Neal's Soapbox

Sorry for the length, but I had to tie a lot of material together…

After our Constitution was written it was sent to the legislatures of the 13 original states for debate and possible ratification. It is important to understand that it was by an act of these state legislatures agreeing to this Constitution that our federal government came into existence. Had they not agreed to it, agreed to cede certain defined powers over to the federal government, we would not have a federal government in Washington D.C. today.

Among those who opposed the Constitution, one of the primary reasons for opposition was a concern over the loss of states’ rights. Over the course of the ratification debates those in favor of the proposed Constitution wrote a series of articles in an effort to garner support for the Constitution among the people. These articles became known as The Federalist Papers.

Now why would they worry about whether the people supported or opposed the Constitution if it were solely up to the state legislatures to ratify it? Allow me to try to answer that, quoting from Federalist 46, written by James Madison. Madison states, “The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone …”

Madison continued by saying, “If, therefore, as has been elsewhere remarked, the people should in future become more partial to the federal than to the State governments, the change can only result from such manifest and irresistible proofs of a better administration, as will overcome all their antecedent propensities. And in that case, the people ought not surely to be precluded from giving most of their confidence where they may discover it to be most due; but even in that case the State governments could have little to apprehend, because it is only within a certain sphere that the federal power can, in the nature of things, be advantageously administered.”

Earlier, in Federalist 17, Alexander Hamilton had written, “AN OBJECTION, of a nature different from that which has been stated and answered, in my last address, may perhaps be likewise urged against the principle of legislation for the individual citizens of America. It may be said that it would tend to render the government of the Union too powerful, and to enable it to absorb those residuary authorities, which it might be judged proper to leave with the States for local purposes. Allowing the utmost latitude to the love of power which any reasonable man can require, I confess I am at a loss to discover what temptation the persons intrusted with the administration of the general government could ever feel to divest the States of the authorities of that description.”

So, it would seem that the Founders had established a system in which all the powers and sovereignty of the states were to remain intact. But that was for the original 13 states that ratified the Constitution, how was this to apply to states that would later join the Union?

Before I continue you must realize why so many people came to this country we now call the United States. Of the original settlers many came here as entrepreneurs or to seek freedom from religious persecution. But as word spread of the abundance of land, of resources, and of opportunity, many simply came here to work towards owning their own piece of land which they were free to call their own.

You see, back in England, from whence many of the colonists came, they were not allowed to own land, the land belonged to the sovereign, the King, and they were allowed to work it with a portion of their yield being for their own sustenance, with the rest going to the King. This condition of serfdom did not grant them ownership and they wanted to escape to a new land where they would be the rightful masters of their own land.

If you look up serf or serfdom in the dictionary it is defined as a form of bondage, or slavery and it was common whenever a country had a King for a ruler. It mattered not whether the King was cruel or benevolent, the fact was that you were a subject and you had no rights, especially when it came to ownership of land.

But our Founders were influenced by men with more liberal views, views which clashed with many of the commonly held beliefs regarding rights. Chief among these liberal thinkers was John Locke, whose Second Treatise on Civil Government was instrumental in forming the beliefs of men such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

Locke, although not directly mentioning Kings or monarchs, spoke about freedom from absolute power. In Section 23 of his treatise he states, “This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power, is so necessary to, and closely joined with a man’s preservation, that he cannot part with it, but by what forfeits his preservation and life together: for a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot, by compact, or his own consent, enslave himself to any one, nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another, to take away his life, when he pleases. No body can give more power than he has himself; and he that cannot take away his own life, cannot give another power over it.”

But Locke also talked about property, and by what right it might belong to an individual. In Section 27 of his treatise he states, “Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.”

If you have ever taken the time to read through our Constitution you will find that not once is state sovereignty mentioned, and land is only mentioned a couple times. In Article 1, Section 8 the Constitution states that Congress has the power “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings…”

And Article 4, Section 3 states, “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

It is this second clause to which I would like to draw your attention. It states that Congress shall have the power to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the Territory or other property belonging to the United States.

According to Article 1 Section 8 the Constitution says that the government may acquire land for forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and other needful buildings. But to what extent and how far may it extend its jurisdiction when it comes to land?

What the Constitution does not say is the process by which new states may be admitted, and from whence they may originate. After the Revolutionary War the U.S. and Britain signed the Treaty of Paris in 1783. Besides an end to hostilities, the treaty also gave the U.S. a great deal of new territory. In fact all the land westward up to the Mississippi River became part of the United State, more than doubling it in land mass.

Prior to the ratification of the Constitution, the Continental Congress, under the Articles of Confederation, passed the Land Ordinance of 1785. The purpose of this ordinance was to raise money for the federal government by selling portions of this land acquired by the Treaty of Paris.

