Why Do We Even Need Political Parties?

American election campaign fight as Republican Versus Democrat represented by two boxing gloves with the elephant and donkey symbol stitched fighting for the vote of the United states citizens for an election win.

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why we have political parties and where they came from? It is my belief that the seeds for today’s modern political parties took root in the convention which produced our Constitution. Amongst the delegates who attended that convention there was a clear division of beliefs between those who felt that they system of government they were in the process of creating should be bestowed with a great deal of power which would diminish the authority and sovereignty of the States, while on the other hand there were those who sought to preserve the sovereignty and power held by the State Legislatures.

James Madison believed that the system they were creating should exercise an absolute negative, or a veto over any laws passed by the States which the central government felt weakened its authority. In a letter to George Washington prior to the commencement of the convention Madison stated that he felt the States should be relegated to a subordinately useful position to the federal authority and nothing more.

George Read of Delaware felt that the national government should swallow them up, meaning that they would lose all their sovereignty and be reduced to mere entities responsible for choosing members to a National Senate.

Then there was Alexander Hamilton who felt much the same as Mr. Read in regards to the sovereignty of the States but also wanted to choose a Supreme Executive who would hold office for life and have something similar to what Madison suggested, an absolute veto over all laws passed by the Legislative; elevating the Executive to the status of a monarch.

So, as you can see from before our Constitution was even written there were divisions of thought as to how much power our federal government should hold and the relationship between it and the State authority; which I believe to be the very beginnings of what would eventually become the two political parties we know and love, (sarcasm) today.

The problem came when our Constitution was debated in the various State Ratifying Assemblies and the fears of the States over these new powers given the central government usurping their authority had to be calmed. It was even more difficult for Hamilton when John Yates and Robert Lansing, the two delegates to the Philadelphia convention who had left early, called Hamilton on his support for the reduced powers of the central government and the fact that he had all but said State authority should be completely annihilated. In fact, Hamilton became incensed when his comments at Philadelphia were brought to light at the ratifying assembly held at Poughkeepsie, New York.

Obviously the fears of the States over the loss of their authority were calmed sufficiently, otherwise the Constitution would never have been ratified and our system of government would never have gone into operation. Yet these feelings, or beliefs as to how much power our central government should wield never went away; and they came to light in the administration of our nation’s first president, George Washington.

For whatever reason, George Washington chose for his cabinet two men whose views on federal authority couldn’t be more diametrically opposed; Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, who served as Treasury Secretary and Secretary of State respectively. Jefferson was of the belief that the Constitution said what it said and meant what it meant and nothing more. Hamilton, on the other hand, believed that there were hidden implied powers found throughout the various clauses of the Constitution that could greatly expand the powers of the government beyond those specifically enumerated.

It was this division over a strict or conservative view over Constitutional authority and a loose interpretation of federal authority which led to the formation of the first political parties in America. I find it ironic that the first true conservatives in America were the Democrats, with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison as the leaders of that belief system, and the Federalists being the early incarnation of the Republicans who believed in big government, big business, and a big military which was led by Hamilton, John Adams and those of like minds.

You can choose to believe this or not, but I feel it was this division of beliefs that led to the Civil War. For years the industrial North had been imposing protectionist tariffs which benefitted their interests, and were shouldered primarily by the South; with the revenue collected by those tariffs being spent primarily in the North. So the South was basically funding the government, with the money being spent mostly on internal improvements in the North. This was a situation which had come to a head 30 years prior to the Civil War during the Nullification Crisis and had lain festering beneath the surface eventually leading the Southern States to secede from the Union.

It’s interesting to note that Confederate President Jefferson Davis once said, “I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it.” What Davis meant by that is that he felt the government of the Union was no longer adhering to the limits the Constitution placed upon its power and authority and that he would rather leave the North to a system of government which sought only to benefit Northern business and banking interests.

As we all know, however, the South lost the Civil War and with that loss came the loss of the belief that government was one which was limited by the specific powers enumerated within the Constitution. That was the platform of the Democratic Party up until the end of the Civil War; summed up by comments made by Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugural address, “… a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government…”

For the Democratic Party to survive as a viable entity after the Civil War it would have to abandon that principle of limited government and move towards one which espoused the platform of using the coercive power of government to benefit the common working man; a platform which has basically remained the same ever since; only to be expanded to cover all manner of other special interests such as gay and immigrant rights.

If you look at the history of almost every major program which took federal funds and benefitted the people, or specific categories of people, you will find that they came from Democrats. Roosevelt’s New Deal which gave us Social Security is a prime example. Let us not forget Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act either.

However, over time the party lines have blurred somewhat. If you were to look at the major campaign contributors to the candidacies of the two parties you might be surprised to see that many of these contributors play both sides of the fence; contributing to candidates from both political party to ensure that their interests are served by government. The pharmaceutical industry is a perfect example of this, contributing to both Democratic and Republican candidates.

Then there is the fact that the Democrats used to be known as the peace party, the party that avoided war while the Republicans were more hawkish in their ideology. That distinction is almost gone now with both sides of the spectrum supporting the use of U.S. military forces for everything to U.N. peacekeeping missions to whatever is in the best interests of America; both its national security and its business interests abroad. I would highly recommend that those who do not believe this about the use of our military read the two time Medal of Honor winner Smedley Butler’s book, War is a Racket. It goes into great detail how the U.S. military was/ and remains the coercive agent for U.S. business interests abroad.

It’s a sad commentary on people that today those who condemn the Confederacy and seek to remove all images and monuments dedicated to it are primarily Democrats, but prior to the secession of the Southern States those that formed the Confederacy were primarily Democrats. At the same time it was the Republicans who, according to the official narrative on the Civil War, that fought a just and righteous war to end slavery, yet today they are the party that supposedly seeks to perpetuate racial inequality.

What I’m trying to show you is that the Democrats, although at one time they may have believed in a strict interpretation of the powers given government by the Constitution, have changed into the party that has the looser interpretation of constitutional limitations upon the power of government. This is not to say that the Republicans are the true bastions of conservatism in America; they never have been and never will be until they place the Constitution at the heart of their political platform. If you want to know how much the typical Republican cares about the Constitution, all you have to do is ask them their opinion of Ron Paul; the closest thing to a true conservative we’ve had for a very long time.

All this can be traced back to the beginning, before our Constitution was even completed as a document in 1787. The first political parties in America divided themselves along the lines of a strict versus a loose interpretation of the powers given government by the Constitution. After the Civil War both parties abandoned the Constitution entirely and have morphed into the two parties we know and support today. But it can all be traced back to the differences in beliefs between the camps of those who followed Alexander Hamilton and those who supported Jeffersonian beliefs.

Political columnist George Will said it best when he wrote, “There is an elegant memorial in Washington to Jefferson, but none to Hamilton. However, if you seek Hamilton’s monument, look around. You are living in it. We honor Jefferson, but live in Hamilton’s country, a mighty industrial nation with a strong central government.”

Maybe now you have a better understanding of why I don’t vote. My loyalty is not to a political party, it is to the Constitution as ratified in 1789 and the first ten amendments to that Constitution which comprise the Bill of Rights. Why should I vote for any candidate the two parties offer up for my choice when once they elected they will NOT support the Constitution; that would be a betrayal of my own principles and beliefs.

You can keep voting for whomever you want, Republican or Democrat, but at least do me a favor, have the integrity to admit that the Constitution doesn’t mean a damned thing to you. If you can’t do that, at least admit that you are a hypocrite who says the Constitution means something to you, but your choices at the voting booth prove otherwise. And this goes equally to those who believe that President Trump is any different in regard to his upholding his oath of office to support and defend the Constitution.

Thank you, and have a pleasant day…

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Let The Truth Speak For Itself

In a 1943 address to Parliament British Prime Minister Winston Churchill made the following comments, “So we must beware of a tyranny of opinion which tries to make only one side of a question the one which may be heard. Everyone is in favour of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage.” While I’m not a huge fan of Churchill, I have to give credit where credit is due; he did get that one right.

In any discussion of politics or history I invariably encounter people who have formed opinions based upon something they have heard, read, or been taught in school. The problem is that once these opinions are formed they become set in concrete and most people are unlikely to change them; even when confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I have never asked anyone to take my word for anything; I have always hoped that if I provide facts which contradict the existing beliefs of those reading my articles that they would take the initiative to research the point in question themselves and find out who was telling the truth. I’ll gladly admit that I am wrong if you can provide source data proving that to be the case. However, if you simply tell me that’s what you heard on the news, or that’s what you read in some textbook, that’s not going to cut it; I’m going to stick to my guns and not back down. And, if the facts I continue to provide you with offend you or hurt your precious feelings; well that’s your problem, not mine.

I am going to provide you with four quotes now, but I’m going to do this a bit differently. Instead of telling you immediately who said them, I’m providing footnotes at the end of my article with the name of those who made them. Hopefully you will read the entire article before seeking out the source for these quotes so as not to bias your opinions as to what the person actually said.

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge. “1

“Five percent of the people think; ten percent of the people think they think; and the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think.”2

“The sin which is unpardonable is knowingly and wilfully to reject truth, to fear knowledge lest that knowledge pander not to thy prejudices.”3

“Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking.”4

There are many periods of American History in which I am ignorant; I won’t deny that, but it is something I am aware of and working to remedy. What separates me from a great many that I have arguments/discussions with is that I’m aware of my own ignorance while they are not; they are convinced they are right and won’t accept any evidence which threatens to disprove their opinions or beliefs.

The period of our nation’s history where this disparity is most evident is found in what people call the American Civil War. If you were to conduct a poll amongst your friends, co-workers, or total strangers for that matter, with the sole question being, “What was the Civil War fought over?” I’d be willing to bet that 9 out of 10 times you’d get a one word answer; slavery.

Unfortunately, 9 out of 10 people would be wrong! That’s because they are basing their answers upon what they were taught in school, which is the North’s version of the history of that period. It is said that the history of any conflict is always written by the victors; and this is certainly the case in regards to what you call the Civil War.

Are you aware that before he became President Woodrow Wilson served as president of Princeton University? During his tenure at Princeton Wilson wrote a 5 volume set of history books entitled A History of the American People. From his books I provide you with the following quote, “It was necessary to put the South at a moral disadvantage by transforming the contest from a war waged against states fighting for their independence into a war waged against states fighting for the maintenance and extension of slavery…and the world, it might be hoped, would see it as a moral war, not a political; and the sympathy of nations would begin to run for the North, not for the South.”

There you have it, the true reason for which that awful war was fought; independence. If slavery were the only reason the South fought a war why would they risk all that bloodshed and destruction to their homes when all they would have had to do to preserve slavery was remain in the Union and ratify a proposed amendment to the Constitution?

Oh, you didn’t know that an amendment had been proposed which would have protected the institution of slavery? I wonder why that is. Could it be because it would have caused you to question the ‘official’ narrative for that war; that it was fought solely over slavery?

