ones he promised to rid our nation’s capital of. I watched his interview on 60 Minutes when he was asked about this and he attempted to backpeddle and justify his choices by saying that those were the only people available in a city filled with lobbyists. Sorry Mr Trump, but the nation is full of people who you could have selected from. Do you think that these choices of yours are going to work to clean up the system that they depend upon for their employment?

I’ll give Trump time to see if he keeps any of the other promises; like build his wall, bring jobs back to America, and all the other rhetoric that got him elected; but I won’t be holding my breath. Besides, it’s not like I can say, “Sorry President Trump, it’s been six months now and you haven’t kept your promises. YOU’RE FIRED!”

The only thing I can hope for is that those who voted for Trump because they were angry with business as usual, remain angry when they see that business continues as usual. I can only hope that they don’t accept whomever the Republican Party offers them in 2020; just because that choice is better than anything the Democrats have to offer.

I can only hope that the Republicans finally can unite behind a true Constitutionalist who will uphold their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution AGAINST ALL ENEMIES.

But if my study of American politics and history has taught me, it is that people have very short memories. It is my belief that when the 2020 election rolls around that the GOP faithful will stand behind whomever gets their party’s nomination; having forgotten all the things that caused them to vote for a man like Donald Trump.

So, in closing, I’ll just leave you with the final part of the immortal words of Pete Townshend:

Same As The Old Boss


Posted in General | 1 Comment

Way Out of Balance


Authors Note: Should you find any inconsistencies or mistakes within the following piece, I am entirely to blame. The idea for this is something that popped into my head early this morning; but seeing as how I am suffering from a nasty head cold, my thoughts are a bit jumbled. Nonetheless, I’ll try to keep this as coherent and accurate as possible.

In 1776 delegates from 13 separate Colonies signed a document declaring their independence from their system of government. They fully realized that for the people to tell their government that its edicts no longer applied to them was a radical, if not life threatening thing to do. As Ben Franklin is quoted as saying at the signing of this document; “We, must indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

Their government, (i.e. King George III), as most governments are apt to do, did not take their declaring independence from him lightly. Tensions had already been high, with shots having been fired at Lexington and Concord just a few short months earlier. It was inevitable that by the Colonies declaring themselves independent from their sovereign that blood would have to be spilled to secure what the Declaration of Independence proclaimed.

However, with help from the French, and a little providence, General Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown; giving the Colonists what they had so desperately fought for; a country of their own. The question which must have been on everyone’s mind was; what to do with it?

While engaged in the struggle for independence, and possibly looking forward to the time when they would be allowed to govern themselves, the Colonies had established a confederation with the rules for governing said confederation outlined in the Articles of Confederation. There were those who, for one reason or another, felt that these Articles of Confederation were too weak to govern a nation such as ours. These men felt for our nation to survive a much stronger central government needed to be established.

However, this presented a problem for those who felt a much stronger central government was needed. When the Revolutionary War ended, delegates from both the Colonies and England met to hammer out a peace treaty in Paris, France. The final document, simply titled, The Definitive Treaty of Peace, 1783, declared each Colony to be free and independent; sovereign nations unto themselves; “His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States…”

Under the Articles of Confederation each State had an equal say in what laws would be passed; with each State having but one vote in Congress; no matter the size or population of the State. To some, this posed an obstacle for laws which threatened the power held by the States. They felt that one holdout could prevent laws from being passed which were for the overall good of the nation.

In 1786 James Madison had convinced 5 States to send delegates to a convention to remedy the defects he believed to exist within the Articles of Confederation. This Annapolis Convention failed to produce any results, but with the fear of Congresses inability to regulate trade, and the recent rebellion in Massachusetts, known as Shay’s Rebellion, in 1787 there was enough support to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation that a convention would be held in Philadelphia to do just that.

However, James Madison never had any intention of amending the Articles of Confederation. His goal was to produce an entirely new document, outlining a much stronger central government. Rhode Island refused to send any delegates to this convention, and Patrick Henry declared he smelled a rat in Philadelphia. Yet enough delegates did attend to begin deliberations. Of note were the absence of those whose voices were most fervent for individual liberty; men like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry.

Before this convention met, Madison had sent a letter to George Washington outlining his goals, to which Washington responded with his approval of Madison’s plan. Over the course of the convention, (which was held in secrecy), two of the issues that were most contentious were; the amount of power to be surrendered by the States to this central government, and the mode and means of representation.

