Did Your Balls Drop Off America?

There has been a great deal of fuss and anger aimed at real estate tycoon Donald Trump since he brought the subject of illegal aliens to the forefront of the debate amongst Republican contenders for the presidency. Both Republican and Democratic candidates have slammed Trump for his comments regarding illegal aliens. It’s not only those seeking their party’s nomination for president who are attacking Trump, the news media has had a field day as have all the immigration reform pundits and organizations across the country. In short, Trump has stirred up a hornet’s nest.

While I am not fully behind Trump on all the issues, I am glad that he has brought the subject out of the closet and out into the open again. Not since Tom Tancredo served in Congress for Colorado’s 6th District has the subject of illegal immigration been discussed as openly as Trump is discussing it. I am somewhat, more than somewhat, I’m severely disappointed in the remaining candidates views on the subject. It seems as though they would rather hide from the issue because they are afraid of offending the Latino vote.

Hence the title of this article, “Did your balls drop off?” I am sick to death of hearing people cry about how cruel it is to talk of deporting these people. I am sick to death of hearing that we need to grant those already here amnesty and THEN work on getting our border under control. What happened to standing up for the rule of law? What happened to standing up for American values, and demanding that those who come to this country adhere to our rules, our beliefs?

Have the people of this country shoved their heads so far up their asses that patriotism and standing for American values has become so politically incorrect that it is no longer allowed to stand up for what is best for America?

People say we cannot deport these people. Why not? Section 1277 of Title 8 of the United States Code, (where our immigration laws are found), states, “Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this chapter or any other law of the United States, or whose nonimmigrant visa (or any other documentation authorizing admission into the United States as a nonimmigrant) has been revoked under section 1201(i) of this title, is deportable.” Sounds to me like every person here illegally is deportable and the problem is not that the laws are broken, the problem is that no one has the balls to enforce the law.

All this politically correct talk of undocumented workers, illegal immigrants, is rubbish. Let’s call them what they are…criminals. In the first place they are not immigrants. An immigrant is someone who has obtained permission from the U.S. government’s immigration center to legally enter our country. They are illegal aliens, as they have entered the United States illegally, or overstayed the terms of their visa.

As for illegal aliens who sneak into our country, Title 8 of the U.S. Code defines them as, “Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact...”

Title 8 goes on to lay out the penalty for said violations of our law, “… for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.”

Not only is there the lack of will to enforce our immigration laws by the Federal Government, many of our cities themselves have declared themselves to be ‘sanctuary cities’, meaning that the local government will not aid, nor work in conjunction with, federal employees in regards to federal immigration laws. The mayors of these cities are blatantly thumbing their noses at our immigration laws and those whose job it is to enforce them. This is also a crime, and every one of them SHOULD BE in jail.

Again, referring to Title 8 of the United States Code, section 1324, “(A) Any person who–

(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation; shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).”

The punishment, as listed in subparagraph (B) states, “(B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs—


in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;

in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;

in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and

in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.

If you’ll pay close attention to section (iv) if due to their hiding, or shielding of an illegal alien causes the death of any person, the person responsible for hiding them can be put to death under the law. How many people have died in these sanctuary cities because the mayors refused to cooperate with federal immigration agencies? Some of these cities in my state are San Francisco, Oakland, and San Diego just to name a few. The mayors of these cities ALL deserve to go to the gas chamber for the deaths caused by their refusal to enforce immigration laws.

Then there are those who hire these illegal aliens, be they in the agricultural industry who lobby Congress to ensure our immigration laws are NOT enforced, or those who stop by their neighborhood Home Depot and pick up the occasional day worker for work around their homes. They are equally as guilty of committing a crime. Title 8, section1324a states, “(a) Making employment of unauthorized aliens unlawful (1) In general It is unlawful for a person or other entity—

(B) (i) to hire for employment in the United States an individual without complying with the requirements of subsection (b) of this section or (ii) if the person or entity is an agricultural association, agricultural employer, or farm labor contractor (as defined in section 1802 of title 29), to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an individual without complying with the requirements of subsection (b) of this section.

It seems every time I hear the subject of immigration come up it is in regards to immigration reform. Why is it that I NEVER hear these politicians mention IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT? As I said, and have said many times, our system is not broken, our will to enforce it is what is broken.

Almost 30 years ago Ronald Reagan signed the Simpson-Mazzoli bill, otherwise known as the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). It had three major points. First it stated that our government would make a concerted effort to control the borders. Second it said an effective employer verification program would be put into place to ensure that only legal workers were being hired. Then lastly, it declared that a ONE TIME amnesty would be granted to people illegally in the United States who had entered before January 1, 1982. ONE TIME, that is what we were told! Why is it then that every time immigration is discussed the first they we hear is some bullshit about a pathway to citizenship?

There is a pathway to citizenship, it entails going back to your native country, filling out the proper forms, paying the associated fees, and waiting your fucking turn like everyone else does!

Since Ronald Reagan signed IRCA we had 4 years of George H.W. Bush, 8 years of Bill Clinton, 8 years of George W. Bush, (who had his lips so far up Vicente Fox’s ass he could tell what the Mexican president ate for dinner), and then 8 years of Barack Obama. Nary a peep was heard about enforcing our laws during those 29 years, but plenty was heard about how broken our system was.

People tell me I’m racist, or xenophobic, (an intense fear or dislike of foreign people, their customs and culture, or foreign things). Not true. I have nothing against immigrants…legal ones. I married a foreigner, and she is a legal immigrant. I feel as did our Founding Fathers, and past presidents regarding the subject of immigrants.

George Washington said, “The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations And Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.

Thomas Jefferson said, “Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules.”

If you’ll notice, both men held similar sentiments, that they were open to foreigners coming to America, if they adhered to our laws and established rules. They did not, however say, that immigrants should come here and demand that we change our way of life to conform to their beliefs, their customs.
As Theodore Roosevelt once said, “From the melting pot of life in this free land all men and woman of all nations who come hither emerge as Americans and nothing else. They must have renounced completely and without reserve all allegiance to the land from which they or their forefathers came. And it is a binding duty on every citizen of this country in every important crisis to act solidly with all his fellow Americans, having regard only to the honor and interest of America, treating every other nation purely on its conduct in that crisis, without reference to his ancestral predilections or antipathies. If he does not act, he is false to the teachings and lives of Washington and Lincoln; he is not entitled to any part or lot in our country and he should be sent out of it.

Those are the kind of immigrants that Washington and Jefferson meant, those who would come here for the freedom of opportunity that America offered, not those who upon entering our country violated our laws and come with their hands out looking for the American people to subsidize their existence.

Like I said, I’m not too sure I agree with Mr. Trump on many of the issues, but were the presidential elections solely about immigration and nothing else, Donald Trump would have my vote. If by my saying that I end up on your shit list, too damned bad! As someone posted on Facebook the other day, “As I grow older I’ve found that you can’t please everyone, but pissing them all off is a piece of cake.”

So if my views piss you off, get in line with the rest of the people, because quite honestly, I DON’T CARE! I stand for what’s right. I stand for upholding the law. I stand for America and American values. And as the old saying goes, America; love it or leave it!

Posted in General | 2 Comments

An attempt to express how I feel with Satire

To prevent tragic loss of life in the event of a complete financial meltdown, and resulting breakdown of society, State Legislators plan on releasing the names of all citizens who do not own firearms. State Assembly leaders say they are doing this so that when the shit hits the fan people will know whose homes to break into for food without fear of being shot.

These lists will be available to all at your local welfare office by the end of the week. Please take advantage of them; study them and know who in our neighborhood does, and does not have guns. Don’t make the tragic mistake of breaking into the home of an armed citizen because your life matters.

This has been a public service announcement.

Posted in General | 1 Comment


I have come to realize that there is just no way to have an open discussion with some people when it comes to guns. Some people have become so drunk on the Kool Aid, fallen so deeply for the lie that guns kill, therefore guns must be banned. Facts don’t matter to these people, it is like arguing with a boulder!
Guns kill, on that point I will not argue. But so do knives, a bow & arrow, and swords. You can kill someone with a hammer, a screwdriver, a car, or your bare hands if you know how. The issue isn’t the means by which a person chooses to end another person’s life, it is the choice that person makes to end someone’s life. Hell, Cain killed Abel with a stone, should we petition God to remove all stones from the Earth?

People say that we can’t trust people to have guns because we never know who might be mentally unbalanced and just open fire amidst a group of people. Well the same could be said about letting people drive cars; who knows who may be unbalanced and just plow into a group of pedestrians? Would you see people’s right, people’s ability to protect themselves taken away simply because one person might be a nut case? I could deny YOU the right to vote because you have not read the Constitution or the Bill of Rights using YOUR logic.

Our Founding Fathers all had guns in their homes. I grew up in a home surrounded by guns, and I have guns in my home as we speak. Not one of them have killed another person. If guns kill does that mean mine are broken?

We need to ask ourselves why there are so many crimes committed with guns now compared to when I was a kid or when our Founders established our Republic.