This amendment was known as the Corwin Amendment due to its being introduced to the House by Republican Thomas Corwin of Ohio. On a side note the amendment was introduced to the Senate by William Seward, who would go on to serve as Abraham Lincoln’s Secretary of State.

The text of this amendment reads, “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.” Both Houses of Congress passed this amendment and it was on its way to the States for their ratification when the Civil War broke out. So if slavery was all they were fighting for, why wouldn’t they simply ratify the amendment and avoid all the horrors of war?

In fact, in his Inaugural Address Abraham Lincoln made two telling statements. The first of these two statements is in regards to slavery itself, whereupon Lincoln stated, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” Lincoln may not have been too keen on the idea of slavery expanding into newly admitted States, but he made it clear that it was not his intention to interfere with slavery in the South where it already existed as an institution.

The second comment is in regards to the Corwin Amendment, where Lincoln states, “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution–which amendment, however, I have not seen–has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

So not only did Lincoln say it was not his intent to take away the slaves of the Southern States, he also supported the ratification of an amendment to the Constitution which would forever have prohibited Congress from interfering with slavery in the South. So again, if slavery was the only thing the South was fighting for, why didn’t they just ratify this amendment and avoid all the horrors of war?

Now I’m going to provide you with some more quotes, with the same hope that you’ll read the entire article before you attempt to find out who said them or when they were said. You may recognize some of them, and in others the wording may give the authors away; nonetheless I hope that you will take the quotes on face value until you find out who actually said them.

“That these United Colonies are, and of right out to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; that measures should be immediately taken for procuring the assistance of foreign powers, and a Confederation be formed to bind the colonies more closely together.”5

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”6

“WE the Delegates of the People of the State of XXXXX, duly elected and Met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia in the Common-wealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, Do declare and make known. …

That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness…”7

“We the Delegates of the People of XXXXX duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of XXXXX declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.”8

“If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”9

“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, most sacred right- a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to excercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize and make their own, of so much territory as they inhabit.”10

Regardless of who said these things there is a common theme that runs throughout them all; that being that any people at any time have a right to free themselves from situations where they believe that they suffer tyranny, oppression, or injustice at the hands of others.

When our system of government was first put into effect it was done by consent of the States; the government itself had no say in deciding whether or not it would go into effect or what powers it would exercise. The States agreed to accept the government proposed by the Constitution, and at any time they reserved the right to revoke their acceptance of the authority given that government and resume their status as free and independent nations.

That is what the South did in 1861 and it matters not whether their decision was based solely over the North’s continued attempts to interfere with slavery, or if that was only one of many reasons which led them to secede. The crucial point I’m trying to make here is that it was their right to leave the Union and had Lincoln allowed them to leave in peace there would have not been a war.

It may come as a surprise to many of you, but Virginia, although she felt for the suffering of her Southern neighbors, had chosen to remain in the Union…UNTIL Abraham Lincoln called upon her to provide troops to invade those States which had chosen to secede. That, Virginia felt, was an act of war against the South and something Virginia would not abide; so they seceded as well.

At this stage of American History it would have been hard to find anyone who didn’t feel bias towards either the North or the South, so if you want to know the true nature of this war between the North and the South you have to look to the thoughts of those who had no skin in the game, so to speak.

Are you aware that in a November edition of the London Times, the following was published which stated the British view of the conflict between the Northern and Southern States, ” [T]he contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces. These opinions…are the general opinions of the English nation.”

If that truly were the case, then this was not a Civil War, it was a War for Independence just like our Founders had fought less than a century earlier; and Abraham Lincoln and the government of the North played the role of tyrants.

Do you know who Horace Greeley was? Most likely you don’t. Horace Greeley was aside from being a friend to Abraham Lincoln, the editor of the New York-Tribune, an influential newspaper during the period which saw this so-called Civil War break out.

In one editorial published in his paper, Greeley wrote, “If the Cotton States decide that they can do better out of the Union than in it, we insist on letting them go in peace.

The South has as good a right to secede from the Union as the colonies had to secede from Great Britain. I will never stand for coercion for subjugation. It would not be just.

Whenever a considerable section of our Union is resolved to go out of the Union, we shall resist all coercive measures to keep them in. We hope never to live in a Republic when one section is pinned to another by bayonets. Those who would rush on carnage to defeat the separation demanded by the popular vote of the Southern people would clearly place themselves in the wrong.” It is ironic that just days after publishing this, his friend Abraham Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to be raised to invade those States which had chosen to secede.

Greeley would continue to publish editorials questioning the war, and in response to one of them Abraham Lincoln sent him the following letter in response, “I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I “seem to be pursuing” as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

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

Again Lincoln makes it clear that he was not fighting this war to end slavery, rather he was fighting to save the Union. But, is that really why Lincoln chose to invade States which had committed no acts of aggression against either the Northern States or the government itself?

Could it possibly be that with the withdrawal of the Southern States from the Union that the very existence of the government itself was threatened because the revenue stream to the treasury would vanish along with the tariffs that had been imposed upon the South by Congress?

In 1861 the New Orleans Daily Crescent published the following in their paper, “They (the South) know that it is their import trade that draws from the peoples pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interest. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the union.”

Now you may be saying that since that was published in a Southern newspaper then it is sure to be biased. So let’s see what a Northern paper said, say the New York Evening Post. On March 12, 1861 the Post ran the following in their editorial section, “… either the (federal) revenue from duties (protective tariff) must be collected in the ports of the rebel states or the ports be closed to importations from abroad… If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe… Allow railroad iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten percent, which is all that the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be imported at New York; the railways would be supplied from the southern ports. What, then is left for our government? Shall we let the seceding states repeal the revenue laws for the whole Union in this manner? Or will the government choose to consider all foreign commerce destined for these ports where we have no custom-houses and no collectors, as contraband, and stop it? … Or will the president call for a special session of Congress what the last unwisely failed to do—to abolish all ports of entry into the seceding states.”

It would seem that Abraham Lincoln was more concerned with saving the existence of the government than he was in saving the Union and respecting a States right to withdraw from a system of government which had grown oppressive.

It is interesting that many in the North felt that the leadership of the Confederacy were guilty of treason against the U.S., yet not a single one of them was ever tried for treason. Even Jefferson Davis, although he languished in prison for two years after the war, never stood trial for treason. Ever stop to ask yourself why? Well, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase gives us the reason, if you are willing to accept it, “If you bring these [Confederate] leaders to trial it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion. Lincoln wanted Davis to escape, and he was right. His capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one.”

Now you may be thinking that this was all a long time ago, so why is Neal rehashing ancient history? Well it’s because nothing in America has been the same since the North triumphed in destroying the concept of States rights and State sovereignty.

Republican Congressman Thaddeus Stevens stated the following in regards to how he felt about restoring our Union to the way it was prior to the outbreak of this so-called Civil War, “The talk of restoring the Union like it was, and the Constitution as it is, is one of the absurdities which I have heard repeated until I have become sick of it. There are many things which make such an event impossible. This Union never shall, with my consent, be restored under the constitution as it is … The Union as it was and the Constitution as it is–God forbid it. We must conquer the Southern states and hold them as conquered provinces.”

Not only were the Southern States conquered, but when the 14th Amendment was unlawfully ratified every State became a conquered province and the people, upon accepting the title of U.S. Citizens became serfs working on the national plantation.

That is why I continue to harp on the so-called Civil War, it was a major turning point in our nation’s history, and one in which you have not been told the truth about. I want to provide you with one final quote for you to consider without telling you who said it, that quote being, “Everyone should do all in his power to collect and disseminate the truth, in the hope that it may find a place in history and descend to posterity.”11

In 1864 Major General Patrick Cleburne of the Confederate States of America wrote, “Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.”

That is what has happened, and now they are coming after all the images and monuments dedicated to those who took a stand for the same principles as did their forefathers in 1776. The old saying states that the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to remain silent. Well I refuse to remain silent; I will not abide any disrespect shown to those who stood for the same principles and beliefs as did the men who first established America as a free and independent nation. And if you find my comments and statements offensive, it is only because you are too weak minded to examine your own beliefs and compare them against the truth.

May the spirit of the Confederacy take root in your hearts and may liberty once again become more important than whatever is trending on Facebook or who wins next weekend’s football games. That is my fervent hope and prayer…

And as promised…
1. Isaac Asimov
2. Thomas Edison
3. Aleister Crowley
4. Leo Tolstoy
5. Richard Henry Lee, 2nd Continental Congress, (1776)
6. Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson (1776)
7. New York Declaration of Ratification of the Constitution (1788)
8. Virginia Declaration of Ratification of the Constitution (1788)
9. Thomas Jefferson’s Inaugural Address (1801)
10. Abraham Lincoln, War With Mexico Speech (1838)
11. Robert E. Lee

Posted in General | Leave a comment

America Needs More Patrick Henry’s

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that I’m willing to bet that there are very few people who have ever stopped to think how nice life would be if there was no government at all. By the way people go into a near panic every time there is talk of a government shutdown I’d be willing to bet that people would completely freak out if someone suggested we just do away with government entirely.

Why is that?

In 1776 Thomas Paine released his pamphlet Common Sense which brought into open discussion what many had been privately thinking for quite some time; the fact that the Colonies would be better off if they weren’t subject to the arbitrary will of the British Crown. However it is not independence that I wish to bring your attention to, it is the fact that Paine made an interesting comment on government itself, “Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.”

If government, as Paine says, is a necessary evil, then why would any sane person submit themselves to it? In his Second Treatise on Civil Governments, John Locke asks the same question, “If man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and controul of any other power?”

Locke then answers his own question by saying, “The great and chief end, therefore, of men’s uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property. To which in the state of nature there are many things wanting.”

Each of us is sovereign unto himself, but our rights, our property and even our very lives are subject to the hope that all men are good and will respect them. The unfortunate truth is that not all men are good and therefore some governing body must be established to protect the rights, property and lives of all. It’s as Madison said in Federalist 51, “If men were angels no government would be necessary.”

Therefore, men create governments. The thing about authority of that kind is that it can either be assumed by those who seek dominion over others, or it can be granted by those who seek to establish a body to safeguard their rights and their liberty. In either case there is not a law on Earth that says that those governed must forever remain under the authority of tyrants when it is within their right as sovereigns to shake off the yoke of tyranny. Our Founders established that precedent when they declared their independence from England; and it is a principle which remains in effect to this day regardless of whether people choose to exercise it or not.

One of the proclamations of King George III decreed that he had the authority to bind the Colonists in all cases whatsoever. When Thomas Paine wrote his first Crisis Letter to the people of America, he called this authority to slavery, stating, “Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but “to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER” and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth.” (Emphasis added)

Yet is that not the unspoken truth about our government today; that it binds us in almost all cases whatsoever? Does our government not micromanage our lives down to the minutest detail? Does our government not tell us what we can and cannot do or put into our bodies? Does our government not destroy the very liberty and violate the very rights it was instituted to protect?