What happens when you sell something? Someone gives you money for an item, be it clothing, a vehicle, foodstuffs, or even land. In return for that money you transfer ownership of said item to the purchaser. So the land sold to these settlers in the Northwest Territory became the land owners. Follow me so far? Also during Colonial Times people could come to this country and stake a claim on a piece of property and declare it their own for their home, or farm. This practice continued and was used extensively during the California Gold Rush. The legal basis for these mining claims was that public property is granted to the first person who puts it to beneficial use.

Getting back to the point at hand, the fact is that aside from the original 13 colonies/states that ratified the Constitution, all the land that now comprises the United States was either acquired through purchase, or by conquest.

These acquisitions became territories of the United States, and subsequently were divided and became the individual states that we know today. Over the course of years they were admitted as states and therefore fall under the protection of the Constitution just as does the original 13 colonies/states which ratified it.

Therefore, Article 4 Section 2 of the Constitution says, “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.” Therefore, if the citizens of the original 13 colonies/states were entitled to property, then so were the citizens of these newly admitted states.

Our Founders had a far different concept of property than we do today. In an essay published in the National Gazette in 1792, James Madison stated this about the word property, “This term in its particular application means ‘that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

Madison continued by saying, “In the former sense, a man’s land, or merchandize, or money is called his property. In the latter sense, a man has property in his opinions and the free communication of them. He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them. He has property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.”

Madison later states that “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort… This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.”

Why all this history and talk of land ownership? Well it has to do with the events which recently unfolded in Nevada in regards to the Bureau of Land Management versus one Cliven Bundy. Mr. Bundy, and his family, have been homesteading this land since 1877. In 1989 the Fish and Wildlife Service lists the desert tortoise as an endangered species and designated hundreds of thousands of acres for conservation efforts. Prior to this Mr. Bundy had been paying grazing fees to graze his cattle on this land but stopped in 1993 because he considered the government’s effort to declare the land off limits for grazing a land grab. He has since had his permit revoked but has however continued to graze his cattle on this so-called protected land.

It’s a lot more complicated than all that, but I fear I would bore you with too many details. But that’s it in a nutshell. The Bureau of Land Management sent in forces to confiscate Mr. Bundy’s cattle and force him off the land. He stood his ground, members of the militia gathered together to support him, and the government, for the time being, has backed down. But Senator Harry Reid of Nevada has declared that ‘this is not over.’

Now this is where it gets interesting. It has been said that the son of Harry Reid is a lawyer for a firm that has brokered a deal with a Chinese corporation to build a solar panel farm on the land that is currently occupied by who? By Cliven Bundy of course.

There are two differing opinions, of which I have encountered, on this issue. One declares that the land was never really Mr. Bundy’s to begin with. That the land which Nevada is a part of, was sold to the U.S. government after the end of the Mexican American War and the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Those who support this position use one clause from the Nevada State Constitution in support of their argument. That clause reads, ” That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state.”

While that may sound like it declares that the people do not own the land within the state, it is imperative that you understand a few things. Nevada became a state in 1864. Mr. Bundy claims his family has been homesteading that land since 1877. First thing you must understand is what is homesteading?

Beginning in the 1860′s the U.S. Government began passing what are known as Homesteading Acts. These acts sold land to applicants at little or no cost. The very first of these acts was signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1862. It was probably under this particular act that the family of Cliven Bundy gained possession of this land. And you have to remember what I said about selling something, when the seller receives funds from the buyer, the land passes into the buyers possession and becomes their property. And remember what Madison said, that government is instituted to PROTECT property of all sort.

The second thing people must understand about that clause from the Nevada State Constitution is the meaning of the word unappropriated. Unappropriated is defined as: 1. Not set apart or voted for some purpose or use, as money, revenues, etc. 2. Not taken into possession by any person.

At the time Mr. Bundy’s family acquired that land it could not have been set apart, or voted for some other purpose or use by the federal government, otherwise a fraud would have been committed by our government selling land it was not authorized to sell. So the land must have been legally sold to the Bundy family, and therefore it WAS/IS their land.

If it was/is their land, then the federal government has no right to come in and declare it off limits for their use, regardless of whether an endangered tortoise lives there or not. The only way in which the government may acquire land that is privately owned is through the use of eminent domain. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declares, “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

I could go on and on about the abuses of eminent domain rulings, but it was originally intended that the appropriation of private land by the government be for the general public welfare. The judges and courts which ruled upon these cases should balance the needs of the property owners versus the public welfare the acquisition of their land requires. I don’t know about you, but the survival of an endangered species of tortoise does not meet up to the loss of a ranchers right to graze his cattle, and the subsequent loss of beef for sale for consumers. Besides, no such case has ever been brought before the courts, the federal government simply declared this land to be protected for the survival of a tortoise and Mr. Bundy appears only to be defending what his family legally acquired 137 years ago.