Could it be because we do not teach our children firearms safety from an early age? Could it be because we do not teach our children responsibility for their actions, that we coddle criminals and blame society for the mistakes of individuals? Could it be because we pump ourselves full of mind altering drugs at the suggestion of our doctors for all these so-called mental illnesses that didn’t exist 20…30…40 years ago?

More people die every year in America due to complications from surgery than are killed by firearms. Did you know that? But you don’t hear people suggesting that we ban surgery do you? That is because the benefits derived from surgery outweigh the risks. The same can be said about guns. We are never told the stories of how guns prevented crime in the lives of day to day citizens. NBC Nightly News does not tell of how Joe Blow from Boise Idaho stopped a burglar by pulling out a pistol and shooting him. CNN does not report on how Nancy Q Citizen stopped a rapist by pulling a Glock out of her nightstand. No, the media bombards us with the horrific crimes committed by people wielding guns so that we are kept in a constant state of fear of them.

People say they could gladly give up their guns if the criminals gave up theirs first, or if there was a cop stationed on every street corner. FOOLS! Our Founders did not put the Second Amendment into the Bill of Rights so that we could protect ourselves from criminals. Sure that is a side benefit, but they put it there so that we could protect ourselves from tyranny. It is bad enough that our police forces are looking more and more like military units, and you would surrender your ability to defend your liberty to them? Ask the former members of the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Germany, and any other country that imposed confiscation of personal firearms…millions upon millions of deaths to those who spoke out against the actions of their government. And people would willingly submit to that? Insane!!!

It’s bad enough as it is that society and our government criminalizes the basic human right of self-defense. Frederic Bastiat, an 1850 Frenchmen, described best what is happening in America today with regards to our right to defend our lives, our property, and our liberty, “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! … 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. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?”

I will not surrender my right to protect what our Founding Fathers fought so hard to bequeath to me…my liberty. You can turn in your guns, become a victim, a sitting duck, for all those who would prey upon the weak and defenseless. Not me, I will stand and fight for all that makes being a free American worthwhile.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

What Has Become of Us?

On March 23, 1775 Patrick Henry stood upon the floor of the Virginia State Assembly and uttered the following words, “Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.”

What has become of us that the truth no longer matters? How is it that a once proud and mighty nation now settles for lies and deceit from those they elect to be their representatives in government, from those who are supposed to provide us with the news, and from those who educate our children?

We Americans go about our lives making momentous decisions and believe we are informed because we have watched a 30 minute news broadcast or watched a political debate on television. We think we know our countries history and its system of government because we were taught things from a textbook in school. Yet when someone tells you something that differs from what you have been told you run from the possibility that they may be telling you the truth. You hide from the truth like it was the plague and have the call to call yourselves open minded and informed.

Political correctness and our concern for doing, saying, or displaying something someone else finds offensive has slammed the door shut on a free and open discussion of ideas and beliefs. Again, to quote Patrick Henry, “But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.”

The truth is no longer of any concern to the average American today. Instead their busy schedule, sporting events, or what Bruce Jenner’s transformation into a woman are more important to most people than the search for knowledge and the truth.

Every generation has its own nickname given it by society. Mine is the Baby Boomers, those children born at the end of World War II to parents returning home from that war. We have watched as America where self-gratification and dependency have replaced hard work and an honest discussion of the facts. It has been a painful time for me to watch the country I love slip into oblivion simply because the people inhabiting this country do not care enough to seek out the truth about anything. They let their emotions be the guiding force in making decisions instead of reason and logic.

The grade upon which our freedom is being taken from us increases with each generation. It was gradual at first, but it now increases almost exponentially with each passing year. Soon any semblance of freedom will be gone and you will wake up one morning what the hell happened.

The American Dream is dying, the belief that a man, or woman, can come to this country, and through hard work, study, and perseverence, they can make something of themselves. Instead we have become lazy, apathetic, and dependent upon society to provide for us all the things our nation’s Founders felt were the responsibility of the individual.

It sickens my stomach to watch what is happening to this country and it angers me beyond belief that nobody seems to want to hear the truth…about anything. So go on, keep believing this is the land of the free and the home of the brave. Freedom only lives as long as it lives in the hearts and minds of the people who occupy a country, when it dies there nothing can resurrect it.

Just know this, a time of reckoning will come, whether it be in your lifetime, or your children’s. When it comes you will wish you had listened to those of us who tried to warn you.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Thou Shalt Not Deny Me The Right Of Self Defense

I have found that it is a tendency of people to spout off at the mouth about things they know very little about. Now I’m not saying that I know everything about anything, but before I open my mouth to discuss a subject I try to become somewhat informed regarding the subject matter under discussion. Otherwise I have found that I am quickly shown how ignorant I am when someone more knowledgeable than I proves me to be a fool. However, if there is one subject that I feel comfortable discussing it is the subject of rights. This is one subject I have read extensively on and feel comfortable in saying that I believe myself to be more knowledgeable on than the average person.

For instance, can you tell me what the difference between natural and civil rights are? Thought not. Natural rights are those rights man has in a state of nature, or as John Locke states, “... a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.”

Civil rights, on the other hand, are those rights a person has upon becoming a member of a civil society. They are not the same thing, as explained by Thomas Paine, “Hitherto we have spoken only (and that but in part) of the natural rights of man. We have now to consider the civil rights of man, and to show how the one originates from the other. Man did not enter into society to become worse than he was before, nor to have fewer rights than he had before, but to have those rights better secured. His natural rights are the foundation of all his civil rights.”

Now a civil society is different than a political society. A civil society is just a group of men/women, who gather together to both aid, and protect each other from the threats they face in a state of nature. Under a political society governments are created to better secure the natural rights of the people and to enforce the laws established to preserve those rights.

This is best explained by the following, taken from Frederic Bastiat’s 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. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force—for the same reason—cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.”

Everything I have just explained is the basic premise contained within our Declaration of Independence, wherein it 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…

When our country was struggling to come up with a system of government the Founders felt would best serve the needs of the country many people felt the proposed Constitution did not provide adequate protections against their rights, not their civil rights, but their natural rights, those granted them by our Creator. To appease their worries the so-called Federalists, those who supported the ratification of our Constitution, agreed to amend the Constitution with a Bill of Rights if the dissenting states would agree to the Constitution as written. Whether you like the Constitution or not, the fact remains that it was ratified and the Federalists kept their promise and added a Bill of Rights.

These are civil rights, as they are protected by law, but as Paine said, they are based upon natural rights, rights that we had prior to the existence of any government. The Bill of Rights was written for one purpose only, which is clearly stated in its preamble, “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.”

So now that I have given you some background on rights let me ask you a simple question; what do you consider to be your most important rights? Since this isn’t a public forum where you can answer me directly I will have to guess, but I would guess that some of you came up with freedom of speech, or the right to keep and bear arms, or maybe freedom of religion. Nice tries, but wrong.

In 1772, four years before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Samuel Adams wrote the following, “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. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.” (The Rights of the Colonists, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting)

Liberty is the all inclusive word the describes a person’s right to exercise all their other natural rights. You know the ones you guessed when I asked you what you thought was the most important right. But you cannot have liberty if you are dead, so the right to life precedes it.

That is why we created government, to protect these rights. As it is governments job to enact laws, for these laws to be lawful they must first and foremost protect our rights, not diminish them. You see, that Frenchman named Bastiat said something else in his book The Law, he states, “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. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

If you’ll notice there is a certain word that keeps recurring in the discussion of rights, of liberty, of law; that word being defense. As Sam Adams said, our natural rights include the right to defend our life, our liberty, and our property”… in the best manner they can.” As that is a natural right, as it is an unalienable right, no one can deprive us of it.

When speaking of the era of our nation’s history which saw us go from being a colony subjected to the rule of a King to a free and independent nation there are some names that stand out, names that most people have probably heard of. Men like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams and his cousin Samuel Adams are names that probably ring a bell with most people who have studied early American history, even remotely.

Then there are names most people do not immediately recognize, like the name Richard Henry Lee. Richard Henry Lee served as the 12th president under the Articles of Confederation and it was he who made the proposition that a Declaration of Independence be written for the consideration of the Continental Congress. Mr. Lee once said something that all should heed as it gets to the very heart of defining what is meant when it is said defending liberty. Lee stated, “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”

It is by their right to bear arms that the colonists were able to stand up to the tyranny of King George. It was when General Gage, of the British Army sought to take away those arms that the first shots were fired sparking the actual fighting of the American Revolution.

Years later, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story would write, “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; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” For those of you unfamiliar with the word palladium, in this instance it refers to a protection or a safeguard.

Laws that deprive people the right to own, carry, or use arms in the defense of themselves, their property, or their liberty violate that first law of nature as stated by Samuel Adams previously. This right of self-defense is stated clearly by Locke in his Second Treatise, “He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a foundation of all the rest; as he that in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.

This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him…

And if that isn’t enough, the right to kill a thief has origins going all the way back to the Bible. In Exodus 22 we read, “If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.”