What law ever written by man even suggests that a people must submit to such abject violations of their most basic rights? Our Founders resisted, even to the point of taking up arms against their government for far less than what we routinely submit to without even a whimper of protest on our parts. It’s a sad truth about people today that they don’t care that their rights are being violated as long as it is their political party that is doing the violating. Have you not noticed that people are more than willing to get up on their soapboxes and cry out against the things the other party does, but then go deathly silent when their party gets into power and commits the same crimes?

Yet when you try to tell people that it isn’t the Democrats or the Republicans who are the problem, that it is a government that no longer respects the limits imposed upon it nor the rights it was established to protect, you get this blank look on people’s faces in response; it’s like you’re trying to explain quantum physics to a cow.

Yet if someone even suggests that people stand up to the unlawful use of authority by our government they are met with astonishment and incredulity; as if they were a madmen. But that is exactly what Jefferson spoke of when he wrote, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…” (Source: Declaration of Independence)

One hundred sixteen years before Jefferson sat down to write those immortal words, the English jurist John Locke wrote his Second Treatise on Civil Governments, wherein we read, “…whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence. Whensoever therefore the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society; and either by ambition, fear, folly or corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society.”

You can choose to put your faith and trust in a system that has failed to serve the purposes for which it was established or you can open your eyes and see that no matter which candidate you elect our government is going to continue to violate your rights and exercise powers it was never intended it exercise.

Then again you can close your eyes and hope that things get better. But as Patrick Henry said about hope, “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.”

But by all means, if liberty means nothing to you, and if it is of no concern that your rights are being violated by both parties, then keep on keeping on; keep on voting for your donkeys and your elephants and enjoy your servitude. But if liberty does mean something to you, if you do cherish your rights above all else, then for God’s sake open your eyes and stop supporting the very entity which enslaves you! If you wish to be free then you’re going to have to take back that freedom from those who have stolen it from you. But as Thomas Paine so aptly stated, “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”

I don’t know whether or not I’ll ever change the minds of enough people to make a difference; and honestly I don’t care anymore. I know what I value, and I know that I’m not going to surrender my liberty without a fight. As Patrick Henry so eloquently said, “I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

Posted in General | Leave a comment

What Happened To You America?

A nation that is ignorant of its past, is a nation that is ripe for deception and manipulation. Therefore, it is not what happened, but rather what people believe happened which determines the present actions of a nation.” (From the DVD Warriors of Honor)

I know I’ve repeated this quote before, but I’m going to keep repeating it until people take it to heart. In 1822 James Madison wrote the following in a letter to W.T. Barry, “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” However, knowledge alone is not enough if it is not put to use. Is it enough to know that fire is hot if you do not utilize that knowledge by not putting your hand into a fire? As von Goethe said, “Knowing is not enough, we must apply.”

Did you know that it is far easier to convince people to surrender their freedom in the face of a supposed threat than it is to take that freedom from them by force? Most people will do almost anything to feel safe; and if you can manufacture a crisis of such epic proportions people will ignore the grossest violation of the law, and their rights, just to feel safe. Just look at how many of our rights we have given up in the name of national security and the fight against global terrorism if you don’t believe me.

Yet this strategy is not something new, it didn’t just come about immediately following 9/11; not it’s been around since before our Constitution was written. The Federalists used the fear that our nation would dissolve to justify their tossing aside the Articles of Confederation and replacing them with the Constitution; and it worked just as well back then as it does today. If you can generate enough fear over something, you can get the people to grant you almost unlimited power if they just promise to make them feel safe again.

What this tells me is that most people care more for comfort and security than they do their liberty; for if they truly cared about their liberty they would not be so willing to give it up just to feel safe. Our Founders certainly didn’t feel that way. In fact one of Thomas Jefferson’s favorite sayings was, “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”

Most people today mistakenly believe that just because our government enacts a law that they must obey it. Oh, they may disagree with the law, but they still tend to obey it for fear of the consequences of disobedience. Do you think our Founders didn’t know that their actions were a violation of the laws enacted by their government? Do you think the Son’s of Liberty believed that there might not be repercussions for their dumping of all that tea into Boston Harbor? Did the patriots at Lexington and Concord hope that their King would have a change of heart and let them keep their guns, or did they pick up those guns and open fire upon those sent by the King to confiscate them?

From time to time I have seen it commented that had our Founders been as ignorant and apathetic about their rights as the people of America are today that there would have been no American Revolution. I tend to agree with that sentiment as most of the people I come into contact with couldn’t tell you which rights each of the first ten amendments to the Constitution protects; but they could probably tell you the name of every starting quarterback in the NFL.

When Patrick Henry stood before the assembly at St. John’s Church in 1775 and declared, “Give me liberty or give me death” do you think he was just making an idle comment, or do you think he had the courage to put his money where his mouth was?

Do you think those 56 men who voted in favor of Richard Henry Lee’s resolution, calling for independence did not realize that they were committing what amounted to treason against their government, that if caught they would most likely hang? I believe it was Ben Franklin who half jokingly uttered after they had voted in support of the Lee Resolution, “We must, indeed, all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”

These men we call our Founding Fathers knew full well the consequences of their actions, but to them the choice was either fight for their liberty or submit to tyranny and servitude. To them the choice was obvious; the preservation of their liberty was of much greater concern than their safety and comfort. Had it not been so for all those who took up arms against their government the brave soldiers under the command of General Washington would not have endured the hardships and threat of death at the hands of the best equipped and trained army in the world.

How are you to defend your rights if you don’t even know what they are? How are to be aware when your government seeks to deprive you of those rights when you are more concerned with what’s on TV or what’s trending on Facebook than you are what laws your government is passing? How do you dare call yourself a patriot when you bow obediently to the unjust exercise of power over you?

What happened to you America; where did your love of liberty go, along with your willingness to defend it against any who would threaten it? Is your concern that the ‘other’ party might enact laws you disagree with of more importance than the fact that BOTH parties are guilty of trampling upon the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

Samuel Adams had a message for the Colonists of his time who preferred the peace of servitude and submission to a tyrant that could very well apply to the overwhelming majority of people in America today, “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

In 1912 Woodrow Wilson made the following statement in a speech given to the New York Press Club, “Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of the government. This history of liberty is a history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it.”

On December 23, 1776 Thomas Paine published the first of his Crisis Letters, stating, “Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but “to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER” and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth.” (Emphasis added)

Is not that the same thing Abraham Lincoln told the South when they sought to free themselves from the oppression of their government? Is that not the same thing our government tells us today, that we must submit to their authority in all cases whatsoever, and to resist it unpatriotic or even treasonous?

And if these statements are not true, then does that not mean that we are slaves. As Lysander Spooner so effectively said, “A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.” If you don’t like being called a slave, then I would suggest you stop acting like one by learning what your rights are and how your government had deprived you of them. Until then, as the old saying goes, “If the shoe fits…”

Posted in General | Leave a comment

When The Truth No Longer Matters

In the beginning there was man; and man enjoyed perfect freedom.
Then man created government; and things have been going to shit ever since.

~Neal Ross~
6 Jan, 2018

The above quote may seem like an oversimplification of things, but I think it pretty accurately describes the state of things in America. In 1788 Thomas Jefferson wrote something that echoes that sentiment, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” (Source: Letter to Edward Carrington)

Jefferson felt that the only way to prevent this natural occurrence was for the general diffusion of knowledge amongst the people. That is why, in 1778 Jefferson came up with a proposal that was unique for the time; a tax funded school system which would provide that knowledge to the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

In the preamble to his Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge, Jefferson states, “Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes.” (emphasis added)

While we do have a tax funded school system in America today, it falls short of providing our children with a proper education. At the core of any education should be a deep abiding respect for the truth; no matter how uncomfortable or unpleasant that truth is.

In the same year Jefferson was proposing his Bill for a More General Diffusion of Knowledge, Noah Webster also was writing concerning the education of the youth of America. In an essay on the subject, Webster writes, “…every child in America should be acquainted with his own country. He should read books that furnish him with ideas that will be useful to him in life and practice. As soon as he opens his lips, he should rehearse the history of his own country; he should lisp the praise of liberty, and of those illustrious heroes and statesmen, who have wrought a revolution in her favor.

A selection of essays, respecting the settlement and geography of America; the history of the late revolution and of the most remarkable characters and events that distinguished it, and a compendium of the principles of the federal and provincial governments, should be the principal school book in the United States. These are interesting objects to every man; they call home the minds of youth and fix them upon the interests of their own country, and they assist in forming attachments to it, as well as in enlarging the understanding.”

Then, two paragraphs later, Webster describes the state of education in America today to a T, “In despotic governments, the people should have little or no education, except what tends to inspire them with a servile fear. Information is fatal to despotism.”

Listen, I’m just as much a product of the public school system or public indoctrination centers as I have taken to calling them. However, for some reason I’ve yet to find an answer for, I began seeking out the truth on my own. I was not satisfied in just accepting that what I had been taught was the truth. I won’t deny it, there were times that I discovered things which rocked my entire belief system; but that didn’t stop me from following the truth to wherever it led me. I think it is a measure of a person’s character how open they are to the truth, and how willing they are to forsake old beliefs when they are proven wrong.

Although there is a growing number of people in this country who have become disillusioned with the two party paradigm, most people still align themselves behind one of the two primary political parties in America; Republicans and Democrats. These people view the opposing party as the enemy and refuse to look beyond their partisan ideologies to see the true nature of the problem; that we have a government that no longer adheres to the limitations the document that created that government imposes upon it.

In 1952 former President Harry S. Truman spoke at the dedication to the new exhibition at the National Archives where our Founding Documents were to be displayed for public viewing. In his speech the former president stated, “We find it hard to believe that liberty could ever be lost in this country. But it can be lost, and it will be, if the time ever comes when these documents are regarded not as the supreme expression of our pro, found belief, but merely as curiosities in glass cases.”

Now answer me this, if those documents are supposed to be the supreme expression of our profound belief why is it that hardly anyone knows or cares about what they say?

An argument can be made that the Constitution is the child of James Madison. It was his intense drive which led to the holding of the convention that produced it. It was upon his Virginia Plan that the final form of government outlined by the document was erected. Although he may not have gotten everything he wanted out of the delegates, and he may have felt some of the modifications and alterations made the government it established much weaker than he would have liked; it was still his baby, and as any loving father of a flesh and blood child, he would have opposed any measure that violated it.

Are you aware that while serving as a member of the House of Representatives, then later as President, that Madison opposed proposed pieces of legislation that we now routinely accept as being among the powers our government is authorized to exercise on our behalf?