At times it seemed that due to the States jealous protection of their sovereignty, that nothing at all would be accomplished. Then a compromise was reached in which the Legislative Branch would be divided into two houses; a House of Representatives to be the voice of the people, and a Senate to be the voice of the States. Once this compromise was reached, the remainder of the convention was spent hammering out other details; until a final document was ready to be presented to the States for their consideration.

Let us pause for a moment while I ask you a simple question; what citizenship do you claim? Most of you, unless you have not been naturalized, probably answered that you are an American citizen, or a citizen of the United States.

Are you aware that prior to 1868 there was no such thing as an American citizen? Prior to the illegal ratification of the 14th Amendment, (A subject for another article), each person living in the United States considered them self to be citizens only of the State wherein they resided. Their loyalty was to their State of residence, not to the nation, or its system of government.

In Van Valkenburg v. Brown, the court held that, “No white person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, or born without those limits, and subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes the status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution.” The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to create a class of citizenship for the newly freed slaves; not to bestow citizenship upon those already considered citizens of the States wherein they resided.

For our government to function as designed, the people must realize that they are not American citizens, they are citizens of the State they live in. Their primary concern, therefore, should be the preservation of the sovereignty of their respective States.

The 10th Amendment clearly states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Therefore, if a power is not given to the federal government by the Constitution, it belongs to the States, or the people.

For the government to work as designed, the balance of power between the States and the federal government must be maintained. For the system to work as designed the States must have a say in what laws are passed by the federal government.

There is one crucial fact that people today seem to have forgotten; the federal government has absolutely no power of its own, only that which was delegated to it. The people who inhabited this country ceded, by the creation of the State governments, a portion of their sovereignty. The States, therefore, in the creation of the federal government, ceded only those powers specifically enumerated, or listed, within the Constitution…nothing more.

However, if the States are not represented in government, as they have not been since the ratification of the 17th Amendment, then the States have no say in what laws our government passes and the balance of power has tilted in favor of the federal government.

When James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay sat down to write the essays we now know as the Federalist Papers, they did so in an effort to convince the people of New York to vote in favor of ratification of the Constitution. These papers were never intended to be the final say in how to interpret the Constitution; they were propaganda pieces with a distinctly biased tone in favor of the Constitution.

Even so, in Federalist 45 Madison writes, “The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former.” Read that again if you must as Madison declares the States to be ESSENTIAL parts of the federal government. Yet where is the voice of the States heard today in our Congress? Nowhere, that’s where.

In Federalist 45 Madison would go on to say, “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.”

Now you tell me, and it doesn’t matter if you are Republican or Democrat; how does what Madison say compare to reality today? Had you taken the time to read the Constitution, especially Article 1, Section 8, which lists those few and defined powers, and Article 2, Sections 2 & 3, you would see that the powers wielded by our government today far exceed those granted them by the Constitution. You would also see that the power the federal government exercises extends to all the things Madison said it wouldn’t; the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

Yet when people talk of reducing our government to the size and scope originally intended, the majority of the people in this country look at us like we’ve lost our minds; either that or they ignore our ranting altogether because to do what we ask threatens all the benefits government provides them.

I have been told that I need to give Trump a chance to prove himself to be a good president. Often these same people who tell me I must give Trump a chance are the same ones who applauded me when I said I did not need to give Obama a chance because he stood for everything I opposed. Yet when their candidate wins I must forget my principles and give him a chance? You want the definition of hypocrisy? That’s it, right there.

I fully understand that a great many of you Trump supporters voted for him because you were fed up with business as usual in Washington D.C. I too am fed up with business as usual. But my definition of business as usual differs from yours. You hope that the newly elected president will do the things you want him to; the things he campaigned so strongly for. I, on the other hand, am tired of my government exceeding the powers granted it, and violating my rights in the process.

The only way we can even hope to repair the damage done by our government is not to continue clinging to the two party system, but by asserting our sovereignty and for the States to begin reasserting theirs. As long as we continue to go to Uncle Sam with our hands out, looking for benefits, we will remain slaves to its whim.

Thomas Jefferson once said, “Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.” Yeah, I know those are big words, too big for some of you to comprehend. I suggest you look them up.