All those other rights you are concerned with are meaningless without the means to protect them. Your liberty is meaningless without the right to protect it. Your property is meaningless without your right to protect them. Your life is meaningless if you have been deprived of the right to protect it. Yet I see so many people readily willing to just give up that right because they choose not to accept the responsibility to protect these things for themselves. They would rather society gives up all its guns and let government protect us from each other.

Have you ever heard the word democide? Democide is the murder of any person or people by their government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder. In the former Soviet Union millions upon millions of people were put to death for being supposed threats to the national security of the Soviet Union. Millions have been put to death in China for the same reason, as were millions more in Germany during the Second World War. You want to know what they all had in common? All of them were deprived of the right to keep and bear arms prior to being slaughtered.

You say that could not happen here? Already in the name of fighting terror certain patriot groups have been labeled by their own government as threats to America’s national security. What do you imagine would happen to these patriots if Americans lost the right to keep and bear arms?

As Patrick Henry said in a speech on July 5, 1788 “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force: Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined… The Honorable Gentleman who presides, told us, that to prevent abuses in our Government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. Oh, Sir, we should have fine times indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people. Your arms wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical; no longer democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?”

Two hundred thirty six years ago an American physician, Dr. Richard Price wrote, “In America, every inhabitant has in his house (as part of his furniture) a book on law and government, to enable him to understand his civil rights; a musket to enable him to defend those rights; and a Bible to enable him to understand his religion.

Now society, due to massive media manipulation and a lack of education by our public indoctrination centers, (school systems), Americans no longer know their rights, they no longer understand the meaning of the word liberty. They would rather sacrifice all their freedom for safety and security. To them I say the following, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

You want to give away your right and your ability to stand up to tyranny, go right ahead. But there are some of us who would rather die than give up our right to defend our lives and our liberty. And as King Leonidas said at Thermopylae, “Molon Labe”, come and take them.

Posted in General | 1 Comment

In Dependence

In 1776 fifty-six men, acting as representatives for the original 13 colonies, voted in favor of a proposal that basically told their government to pack its shit up and get out of Dodge, that they didn’t need it anymore and could handle things just fine on their own. Don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t a rash decision made just because the colonists got all butt hurt over something King George did. As the Declaration of Independence states, “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government…”

Also, don’t think that suddenly everyone in America was running around shouting INDEPENDENCE, INDEPENDENCE, because they weren’t. In fact the country was pretty equally divided into three segments; those who wanted independence, those who wished to remain loyal to King George, and those who didn’t give a shit either way. The thing about it is though, that those who did not flee to England because their party loyalties were stronger for English rule than they were for independence accepted the final outcome of the revolution and became free and independent people.

You see, the colonies were in a unique position at the conclusion of the American Revolution. They had just defeated the mightiest empire on Earth and sent its Redcoats packing with their tails between their legs and were given an unprecedented opportunity to do something no other country had been allowed to do before, create its own system of government.

They already had a system of government created by the Articles of Confederation, but some felt it was not sufficient for the needs of the country and fought to create a much stronger central government with more powers given to it to regulate the internal affairs of a newly established nation. I’m not going to get into whether those who felt the need for a stronger central government had ulterior motives for wanting a stronger central government as it is not germane to the subject at hand.

But just imagine that there was a blackboard in colonial America that had the following written on it, “You are English subjects and therefore required to obey all laws, acts and edicts enacted by your sovereign, King George III.” That was basically their system of government prior to the Revolution, whatever the King said was final and to disobey was treason. The American Revolution was like a big eraser wiping that off the blackboard leaving it blank for America to fill up again with whatever system of government it wanted.

But, the Declaration was more than just a statement of the colonies telling ole King George to take a hike, it was a beautifully crafted declaration of the rights of all men. So, when the Declaration of Independence stated “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…” it gave those who would create our future system of government a guideline to follow, that governments are to be created by the consent of the governed, and that they are created to protect our Liberty. As long as any system of government they may have created was in accordance with those two things then it would have been created to stand for the reasons they had just fought for.

As the Declaration of Independence was written both to declare the colonies independence from England, it was also written to proclaim mans independence from government. Therefore any system of government after the Revolution would be created by the inhabitants of this country with one of its primary purposes being to secure their rights.

Before I go any further I would like to provide you with two definitions. To begin with I’d like to define the word independence. Independence is defined as: freedom from outside control or support : the state of being independent. As with some words, there is an opposite to the word independence, this opposite being the word dependence. Dependence is defined as: the state of needing something or someone else for support, help, etc.

If we are to take James Madison at his word, our federal government was designed to give the people of this country the most independence possible, assuming only the barest minimum of authority to manage the affairs of the country.

In Federalist #45 Madison tried to assuage the fears of those who felt that the proposed Constitution would create this huge government, swallowing all the powers of the states and in so doing deprive the people of the independence they had so recently won. Madison wrote, “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.” (January 26, 1788)

What Madison said seems to conform with something Thomas Jefferson had written a year earlier in a letter to M.L. Hommande, “The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.”

This is why the subject of whether we have a national or a federal system of government is so important. Under a federal system the powers of the central government apply primarily to the states while under a national system they apply directly to the people. Federalist 45 would imply that we have a federal system, with the powers to regulate commerce and taxation being the only powers the government wields over the states and the powers held over the people being retained by the states.

Yet this guarantee provided by Madison still was not enough for some and therefore when the time came to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution they clarified matters by including the 10th Amendment, which 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.”

Unfortunately the Tenth Amendment does not include one word which would have made it much harder for the federal government to assume undelegated powers over the lives of the people, the word expressly. During the ratification conventions the states which decried the lack of a Bill of Rights produced lists of rights they felt would strengthen the boundaries between federal powers and state sovereignty. A good many of them came up with something similar to the 10th Amendment, however in most cases they worded their recommendations as follows, “The powers not expressly 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.”

The lack of that one word, expressly, leaves the 10th Amendment, and the entire Constitution, open to interpretation as to certain implied powers. It is by interpretation, or construction, that certain implied powers have been used to expand the powers of government way beyond what it was intended it have. For instance the General Welfare clause, the Commerce Clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clauses have all been the basis for laws which grant the federal government far more power than the Constitution expressly delegates. Laws such as the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare as it is commonly called, are not among those expressly granted government, but have been passed because they are implied powers.

What has happened by a continuous progressive interpretation of these implied powers is that we have gone from being an independent people to a people dependent upon government for things that have deprived us of our liberty and turned us into slaves.

People in America today have lost a large portion of their self-sufficiency. Sure, they may work for a living and pay their bills, but what about the protection of their lives, their families, and their property? Why do so many dial 911 and call for the police to come protect them when it is well within their rights as freemen to do so, and it is their duty as well? Why does our government interfere with our right to do the same?

In 1850 Frederic Bastiat wrote a book that describes exactly what has happened in America today, that book being The Law. In his book Bastiat states, “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! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish! … What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.”

Today there is a large deal of fun made of those whom society calls ‘preppers’, but these are the people today who exhibit the same traits and characteristics of early Americans, the desire to be self-sufficient. Our early American ancestors had no programs to provide for those in need other than the charity of their hearts. But it would have been unthinkable for them to allow government to take from those who had and give it to those in need. It would have been even more unthinkable to hold the rich accountable for the poor, as Jefferson said in a letter to Joseph Milligan in 1787, “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

You say, “But how does this make us slaves, all we are doing is helping those in need? Isn’t that a good thing?” No, it is not. It is socialism, which is the first step towards communism. There is an e mail I got long ago that I saved that explains how we are slowly losing our freedom and I’d like to share it with you now.

There was a Chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Prof noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt.

The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country’s government and install a new communist government.

In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, ‘Do you know how to catch wild pigs?’ The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line.

The young man said this was no joke. “You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence.

They get used to that and start to eat, again you continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.

Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward Communism/Socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine drugs, etc. while we continually lose our freedoms just a little at a time.

That is exactly what I see happening in America as well. I see people who would rather accept handouts that come at the expense of others than accept responsibility for their own sustenance or defense. I see the old fashioned value of self-sufficiency and self-reliability becoming cause for hatred and scorn. I see America going from a country whose people fought and obtained independence changing into a country where the people are in dependence, and it frightens me the final destination at the end of this road we are on.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

You Should Be Ashamed Of Yourselves

It has been my observation that a great many people have very short memories. How many of you can remember the campaign slogan used by Barack Obama while he was running for president? I can, it was Hope & Change. There is nothing wrong with having hope, but I have a problem with the use of the word change. There’s an old saying that goes like this, “Sometimes change is good.” If you’ll notice they said sometimes, not all the time. On the flip side sometimes change isn’t so good.