There is one subject I have been itching to write about for quite some time, but up until now haven’t found a suitable time to do so, that is the concept of allodial titles. According to wikipedia, and other legal sources, allodial titles constitute ownership of real property (land, buildings and fixtures) that are independent of any superior landlord. Few states now actually offer allodial titles to landowners, and the process for obtaining one is both difficult and time consuming, if not expensive as well. However most states do not because historically an allodial title distinguishes the landowner because it exempts them from duties upon the land they own. If allodial titles were allowed in the all the states the states could not legally collect property tax from the landowners.

But this is where it gets a bit complicated, legally speaking. Most of you who own property, do not own the title to it, you own a ‘deed’ to the land. In legal speak a deed is merely the color of title, and not an actual document stating ownership. In Blacks Legal Dictionary, the word color is defined as “an appearance or semblance, as distinguished from that which is real; a prima facie, a deceptive appearance.” Color of title is defined as, “that which in appearance is title but is not title in fact or law.” Write v. Matron 18 How. (U.S.) 50

An allodial title, or a land patent, is the only true ownership of land. Patents are issued between sovereigns…and deeds are executed by persons and private corporation. (Leading Fighter v. Country of Gregory) A patent is the highest evident of title, and is conclusive, against the government and all claiming under junior titles, until it is set aside or annulled by some judicial tribunal. (Stone v. U.S.) The patent (land patent) is the only evidence of the legal fee simple title (or Allodial). (McConnell v. Wilcox)

For the most part, governments no longer confer allodial titles to land. Therefore if we do not truly own the land we have purportedly purchased with our hard earned income, then who does? It would seem from all the rules and regulations our government passes on how we can utilize our own property that the government owns them. If that be the case, are we not merely serfs, the same as which our ancestors fled their homelands to be free from? If that is the case then all that Madison said about property was a lie, or worse, our government has usurped, (to use something without the right to do so) powers which it was never intended they have.

All I know is that Cliven Bundy was only exerting his right to defend what was rightfully his against a government run amok with power. Our Founders did the same and left us an inheritance worth defending at all costs. We have shamed them and disgraced ourselves because we have let our government grow far more intrusive and oppressive than the one they fought to free themselves from. I hope you are all happy!

On Saturday December 22, 1787, The Independent Journal in New York published an article written by Alexander Hamilton under the pseudonym of Publius. This would be the twenty-sixth out of eighty five such articles which we now know as the Federalist Papers. Hamilton begins his article by saying, “It was a thing hardly to be expected that in a popular revolution the minds of men should stop at that happy mean which marks the salutary boundary between POWER and PRIVILEGE, and combines the energy of government with the security of private rights. A failure in this delicate and important point is the great source of the inconveniences we experience, and if we are not cautious to avoid a repetition of the error, in our future attempts to rectify and ameliorate our system, we may travel from one chimerical project to another; we may try change after change; but we shall never be likely to make any material change for the better.”

Why do I begin my article with a quote from an article written over 200 years ago? Well it is because a good many people in this country realize that there is something wrong, that things aren’t going the way they should be, but they don’t know what exactly is to blame. Every two years we go to the polls and cast our votes for people to represent us in government, with every fourth year we go to vote for who will be our next president. We do so, then sit back hoping that these newly elected representatives will fix whatever it is that is wrong with this country. The problem is that they are what’s wrong with this country.

You see, we have an instruction manual, a rulebook, a guide, as to how our system of government is supposed to function, but most of us have never read it; it is called the Constitution. By our going to the polls every couple of years and voting for a new batch of lawmakers to fix our country, we are, as Hamilton said, travelling from one chimerical project to another. For those of you who have never heard the word chimerical, it means tending to indulge in unrealistic fantasies. That is exactly what we are doing; we are voting for people to fix our country, basing our votes upon the promises they make, without our having the faintest idea of how our system of government is actually supposed to operate, and for what purpose it was established.

The men who gathered together over the summer of 1787 to produce our Constitution were, (although some have called them a bunch of moneyed aristocrats), some of the greatest political minds our country has ever produced, Thomas Jefferson went so far as to call them an assembly of demigods. Most of these men had spent years studying political philosophy and were well versed in the benefits, and the problems associated with, all forms which government may take. If you have never read the Federalist Papers you can attest to the fact that they are chalked full of references to the governments of ancient societies. On top of all that many of them had John Locke’s Treatise for Civil Government as their inspiration for much of their beliefs as to the nature of rights, the reasons for which government may be established, and the nature of tyranny and oppression.