Americans make a great noise about their living in the land of the free, or the land of liberty. Yet they so readily throw it away for the bondage that comes with entitlements and benefits. Even prior to the final ratification of the Constitution Patrick Henry warned of the danger of this proposed Constitution and how he felt that the people had forsaken the liberty they had so recently fought for, “But I am fearful I have lived long enough to become an fellow: 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…”

Those words were spoken in 1788; we’ve had almost 230 years for the flame of liberty to die out in the hearts of the people of this country. I don’t see it getting better anytime soon; even with a Trump win. He may not be the devil that Hillary was, but he also certainly is, by no stretch of the imagination a president elect that has any intention of adhering to the limits the Constitution imposes upon the office he will be sworn into next year.

People do not want to be bothered with the effort required to maintain their liberty; they prefer the comfort that servitude offers. Yet John Philpot Curran once said,”The condition upon which God hath given Liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.”

There was a lot of discussion this past presidential election about honesty and integrity; especially in the news media. Here’s a little honesty for you; Why don’t we just shred the Constitution, as no one seems to give a damn what it says any more.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

An Afterthought After the 2016 Presidential Election

My father once told me there were two subjects you never discussed with people; politics and religion. He would say that whenever those two subjects are broached an argument ensues. I don’t know about religion, but I can attest to his wisdom when it comes to politics.

The recent election cycle is a perfect example of what my father meant. With all the rhetoric and vitriol spewed by both sides, it’s a miracle that people can function side by side in society any more. In fact, I have heard that there are signs that it can’t. I recently saw a YouTube video of a woman who was fired from her job for celebrating Trump’s victory. Apparently all her co-workers were Hillary supporters and they took offense at her for voting for Trump and told her to shut up. When she refused her boss fired her.

The thing is, everyone has their own set of beliefs; and most people vote according to those established beliefs. What they do is find the candidate who comes closest to their beliefs and vote for them. But their beliefs are, more often than not, just catch phrases that they have picked up over the years.

Lower taxes or make the rich pay their fair share; these are catch phrases, not core beliefs. Smaller government or government transparency are catch phrases, not belief systems. I often wonder if people even know what it is they believe in.

I know I don’t have the authority to do so, but if I did I would require that each and every American sit down in front of a keyboard and write a thesis on their belief system. I would require that they first state, in clear unequivocal terms, what their beliefs are. I would then require that they go back to the period which saw our nation come into existence and provide factual evidence to support their beliefs.

I’d be willing to bet that a vast majority, if required to do this, would turn in a blank sheet of paper. That is because, for the most part, there is no historical backing for what they believe in. The sad truth is that the beliefs held by a majority of Americans, (and this goes for both Republicans and Democrats), are opposite of the beliefs held by our nation’s Founders regarding government. What people are voting for today are not based upon history; they are platforms espoused by their respective political party; ideologies that have absolutely no founding in historical fact.

Yet these people vote; they believe themselves entitled to vote, to participate in the process of choosing who will fill the seats of power in our government. Most could not tell you the history of the right of suffrage, [voting], in the U.S. Most believe the Constitution guarantees them the right to vote. Originally the Constitution did not grant the right to vote to anyone; it left it up to the States to decide who could, and who could not vote.

When our Constitution was first enacted it was typical that only white adult land owners were allowed to vote. In some States freed slaves were allowed to vote if they met the property requirement. The same was true for women in the State of New Jersey; if they could prove they owned property they were allowed to vote.

By 1856 the property requirement was pretty much done away with; giving all white males the right to vote. It was only by Constitutional Amendments that the right to vote was extended to where it exists today.

The 15th Amendment banned discriminating against voters due to race, skin color, or previous conditions of servitude. The 19th Amendment gave the vote to all women. The 24th Amendment banned the requirement that anyone be able to pay a poll tax. Finally, the 26th Amendment lowered the voting age to 18 years.

But nowhere, not in the Constitution, nor in any of its amendments, does it require that the voting public be knowledgeable about their countries history and its system of government. This is a fatal flaw, that if I had the authority to correct, I would. Were I in a position to do so, I would require that anyone wishing to participate in the election process first pass a written civics/history exam to prove that they had a firm grasp of this country’s history and its system of government.

This might come as a shock to some; especially those who are woefully ignorant in regards to those subjects, but I believe it was a given amongst our Founders that the people be informed and knowledgeable about the history of their country and its system of government.

James Madison, the purported Father of our Constitution, once said, “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”

Noah Webster, whose name graces many dictionaries in America, also declared, “Every child in America should be acquainted with his own country. He should read books that furnish him with ideas that will be useful to him in life and practice. As soon as he opens his lips, he should rehearse the history of his own country.”