I’m creeping up on six decades of life on this planet now and I’ve seen a lot of change in this country, and most of it hasn’t been so good. Let me give you a quick example. When I was around ten years old you could turn on your television and see all kinds of ads for cigarettes. Whether it was a good or a bad thing, smoking was considered cool back then. Around this time the Philipp Morris company came out with a brand new brand of cigarettes, targeted specifically at women; Virginia Slims. The ad campaigns for these cigarettes was slick, very slick. They typically showed a progression of women’s rights, ending with a woman smoking a Virginia Slims and saying, “You’ve come a long way baby.”

Well cigarettes are no longer considered cool. In fact the anti-smoking, no second hand smoke crowd has grown so strong that if you do smoke you have to be outside, often a specified number of feet from the entrance to a building, and your right to smoke has been replaced by other people’s right to not have to breathe your second hand smoke.

I don’t smoke having grown up in a home where both parents smoked 4 packs a day and forcing me to close my bedroom door with both windows wide open so I could get some fresh air. All I’m trying to do is show how over the course of my lifetime one single thing has changed in America. In changing the way that it has the rights of one group, cigarette smokers, have been restricted to please, or satisfy, others.

You see, I pay attention to these changes and that saying from the old Virginia Slims ads keeps coming to mind, “You’ve come a long way baby.” The problem is that the place we’ve come to sucks. I’ve been doing a great deal of reading since I’ve been off on disability, and along with it a great deal of soul searching.

The subject matter of all this reading has been the fight to ratify our Constitution. For years I have just held that the ONLY thing wrong in this country has been that we did not adhere to the limits imposed upon government by the Constitution. It never crossed my mind that possibly the document itself opened the doorway for all the usurpation of powers we see today.

I just accepted the fact that the federalists were right and the anti-federalists were wrong; one side won the other lost, let’s move on now. But that’s not an intellectually honest way of looking at things, is it? If a 250 lb bully beats up on a 125 lb man, just because the bully wins does not make it right, does it? It’s like the Civil War, just because the North won the fight does not justify their actions, it only means that they won the battle. Had our Founders lost the Revolutionary War instead of winning it would that have meant that their cause was not just?

Winning does not always go hand in hand with good overcoming evil. Sometimes evil wins and when that happens the victor gets to write history from its perspective. Such was the case with the Civil War, with the South being denigrated in the history books, which left an open wound that has recently festered open with all this ridiculous hatred of the Confederate Battle flag. But I’m not here to discuss the Civil War. I’m here to discuss those who lost the battle to see that our Constitution was not ratified, the anti-Federalists. Could their fears have been justified?

It is sad enough that so few people know much about the period of America’s history that deals with our fight for independence and the ratification of our Constitution. It is worse that so little attention is given to those who opposed the ratification of the Constitution.

Prior to the latter part of June, 1776, independence was not a foregone conclusion. There were still those who hoped for a peaceful resolution to the tensions that existed between Great Britain and the colonies. But there were those who viewed the separation as either inevitable, or at least, desirable. Thomas Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense urged the colonies to break free from the tyrant King George. Samuel Adams wrote numerous incendiary articles about the tyranny of King George and our need for an independent America.

Yet of all those who spoke openly of independence, none were so eloquent, so inspirational, as Patrick Henry whose immortal words, “Give me liberty or give me death” summed up the entire purpose for which the colonies would unite on July 2, 1776, when their delegates voted in favor of Independence.

These men, and those who fought valiantly for America’s independence, all were willing to lay down their lives for that most precious of gifts…LIBERTY. As the Declaration of Independence states, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

A year earlier, in the combined work of Thomas Jefferson and John Dickinson, The Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms we read four simple words, “Our cause is just.” Our Founders believed that liberty, the sanctity of their unalienable rights, was worth going to war to defend…even if it meant they might lose all in the ensuing struggle.

How far America has strayed from those noble sentiments!

Thirteen years after America won its independence a Constitution was written and submitted to the states for their approval. Some saw this as a good thing, while others saw it as the first step to an eventual loss of liberty.

In his famous speech Patrick Henry declared, “Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.”

Thirteen years later this same Patrick Henry would decry that state of mind held by the people of this country, “When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, Sir, was then the primary object.”

If Americans could forget the importance of liberty, the sanctity of their rights in just over one decade after gaining it, imagine how far they could stray from that principle in 226 yrs. As the old Virginia Slims ads said, “You’ve come a long way baby.”

The America I see in 2015 is a far cry from the America I was born into in 1958, and an even further cry from the America which fought the mightiest empire on earth for its independence in 1776. Today I hear all this bickering between Republicans and Democrats and when someone mentions that both parties are guilty of violating our rights I get this look like people think I’m certifiably insane.

To once again quote Patrick Henry, “Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings-give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else: 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…”

Samuel Adams once wrote, “The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks.” Not an option, or something we can choose to do, but our DUTY.

You see, Adams continued by saying, “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.” Do you understand the meaning of the word infamy? It means the disgrace to someone’s reputation caused by an infamous act or behavior.

John Adams once said something that I can relate to as I feel the same thing in regards to my fellow countrymen. Adams wrote, “Posterity! You will never know how much it cost the present Generation to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it.”

America, you have squandered that freedom which was so bravely fought for by our fore-fathers. So yes, you HAVE come a long way, and you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Dispelling The Comfortable Myth

***Authors Note***
This is probably the longest article I have ever written, as well as being the most researched and therefore challenging article to read. It is filled with things that many of you may not know, therefore cause you to question both myself and the validity of the things presented for your consideration. I only ask that you read it, as slowly as you need, to digest the facts and come to your own conclusions.

It is said that Lao Tzu wrote, “The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” Why do I begin a political commentary with the words of a 6th century BC Chinese philosopher? It is because whatever type journey you decide to undertake it all begins with a single step. This applies as much to journeys of the mind as it does to physical journeys. When one starts out on the pathway to knowledge or truth they have to be willing to, not only take that first step, but be willing to go where the path, or in this case, the facts take them. Sometimes the facts may lead one to face the uncomfortable fact that everything they had previously believed in has been a lie, or at least a comfortable myth.

I think anyone with half a brain can see that there is something wrong, terribly wrong, with America today. There is another old quote, and I have no idea who said it, but it states, “The key to solving any problem lies in first recognizing that there is a problem.” As I said, I believe that deep down, people realize that there is something wrong in America, so they recognize that there is a problem. But to continue along this train of thought for a moment, there is another quote by famed theoretical physicist Albert Einstein which fits together nicely with the previous quote. Einstein is stated as saying, “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”

Each of us have the choice of accepting the things we are told as being the absolute truth, or we can attempt to find the truth on our own. Roughly 20 years ago I decided I was not going to accept what I’d been told as the truth and begin a journey of my own to see if I could find out the real truth for myself. I’ve always been somewhat of a rebel so rejecting what people tell me has never been difficult for me. Even so there have been times that the things I have learned has caused me to question much of what I call my core beliefs. Nonetheless it would be intellectually dishonest of me to deny the facts, instead choosing to believe the lies I have been told most of my life.

This is my attempt to chronicle where I am currently at in this journey of mine. It may sound far-fetched, and even unpatriotic to some, but as I said, this is where the facts, and my own thinking has led me. If you are of an open mind maybe you too will see that things aren’t as they seem in America and you may begin your own journey to find the truth. Or then again you may, as Morpheus tells Neo, “…take the blue pill, the story ends…you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.” But be forewarned, if you choose to begin this journey, the things you learn you cannot unlearn. Therefore what you learn will forever change the way you see things in this country.


It is with a certain degree of aloofness that I have been watching the seventeen Republican candidates scurry around like rats, competing for your vote in the upcoming primaries. Much of the rhetoric I hear from them is the same old tired message I’ve heard from Republican candidates going back as far as I can remember. In the end though, as they say in the Highlander films, there can be only one. So what will eventually happen is that the GOP faithful will fall in behind whomever their convention nominates, and then the Democrats will do the same leaving the undecided voters the choice of either voting independent, or sitting it out because they have become disgusted with the entire process. Because truth be told, at least from my perspective, there isn’t a whole lot of between the Republicans and the Democrats.

My journey to better understand our system of government began twenty-five years ago, although it wasn’t until 9/11 that I began to entertain any type conspiracy theories. Up until that point in my life I was just another Republican who thought the Democrats were the spawn of Satan, hell bent on destroying what America stood for. Once I found the courage to question my own beliefs it was as if a floodgate had opened up and I was able to see things from an entirely different perspective. Instead of looking at the things I read from a conservative point of view I was able to begin examining the things I was reading from a purely neutral viewpoint. This allowed me to see things with unbiased eyes, with the truth as my ultimate goal.

That is why I began this commentary with that one quote from Lao Tzu, to begin a journey such as this one must take that first step, and in my case that first step was being willing to look at everything from an entirely new perspective. Unfortunately most people cannot take that first step, they are blinded by their own biases and belief that everything is as they have been told throughout their lives. Either that or they fear that by abandoning their beliefs they may find they have lost that sense of belonging that so many so desperately need. The pathway to truth is often a lonely one, but I have found that the friendships you do make along the way are richer and far more rewarding than the shallow friendships of belonging found in groups.