Out of a country which now has a population of over 300 million people, how many do you think have actually read our nation’s Constitution? How many have read the Federalist Papers in their entirety? How many have read Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution? How many have read Locke’s treatise on civil government? How many have bothered to read Frederic Bastiat’s brilliant book entitled The Law? I can assure you, the number of people who have read all these works combined is probably less than 10%, and that is being very generous with my assumption.

In a letter to Bushrod Washington, (Supreme Court Associate Justice and nephew to George Washington), George Washington wrote, “The power under the constitution will always be in the people.” That is true, under our system of government the people we vote for are our servants, our employees, and they are accountable to us for their actions. One of the lesser known Founders, Noah Webster, whose name is synonymous with Webster’s Dictionary, once said, “…if the citizens neglect their Duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the Laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizen will be violated or disregarded.”

In his first Inaugural Address, George Washington declared, “The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government, are justly considered deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.” Yet how could we be expected to live up to Washington’s expectations if we became ignorant in regards to our own system of government and the limits imposed upon it by us by our very act of ‘constituting’ a government?

In a document to W. T. Barry, (1822), James Madison wrote, “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”

While I was at work today a thought kept repeating itself in my head; that thought being that if someone really wanted to gain control over a people without their realizing that they were being reduced to slavery, then all one would have to do is assume control of the education system, and the medium from which people obtain the news. If you could control what they are taught, and what they are told is news, then they would be putty in your hands for whatever schemes you might have for controlling an entire nation.

I graduated from high school almost 4 decades ago in 1976. Over the course of my senior year I was required to take a civics class which was supposed to cover government. This was way before the Common Core garbage that they are teaching kids today. Hell, it was WAY before No Child Left Behind. Still, I was taught the bare essentials when it came to our system of government.

Since I began studying on my own, and writing about what I have learned, I have easily quadrupled the amount of information I have learned about our Founders and our system of government, and that is probably being very modest in my claim. It almost seems as though they didn’t WANT the kids graduating from school to know how their system of government was supposed to work, and the limits that were imposed upon it. And this was nearly 40 years ago…things have gotten much worse now.

Sometimes I think George Carlin was right. Hell, I KNOW he was right when he said, “They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I’ll tell you what they don’t want . . . they don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. … … They don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that . . . that doesn’t help them. That’s against their interests.”

If you had truly studied the events leading up to our American Revolution you would see that the colonists at that time revolted over far fewer intrusions upon their rights, far fewer taxes, than we currently live under today. George Washington once said something that applies just as much today as it did back when he said it over 200 years ago, “The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments.”

But how can we know what is going on, I mean really going on, unless we take the time to learn, to study, to question what we are being told? Can people be so naive to believe that the news they are being told is the truth? Even if they report factually on a story they can, and routinely use inflammatory words to incite a desired response.

Case in point, the other day there was a shooting in the L.A. area. The local newspaper reported on it and led with the headline: Weapons cache at shooter’s home. It told of how ‘assault weapons’ and a ‘large amount of ammunition’ were found in the persons home. They also mentioned that an AK-47 was found in his vehicle. Those are facts, but they could be construed many ways. What do they consider an assault rifle? My Ruger 10/22 may be considered an assault rifle because it is all black, has a scope and a removable magazine. And what is a large amount of ammunition; 100 rounds, 200 rounds, or thousands of rounds. And with the fear today of public shootings, the mere mention of an AK-47 is enough to instill fear in the public.

So even though you may read a story in the news, the bias may be slanted, or worse, the story might be absolute rubbish and propaganda. The truth is that the media, including the beloved Fair and Balanced FOX news are all puppets to those who actually control this country. It is a rare event when a United States Congressman stands up and tells us like it really is, but in 1917 one such Congressman did exactly that. Standing before Congress, Oscar Calloway stated, “In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interests, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States, and a sufficient number of them, to control generally the policy of the daily press….They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers.

An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper, to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature, considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.”

These people, the ones who sit behind the scenes and donate massive amounts of money into the two political parties, who control the media, keep you deaf, dumb, and blind to the truth. You are being fed just enough information to shape your opinions in the direction they want you to think. You are sheep and they are the shepherds.

I am man enough to admit when I’m wrong, and I have been wrong more times than I like to admit. But that’s what separates, distinguishes me from so many others, I don’t blindly follow anyone, any belief system, simply because it is comfortable, or accepted to do so. I question EVERYTHING and it is ONLY when I have sought the truth in all matters that I accept it.