I’m not talking about no cookie cutter test like the ones they give to those wishing to become American citizens. Oh no, I’m talking about an exam that would prove, beyond a doubt, that people had a firm grasp on the history of this country and understood how its system of government was designed to operate.

Awhile back I mentioned to my friend Mike Gaddy that he and I ought to get together and collaborate on such an exam; he agreed but we seem unable to find the time to do so with our conflicting schedules. However, that has not stopped me from scribbling down ideas as they occur to me. I have composed a rather lengthy list of questions that might possibly grace such an exam. I would like to share some of them with you.

As a test of your own knowledge, I recommend that you try to answer them without the use of Google. See how well YOU know the history of this country, and understand its system of government.

This is only a portion of the many questions I have amassed. Let’s see how much you know…(And I do have the answers if you care to ask)

1) Name the first 5 Presidents AND their Vice Presidents.

2) Explain the difference between Natural Rights and Civil Rights.

3) Name the last 4 States to secede from the Union and their reason for doing so.

4) What was Marbury v Madison and what was its significance?

5) How long does the Constitution authorize a standing army?

6) Define an oligarchy; a theocracy; a democracy; and a Republic.

7) What is sovereignty, and where does it reside in America?

8) Explain the difference between a Federal form of government and a National one.

9) What is the Posse Comitatus and is it legal in the United States?

10) Explain the meaning of the word infringed.

Well, how did you do? Remember, those are just 10 out of the many questions I would require people know before they are allowed to vote. Yet people all the time tell me that they are informed, they are making informed decisions.

All I can do is sit back and think, “Is that so?”


Posted in General | Leave a comment

Safe Space or Refuges for Pussies?


What the hell has happened to America? How did we go from a people who fled oppression to uncharted wilderness to seek freedom to a nation of pussies whose feelings get hurt every time someone says something we don’t like? How did we go from a nation of educated men who could debate the issues using facts to a nation filled with dolts who resort to name calling because they have no facts to back up their precious ‘beliefs?’

The changes I’ve seen take place over the 58 years of my life leave me questioning whether America is even worth my time trying to save from itself. The nonsense I see going on across the country sickens me to my core and leaves me praying that Armageddon will come and wipe humanity off the face of the Earth.

I’ve lost track of the times that I myself have been turned in at work because the things I’ve said, or written have offended someone. If people cannot handle the truth; facts and evidence, then maybe they ought to just keep their pie holes shut when it comes to subjects they know absolutely nothing about!

There is this little bothersome thing called the First Amendment. In case you aren’t aware of what it says, it protects, not grants, but PROTECTS my right to say whatever I want. In case you haven’t read it for yourself, it makes absolutely no mention of protecting YOU from being OFFENDED.

Whatever happened to the old saying, “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me?”

People act like those who have done their homework; those who come to arguments armed with facts are bullying those who are ignorant of the subject matter being discussed. These idiots don’t know the first thing about being bullied.

A few people know about this, but this will be the first time I’ve spoken of this in a public forum. When I was in the 5th grade my brother and I were in our front yard playing. My brother was laying on his back and letting smaller kids sit on his feet. He would then propel them up like a catapult. One kid landed wrong and began crying. There was a girl I went to school with who lived across the street. She came over and started berating my brother. I turned and said “Linda, it was an accident. Calm down.” Without warning she swung around and punched me in the stomach; knocking the wind out of me.

As I was gasping for breath my brother ran inside and told my father that some girl was beating the shit out of me. My dad came out with a loaded pistol and yelled, “Bitch, get off my property now before I call the police!”

Remember, this was the 5th grade. You can imagine what that did to my reputation. I suddenly became persona non grata; the kid who needed his daddy to protect him from girls. I learned first-hand what bullying meant. Kids I didn’t even know would pick fights with me. I was constantly harassed; with one guy in high school making it his personal mission in life to make my life a living hell. I was put into jock locks and thrown into the women’s locker room. Guys would pants me in gym class in front of half the school. I would go to sit down in class and people would pull my chair out from under me.

I know what bullying is, and the fact that what I say bothers you isn’t bullying. What you suffer from is not bullying, it is ignorance. You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about and when someone who does shoots your pathetic arguments down with facts you have no recourse but to call them names, or turn them in to someone in a position of authority who can silence them.