In 1792 a bill was introduced which would have provided bounties, or subsidies as we call them today, to benefit the Cod Fisheries along the New England Coastline. Madison argued against the passage of this bill, saying, “It is supposed by some gentlemen, that Congress have authority not only to grant bounties in the sense here used, merely as a commutation for drawbacks, but even to grant them under a power by virtue of which they may do anything which they may think conducive to the “general welfare.” This, sir, in my mind, raises the important and fundamental question, whether the general terms which had been cited, are to be considered as a sort of caption or general description of the specified powers, and as having no further meaning, and giving no further power, than what is found in that specification, or as an abstract and indefinite delegation of power extending to all cases whatever; to all such at least, as will admit the application of money, which is giving as much latitude as any government could well desire.

I, sir, have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the constitution conceived; it is still more fully known, and more material to observe, those who ratified the constitution conceived, that this is not an indefinite government deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers—but, a limited government tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms…. In short, sir, without going further into the subject, which I should not have here touched on at all, but for the reasons already mentioned, I venture to declare it as my opinion, that were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundation, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America: and what inferences might be drawn or what consequences ensue from such a step, it is incumbent on us all well to consider.’

Then, in 1794 another bill was proposed, this time providing relief funds to French refugees fleeing Haiti during the Haitian Revolution. Again, Madison protested against passage of this bill, saying, “…that he could not undertake to lay his finger on that article in the Federal Constitution which granted a right of Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

Then, while serving as President, Madison vetoed a public works bill which had been passed by Congress, sending it back to them with the following message, “Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled “An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements,” and which sets apart and pledges funds “for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense,” I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated….”The power to regulate commerce among the several States” can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce without a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.

To refer the power in question to the clause “to provide for common defense and general welfare” would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper.”

Our Founders may have had their flaws; even Thomas Jefferson, whom I admire most among our Founding Fathers, acquiesced to the government’s acceptance of the State debts so that the seat of our government could be moved closer to his home State of Virginia. These were not perfect men, as no man is perfect. Yet there is one thing that most of them held dear to their hearts; the preservation of the liberty of the people for whom this government was established to serve.

I would be willing to bet one month’s pay that if you were to stand outside a polling place and ask each of the people why they are voting for whomever it is they intend to vote for, that the restoration of a constitutionally limited government and the returning of the liberty we have lost would not be among the reasons given.

Yet that most ardent supporter of liberty, Patrick Henry, once proclaimed, “Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings-give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else…” Liberty, we have a statue dedicated to it in New York Harbor, we sing songs of its praise on national holidays, and we pledge our support to it when we recite the Pledge of Allegiance, but does anyone really care about it anymore; aside from the few radical nutcases you all choose to ignore?

When those 56 men voted to support the proposed Declaration of Independence, they knew that they were putting their very lives on the line for an ideal; that America could become a land where liberty existed by law; and that governments are there to both serve the people and secure that liberty for them. They would be both saddened and amazed that we have allowed the government they established to become far worse than the one they fought to free themselves from; all without nary a whimper of protest from the vast majority of the people.

In closing I’d like to leave you with something my friend Danielle Mottale posted on Facebook the other day:

“Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them”~ Frederick Douglas

Well, we already know what the American people quietly submit to. Just about anything and everything.

Besides becoming a complete embarrassment as a people, once founded on tenets of liberty, what I find even more grotesque is the participation of the people in enforcing injustice and wrong doing on their fellow man. So much so, that upon close, or not so close observation, one can see the transformation into a Stasi-like police state where the slaves themselves do the bidding of their masters, and do so with zeal and fervor.

Ponder that throughout the remainder of your day…

Posted in General | Leave a comment

A Beginners Guide to the Constitution

About a week ago my friend Michael Gaddy posed a rhetorical question on Facebook to those on his friends list, “If forced to choose between political party loyalty and the Constitution, which would you choose?” He then followed his question with, “HINT: You do it every election.” By the choices people make when they go to vote, and by the things I hear many of them say, I can only come to one of two conclusions; either people don’t know what the Constitution says, or they don’t care what it says.

I would hope that we could at least all agree that the Constitution is the document that established our government; although that is probably the extent of how much else we can agree upon. I find it absolutely incredible that people can honestly believe they are making informed choices at the voting booth when they don’t know the first thing about the specific details found within the Constitution itself. To me, that’s like choosing players for a football team, then letting them play without any of them adhering to the rule book…and not caring about it!

If government could be likened to a football game, then the two opposing teams would then be the Republicans and the Democrats, and we would be the referees. If the referees on the gridiron do not know the rules, how can they be expected to penalize the players for violating them? The same goes for our government, if we do not know how it was supposed to function, the specific powers given it, and even more specifically, the specific powers given each branch, then how are we supposed to know when it is violating the rules?

I suppose any discussion of the Constitution should first begin with a short talk regarding what a constitution actually is. A constitution is a written agreement between a body of men that outlines a form of government. It dictates the shape it shall take, the various functions each branch shall take, as well as any limitations imposed upon them. It may also describe the relationship, or the spheres of power held by those who will form this system of government and those retained by the actual creators of the form of government it is creating. Finally, as is the case with our Constitution, it may also provide a means of rectifying, or correcting any faults found within the document itself; i.e. a process by which it can be amended.

Now that I’ve taken care of explaining what a constitution is, let discuss a few critical facts. The first is that a constitution is similar to a contract in that it is merely words on a piece of paper until the contracting parties agree to it. In a legal contract this is done by the parties signing the contract, and in the case of our constitution it was done by the States holding ratifying assemblies where they discussed, or argued if you will, the merits and the faults of the constitution, and then deciding whether to accept it, or reject it. Prior to the States ratifying the constitution it was merely a proposal with no force behind it; the force came into being when the parties who hold the true political power agreed to accept the terms found within the constitution and submit to the government it established. I will talk more about submission in a few minutes, for the time being it is enough to know that this submission was not to unlimited power, only that which was specifically granted.

The next point, although not discussing the constitution itself, is of just as much importance as what the document actually says; that being that it was written on behalf of the sovereign and independent States that formed the Confederacy. First of all you have to remember that the United States already had a system of government when the constitution was being written. The existing system of government also had its own constitution; The Articles of Confederation.

I don’t want to spend too much time discussing the Articles of Confederation, so let me just provide you with two quotes taken from that document. The first is found in Article II, where it states, “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.”

The next is found in Article V, where it states, “For the most convenient management of the general interests of the United States, delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the legislatures of each State shall direct, to meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in every year, with a power reserved to each State to recall its delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to send others in their stead for the remainder of the year.” (emphasis added)

Now if you’ll put on your thinking caps for a moment, let’s begin by discussing what Article II says. It first explains something a great many people today don’t seem to realize, that the States were sovereign and independent entities; much like any nation in Europe, South America or Africa are sovereign and independent. This is important, so keep it in the back of your heads.

Next it goes on to say that the States retained every power which was not expressly granted by the Articles of Confederation to the Congress. By inserting the word expressly into Article II they left no room for interpretation, or construction as our Founders would have called it. If the Articles of Confederation did not specifically say that Congress could do something, then it could not do it. Some would argue that this was a blessing, while others might argue that it was a curse. It both restrained the Congress from overstepping its authority, but it also hindered them in the performance of the specific tasks they were established to perform.

Finally, and this takes a bit of discernment on your part, there is subtle distinction made between the sovereign States and the United States itself. This subtle hint is made apparent if you’ll read the final words of Article II, “… which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” The United States was the title given the Confederation, but it only existed as an entity through the body of Congress; it was not a national identity, and it was not the citizenship status that people claimed.

Now let’s take a moment to discuss Article V. Article V discusses the means by which the members of Congress shall be chosen. If you’ll notice they were not elected by the people, they were chosen by the State Legislatures. This was done because the members of Congress did not directly represent the people, they represented the States. The people already had a government that represented them; their State Legislatures. The government established by the Articles of Confederation was to act as the representatives of the States, not the people. This is one of the features of a Confederation; the central government has the delegated authority to enact laws that affected not the people, but the States as sovereign entities.

Under the Articles of Confederation the United States had a purely federal form of government. The question then arises, what form of government did the Constitution establish; a federal or a national one?

This is the question that many of those who opposed the ratification of the Constitution had on their minds. Take for instance Patrick Henry’s speech of June 5, 1788 where he said, “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.”

In a confederation, or federal form of government, the States retain not only their powers, but their identity as sovereign entities. However, in a national form of government the independent entities, or States in this case, are consolidated into a single entity; the United States. This fact is given little discussion in modern politics today; as the terms national and federal are used interchangeably to describe our system of government; but in 1787 the two words described radically different things.

Now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s begin discussing the Constitution itself. However, as this is just a basic discussion of the document. If you want to thoroughly understand it’s intricacies you are going to have to take the time to study it with the same degree of attention that I have.

The purpose for which governments are established is so that laws may be passed which benefit those the government represents. After all, why would they go about creating a system of government if it had no authority to enact laws? Therefore it makes sense that the branch of government bestowed with the lawmaking, or legislative authority, be the first branch which was outlined in the Constitution.

If you ignore the Preamble, the very first words of the Constitution state, “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.” It does not say some legislative authority, but ALL LEGISLATIVE authority shall be vested, (meaning that they belong to or are given to), the Congress. These powers do not belong to the President, nor do they belong to the Supreme Court, they are the sole jurisdiction of Congress. So why people vote for presidential candidates based upon their campaign promises is beyond me; as the President has no authority to fulfill those promises.

Unlike the Congress established by the Articles of Confederation, the Congress established by the Constitution is bicameral; that is it consists of two bodies; the Senate and the House of Representatives. On the one hand this conforms to a federal form of government; as the Senate represented the States. But on the other hand it conforms to a national form of government as the House directly represents the people.

The balance between the two forms of government is in the fact that no bill can become law until both Houses of Congress have agreed to it. This ensured that the representatives of the people could not enact laws which threatened the rights and sovereignty of the States, and vice versa. However, that balance was forever obliterated with the ratification of the 17th Amendment; making the election of Senators accomplished by a popular vote of the people. The States were henceforth and forever shut out of deciding what laws the central government enacts. That is of course unless the 17th Amendment is repealed; but with the Constitutional limitations upon government being of little concern, and only partisan loyalty being the determining factor in who gets elected, I don’t think even that would make much difference.

Article 1 then goes on to describe how the members of Congress shall be chosen, the qualifications they must hold, how they will manage their affairs, and the distribution of representation, among other things. Then we get to the meat and potatoes of Article 1…Section 8 wherein the specific powers to enact laws upon are described.