Ages ago Samuel Adams said, in a letter to Samuel Cooper, “Mankind are governed more by their feelings than by reason.” As long as you are kept in fear, as long as you believe that the things that the government is doing is in your best interests, you continue to allow them to bring this country to ruin and trample upon your rights.

United States Senator Daniel Webster once said, “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.” Webster also said, “There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”

I am so weary, weary to the bone, of trying to get people to wake up, to stop believing everything they are being told and to start thinking for themselves. But it seems that people are far more interested in being entertained, whether it be watching whatever is on TV, or by whatever other means people spend their free time. Very few want to spend hour after hour reading dry old books about political philosophy. Unfortunately, as long as the masses remain ignorant and entertained, the walls could come crumbling down around them before they’d realize anything was amiss. It’s like the old saying that Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

In 1788 James Madison wrote, “It is a misfortune, inseparable from human affairs, that public measures are rarely investigated with that spirit of moderation which is essential to a just estimate of their real tendency to advance or obstruct the public good; and that this spirit is more apt to be diminished than promoted, by those occasions which require an unusual exercise of it.” That is just as true today as it was when he said it.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ll continue to write, fully knowing that only a few people read these articles I spit out, that the ones who truly need to read them will never bother to do so. If this be my purpose in life, so be it. But don’t think for a minute that I won’t relish the time when I draw my last breath and leave the mess we’ve created to the people who deserve it most.

Anyone who has read even one of my articles knows that I tend to use lots of quotes. I do this to show that the point I am trying to get across is not my own personal opinion, but it was the opinion of them men who established our system of government.

To truly understand how our system of government was supposed to function one cannot simply take our current elected representatives at their word that what they are doing is justified and legal, one MUST go to the source of all the power they hold over us and then, and only then, can we know whether what they are doing is legally justified.

I hear people blather on, [to talk in an unintelligent or inane manner], about our democracy, conservatives and liberals, when the truth is that most of them don’t have the faintest idea what they are talking about. These people don’t understand the varying forms a system of government may assume, and they damned sure don’t know what it means to be conservative.

Let’s begin by discussing for a moment the various forms government may take. At one end of the spectrum you begin with a lack of any form of government. Under such conditions you would most likely have anarchy and chaos as the people would tend to do whatever they want without regards to the rights and welfare of others. In short it would be a society of survival of the fittest.

At the other end of the spectrum you would find a totalitarian system of government. Totalitarianism is defined as: the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority. And this is where many people get things wrong. They consider something like communism to be a system of government. It isn’t, not really. It is a totalitarian system, with the concepts proposed by Karl Marx as the philosophy that the government supposedly based itself upon.

But totalitarian governments come in all shapes and sizes. A dictatorship is a totalitarian form of government, as is a Monarchy where the King rules, as is a Theocracy where the government is bound by doctrine dictated by the countries religious beliefs, such as one based upon Sharia Law.

In between these two ends of the spectrum you have various systems that may exists, such as a democracy, where 50% of the people is all it takes to enact law, or a republic, such as we have, where we may elect our representatives through a democratic process, but they are bound by our will which is the supreme law of the land, i.e. the Constitution.

For the longest time it was held that rulers ruled by divine right, that is their power was granted them directly from God. The old monarchs of Britain, France and Spain ruled by divine right and the people had no recourse but to follow the laws imposed upon them, or face whatever punishment the monarch dished out.

During the early years of our nations existence we lived as colonies of the British Empire and the King of England believed that as his subjects he could impose his will upon us and we were obliged to obey. But something had happened, a new way of thinking had arisen and it was called the Age of Enlightenment. During this time men like Sir Francis Bacon, Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Montesquieu, and John Locke began expounding ideas that contradicted traditional thought.

The men who we now call our Founding Fathers were heavily influenced by the writings of these men, particularly the writings of one John Locke, whose Second Treatise on Civil Government is the basis from which they established our system of government. The principles of individual liberty, the belief in government by the consent of the people, and the right to private property were all concepts written about by Locke, and our Founders drew heavily from it when establishing our system of government.

Yet the average person today knows nothing of Locke, or his writings. For the longest time I’ve been searching bookstores for a copy of Locke’s Second Treatise, and this weekend I finally found a copy. It is a fascinating read for me, as it is the root of our system, and people SHOULD be familiar with what he says. Even Barnes and Noble, which printed out this copy, considers it to be among their library of ESSENTIAL reading. Yet I bet I couldn’t get more than a handful of people I know to read it…even if I were to purchase a copy for them.
Yet the principles Locke writes about are the seed from which our system of government sprouts. It was Locke’s belief in individual liberty which fueled the fire for independence from a monarchy. It was Locke’s writings on government by consent of the people which gave rise to the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.