If all you ever do is listen to the rhetoric from both parties and what you hear about them from the news media I can see how you might believe there is an ocean of difference between what the Democrats stand for and what the Republicans stand for. However, were you to put your party loyalty aside for just a moment and ask yourself a single question you might begin to realize that in truth there are more similarities than differences. The question one should ask themselves is, “Do the policies my party stands for lead to an increase or decrease in the size of government, broaden or limit the scope of its powers, and does what my party do safeguard or restrict my liberty?”

If you are honest with yourself you will see that both parties are guilty of expanding the size of government, increasing the power it wields over your lives, and limiting your rights. If the two parties are so radically different why is it that you rarely see one party repealing legislation passed by the other party once they obtain a majority in Congress and control of the Oval Office? That is because they don’t really care about reducing the size of government. All they care about is increasing the size of government in areas that are of importance to them. As Ronald Reagan once said, “The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.”

In the early years of our new nation there were no political parties, at least not as we know them today. In fact many of our Founders hated the idea of political parties, or factions as they often called them. In a 1780 letter to Jonathan Jackson, John 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.”

Nine years later in a letter to Francis Hopkinson, Thomas Jefferson would write, “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.”

The earliest political parties that arose under our new Constitution, if you wish to call them that, were the federalists and the anti-federalists. One believed in a strong central government with less power held by the states, while the other were said to hold the exact opposite belief; a weak central government with more power retained by the states and the people. Yet it is ironic that the name federalist is even used to describe the two, but I’ll get back to that in bit, first you’ll need some background material.

From my experience most people couldn’t tell you what powers the Constitution grants government, what their rights are, and, if they are lucky a few assorted dates or events concerning the history of their country. This is not only sad, it is dangerous to liberty. Our Founders sacrificed so much to give us a future where we could live as free men and women, and if a people forget their countries past it is a relatively easy task for those seeking power and dominion to strip them of that freedom.

To understand any of the writings from our nation’s history you first care enough to read it for yourself instead of taking someone’s word that what they are telling you is the truth. However, reading it is not enough, you must also understand the context to discern why it was written. You must also understand the meaning of the words found in these documents if you are to fully grasp what they say. The complete understanding of words like sovereignty, democracy, republic, nationalist, federalist is essential if you are to understand what these documents and speeches say. Too many people simply breeze through the founding documents without ever giving much thought to what they actually say. Believe me, I have been just as guilty of this as everyone else, but I have realized the error of my ways and have gone back and painstakingly given a great deal of thought to them, often sentence by sentence.

For instance, I constantly hear people talk about our democracy. What democracy? To a one, our Founders despised democracies. James Madison said, “Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

Thomas Jefferson said, “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

John Adams said, “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” Our Founders did not want a democracy. What they wanted, and what we ended up with will become the focus of the remainder of this commentary.

Blacks Dictionary of Law defines a democracy as: “That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens; as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. According to the theory of a pure democracy, every citizen should participate directly in the business of governing, and the legislative assembly should comprise the whole people. But the ultimate lodgment of the sovereignty being the distinguishing feature, the introduction of the representative system does not remove a government from this type. However, a government of the latter kind is sometimes specifically described as a representative democracy.”

Yet even representative democracy is not wholly accurate when it comes to describing our system of government. In a representative democracy the people vote for ‘representatives’ to pass laws in their behalf. But there is one crucial difference between a representative democracy and what we have; in a representative democracy the representatives may pass whatever laws a majority of the people support, there are no limits upon the laws they may pass as long as they have the support of a majority of the people. For instance, if a majority of the people decide that everyone must attend church on Sunday the legislature could conceivably pass a law requiring everyone to go to church every Sunday.

Our system differs in that the true sovereigns of this country, via a written Constitution, have set limits upon what government can and cannot do. Not only that, they have placed certain rights beyond the reach of legislators in a Bill of Rights.

Before I go any further it is imperative that people understand the meaning of the word sovereignty. According to Black’s Dictionary of Law sovereignty is defined as: “The possession of sovereign power; supreme political authority; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration; the self-sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived.” Do you see now why it is crucial you understand what sovereign, or sovereignty means? Sovereignty is the source from which all political power flows.

In talking to people I get the distinct impression that they believe the government is sovereign over us and that therefore whatever laws they pass must be obeyed. They could not be further from the truth. Think about the age old question, “What came first, the chicken or the egg?” Now replace a few words and you get, “Which came first, government or the people?” In 1850 Frederic Bastiat answered that by stating the obvious, “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.”

In Chapter 11 of John Locke’s Second Treatise he discusses the power given to any legislative body wherein he states, “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.”

More than 150 years later the Frenchman Bastiat would answer the question what is law by saying, “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. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force—for the same reason—cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.”

Government, in whatever form it takes, is a creation of the people. Either governments are created by common consent of the people or power is assumed by people to rule over others. But make no mistake about it, government is a human creation and therefore can only have as much power and authority as we allow it to have.

Just as very few know what the Constitution says, I’m certain that fewer still know that prior to its ratification we already had an existing system of government. Eight days after the Continental Congress voted to approve the Declaration of Independence the results of another committee was submitted to the Congress for its consideration. After a year of debate and editing, the final document was finally submitted to Congress for its approval. This document is known as the Articles of Confederation.

A bit of trivia for those who may be interested. I’ll bet many of you aren’t aware that under these Articles of Confederation numerous men served as President of the Continental Congress. Although their powers were severely limited in comparison to the powers of a president today, they were, nonetheless, presidents of these states united. These men were, in order of their serving; Peyton Randolph, Henry Middleton, Peyton Randolph again, John Hancock, Charles Thompson, Henry Laurens, John Jay, and Samuel Huntington. So the next time somebody asks you who was America’s first president you can turn the tables on them by asking “before or after the Constitution?” It would be interesting to see how they react.

It was under these Articles of Confederation that we won our independence, although some may claim that the ability of the Congress to force the states into paying the revenue required to run the revolution was a serious defect that required rectifying. Regardless, we did have a system of government prior to the Constitution being written, and therefore it deserves a bit of attention as to some of the things these Articles of Confederation said.

Before I get in to what the Articles of Confederation say, I must ask, do you know what a Confederation is? According to Black’s Dictionary of Law a confederation is a league or compact for mutual support, particularly of princes, nations, or states. As the state governments themselves were representative of the people who inhabited the states, they could not grant a created body any more power than they themselves had. This was a principle the people held to be true which was taken from Locke’s Treatise on Civil Governments, “…for no body can transfer to another more power than he has in himself…”

This confederation was to be called the United States of America. Prior to the Articles of Confederation these states had never been given that name, it is the first time it appears as such. Now you might be saying, “but doesn’t the Declaration of Independence call us the United States?” Yes and no. In the Declaration of Independence the signers declare themselves to be representatives of the united States of America. Same thing you say? No, it isn’t.

When the word united is written with a lower case u it signifies a verb, meaning that these states were united in the cause which the document declares. However when preceding the word states and with a capital u it is used as a pronoun, therefore the entire name United States of America is the name which was given to the confederation created by the Articles of Confederation. Trivial? Possibly, but our Founders were very astute and chose their wording carefully. It would be arrogant of us to think that they were not aware of the significance of a lower case u in the Declaration of Independence and a capital u in the Articles of Confederation.

Continuing on now, Section 2 of the Articles of Confederation stated, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” This, as well as Section 8 would prove to be sticking points later on for men whose designs were for a much stronger central government, but I’ll get to that later.

Section 3 defines the purpose for which the confederation was created, “The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.”

Finally, Section 8 states, “And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”

Whether or not the Articles of Confederation provided sufficient powers to our government to function throughout the life of our country we will never know as from the beginning there were men who felt it was far too weak to handle the needs of our young country. Among those who felt the need for a much stronger central government were James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. Although each had uniquely differing opinions on how much power to grant a central government, they both believed the Articles of Confederation were insufficient and began work to rectify what they felt to be serious deficiencies.
On April 16, 1787 James Madison wrote a letter to George Washington outlining his general ideas for strengthening the federal government. Keep in mind that this was written at least a month prior to the delegates arriving at Philadelphia for what would become known as the Constitutional Convention. Madison’s letter said a great deal of things regarding his vision for a stronger central government, but I wish to touch upon only a few of them and will do so individually so I may insert my thoughts and comments upon each suggestion made by Madison.

The first thing which Madison said, and which I would like to address, is the following statement, “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.”

Although Madison admits that a consolidation of the whole into one simple republic would probably be unattainable, his last sentence gives us a clue as to how he may have felt regarding the power that ought to be retained by the states under his plan. Madison said that the states should not be excluded “… wherever they can be subordinately useful ” Merely useful? Under the Articles of Confederation each state had one vote in Congress, therefore the states were co-equals in the operation of the government with no state having more say than any other.

In Federalist 39 Madison would declare that “The Senate on the other hand will derive its powers from the States, as political and co-equal societies…” He does not say that they will be co-equal in relationship to the powers held by the central government, only that they would be equal between themselves.
This may sound like a meaningless and trivial complaint at first glance, but then in his letter to Washington Madison makes the following suggestion, “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.”