I’ll bet most people are not aware that the Constitution only grants Congress the authority to enact laws which touch upon 16 specific areas. Section 8 of Article 1 begins by giving Congress the power to lay and collect taxes; which was one of the deficiencies it had under the Articles of Confederation. However, the power to lay and collect taxes is not a specific area where the jurisdiction of Congress extends; at least not directly. The power to lay and collect taxes is the means by which our government can fund its operations; but that funding MUST be in accordance to the specific powers which follow.

In 1791, when Thomas Jefferson argued against the constitutionality of a national bank, he explained the power of taxation thusly, “To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, ‘to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.’ For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union.”

Next up are the specific areas which Congress has the authority to legislate upon. Among those powers is the power to coin money and regulate its value, to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and to declare war. If you have the time, I suggest you find a copy of the Constitution and peruse Article 1, Section 8 to read the entire list of powers given Congress. You might be surprised to see that 99.9% of what our government currently does is not found to be authorized by the specific powers given it; and I’ll get to how that came about in a few minutes.

The final clause of Article 1, Section 8 is the tool by which many of the violations of the Constitution have been perpetrated; the Necessary and Proper Clause. I don’t know if you’ve ever taken the time to read all of the amendments which have been made to the Constitution, but beginning with the 13th Amendment many of them end with, “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” This is similar to the Necessary and Proper Clause in that it gives government the leeway to perform the specific tasks it is authorized to enact.

One of the arguments during the convention which produced the Constitution was over whether or not to include the word expressly in regards to the powers given Congress. Many felt that the inclusion of the word expressly was one of the faults of the Articles of Confederation; as if a power was not expressly granted to Congress then they could not perform that task. So, if Congress enacted a tax; which was within their authority, they could not compel the States to pay; because that was not expressly granted. On the other hand, many of those who opposed the ratification of the Constitution felt that by including a Necessary and Proper Clause it opened the doorway, or created a loophole by which all manner of mischief might be committed.

To put it simply, the Necessary and Proper Clause was included so that Congress, or the Executive, would have the ability to enforce the laws that our government passed. But these laws had to be in pursuance of the specific powers granted it. But I’m getting ahead of myself; as that is found in Article 6.

If a person gives another under his control the specific order to build him a couch, but does not give them the ability to purchase wood, nails, or fabric, what good is the order to build a couch? It is therefore implied that the order to build a couch is connected to the authority to purchase the required materials to perform that task. That is the sole purpose of the Necessary and Proper Clause; it is not a blank check, so to speak, giving Congress unlimited authority to enact whatever laws they deem necessary and proper any more than the General Welfare Clause is a blank check to do whatever is in the best interests of the country regardless of the limitations imposed upon government.

This was affirmed by James Madison when he argued against the passage of a bill which would have granted bounties, or subsidies, to Cod Fisheries during the second Congress in 1792, “If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress… Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.” (emphasis added)

The next Article of the Constitution established, for the first time, an executive branch; a person whose job is to act as the representative of the United States when dealing with other foreign nations, and to ensure that the laws passed by our government are faithfully executed. If Congress is the legislative body, then the office of president is the executing body; hence the title Executive. It is not within his power to sidestep the legislative authority of Congress with Executive Orders or Presidential signing statements; it is his job to either approve of the laws that Congress sends to him, or veto them with his reasons why. But once a law goes into effect, it is his sworn duty to ensure that it is upheld.

This is what the Founders described as a separation of powers; the Congress has certain powers that it is authorized to exercise, and the president has others. For our system to operate as designed it is crucial that no branch overstep their authority and exercise the powers given another.

A perfect example of how this separation of powers has not been maintained is in how our presidents have sent our military off to fight when there has been no formal declaration of war by Congress. Not since World War II has Congress issued such a declaration; yet how many wars, or conflicts has the U.S been involved in since then? Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, the first and second Gulf Wars all have been undertaken without a formal declaration of war by Congress.

The more I learn about George Washington, the more my respect for him diminishes. For one thing he listened to closely to that snake in the grass Alexander Hamilton. Yet for all that he still said some things which are worthy of note. One of those comes from a letter he wrote to William Moultrie on August 28, 1793, “The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.” Yet that has not stopped presidents from sending our servicemen and women off to die in unconstitutional wars.

Since 1973 most of the wars our presidents have involved us in have been due to the Congress passing the War Powers Act of 1973 which gave the president the authority to commit U.S. forces to conflict without first obtaining a formal declaration of war.

That was clearly unconstitutional on the part of Congress; not to mention that it violates the legal concept of delegatus non potest delegare, which means “one to whom power is delegated cannot himself further delegate that power.” If Congress obtains its power by the delegated authority given it by the Constitution, it cannot legally hand that power over to another branch of the government without first proposing an amendment to the Constitution and having it ratified by the States.

It was believed that these separations of power be maintained if our government was to serve the purposes for which it was established. James Madison said as much in his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, “The preservation of a free government requires, not merely that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained, but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of the people.”

The president may enter into treaties with other nations, with the advice and consent of the Senate, but he cannot enter into any treaty which requires that the people of this country surrender any of their rights, or that the States surrender any of their sovereignty. Every treaty the President negotiates must be in accordance with the Constitution. Therefore, if the Constitution does not authorize the central government to commit U.S. military to the defense of other nations; such as it has to Taiwan then the President cannot lawfully enter into that treaty without violating his oath of office to support and defend the Constitution.

Then there is the fact that we have had presidents since 1983, when President Reagan signed into law the Simpson/Mazzoli Act who have refused to enforce the immigration laws it established. Not that I’m supporting Trump, but now that he is in office and is attempting to enforce some of the statutes, he is encountering resistance and opposition; particularly from the judiciary; which is the next area of discussion.

To sum up so far, our Congress makes the laws, and it is the job of the president to ensure that they are faithfully executed. The president cannot pick and choose which laws he chooses to enforce. If a president feels a law is unconstitutional he can recommend to Congress that it be repealed, but as long as that law remains in effect it is his job to enforce it.

Article 3 of the Constitution establishes the Judicial Branch of our government. The purpose of the Judicial Branch is to apply the Constitution in all questions between parties where the Supreme Court has jurisdiction. However that distinction has been forgotten since John Marshall issued his ruling in the case of Marbury v Madison; forever establishing the principle of judicial review; or as I like to call it, legislating from the bench.

Judicial review is the principle where a court not only applies the law, it decides what the law means and determines for itself whether or not a law is constitutional. Judicial review can best be explained by something Justice Charles Evans Hughes said, “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.”

Of all the branches of government, the Judiciary is the one Thomas Jefferson feared the most. In an 1820 letter to Thomas Ritchie, Jefferson said this about them, “The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone.”

People take the rulings of the Supreme Court to be as set in stone as the Ten Commandments, but they are, especially of late, simply the attempts by the Court to justify the expansion of governmental power and authority beyond the specific powers granted it by the Constitution. If the federal government cannot enact a law upon a specific issue, how can the Supreme Court, which is part of the federal government, rule upon a case that involves that same issue?

Take Roe v Wade and the question of whether or not a woman might obtain an abortion. The authority to enact laws on this particular issue is not given Congress; therefore how could the SCOTUS rule that it was a woman’s right without overstepping the boundary which separated State authority from federal authority? Not to mention that, but then there is the fear that a right leaning SCOTUS might overturn Roe v. Wade. How could that even be possible if the SCOTUS was strictly adhering to the Constitution, instead of interpreting it according to the political ideologies of the individual Justices?

I won’t go too deeply into Article 4 of the Constitution other than to say that it primarily deals with how the States treat each other and the process by which new States shall be admitted to the Union.

Article 5, on the other hand, is one which provides the people with the means to expand, or place further limitations upon, the powers held by our government. It is through the process outlined in Article 5 that our Bill of Rights came into existence, and it is the only lawful way by which the powers of our government can be expanded beyond those specifically listed in Article 1, Section 8.

In his Farewell Address to the people, President George Washington spoke of the process of amending the Constitution when he said, “If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

Article 6 of the Constitution is commonly known as the article which places the federal government above all others; making it supreme. That is only true when the laws it enacts are in pursuance of the specific powers granted it by the Constitution. The text of Article 6, Clause 2 states, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby…” (emphasis added)

Only those laws that are passed in pursuance of the specified powers are to be considered the supreme law of the land. What does that mean for all those laws that are not in pursuance of the specified powers? Well, to put it simply the States, if they cared one whit about their sovereignty would simply ignore them; considering them to be null and void from the get go and therefore non-binding upon them.

That leads us directly into Article 6, Clause 3, where it states, “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…”

This was one of the reasons why it was so imperative that the States retain their sovereign identities and not bind themselves to the federal government by becoming pawns of the same political party’s which control government at the federal level. If the members of the federal government chose to ignore their oaths of office to support and defend the Constitution there was always the States to act as a final check upon usurpation and tyranny by simply nullifying these laws by non-compliance.

But that has not happened either. It seems that very few of the provisions found within the Constitution are currently being upheld.

Finally, Article 7 is, for all intents and purpose, of no relevance, as it only outlines the means by which the Constitution should be ratified. It has already been ratified; therefore Article 7 does not come into play in post-ratification America.

Well, there you have it, a very basic outline of what the Constitution says. Had I gone into any greater detail this would have been hundreds of pages long.

Yet there is one final point I want to make. In 1866, immediately following the end of the Civil War, the Supreme Court heard the case of Ex parte Milligan. When they handed down their decision, the Court held the following, “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of men than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.” (emphasis added)

Although you have not taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution, such as your elected representatives and those serving in the military have, know that you are also bound by the limits the Constitution imposes upon our government. If you choose to vote for candidates whose campaign promises are blatantly in violation of what the Constitution authorizes government to do, then you are as equally to blame as those who actually enact the laws. It is your DUTY to choose only those candidates who will limit their actions to the specific powers granted government, and refraining from overstepping the boundaries which separate their powers from those of the other branches.

I hope that this has given you some insight to what was intended when the States agreed to adopt the system of government the Constitution outlines; and how it has morphed into something entirely different. You can choose to continue supporting it by voting for whomever you believe has the best vision for America’s future; but know this, you are not voting for a government that has any resemblance to the one originally established in 1789.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

A Third Party Narrative

The year was 1975 and a young Neal Ross was beginning his senior year in high school. All that was on his mind was parties, rock n roll, and getting out of high school. However, before he could do that he had to pass a year long course in Civics; what they now call Social Studies. Young Neal didn’t see the need in studying the Constitution and it certainly didn’t help matters that the presentation of the person teaching the class was about as dry as the Arizona desert. Neal squeaked by with a C and got to walk across the stage free of the harassment and hassles of high school, thinking he had a pretty basic understanding of how our system of government was supposed to work; not that it mattered much to him at the time.

When Neal turned 18 his parents took him to the County Clerk’s office so he could register to vote; and he registered as a Republican because that’s what his parents were registered as. For the next 24 years Neal lived his live pretty much like any other Babyboomer; going from job to job and eventually enlisting in the Air Force.