How does all this tie in to the title of this article? Well today we see two political parties battling for control of this system of government; the Republicans and the Democrats. Are you even aware that the Constitution makes no mention of political parties? Well, it doesn’t, take my word for it. In fact our first three presidents absolutely hated the idea of political parties.

George Washington said, “However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
John Adams said, “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

And Thomas Jefferson said, “I am not a Federalist, because I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.”

These are the first three men our nation selected to be its presidents, and they are closest to, and most familiar with, the construction of our system of government. The very first political parties were the Federalist Party, and the Democratic-Republican Party, also known as the anti-Federalists. The Federalist Party believed in a strong central government, and tended to take a liberal view of the powers granted government by the Constitution. While, on the other hand, the Democratic-Republican Party believed in a stricter interpretation of the Constitution, with little to no room open for interpretation.

I could go through a complete history of the evolution of the political parties in America, but that would only bore you. Just let it be known that the first two parties were organized by people who held one belief or another; the belief in a strong central government and a loose interpretation of the powers granted it by the Constitution, and the other in a strict adherence to the powers granted government by the Constitution.

Bet you didn’t know that George Washington was the only president that was not elected by an overwhelming support of a political party. Well he was, and it was he who said, “The power under the constitution will always be in the people. It is entrusted for certain defined purposes, and for a certain limited period, to representatives of their own choosing…”

Again, how does this tie in to the title of this article? To answer, one must first understand the definition of the word conservative. According to the dictionary, conservative is defined as: tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions.

Therefore when it comes to political parties a conservative would be one who is disposed to existing views or institutions, one who adhered to the principles which established our system of government, AND the limits imposed upon it.

Now if you take a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being a strict adherence to the Constitution, and 10 being a very liberal interpretation of it, then the Democratic-Republican Party of Jefferson’s time would be a 1 with the Federalist Party being closer to a 6 or 7.

Now fast forward two centuries to the existing Republican and Democrats. If you were to apply that same 1 to 10 scale on them then the Republicans would most likely be 6′s or 7′s, while the Democrats would be 9′s or 10′s.

The Republicans, or the Conservative Party, may be MORE conservative in their beliefs than their counterparts, but they are nowhere near the party which strictly adheres to the principles outlined in our Founding Documents.

That is basically because all political parties are simply groupings of people who organize together with common beliefs to select and support candidates who share the same belief system. This is true of both parties in this country.

Look at Ron Paul. He was a Republican, and probably more of a conservative than anyone else in the GOP who ran for president, yet he did not share the same beliefs as to the purpose and scope of powers of government as did the leadership in the GOP. Therefore they denounced him and would not stand behind his bid for presidency.

All I’m trying to say is that you may call yourself a conservative, but what are you really? Are you simply claiming the title of conservative simply because that is the title utilized by the political party you belong to, or are you a true conservative who believes in a government which strictly abides by what the Constitution says? But if you simply vote according to party lines, without any regard as to whether the candidate you are voting for has any intention of limiting the size of government, and its powers over the people and their rights, then you are NOT a true conservative.

You would do well to find a copy of Locke’s Second Treatise on Civil Government and see what principles guided our Founders in establishing our system of government. You could also find a copy of The Law by Frederic Bastiat, which written two centuries after Locke’s Treatise, espouse very similar ideas.

If you did, you would find that the party you belong to, the Republican Party, is far from being conservative in any way, shape, or fashion. It is simply the lesser of two evils, and I am sick and damned tired of evil in any form in our government!

If you have paid any attention to the news lately you will have noticed that there are three major stories which the news media have been focusing their attention upon. There is the search for that missing airplane, the mudslide in Washington State, and the crisis in the Ukraine. It is upon this last subject which I’d like to devote my attention.

I don’t know if it is due to residual animosity, left over from the Cold War, but it seems that there is a lot of anger and hatred aimed at Russia. So any move made by Russian President Vladimir Putin is viewed with suspicion and hostility. Two things, unless Putin directly attacks the United States it is none of our business what he does over there. We are not the worlds police force whose job it is to check and halt aggression all over the planet. Secondly, and this is more important; we should stop and think about how hypocritical we must look to the rest of the world.

Look at us, we Americans criticize everyone else in all these far off places most people probably could not locate on a map, yet we fail to look back to our own history to see whether our country has been guilty of some of the same things we are condemning others for.

Don’t get me wrong, I love my country. I just think that before people open their mouths to condemn another country they ought to at least check and see if their own country is guilty of the same, or worse, crime.