So Madison believed that this centralized government should be able to VETO all laws passed by the individual states. He compares it to a Kingly prerogative, and calls it the “… least possible encroachment on the State jurisdictions.” The least possible encroachment? I shudder to think of what he considered a major encroachment upon state sovereignty.

Then there is this single sentence that shows just how strong Madison wanted his desired government to be, “In like manner the right of coercion should be expressly declared.” Coercion? Just to make sure you understand what power Madison wanted this central government to have, coercion means the right to use force or threats to make someone do something against their will. So basically what Madison wanted was to be able to bring in the army to force the states to comply with the edicts of the central government. Yet isn’t that one of the things they had fought a revolution over, having troops upon American soil enforcing the tyrannical will of the King? But that is apparently what power Madison wanted this government to have.

And finally, to show that Madison was less concerned with the sovereignty of the states he makes the following statement, “To give a new System its proper validity and energy, a ratification must be obtained from the people, and not merely from the ordinary authority of the Legislatures. This will be the more essential as inroads on the existing Constitutions of the States will be unavoidable.”

You have to realize that at this moment in our nation’s history the central government was endowed with but few powers. Basically it was weak, very weak, as to what it could do. Under the Articles of Confederation a single no vote by a state could halt the passage of any law proposed by the Congress. All the power was held by the states and the central government needed a unanimous vote by all states to get anything done at all. Whether this unequal balance of power would have sustained our country through the years we will never know, because the Constitution was ratified, and therefore the balance of powers shifted as well. Unfortunately, as time has shown, this shift in the balance of powers has been detrimental to the states as sovereign entities.

Years later Thomas Jefferson would write, “When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”

Yet there is one question that I doubt many of you have ever asked yourselves, I know I had not, at least not until very recently. The reason I doubt many have asked this question is because I see the assumption of powers by our government go on with little to no complaint by the people. They do not understand that the Constitution is a law and that it is binding upon both us and those whom we elect. So any violations of it should be treated as criminal acts, yet people just shrug their shoulders and keep voting for these same criminals over and over again.

The question I would like you to ask yourselves is this, “Was the ratification of our Constitution a criminal act?” Yes I know, coming from me, someone who has for years written in support of the Constitution to now ask whether it was enacted criminally is a huge shift in direction. But that is what happens when one goes on a journey for the truth, you often find out that previously held opinions were in fact false opinions. A person can then either accept that and move on with a new viewpoint, or be intellectually dishonest and ignore the facts that have proven your prior views to be incorrect.

So I’m asking you to ask yourself, could our Constitution have been enacted under less that legal means?

To assist you in answering allow me to provide some facts for your consideration. At the time we already had a government, however weak and ineffectual some claimed it was. We had a constitution, of sorts; The Articles of Confederation, which were legally ratified by the sovereign states, granting certain powers to this central government, with the remaining powers held by the States.

In Section 8 of these Articles of Confederation it states, “And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”

When the delegates met in Philadelphia they did so because the State legislatures had sent them to “amend the Articles of Confederation.” Yet upon the first day of deliberations Madison presented what is known as the Virginia Plan, outlining his ideas for a stronger centralized government, basically the same things he had suggested to George Washington a month earlier. In short, they were told they were not there to amend anything, but to start from the beginning with an entirely new constitution.

As delegates of the States they were sent there to do one thing, and one thing only. So by their agreeing to continue, knowing that they were overstepping the authority granted them by their home states, did they betray the trust granted them by their state legislatures and proceed illegally? It might help answer your question to know that each delegate was sworn to secrecy, drapes were hung over the windows of the hall, and a guard was posted outside to shoo away anyone who may have tried to eavesdrop on the proceedings.

It may also help to convince you that many of the staunchest supporters of individual liberty were not in attendance during this convention. Both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were abroad. Samuel Adams, the firebrand writer and member of the Sons of Liberty was not invited. Neither was Patrick Henry whose cry “Give me liberty or give me death” helped spark the revolutionary spirit amongst the colonists. In fact Patrick Henry refused to attend, saying he smelled a rat in Philadelphia. On top of all this, Rhode Island refused to send a single delegate to the convention, so their state was not represented at all in the proceedings.

Regardless of who attended, and who did not, the convention proceeded throughout the summer months of 1787 and eventually came to an agreement which produced what we now know as our Constitution. The next problem they faced was getting it put into action.

You have to remember, that the existing legal document which governed our young nation was the Articles of Confederation, which clearly stated, “…nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”

So now we have a document which may have been written illegally, now being submitted to the people for their consideration. Under the Articles of Confederation that would mean that each State would have to agree to it for it to go into effect. But that is not how it happened.

This new proposed Constitution was submitted to the States for discussion. Many arguments arose between those who supported the ratification of this new Constitution, and those who opposed it. If you recall, earlier I had stated that it was ironic that those who supported the Constitution called themselves federalist. Now I’ll explain why I said that.

This was one of the many sticking points the so-called federalists had to overcome, the creation of a centralized national government instead of a true federalist government. You see, there is a difference. Until recently I myself thought federal and national could be interchanged when speaking of our government in Washington D.C., but I was wrong, they hold entirely different meanings.

Going back to Federalist 39, Madison describes a federal form of government as being a CONFEDERACY of sovereign states, while a national government is a CONSOLIDATION of the states into one body politic.

This question was raised by no other than Patrick Henry, who refused to attend the convention because he smelled a rat. In the Virginia assembly discussing the ratification of the Constitution Mr. Henry made the following statement, “Mr. Chairman … I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious: The fate of this question and of America may depend on this: Have they said, we, the States? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation: It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, Sir, on that poor little thing-the expression, We, the people, instead of the States, of America.”

You see, the people, up until that point in time, had elected representatives to their State legislatures to govern on their behalf. Up until that point in time the States held more authority than did the government created by the Articles of Confederation. Any changes to this balance of power would therefore have to be agreed upon by the representatives of the people, not the people in general. The people did not draft the Constitution, their representatives did, but it was under the impression of the legislators who sent them there that they were only to AMEND the Articles of Confederation, not write an entirely new Constitution.

Under a confederation, or a federal system of government, any laws enacted by the governing body apply only to the states. However, in a national government, the laws enacted by the governing body apply to the people in general, basically bypassing the authority of the State legislatures. That is why there is such a big difference between the two, and why Patrick Henry posed that legitimate question to the Virginia assembly.

One other thing. When the members of the convention convened their meetings and the final product of their deliberations was presented to the States, it was just a piece of paper with words written upon it. It held no legal authority, until, as the Articles of Confederation declared, “…such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”

Why is it then that the ratification process was undertaken by the means written in the Constitution; a positive vote by 3/4′s of the states, instead of the unanimous vote of the states as required by the legal document governing our nation? How could they legally apply statements within a document that held no legal authority at the time, to supersede the required method of changing governmental powers?

As painful as this is for me to say, I believe our Constitution was enacted by illegal means and subterfuge. Yes, eventually all the states would ratify it, but nonetheless the means by which it was written, and then ratified, are shady at best, certainly questionable, and possibly illegal.

These are the facts that have led me to where I now find myself in this journey for truth and knowledge. Nonetheless, it is what we have lived under for 226 years now. Now I find myself asking the question as to whether those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention wrote it in such a way as to leave openings for future abuses and usurpations of power by future generations, or whether the vagueness of certain passages is only the result of so many disagreeing ideas coming to a compromise to produce the best document they could under the circumstances.

This is why I am so aloof at time when it comes to these elections. Not only do I see that the candidates, and the people of this country pay so little regards to what powers the Constitution grants our federal/national (?) government, but they don’t even care enough about history to even try to learn the things I have learned so far.

Centuries ago Patrick Henry said the following, “When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, Sir, was then the primary object.” As time has passed the idea of liberty, individual sovereignty, and even independence, has faded away until it is but a distant ember in the back of people’s minds.

When this Constitution was ratified by the several States there were those who dissented to its ratification. They may have been a minority, too small a voice to halt the dangers they saw from its adoption, yet their words bear notice as they often were harbingers of what was to come.

For instance, after the vote was taken in the Pennsylvania assembly, and the Constitution was ratified by its members, the minority delegates wrote their own dissenting opinion, much like dissenting Justices in a Supreme Court case do. In this minority statement they declare, “WE DISSENT, First, Because it is the opinion of the most celebrated writers on government, and confirmed by uniform experience, that very extensive territory cannot be governed on the principles of freedom, otherwise than by a confederation of republics, possessing all the powers of internal government; but united in the management of their general, and foreign concerns…

We dissent, secondly, because the powers vested in Congress by this constitution, must necessarily annihilate and absorb the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the several states, and produce from their ruins one consolidated government, which from the nature of things will be an iron handed despotism, as nothing short of the supremacy of despotic sway could connect and govern these United States under one government.”