Then something happened; something to this day Neal has no explanation for; he became politically aware. Don’t get me wrong, Neal didn’t just suddenly gain all this knowledge that he has now, but he did awaken to the fact that there were things going on in government that he did not agree with; so he began writing letters to his representatives concerning the issues that were important to him; primarily illegal immigration and the steady encroachment upon his right to keep and bear arms.

Somewhere along the way Neal decided that if he was going to be writing these letters he better make sure he knew what the hell he was talking about; so he began studying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Neal also began collecting quotes that he had found by those who had actively participated in freeing the Colonies from the tyranny of King George and establishing this system of government we live under. What he found was that what those men had said and what we have today were completely different.

So Neal dug deeper; he read the Federalist Papers; Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, John Locke’s Second Treatise, Thomas Paine’s The Rights of Man, and a whole host of other documents from our founding era. Neal suddenly realized that the government we have today is far worse than the one our Founders fought to free themselves from; so he began trying to ascertain how it got that way.

At first Neal simply felt that if we could just find a few truly Constitutional candidates, and vote them into office, then all this country’s problems would disappear. To put it mildly, at this point in his education Neal was still delusional. Eventually Neal came to his senses and realized that our government is beyond salvage as it exists now; it is too big, too far reaching, and that the government no longer represents those it was established to represent; primarily the people and the States. Instead it is an entity which represents those special interests that sit behind the scenes and wield their influence in secret; a shadow government if you will.

But still, Neal wanted to know how we got from a Constitutional Republic to this tyrannical monstrosity we have today. So he began studying, not without a great deal of help and guidance I might add, how our system of government turned sour on us.

What Neal came to realize is that this was not some sudden occurrence as he had thought; it did not happen suddenly in 1913 when they implemented the income tax and established the FED as he had thought; nor did it happen suddenly when the Confederacy lost the Civil War and the power of government to squash any States attempts to resist its authority were killed forever.

No, what Neal discovered is that this cancer that has been slowly eating away at our system of government was in evidence, not only during the administration of George Washington, but it was also evident in the convention which produced the Constitution itself. It took him a week to do it, but Neal waded through James Madison’s notes on the Constitutional Convention. Boy, what an eye opener that was; to read the different proposals and arguments made by the candidates to that convention.

But that wasn’t enough. At the suggestion of a friend Neal began studying the actual ratification of the Constitution; not the Federalist and anti Federalist Papers per se, but the arguments given during the actual ratification assemblies. What Neal slowly began to realize is that if you want to truly understand how our system of government was supposed to work you have to understand how it was sold to the various State Ratification Assemblies, not how the government itself or the voters believe it was supposed to work.

What Neal discovered is not only that many of those who supported the Constitution said one thing, then did another once it went into effect, but the Constitution itself was written against the specific authority granted the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention. Neal also discovered that there were those who refused to participate in this fraud and left the convention to begin formulating their protests against whatever document that convention would eventually produce.

Neal also found that the ratification of the document was, at times, perpetrated by fraud and coercion; with delegates from Pennsylvania being forcefully removed from their hotel rooms to obtain a sufficient number of delegates to hold a vote. In the New York Ratifying Assembly Alexander Hamilton was proven to have said one thing during the Philadelphia Convention, and then said something entirely different in his support for the system being proposed. Which version of Hamilton’s narrative are we to believe; that the Constitution would protect the sovereignty of the States as he proclaimed in Poughkeepsie, or that it would obliterate State sovereignty as he proposed in Philadelphia?

Of interest to note is that during the New York debates over the Constitution, the esteemed Robert Lansing said that “New York would never have concurred to sending delegates to the Convention, if she had supposed the deliberations were to turn on a consolidation of the states, and a national government.”

Neal, up until he became informed, had been just like everyone else; interchanging the words national and federal in relationship to the government established by the Constitution. What Neal came to realize is that there is a vast difference between the two; and it was promised by those supporting the Constitution that it did not create a national form of government.

With some help from others, Neal began understanding the distinction between a national form of government and a federal form of government. In a national form of government all power is held by the central government, with the States being mere appendages to it. In a federal form the States retain their sovereignty and independence, as well as all powers not specifically granted the central government.

Neal read Patrick Henry’s speech of June 5, 1788 where it says, ” 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. … Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: And cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case? ”

Neal could no longer hide from the truth; he had to face the facts that the government which he lived under had become the monster that the anti-Federalists had warned it would become; and that to support it in any manner was to forge the chains which held him in bondage to it.

Neal did not come to this conclusion overnight; it took nearly two decades of intensive study and thought before he realized that his government was beyond salvage; that it was far worse than the one our Founders declared they would free themselves from in 1776.

Although Neal has lost friends and gotten into many heated discussions with others over his views, he does not feel sorrow nor does he feel regret. He realizes that his views are based, not upon emotion as are the views of most others, but upon a careful analysis of the facts. If Neal has any regret it would be that he has been unsuccessful in getting others to undertake the same journey towards knowledge that he has; that people choose ignorance over knowledge; slavery over freedom.

Neal will continue to write, as that’s what he’s here to do. I think Neal would still write even if not one soul read what he wrote; because Neal believes that’s why God put him on this Earth, to spread the truth to the best of his abilities.

But if there is one thing Neal has learned, it can best be summed up by the words of John Adams to his wife Abigail, “I read my eyes out and can’t read half enough….The more one reads the more one sees we have to read.”

So Neal will continue to share what he learns. I suppose the only question is, is he wasting his time, or are you going to pull your heads out of the sand and start paying attention to what he’s saying?

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Stop Fooling Yourself (Neither the Democrats Nor The Republicans Are The Answer)

Did you know that presidential campaign slogans date back to before the Civil War? That’s right, the first presidential campaign slogan was used by William Henry Harrison in 1840, “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too” which referred to Harrison’s victory at the Battle of Tippecanoe against the Shawnee Indians; while Tyler referred to his running mate John Tyler.

In 1986 folk/rock singer Jackson Browne produced an album entitled Lives in the Balance. In the title track from that album Browne sings, “They sell us the President the same way they sell us our clothes and our cars.” If you want my honest opinion, there is a lot of truth to that statement. Whether or not they are attempting to convince you to purchase a Ford or a Chevy, or vote for a Democrat or a Republican there are huge marketing forces behind the scenes trying to convince you to choose their product.

Is you ask me, the election of a new president every four years is just a huge media driven circus designed to give us the illusion that our votes actually make a difference. Haven’t you found it the slightest bit odd that during a presidential election cycle all manner of issues are being debated, except one; whether or not the candidate running for office intends to uphold the oath of office they will take which requires them to support and defend the Constitution? That last time I heard talk like that was when Ron Paul ran for president; and the so-called conservative Republicans, the media, and the voters shunned him.

I think we all can agree that the Constitution created our government; so why is it so hard for people to accept that the government we have today bears very little resemblance to the one the Constitution outlines? Why is it that people simply refuse to see that we, as Americans living in 2018, have less freedom and liberty than our Founders did when they revolted against their government in 1776?

People expect whoever they elect as president to fix all of this country’s problems in four toe eight years without ever stopping to wonder how long these problems have been in the making; and what are the root causes of them.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence he 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...” (emphasis added)

If you’ll note, there are three specific rights Jefferson mentions; Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. If you’ll also note, Jefferson did not say the guarantee of happiness, only that we be free to pursue it. I think people today have forgotten that it is not the function of government, be it local, state, or federal, to guarantee that we’re all happy; only that we be unrestrained in our pursuit of that happiness.

Another thing Jefferson said is that “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” If you’ll note he did not specify that a federal government was established to secure these rights; rather he used the plural of government, meaning that ALL governments are established for that purpose.

Therefore, when our Founders sat down and wrote our Constitution, one must ask themselves, did they do so in pursuance of that goal; the securing of our right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, or did they seek to establish an entity that would squash those rights?

People today take the Constitution for granted; in fact there are those to whom the specifics contained within it mean nothing. Yet without it we would not have the government we do today. Honestly, has it never crossed your mind that the reason this country has so many problems is due to the fact that we ignore what the Constitution says are the powers are government shall exercise on our behalf; and more importantly, that the separation of powers between the federal government and the State governments have all but been erased.

I’m not saying our Constitution is perfect, it isn’t. Even Ben Franklin said as much in his final speech to the convention which produced it. Yet they did establish a means for correcting any faults found within it through the amendment process outlined in Article 5.

The more I read about the period surrounding the establishment of our government, the more I realize that the problems we face now can be traced back to the very beginning when our government first came into existence. George Washington is viewed as the Father of our country, yet just as Eve fell for the guiles of a serpent and ate from the Tree of Knowledge, Washington had a serpent whispering into his ear who led him to make some very unwise decisions; that serpent being Alexander Hamilton.

Ironically, even though Washington enacted laws which based upon the principle of implied powers, (a tactic that is still in use today), he then said the following in his Farewell Address, “If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

Like it or not, our Constitution is a law, and all those who do not obey what it says are criminals; including those who vote for candidates who campaign on issues which are not among the specific powers granted government by that document.

When I first began this journey to learn more about our Constitution I mistakenly believed that if I undertook a thorough study of the Federalist Papers that I would have a good basis upon which to build my understanding of the document they discuss. Boy was I wrong! To put it simply, the Federalist Papers were a marketing campaign run by three men; Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, to sell the Constitution to the people of New York.

If you look at what Hamilton says in the Federalist essays that he wrote, and then compare them to what he said and did while serving as Secretary of the Treasury under George Washington, then you’d see that Hamilton spoke out of both sides of his mouth. In his Federalist essays he states the government outlined by the Constitution was one of limited power which would not harm the liberty of the people or the sovereignty of the States, but then while serving as Secretary of the Treasury he did a 180 and sought to do just what he said the Constitution would not do.

Typical political double speak; another tactic that is common in most politicians these days; saying whatever is expedient at the time to get the people to support whatever it is they want to do. Rarely does the issue of whether what they want to do is constitutional is ever raised.

It has taken me a great deal of time to come to the realization that if one wants to learn what the Constitution means, they are not going to glean that knowledge simply by reading the document itself; nor will they obtain it by studying the Federalist Papers. If a person truly wants to learn what that document means they will have to dig into what it meant to those who ratified it thought it meant.

The various State ratifying assemblies were told one thing, then almost as soon as the document was ratified and the government went into operation it became the very thing they were warned it would not become. Numerous times under the administration of George Washington were measures undertaken, that had the ratifying assemblies know that was going to happen, they would never have agreed to accept the document; choosing instead to remain under the Articles of Confederation. Yet we today shrug our shoulders and ignore violations of the Constitution far worse than those committed by the Washington administration.

Yet as I said, these usurpations of power, or changes in beliefs did not occur overnight; nor will they vanish overnight. Entire generations have been taught that our government can do the things it does; while the Constitution clearly states that not to be the case. The road to recovery is not through more programs and laws by our federal government it is by a reduction of those laws already in existence and a return to the balance of power between the States and the federal government.