So what exactly is it that has got Obama, and everyone else so worked up about? Is it the fact that Crimea voted to rejoin Russia? Is it that Putin may try to take a part, or all, of the Ukraine and mold it back as part of Russia?

I wonder if people even realize that, for a time, Ukraine was part of Russia. During the Cold War the area under discussion was, in fact, a part of the Soviet Union. It was when the Soviet Union collapsed that the Ukraine, along with 13 other States regained some form of independence from Mother Russia.

So now Putin wants to take Crimea, and possibly the Ukraine back. Is it any of our business, AND should we check our OWN history before condemning Putin?

Look at our country. We began as 13 colonies scattered along the Eastern Seaboard. But as settlers began to head out west in search of new lands, and new fortunes to be made, America expanded its territory to eventually include the 48 states that comprise the America that sits between Canada and Mexico.

Ever hear of the term manifest destiny? It is/was used to describe what many believed to be as our moral obligation to expand and gain control of the entire continent from the East Coast all the way to the West Coast. Jefferson acquired a huge tract of land in the Louisiana Purchase, buying the land from Napoleon Bonaparte. At the time it was argued that this purchase was unconstitutional, yet Jefferson went ahead with it under the pretense of removing a French influence, or presence in neighboring territory.

Then there was the Mexican American War which lasted from 1846-1848, which ended with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This treaty gave the United States what we now know as Texas, California, and most of New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Wyoming and Colorado.

Then there are Alaska and Hawaii. Neither are physically attached to what we call the mainland, yet they are still states. In 1867 we purchased Alaska from Russia for the sum of $7.2 million. Eventually in 1959 it became our 49th state. Then there is Hawaii.

Hawaii was annexed by the United States in 1898. After that when a series of Hurricanes devastated the sugar cane crops in Puerto Rico, (a U.S. territory), Puerto Ricans flooded into Hawaii to work their sugar cane fields. For almost 60 years the plantation owners resisted becoming a state, but with the influence of the influx of these immigrants, who held U.S. citizenship, the tide of opposition was turned and in 1959 Hawaii became our 50th state.

As America grew from its original 13 colonies it also displace most, if not all, the native inhabitants who lived here prior to our arrival. Yes I’m talking about the American Indians. While some tribes were savage, others were not and they lived as peacefully as they could on lands they held the rightful title to. Yet we pushed them out of our way in our quest for total control and dominion of all that comprised the continental United States.

In America’s quest for expansion we bought, or took, everything that now comprises the continental United States, and we did so under the belief that it was our manifest destiny to do so. So, are we any worse than Russia wanting what they believe is their right to possess the land which our government now accuses Russia of violating? Honestly, put aside your jealousy, your pretended patriotism and look at the facts. America is just as guilty of acquiring land through force as is Russia.

But you say that Ukraine separated from Russia and deserves to be a free and independent country. Is that so? Let me remind you of a little thing called the Civil War where 7 Southern States declared their independence from America. Were they not entitled to be a free and independent country as well? But no, our government fought a long bloody war, at the cost of over 600,000 lives lost.

Our history proves that we are just as guilty of the crimes that we are now accusing Russia of. But for me to say that I am assured that I will be called unpatriotic and a hater of my country. No, I only ask that we stop being so damned hypocritical. I love my country, or at least the principles it was founded upon. But I also realize that we have done so bad things over the course of our existence. I only wish that people would stop condemning other countries for the same things we are guilty of. That is all. But I also know that people won’t do that. Their sense of national pride does not allow them to examine the facts. They only stand behind America regardless of whether she is right or wrong.

As Mark Twain once said, “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it.” And I do not support my government when it interferes in the affairs of other countries when they have not directly attacked us. I did not support Clinton’s actions in Serbia and Kosovo, I did not support Bush when he invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, and I do not support Obama and his threats against Vladimir Putin.

That is all…

Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour; a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. Thomas Paine

In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell

I have this image that I attach to most of my e-mails that shows a Minuteman and the following comment, “You wonder why I’m angry at what’s going on in this country? I wonder why you’re not!” I know there are quite a few people who are angry, but there simply aren’t enough of them. Sure if you were to take a poll the results would show that a good majority of the people have a poor opinion of how their government is handling the affairs of this nation, but the problem is that most of them either simply don’t understand what the true function of their government is, or they simply don’t care. They vote strictly along party lines then whine and complain when nothing seems to get better in this country.

Most people in this country believe that their government is all powerful and that they are duty bound to obey the laws that it enacts. That simply is not true and there is plentiful evidence to prove that I’m correct in saying so.