Could they have been any more accurate in describing the government that exists today? I think not. With all the government agencies that exist today to enforce the will of the federal government we have that coercion that Madison so desperately wanted. With it comes the inevitable loss of liberty that goes hand in hand with an increasingly despotic government.

A few last thoughts and then I will end this lengthy rant. In the 19th century there was a man named Lysander Spooner who had fought a personal battle against the federal government. He had owned a private mail delivery company and was put out of business by pressure put upon him by the United States government and the monopoly on mail delivery held by the U.S. Postal system. Spooner may have been bitter and cynical due to his dealings with the federal government, but he once said something that bears consideration in conclusion of my own commentary. Spooner once said, “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or it has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

These are the results of my own personal journey and quest for knowledge. But as I said, each journey begins with a single step. One must have courage to take that first step, or one can remain ignorant, believing in all the lies you accept as absolute truths.

Two quotes and I’ll let you try to digest the things I have said. First a quote from Carl Sagan, “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding the truth. That bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken.”

Then the final quote from Dresden James, “When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.”

I have had to deal with that for years now, and I’m certain that the things I have just said will cause even more to question my sanity. Yet I stand by my conclusions as they are supported by the facts I have discovered in this journey of mine.

I would hope that each of you reading this have the intellectual honesty to at least listen to what I have said with an open mind. If not, I’ve just wasted an entire week putting this together for your consideration. But make no mistake about it, things are not as they seem in America. It is up to you to decide whether to seek out the truth, or continue believing the lies you are being told.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled propaganda…

Posted in General | 3 Comments

Choose Well

At this very moment the Republican candidates seeking your vote for the 2016 presidential elections are debating on television. Well, at least the front runners are. The Republican Party is so disarrayed right now that they don’t know what they stand for. This is proven by the fact that there are what, 17 candidates now seeking the Republican nomination. In either case I have absolutely no desire to watch it as I think the whole thing is just a joke.

To switch tracks for a moment, have you ever heard the word metaphor? Maybe you have, maybe you haven’t, but I’d be willing to bet that you probably have used one at some point in your conversations. Have you ever said something like, “It’s hotter than a tin shed in a forest fire”? If so, that is a simple metaphor, using words, and sometimes images, as symbols to express something else.

Why the sudden English lesson? Well I like movies that are filled with visual metaphors. Some people have complained that I use fiction from movies to support the stances I take in my articles. But words are words and whether they be spoken in a fictional setting or not, they can still prove useful in trying to get my point across. As V says in his speech to London, “…words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.” Now because that was said in a movie mean that what he said is untrue? I think not, so metaphors, even those from fiction movies, are still a simple way to get a point across.

If you want to talk about metaphors you should watch The Matrix as it is packed full of them. Take for instance the photo I inserted at the beginning of this commentary. Had you seen the movie you’ll recognize that from when Morpheus offers Neo the choice to take the red pill, or the blue pill; to seek out the truth, or go back to self-chosen ignorance.

How much thought have you given that simple image of Morpheus holding out his hands with a red pill in one, and a blue pill in the other? Just the color of the pills is a visual metaphor. Think about it, red and blue pills. What colors represent the Republicans and the Democrats? Red and blue of course. So could Morpheus be asking Neo to choose between Republicans or Democrats?

Then if you think harder the blue pill means choosing to ignore that there is a ‘real’ truth out there and choosing the red pill means you are willing to learn that truth. If you combine these two metaphors could it be that you get an entirely different meaning; that if you choose the red pill you are in fact choosing to believe that the whole idea that there is a difference between red/blue, Republican/Democrat, liberal/conservative, is just a giant hoax to keep you ignorant?

I don’t normally do this, but I’m going to insert a couple graphics into the middle of an article to try and show what I’m saying. Here goes:

What choices you make, whatever holes you punch on your ballot, mean nothing unless you forget the difference between right and left, Republican and Democrat, and look to how closely what they say will uphold what powers the Constitution grants them. Even though I’m getting closer and closer to believing that the moment our Founders ratified it was the moment America began her downhill slide, I still believe it is the best we have now…but only if it is adhered to strictly. The moment you begin, not only allowing government to overstep its granted authority, but asking them to do so for whatever cause you believe in, then all hope is lost for the future of this country.

Albert Einstein once said, “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” I have been told, in fact someone just told me this on Facebook, that I am very smart. People ask what can we do to fix America, or that I should write to inspire people for the future. How can I inspire people when all I see is darkness?

Forty years prior to our Constitution even being talked about Samuel Adams said something that people really need to consider. In an issue of The Public Advertiser, Adams wrote, “[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.”

I posted this on Facebook awhile ago, in fact it was this comment that motivated me to write this. Anyway I told a friend, “I don’t get it, I really don’t. All this excitement for the presidential election. Why? All the President is really is a glorified CEO. They have no real power other than their veto power and that of making treaties. They can make no laws, all they can do is make suggestions to Congress, but as far as keeping all these promises they make during their campaigns, they can’t do any of that unless Congress first passes the laws for them to sign.

That’s the way our Constitution is set up; Congress makes the laws, the President’s job is to see that the laws are faithfully executed.
Why then all the fuss over who becomes president? Sure he is a figurehead and should be strong and be able to go toe to toe with the leaders of other foreign nations. But if you want REAL change your focus should be on Congress, not the presidency.”

So when people say I should stop focusing on the past, how can I when the past in so important in people understanding why their system of government was created in the first place, and then what powers we gave it. If people cannot see that the president cannot do a damned thing of his own volition, that it is Congress who can make real changes, then how are we to move forward?

For any successful change to occur, at least change for the better, a complete reversal in thinking must take place in the hearts and minds of the American people first. In 1950 Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson said, “It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error.”

How can we make any kind of real change when the only reason people participate in the election process is so that they can choose the candidate who makes the best sounding promises to do things for them? In 1787 Thomas Jefferson said, “The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.” Is that what people ask of government today or do they ask for subsidies, benefits, laws protecting them from crime, from offensive material, telling them what they can put into their bodies?

Unfortunately we live in a world full of fear. If you can recall back to when the budget gridlock struck in Congress and the threat of our government shutting down, what were the sentiments expressed by the news media and the people in general? It was fear that our country would collapse if government shut down. Whatever happened to the old fashioned value of self-dependency where we didn’t need anything from anyone? Or as Charlie Daniels sings in Long Haired Country Boy, “I ain’t asking nobody for nothing if I can’t get it on my own.”

But that is nothing new. Our Constitution was ratified by the people because those who supported its ratification were fear mongerers just as much as those today who keep us in a perpetual state of fear over terrorism. After Pennsylvania ratified the Constitution a minority of those opposed wrote a letter stating their reasons for not supporting ratification. In their letter they state, “Whilst the gilded chains were forging in the secret conclave, the meaner instruments of despotism without, were busily employed in alarming the fears of the people with dangers which did not exist, and exciting their hopes of greater advantages from the expected plan than even the best government on earth could produce…. ”

All our woes, all our problems come from a two part problem, first the people do not know what powers government was supposed to wield, and secondly they do not care that their government oversteps its authority so long as it is for the greater public good.

In 1788 Patrick Henry stated, “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.” Henry would also say, and this is where we have most strayed as Americans, “When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, Sir, was then the primary object.”

Almost 100 yrs after our Constitution went into effect James Garfield, the 20th president, made the following statement, “Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature…. If the next centennial does not find us a great nation … it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.”

Those words are just as true today as they were when he spoke them over two hundred years ago. The ultimate fault lies with us, the people, because we do not understand the powers granted our government and we do not hold them accountable.

Again, to quote a movie, in the film V For Vendetta, the main character V broadcasts a pre-recorded message to the people of London wherein he says, “And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn’t there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who’s to blame? Well, certainly, there are those who are more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable. But again, truth be told, if you’re looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn’t be? War, terror, disease. They were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you…”

For America to heal, for us to return to greatness we must not look to those who campaign for our votes, we must look into ourselves and what we stand for. Some people can’t accept this, while others do not like that idea because it shifts the burden of responsibility to them. Yet it remains the truth. As author Ruth Tessler Goldstein writes in The Heart Is Half a Prophet, “The truth my friend, is an awesome thing, to be handled with wisdom and with courage denied to ordinary people.”

You can choose to educate yourself, to accept the truth no matter how bitter a pill it is, or you can choose to continue believing in a system that is broken because we allow those we elect to violate our rights and exceed the powers given them. But even if you do not choose, as the rock band RUSH sings, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.” So choose well.

Posted in General | 2 Comments

I Can Only Show You The Door

Authors Note: I was about half an hour away from completing this when my friend Jeff over at the Federal Observer posted a video with the caption “How Stupid Are Americans?” Due to that I completely rewrote this. I believe this to be a better version, albeit somewhat more harsh in tone. I hope it meets with your approval.

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 in
practice. As soon as he opens his lips, he should rehearse the history of his own country.