How many of you have ever watched an episode of the TV show House; featuring Hugh Laurie as the vicoden popping medical genius? I’ve seen a few of them, and in almost every episode House always gets the patient with the rare illness. He tries one course of treatment; which often makes matters worse, then tries another, only to bring on other unwanted side effects; until he stumbles upon that one piece of missing information which leads to the cure.

That’s the way I see this country, stumbling from one course of treatment for our problems to another, [i.e. Republican vision versus Democrat vision], only in this case we never stumble across that one crucial piece of information which leads us to a cure for all our problems.

That is the cure for that nobody has found yet, and until they do, not a bloody thing is really going to change. Sure, your taxes may go up or down depending upon whether the Republicans or Democrats are in charge, and you may get more benefits from Uncle Sam depending upon which party is running things; but the slide towards tyranny will continue until people learn the true nature of the problem; a government that has assumed powers it was never intended it possess.

If people understood how our system of government was supposed to function they would care more about choosing the most virtuous person to represent them in their State Legislature than they would for who becomes President. If people understood how our system of government was designed to function they would demand that the 17th Amendment be repealed and the States given their voices back in what laws our federal government enacts.

I’m not saying that if these two things were to happen, all of our troubles would suddenly vanish, it’s not that simple; but it would certainly be a good start. I can tell you this, if we don’t change our current way of thinking, our problems are only going to get much worse. If we don’t free ourselves from this two party paradigm, this division over issues that our federal government isn’t even supposed to touch with a ten foot pole, then we are doomed as a country which experiences any freedom at all.

But none of this can happen as long as the majority of the people in this country choose to remain willfully ignorant about how their system of government was designed to function, and what purposes it was established to serve. The answer to our problems can only be found when the people have become knowledgeable of how our government has strayed from its founding principles.

In 1821 Thomas Jefferson gave us a warning of what would happen if we did not adhere to the principles upon which our system of government was established. In a letter to Spencer Roane, Jefferson states, “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 the day be kept off as long as possible.”

Well, that gangrene has set in, and it is the refusal of most people to give the Constitution any weight in deciding which candidate people will vote for, or what laws they will support the passage of.

If the people of this country truly understood how our system was designed to work, they would be writing letters and calling their State representatives, demanding that they tell the federal government that it has no jurisdiction interfering in the internal affairs of their State, or passing laws which directly affect the lives and liberty of the people who reside within them.

But that will never happen because the same cancerous two party paradigm which divides our federal government also exist at the State level, and until we free ourselves from its grasp we will never find the cure to all our problems; a firm adherence to what the Constitution says, a return to the existence of sovereign States with their own sphere of authority, and an abundance of liberty for all.

The way to make America great again is not going to be found in the ideologies of the Republican or the Democratic parties, it will be found in a restoration of the values and beliefs held by the men who originally established our system of government; and their understanding of how it was supposed to function. Everything else is just more of the same and the continued slide towards the complete and utter loss of the liberty our government was established to secure.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Something A Bit Different for January 1, 2018

I thought I’d begin 2018 with something a little bit different. As you all know I like to write; sometimes I succeed in writing something that catches people’s attention, while other times the things I write go virtually unnoticed. Whichever occurs, I am often told that I’m pretty darned smart. I’m no smarter than anyone else; in fact I feel that I’m quite the ignoramus compared to a few people I know.

I despise Alexander Hamilton; more than people could ever realize. I truly believe that had he not been around during the founding of our country we might not be in such bad shape now. Yet he did say one thing that I have to give him credit for, that being, “Men give me credit for some genius. All the genius I have is this. When I have a subject in mind I study it profoundly. Day and night it is before me. My mind becomes pervaded with it… the effort which I have made is what people are pleased to call the fruit of genius. It is the fruit of labor and thought.”

That’s the case with me. I am no smarter than anyone else, I just care more about studying things that are of importance than most others do; therefore I devote a great deal of time to reading books and documents about the history and founding of our country. Yet that said, I couldn’t have gotten to where I am today without some help; some guidance. Therefore I would like to take a few moments to begin 2018 by thanking a few people who helped me on my journey towards where I am today.

I suppose the first person on my list would be Jim Schwiesow, a former law enforcement officer who wrote articles for News With Views. Jim took me under his wing and helped me along in the early stages of my writings, and for that I want to thank him.

Then, although he doesn’t even realize it, another News With Views writer, Steven Yates opened my eyes immensely with his 7 part series entitled The Real Matrix. I encourage anyone who wants to know who the ‘shadow government’ is to seek out and read the aforementioned series.

I would also like to thank Aaron Russo for his amazing film, From Freedom to Fascism; which exposed me to the fraud that is the income tax; as well as a whole host of other things I was completely unaware of at the time.

Next on my list is a dear friend who has since passed away; Dianne Goucheff. Dianne was a 78 yr old retired English teacher and she helped me improve my pathetic use of grammar. Had I not met Dianne I’d still be spitting out articles that were as incomprehensible as the scribblings of a 3rd grader.

Then there is Jeff Bennett, who runs numerous websites, of which his Federal Observer carries many of my rambling rants; although I do produce too many of them for him to post all of them.

Then there is Luther Lunchbucket. I never learned Luther’s real name; he always wrote under a pseudonym, but he also gave me gentle prods and suggestions when I began delving into areas that were unimportant or trivial in nature. Luther has also long since passed away, and I will miss his humorous and helpful hints.

Which leads me to my final thank you, which goes out to Michael Gaddy. I don’t know if any of you have ever read any of the rants Mike posted at the Rebel Madman, but if you want to get an education, I suggest you go there and read through some of them.

Mike has more knowledge packed into his skull than anyone I’ve ever met, and he has helped with suggested reference books and other valuable assets to further my own education. Just this morning I jokingly told him I’d like to plug a flash drive into his skull and download all his knowledge.

I read books and I search webpages; Mike has gone to the Library of Congress and many State archives. His help, particularly in straightening me out as to the truth about our ‘Civil War’ has been invaluable.

They say the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. I took that first step almost two decade ago; and I’ve met some amazing and very knowledgeable people along the way. It is my sincerest hope that in 2018 those of you reading this will take it upon yourselves to free yourselves from the lies you have been taught and seek out the truth for yourselves.

They also say that a person only truly appreciates that which they’ve had to earn themselves; if things are handed to them they are far less likely to be respected. Therefore, I truly hope that with 2018 people begin to take that first step on their own and seek to free themselves from the lies that have blinded them to the truth.

I will still continue to write, and I will be here to guide you along as others before have guided me along. But for us to win this battle against the evil that has corrupted our government, we must all seek out the truth for ourselves.
May you begin 2018 with that first step is my fervent prayer…

Posted in General | 1 Comment

It’s Not Entirely Your Fault (But You’re Not Without Blame Either)

Yeah I know, the last article I wrote said it would be the last one for 2017. I can’t believe you actually believed that…

Right before I came down with a monster sized head cold, a good friend, and mentor of mine posted something on Facebook that, for four days, festered away in my head until I became well enough to once again sit in front of this keyboard and form coherent sentences. What my friend said was, “If forced to choose between political party loyalty and the Constitution, which would you choose?” He then added a little caveat, “HINT: You do it every election.”

I’m going to come right out and say it, the only people who choose the Constitution over political party are those who refrain from voting for candidates to any position within the federal government. As far as I’m concerned there hasn’t been a true Constitutionalist candidate who ran for political office for at least 150 years; with the possible exception of Ron Paul; and I had some doubts about him as it pertained to his unwillingness to question the eligibility of Barack Obama to hold the office of president due to his NOT being a Natural Born Citizen. But that is neither here nor there, and I’ve spoken enough on it in the past; so if you want to know what I’m talking about you are simply going to have to go back and read through my earlier blog posts.

The point I’m trying to get at is that every single voter in this country casts their votes for either political party, or for the candidate who makes the best sounding promises during their campaign; the Constitutional limitations upon government NEVER EVEN CROSSES THEIR MINDS!!!

Just look at how people react when they elect a president who has all these glorious visions for the future of America, only have Congress get in the way of those visions being implemented; they become angry at Congress for getting in the President’s way. Do people not know that it is not the job of the President to make law; do people not know that is the job of Congress? Of course they don’t, or if they do, they don’t certainly don’t seem to care. All that matters to them is that their candidate is not being allowed to keep their campaign promises because Congress is blocking them. With that kind of attitude we may as well accept that what people want is an elective dictatorship, not a president who is limited in what they can and cannot do.

I don’t blame people for the fact that they haven’t been given a thorough and comprehensive education regarding the Constitution. I do, however, blame them for maintaining that level of ignorance when facts are presented to them which contradict their precious opinions. If you were to ask me to describe the difference between ignorance and stupidity, I would answer by saying that ignorance is simply that lack of knowledge regarding a subject, while stupidity is the refusal to accept any information which broadens their understanding of that subject.

The problem as I see it is this, our system has been so corrupted for so long that there isn’t a person alive today who has lived when our government actually adhered to the Constitution. This corrupt, perverted and bastardized version of the thing we call government has become the accepted reality for most people, and anyone who attempts to expose the fraud which has been perpetrated on the people of America is looked upon as a radical or a nutcase. As Orwell so aptly said, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

People have been so conditioned to accept the things they were taught in school, and to accept authority without resisting it, that our government has grown into this monstrous entity that sucks the vital life force out of our Constitutional Republic; liberty. The people of America have forgotten one vital concept, best expressed by something Thomas Paine wrote in 1777, “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”

Now why would Paine use the word fatigue? Well it’s quite simple actually; it is because it takes effort to maintain one’s liberty. In Federalist 48 James Madison warned, “It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.” This requires that the people, first need to know what the limits assigned to power are, and then secondly take every measure possible to ensure that those limits are not violated, and remove from office and punish those who do. That simply does not happen in the America of 2017; nor has it happened for a very long time.

One of the hardest things I have tried convincing people of is the fact that the federal government has absolutely no authority to pass laws which make their lives more comfortable or more secure; other than to protect us from foreign invasion that is. It is not the job of the federal government to create jobs, create benefit programs for those in need, provide subsidies and grants to private institutions or individuals, and especially not to send millions of taxpayer dollars overseas in the form of foreign aid. Yet all these things, and more, are done by the federal government on a regular basis because the people of this country don’t understand, or care about the idea of spheres of power.

Basically stated a sphere of power is the extent to which anyone holding power over others extends. As an example, the sphere of power of the mayor of any city extends only to the people living in that city. The mayor of Los Angeles cannot enact ordinances that affect the people of Dallas, Miami, or even neighboring San Diego; as that would exceed their sphere of power and authority.