When I was younger I did not run and hide; there were no safe spaces to retreat to. I learned to fight back. I sometimes got my ass kicked, but I developed a thick skin to where what people say doesn’t bother me. I also learned that the better prepared one is for arguments the better off they are. If you can shoot down someone’s bullshit with facts, then you win the argument. At least that’s how it used to be. Nowadays the person who is calls the other the most names, hurls the most convincing insults wins the argument; facts don’t matter anymore. It’s all about belittling those whose knowledge exceeds yours.

Let me tell you cry babies something; life isn’t fair, it doesn’t play by the rules. Life throws you curve balls and puts obstacles in your way. It is all about making you tougher and able to overcome adversity. If you wimp out and cry foul every time someone confronts you with things you find offensive, your losing out on the lessons that life has to offer.

Instead of crying that you have been offended, or turning people in, why don’t you take some time to research the matter on your own and come back to the argument armed with facts of your own? Or is that simply too much work for you; will it cut into your time watching TV or browsing on Facebook?
I see this pussification of American’s going on that begs the question; what is going to happen when things really get tough for these people?

Take for instance all those who fear guns and want them taken out of the hands of private citizens. What do you think is going to happen IF that ever happened? What do you think it is that stops your government from going full blown tyrannical on your sorry asses? It is the fact that our government knows that there are somewhere around 300 million guns out here and if they did they would have a war on their hands.

What do you think would happen if that cunt Dianne Feinstein got her wish and every gun in America was confiscated? Do you think law enforcement would be there to protect you 24/7? Are you going to run to your safe place when someone breaks into your home and threatens to rape your wife, kill your children, or just take everything you own?

What do you think it is that keeps crime levels from skyrocketing? It is the fact that many of these criminals are asking themselves which house, which person, has a gun which might be used to end my life should I decide to rob them?

But again, facts do not matter to you pussies. All you care about is your precious feelings.

Well, your feelings don’t mean diddly squat to me. Your feelings are not going to save your life. Your feelings are not going to protect your liberty from your government. Your feelings are not going to protect you should someone attempt to punch you in the face.

America was not founded by pussies, but it certainly is being taken over by them.


Posted in General | 1 Comment

Anger Unleashed


In a 1794 letter to his wife, then Vice-President John Adams said, “I read my eyes out and can’t read half enough….The more one reads the more one sees we have to read.” Most of our Founding Fathers were extremely well read individuals, and some, like Thomas Jefferson, had extensive libraries of their own. However, they did not read for entertainment; they read to gain knowledge. There is a huge difference between picking up a book on philosophy or politics and picking up a Harry Potter novel.

Noah Webster, whose name is synonymous with the American dictionary, once wrote an essay on education in America in which he stated, “But every child in America should be acquainted with his own country. He should read books that furnish him with ideas that will be useful to him in life and practice. As soon as he opens his lips, he should rehearse the history of his own country; he should lisp the praise of liberty, and of those illustrious heroes and statesmen, who have wrought a revolution in her favor.”

In an 1823 letter to Hugh Taylor, Jefferson said, “It is the duty of every good citizen to use all the opportunities which occur to him, for preserving documents relating to the history of our country.”

If I were to ask you, or if you were to ask someone else, to name five documents from our nation’s history, how many of you could do it? I’m betting that a great many might get two; the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Maybe a few more might add the Gettysburg Address or the Emancipation Proclamation; but that would be the extent of their lists.

I have undertaken a project in which I am going through almost 300 documents and webpages from our nation’s history; italicizing certain passages and saving them as Word documents. I’m certain there are more; and when I find them I will add them to my collection.

The point I’m trying to make is that there is a mountain of information out there regarding our countries past; and but a handful of people have ever bothered to sift through even a fragment of it. Yet these same people will argue until they are blue in the face in support of this candidate or that candidate; in support or opposition to a particular piece of legislation; all the while claiming they are making informed decisions.

What, if I may be so bold to ask, forms the basis of this informed decision? How can you say that you love this country, then turn around and vote for candidates who then goes out and exceeds the powers given them by the Constitution? How can you yourself say that you love this country when you have not taken the time to learn the principles it was founded on; or what specific powers were bestowed upon our government?

What people are doing is voting for candidates because they ‘think’ that candidate is best for America. It does not matter to them that the things they think are ‘best’ for America are, in fact, things which our Constitution prohibits our government from doing.

In 1937 the New York Court of Appeals heard the case of Sloat v. Board of Examiners. In their ruling the court stated, “Disobedience or evasion of a constitutional mandate may not be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public.”