~Noah Webster~
Known as The Father of American Scholarship and Education
whose name is synonymous with Merriam Webster’s Dictionary

There are days I feel that I am wasting my time writing these little commentaries. It’s not that the cause is not worthy; the fight for liberty is never a waste of time. It’s just that sometimes I feel that there is absolutely no hope of stimulating serious thought on the part of some people. Don’t get me wrong, I have no intentions of throwing in the towel, but sometimes it just seems like I’m fighting a losing battle.

When I feel that way I often refer back to The Crisis by Thomas Paine for motivation, “THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”

It’s just that, with increasing frequency, I find myself asking the question, “Why is it that some of us can see things so clearly and care so much about liberty while the majority cannot see the damage their ignorance and apathy are doing to this country?” Why so few of us care is beyond comprehension and I have no words to describe how angry it makes me feel.

Almost two-hundred years ago Thomas Jefferson penned a letter to Judge Spencer Roane which, in part, stated, “Time indeed changes manners and notions, and so far we must expect institutions to bend to them. But time produces also corruption of principles, and against this it is the duty of good citizens to be ever on the watch, and if the gangrene is to prevail at last, let they day be kept off as long as possible.”

That same year Jefferson already saw the direction our country was taking and expressed his fears in a letter to Nathanial Macon, “Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, it’s necessary consequence.”

The following year James Madison wrote a letter to a W. T. Barry in which he 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.” Finally, again quoting Jefferson, he gives us the warning that “…if a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was & never will be.”

Why all these quotes about knowledge? Well to be blunt it is because I see and hear so many people today who, quite honestly, don’t know shit from Shinola about the system of government we live under, OR the history of their country. These people are so uninformed that it boggles my mind that they are allowed to even participate in the elective process of choosing who represents them. They couldn’t make an informed choice if it were presented to them on a silver platter.

There are two quotes I’d like to present now which pretty much sum up how I feel about a vast majority of the people in this country. The first comes from the man who was Prime Minster of England during the Second World War, Winston Churchill, who stated, “Some people’s idea of [free speech]is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that’s an outrage.” The second comes from the 19th century Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, who wrote, “People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid.”

As I mentioned in my note at the beginning of this commentary, I sought to rewrite it after watching video entitled How Stupid Are Americans? In that video there were clips of people being interviewed who were asked very simple questions about U.S. History. For instance the guy doing the questioning asked, “In 1776 when the Founders signed the Declaration of Independence, what year did they sign it?” For cryin’ out loud the guy GAVE the answer away, but still people couldn’t answer the question. Some people could not tell who we fought in World War II. People couldn’t name a single country in Europe, and others could not define democracy. This is beyond sad, it is beyond pathetic, it is frightening.

Do not misunderstand me, I make no claim to genius or even above average intelligence. I do however make one claim that many of my fellow citizens cannot; that being my desire to learn more about our system of government. In short my desire to seek out the truth, to obtain as much knowledge as I can far exceeds that displayed by many of my fellow countrymen.

Yet I am called unpatriotic, subversive even due to my views on government. I think I know how Patrick Henry felt when he stood on the floor of the Virginia Assembly arguing for the ratification of our Constitution when he said, “Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty the greatest of all earthly blessings―give us that precious jewel, and you may take everything else: But I am fearful I have lived long enough to become and old fashioned fellow: Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man, may, in these refined and 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.”

Thomas Jefferson spoke of a corruption of principles and how if you expect to be both ignorant and free that you expect what never was and never will be. Was Jefferson simply wise beyond his years, or could it have been that he was prophetic, describing the America that exists today?

As I write this our country is gearing up for the 2016 Presidential election. Just yesterday the GOP hopefuls held an open forum type debate in New Hampshire. These debates are supposed to provide voters with a closer look at the stances of the individual candidates so that they can make a more informed choice. I find that not only absolutely ridiculous, by an oxymoron as well.

The gist of all questions asked of the candidates is this, “What would you do as president in regards to _________?” It does not matter if you intend to vote Republican, Democrat, or Independent, if you make a choice based upon what you want a president to do you are making an uninformed choice.

What does the Constitution say? The Constitution states, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” (Article 1, Section 1)

It also says, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” (Article 2, Section 1), as well as “He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient…” (Article 2, Section 3)

The president cannot do a damned thing on his own. He can make suggestions, but it is Congress which makes the law. The president can either agree to sign the laws Congress sends him, or he can choose to veto them and return them to Congress with his reasons for doing so. But the president has absolutely no power to fulfill any of the promises they make as a candidate seeking the office of president. So if you are voting for them based upon the things you hear them promise to you, then you are already making an uninformed decision because you are uninformed as to what powers the Constitution grants the president.

People are so uninformed that most believe we are a democracy. We are not, we are a Republic, and there is a difference. In a democracy 51% of the people get what they want, no matter what. In a Republic the majority gets what they want, but with one critical difference, what they want must conform to the limits imposed upon government by the Constitution.

If people cannot differentiate between a democracy and a republic than I am pretty sure they have no idea as to the difference between a federal and a national form of government. When our country gained its independence from England the Crown recognized the thirteen colonies as distinct and independent sovereign states, and as such each state had to sign the treaty as such.

After our independence was gained these states united were a confederation, not a nation. A confederation is a group of states that are allied together to form a political unit in which they keep most of their independence but act together for purposes such as defense. The states retained all the rights and sovereignty of independent nations.

Once the Constitution was written the argument arose as to whether it created a national form of government or a federal form of government. And yes, as in discussing republics versus democracy, there is a difference. Under a national form of government the government created by that compact is supreme in all things. In fact, when James Madison made his proposal to the convention which produced our Constitution he wanted the government to have a complete negative over all laws passed by the states. Madison wanted a national government.

On the other hand, in a federal system of government is similar to a republic in that it shares powers with the subordinate units, i.e. the states, while the subordinate units remain independent with the federal government only having authority over the actions within the states when it comes to the specific powers granted it by the Constitution. For instance, with the issue of the legalization of marijuana. Since the Constitution confers no power upon the federal government to regulate what a person may consume, be it for medical or recreational purposes, that power devolves to the states to regulate it internally. A federal government would have no power to tell the states that their citizens could not do that.

Our Founders fought a war against the mightiest empire on Earth to gain their independence for one purpose, and one purpose only; so that they could enjoy their liberty as free men. Had you had the desire to read the writings of men like Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, or Patrick Henry you would have seen that the fight for independence was a fight for the rights and liberty of man, not for the chance to build a powerful nation.

Again, quoting Patrick Henry, “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 may be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government…”

Is that what you look for when making your choice as to whom you will vote for? Or do you want someone who will create more jobs; protect you from crime; send our men and women to faraway lands to fight terror? Does liberty ever enter your consciousness when making your decision as to whom you will vote for?

People want security more than liberty because with liberty your security is your responsibility. With liberty if someone attempts to deprive you of what is rightfully yours, be it property, life, or even the ability to exercise your rights, you have the right to defend these things…by force if necessary. But in today’s world those who defend these things often find themselves charged with a crime while the real criminal gets away with the true crime. As Jefferson said, a corruption of principles.

Yet liberty is what our Founders fought for. Whether they bequeathed it to us is up for grabs. As of late I have been reading many of the Anti-Federalist writings, those who did not support the Constitution while it was being debated by the states. More and more I am finding that everything they feared about that proposed document has come to pass. Tyranny, loss of liberty and an all powerful, all regulating national government…all of it which was what the Anti-Federalists feared would happen should the Constitution be ratified.

Even Ben Franklin, at the end of the Constitutional Convention stated that this system of government was not perfect, that it “may be a Blessing to the People if well administered; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.” (my emphasis)

The point I’m trying to make is that you cannot go about your lives thinking you know all that you need to know regarding our system of government. If you simply rely upon what you have been taught in schools you will never know the truth, the full story. Learning, the quest for knowledge should continue until the day you die.

Most of the material I have presented here has been things I have learned within the past two years. Had I given up, stopped reading, stopped considering alternative theories or things that conflicted with I currently believed, I would never have progressed. As Einstein so aptly stated, “The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don’t know.”

I’m sorry if I sound harsh, but I simply can’t understand how so many people in this country can abide by being so damned ignorant. I’m not calling them stupid, stupid is a lack of intelligence. Ignorant simply means you are lacking in knowledge. I don’t have any idea who this guy is, but some guy named Atwood Townsend once said, “No matter how busy you may think you are, you must find time for reading, or surrender yourself to self-chosen ignorance.” In this day and age when so much information is just one click away on a computer or cell phone, the only excuse for ignorance is because people have chosen not to seek out information.

All I can do is try to help you, or at least point you in the right direction. Or as Morpheus told Neo in The Matrix, “I can only show you the door. You’re the one who has to walk through it.” So I can only provide you information that will lead you to the truth about our system of government, the journey to seek out that information must be yours to make. Either you choose to seek the truth, or you choose to remain ignorant.

However, when our system fails, not if, but when, and you come running to me asking why, I will tell you to go home and look into a mirror, because you had the opportunity to seek out the truth and you chose not to take it. When that time comes, do not expect any pity, or mercy, from me.

Posted in General | Leave a comment