When our federal government was first established, its sphere of power extended only upon the States, not the people; and only then in regards to the regulation of commerce and the levying of taxes. All other powers given to the federal government were external in nature; meaning they pertained to our interaction as a nation with other nations; such as the making of treaties and the conducting of war.

Again, to quote from James Madison, “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. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security.” (My emphasis, Source: Federalist 45)

If you had taken the time to read our Constitution you would have seen that this is actually the case. Therefore, if you truly believe that our Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, how can you justify your vote for any candidate which makes promises that are not granted government, or which overstep the limits of the particular office that candidate seeks?

There is another concept that people need to think about when discussing how far our government has strayed from its original purposes; that of precedents. According to Merriam Webster’s Dictionary, a precedent is defined as: something done or said that may serve as an example or rule to authorize or justify a subsequent act of the same or an analogous kind. So basically, if we let government take one single step beyond its delegated authority, that sets a precedent for them to, not only repeat the infraction again, but to take further steps which overstep their delegated authority.

In 1785 James Madison wrote the following words that everyone should pay close attention to, “It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties–we hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle.” (My emphasis, Source: A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments)

The people of America, and I’m not confining my comments to those alive today, have allowed their government to overstep its authority so many times, setting so many precedents, that the limits placed upon it have all but been eradicated and our government being one which does basically whatever it wants. This could not have happened if the people had cared enough to educate themselves as to the specific powers granted government, and place the Constitution and Bill of Rights above their own personal or political party interests.

Now I’d like to present just a few examples of how far out of whack our system has become. The first example is in reference to the spheres of power between the States and the federal government.

Article 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution declares, “[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…” Then in Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution it lays the following restrictions upon the States, saying, “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation…”

This only makes sense, as if the States were allowed to make treaties themselves, then it is conceivable that they might enter into treaties with foreign nations that conflict with the treaties made by the federal government.

Before I go any further, I need to address one simple fact. When the Constitution was ratified in 1789 there were only 13 States. Every State which has joined the Union since has done so by agreeing to accept the terms outlined by the Constitution regarding what powers they retain, and which powers are held by the federal government. Therefore, they accepted the fact that treaty making was not among their powers; that power belonged to the federal government.

Then justify how, on June 6, 2017 it was reported that Governor Jerry Brown of California signed an agreement to work with China to lower greenhouse gas emissions simply because he did not like the fact that the U.S. had pulled out of the Paris Accords on Climate Change.

By what authority did Governor Brown act to do something the Constitution explicitly prohibits him from acting upon? Listen, I’m a citizen of California; have been since birth, but I wish there was a clause in the Constitution that declares that any State which usurps federal authority shall be booted out of the Union, and all benefits received by the people of that State from the federal treasury shall be terminated. I’d love to see how Californians took it if Trump had kicked California out of the Union and terminated all Social Security and Medicare payments to its citizens; simply because their governor sought to assume powers that weren’t his to assume.

Spheres of authority people; they are either respected and we have a balance of power between the State and federal governments, or we have lawlessness and corruption.

The next violation of the Constitution which I’d like to discuss is in regards to the use of the United States military without a formal declaration of war by Congress. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states the powers given Congress; one of them being, “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water…”

Do you know when was the last time Congress officially declared war? It was at the onset of World War II with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. Every other single use of military force since then has been undertaken without a Congressional declaration of war; either due to obligations made in treaties, United Nations resolutions, or simply because the president decided that someone posed a threat to the United States.

Article 6, Clause 2 of the Constitution states, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States.”

Therefore, if the Constitution is the Supreme Law, then our government cannot enter into any treaty which violates it without itself breaching its delegated authority. Therefore, how can our government enter into a treaty which compels it to provide military assistance to a nation without a formal declaration of war by Congress?

Secondly, we the people of the United States did not elect the members of the United Nations; they do not represent us, and they have no legal authority to compel the United States to do anything they recommend. How can we justify the use of our military to enforce UN resolutions without admitting that they hold more authority than does our Constitution?

And finally, how can a president send troops anywhere without a formal declaration of war by Congress? In a letter written in 1783, George Washington stated, “The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.”

I’m certain that there are those who are going to throw the War Powers Act in my face; so let me address that. All powers held by our government come from a grant given them by the true sovereigns of this nation; we the people. These powers are delegated to them in a written constitution, and cannot be transferred between the various branches of government without the explicit consent of the people; via the amendment process outlined in Article 5 of the Constitution.

There is a legal maxim that dates back to Roman law which states, “Delegata potestas non potest delegari” which means a delegated power cannot be further delegated. We gave Congress the power to declare war; they cannot delegate that power to the President simply because they enact a law saying it is so. For them to be able to do that they would first need to propose an amendment giving the President that authority; and then have 3/4 of the States ratify that amendment. Only then would the President lawfully have the authority to send our military wherever he deemed was in our national interests.

Finally I’d like to talk about everyone’s favorite subject; taxes. Did you know that, aside for an unconstitutional income tax implemented by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, our nation survived 124 years without a tax upon the income of the people? That’s an awful long time for a nation to exist without any kind of direct taxation upon the earnings of the people; isn’t it? Yet look what we accomplished in those 124 years; we became an industrial giant and a true world economic power; we built roads, schools and the people enjoyed the full use of the money they earned without the crippling inflation we suffer from today.

There are many ways in which taxes can be levied; there are direct and indirect taxes; there are levies and excises and tariffs. For the most part, during the first 124 years of America’s existence our government gained the money to fund its operations by tariffs and excise taxes. But when Lincoln established the first income taxes, the government saw that they were a very lucrative and effective way of generating revenue.

The problem was that the Constitution prohibited a direct tax upon the people unless it was apportioned. To explain how apportionment works, let’s imagine there are one million people living in a country and the government needs an operating budget of $1 million dollars. In an apportioned tax, the amount needed is divided by the number of people in the country; with each citizen owing an equal share. So, in our imaginary situation, each person would owe $1 in taxes.

Lincoln’s first income tax was a flat tax of 3% on incomes over $800; which was instituted in 1861. Then the following year another Revenue Act was passed which instituted which implemented a graduated income tax; which we have today. A graduated income tax is one in which the more you make, the more you pay in taxes.

Yet Lincoln’s tax plans expired in 1872 and our government was left collecting its operating revenue from tariffs and excises. But the government had tasted the sweet honey of taxes taken from the income of the people of this country; and they wanted the ability to tax our income back; but they couldn’t do so without amending the Constitution.

Enter the 16th Amendment.

People pay their taxes today for one of two reasons; out of a sense of civic duty, or for fear of being hassled by the IRS for non compliance. Even so, there are those who cry that the rich are not paying their fair share, although the rich pay more in taxes than the average person does; even with all the loopholes and tax shelters they seek out. If you ask me, it’s insane to thing that a person should be penalized for earning more than others; in fact it is a crime to require the people of this country to fund the operations of their government when the government’s sphere of authority does not directly affect the lives, liberties and properties of the people. (Federalist 45)

Still, people accept that taxes are an unfortunate part of life. If only they knew how wrong they were. There is substantial evidence that the 16th Amendment, which gave government the power to tax the incomes of the people, was never properly ratified. William Benson and Martin Beckman wrote a book on it entitled The Law That Never Was; and I suggest you read it to find out how you have been defrauded all your lives out of the full enjoyment of your earnings.

Even Hollywood producer Aaron Russo made a film entitled From Freedom to Fascism, beginning with a quest to find the law that states people must pay an income tax. He interviewed all manner of people seeking out the law that specifically states that people are obligated to pay an income tax; and no one, not even employees of the Internal Revenue Service, could find it.

Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

I’ll bet you aren’t aware that there were two proposals for a Constitutional Amendment implementing an income tax; one by Senator Norris Brown of Nebraska, and another by Nelson Aldrich of Rhode Island. Aldrich’s proposal, Senate Joint Resolution 40 was the one which was accepted and eventually became the 16th Amendment.

Aldrich was, not only the Senate Majority Leader, he was also chairman of the Finance Committee. But there’s something else about Aldrich that I certainly wasn’t taught in school, that being that he was close friends with many powerful members of the banking industry. I’m not talking about your local banks; I’m talking about the big money houses that control massive amounts of currency; names like Rockefeller, J. P. Morgan and the Rothschild banking empire.

I find it highly suspicious that this same Nelson Aldrich attended a private meeting on Jekyll Island, off the coast of Georgia, in 1910 with Abram Piatt Andrew, assistant secretary of the Treasury; Henry Davison, a business partner of J.P. Morgan, Charles Norton, president of the First National Bank of New York, Benjamin Strong, another J.P. Morgan associate; Frank Vanderlip, president of the National City Bank; and Paul Warburg; a partner of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., a German citizen with close ties to the Rothschilds.

The outcome of that meeting was the initial plans for the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank; which coincidentally was established at around the same time the ratification of the 16th Amendment supposedly occurred.

I’m sorry, call me paranoid or conspiracy minded, but I don’t believe in coincidences of this magnitude; not when the government gets access to the earnings of the people while at the same time an institution is established which allows them to borrow almost unlimited funds to expand their powers. I simply don’t believe it was coincidental; I believe it was orchestrated and the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the people of this country took place right in front of their noses.

Remember what I said about precedents? Well people accepted this fraud, and our national debt has been growing ever since, and we as taxpayers are bound to that debt like a having a ball and chain around our ankles.

I could go on and on and on with examples of how our government has expanded its power and control over our lives, reducing us from freemen to serfs to fund an out of control government; but I think I’ve probably already overwhelmed most people with too much information.

It’s funny, the place I work at has employees who always tell me to stop working so hard; because the company doesn’t care about my well being. They tell me that I’m simply a replaceable asset that, if I break, they will replace with someone else. Yet these same people cannot see that the same scenario exists in their relationship with the federal government; they are just a worker drone to keep the economy chugging along and keep the money flowing into the treasury to fund the governments unbridled spending. The insane part is that people keep asking their government to do MORE for them instead of trying to cut back on its spending.

That’s why I no longer vote, because it doesn’t matter who gets into office, they will either expand the size and scope of powers of our government, or they will exercise powers it was never intended the office they hold exercise. In either case the Constitution is ignored and our government goes on being a corrupted bastardized version of the one established in 1789; and I refuse to support it by voting for the criminals who hold positions within it.

I know there are many who will think I’m nuts, even making that assumption without even attempting to verify the validity of anything I’ve said. As the old saying goes, “You can’t fix stupid.” I’m tired of arguing with people who refuse to accept that they have been lied to simply because considering a differing viewpoint is too uncomfortable, or too damned much work. After all, how dare I demand that they stop watching their precious TV shows and seek out the truth!

But like Paine said, “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” And since it seems that people are unwilling to support their freedom, they are going to have to live with the fact that they are not free, they are slaves.

Let that sink in…

Posted in General | Leave a comment