In the landmark case of Ex parte Milligan, (1866), the United States Supreme Court ruled, “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.” (My emphasis)

So again, explain again to me how you are making informed decisions. What you are doing is making biased decisions; with your bias being either left leaning or right leaning. The truth is that your decisions have nothing to do with how well those you elect will uphold the sacred oath each of them take to support and defend the Constitution; it is how well their acts will benefit you or match your beliefs as to what is best for America.

From time to time I get e mails from like minded friends who share with me the deplorable level of knowledge the people of this country have in regards to our history or its system of government. I cannot guarantee the validity of this, but the other day I got one regarding a discussion in a Purdue University classroom regarding the qualifications for president of the United States. When they got to the part where it says a candidate must be a Natural Born Citizen, a young woman stood up and said, “What makes a natural born citizen any more qualified to lead this country than one born by C-section?” Like I said, I can’t guarantee that this actually took place, but from the conversations/arguments I have had with people it would not surprise me in the least if it were true.

Ignorant, in and of itself, is too polite a word to use to describe people; but I’ve recently been chastised for using certain adjectives to add emphasis to my works, so I’ll refrain from saying how I really feel about them; but my thoughts include the word idiots.

If the people of this country truly understood, and truly cared what the Constitution and Bill of Rights said, they would be going to their local hardware stores and buying up 12 foot lengths of rope, then booking flights to our nation’s capital to hang their elected representatives. But because they take for gospel the lies fed to them by the news media and those who have betrayed their duty to educate our children about the history of our country, they believe that the things our government does are authorized by the Constitution.

I know I’m gonna piss a few people off when I say this, but I’m constantly getting these Facebook requests to repost this or repost that if I support our troops, or law enforcement. Why should I when they do not support the Constitution? When law enforcement stops enforcing unconstitutional laws I will support them. When our troops begin telling their commanders that they will not go off to some foreign land and fight in unjust and unconstitutional wars of aggression I will support them.

I served 13 years in the service of my country and had I known what I know now I would never have enlisted. The only good thing I can look back upon is the fact that during that time I met my wife. Aside from that, I served tyrants and regret my decision to be a pawn in their game of global chess.

A good friend of mine wrote something; either yesterday or early today, which contained something so brilliant I thought I’d share it with you here. In his blogpost my friend Mike said, “Would there ever have been an America if folks like Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, George Washington, Ben Franklin, John Hancock, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and others would have decided to “support the troops” instead of demanding their God-given rights from a government acting not at all unlike the one we have now? Would they have supported the forces and called them heroes that shot down a child and several others at what we refer to as the Boston Massacre because the enforcers were “just doing their jobs” or would we justify the killings because the government’s enforcers thought the mob was armed and didn’t show their hands on command?”

People believe themselves to be Americans; going so far as to call themselves patriots, yet they stand for and support politicians who routinely perform acts which run contrary to the very principles upon which this nation was founded. A patriot would not stand for that!

But oh, if it creates jobs, or provides benefits to those in need it must be good; right? If a law is passed which keeps me safer, it must be good right? It doesn’t matter if I trample upon someone’s rights to obtain those benefits, or that sense of security.

You may not believe in conspiracy theories, but I believe that there has been a concerted effort over the course of the last 150 some odd years to slowly, but surely, eradicate from our institutions of learning any mention of what real patriotism is. Any reference to the people’s right to defy tyranny and stand up to an oppressive government has been removed from the curriculum.

In short, we have become a nation filled with mindless drones who have been conditioned to believe that simply because every few years we are allowed to go to the polls and choose between a couple of candidates for the highest office in the land that we are still the land of the free. People today don’t have the first clue as to what true freedom means; and most of them don’t care. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me that if given the opportunity to be free they would turn it down because of the requirement it imposed upon them for taking care of all the things they currently expect their government to do for them.

Our nation’s Founders, if not weeping, are certainly looking down upon us with disgust. They have got to be wondering, with the plethora of guidance they left us how could we have allowed a land built upon the principle of liberty become a land in which almost every aspect of the people’s lives are controlled and regulated by government. They have got to be asking themselves how can it be that the people cannot see the fact that their government has become far more tyrannical and oppressive than that of King George III, and do something about it.

Although they can no longer speak to us directly, they did leave us a few choice words for just the type people who live in America today. Read them and know this; they are far more polite than I would have been…

It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men. ~Samuel Adams~

Posterity! You will never know, how much it cost the present Generation, to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good Use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it. ~John Adams~

If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. ~Samuel Adams~

Posted in General | 1 Comment