People are always blaming the government for what is wrong in this country, when the truth is that they should take a moment to consider who is really at fault for all the problems this country faces. The truth is that it is the people who are to blame. While it is true that our government enacts these laws, yet aside from our president, who can only serve two terms, a good many of our representatives in Congress are repeatedly re-elected and it is they who enact these laws. We do not hold them accountable for their actions, and we meekly obey these laws that, for the most part, they have absolutely no authority to enact. If we would just grow a set of balls and resist these oppressive laws things just might get better in this country.

You know, in 1781 Thomas Jefferson said that “It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of the laws and constitution.”

You may have heard the old question, which came first, the chicken or the egg? Well let me rephrase that to ask, which came first the government or the people? People lived in America for nearly 200 years before our current system of government was established. Our Founders fought a war to free themselves from the rule of a tyrant and it would be asinine to think that they would then proceed to create a system of government that was just as tyrannical as the one they had fought a war to free themselves from.

Our government was created by our Founders and for it to become functional it had to be ratified, (accepted by vote) by the people of this country. We have taken to calling those people in our nation’s capital politicians, but in truth they are public servants…and they work for us.
George Washington, our very first president under this newly created system of government once said that “The power under the constitution will always be in the people.” Almost half a century after our Constitution was ratified Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story would write, “In our future commentaries upon the constitution we shall treat it, then, as it is denominated in the instrument itself, as a CONSTITUTION of government, ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves and their posterity… Those who administer it are responsible to the people… It may be altered, and amended, and abolished at the will of the people. In short, it was made by the people, made for the people, and is responsible to the people.”

Yet today the people of this country hardly seem to notice that damn near everything their government is currently doing is a violation of the authority granted them by the Constitution. Before the state of Virginia ratified the Constitution James Madison addressed the delegates to the ratifying convention and clearly stated, “[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.”

C’mon people, that is not that difficult to understand…is it? Yet when we vote for people most of the time we look for qualities that we admire or respect, or we look for those making the most compelling arguments as to why we should vote for them. Hardly ever do we stop to ask ourselves if any of the things they are campaigning on are actually constitutional.

Back in 1951, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas would rule, “It is not enough to know that the men applying the standard are honorable and devoted men. This is a government of laws, not of men….” The law that our elected representatives are bound by oath to uphold is…duh…the Constitution. And what do we call people who break the law? Why criminals of course. In his Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “[The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws …”

But if a majority of the people do not understand the law which binds our government, or if they are content to let them overstep their authority and enact laws which they feel is in the country’s best interests, what recourse does the minority, (those who still expect that the Constitution be adhered to) have?

But there is something else, a part of Jefferson’s quote that I intentionally left out until now. The entire quote reads, ” [The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights.”

Now talking about rebellion, particularly in this day and age, may land a person in hot water, yet it is/was something that was commonly accepted as a right the people held should their government grow too big for its britches. Again, Supreme Court Justice Douglas said, “The right to revolt has sources deep in our history.”

In 1775 the Second Continental Congress issued a document entitled the Declaration of the Causes and Necessities of Taking up Arms. It was their justification for taking up arms against, what was at the time, their government, the British Empire. From that document I quote, “Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage on them.”

Not all the colonists supported going to war against the English; there were loyalists who wished to stay under British rule, and there were those who didn’t really care one way or another. But there were those, about 1/3 of the people, who felt that it was necessary to seek independence from what they considered an oppressive government. Those who felt that way, as well as those who affixed their names to our Declaration of Independence were considered traitors, and would have been hung had they been captured by the British. As the final sentence of the Declaration of Independence states, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

It’s clear that our country was founded by men of principle who stood up to tyranny and oppression, and as Samuel Adams would later write, “The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.”

Yet today we go about our lives in fear of breaking the law, when there is a good chance that the laws we are so afraid of breaking are unconstitutional. Why is it that a land, supposedly built upon the concept of freedom and liberty, that the people fear their servants? There is a quote that is attributed to Jefferson a lot, although he never actually said it. Yet it still rings true, “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

As Justice Douglas said, this is a government of laws. Yet in truth it more closely resembles something stated by the Frenchman Frederic Bastiat in 1850, “The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose…Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!”

The Congress is supposed to only write laws regarding matters which the Constitution grants them the authority to legislate upon. The president is supposed to veto laws which he finds to be not among the enumerated powers granted Congress. And, according to the Supreme Court, they too are supposed to rule based solely upon the Constitution.

In the case of Mugler v. Kansas, the Court ruled, “The courts are not bound by mere forms, nor are they to be misled by mere pretences. They are at liberty — indeed, are under a solemn duty — to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority…it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution.”

Yet if a majority of the people are ignorant as to the law, or if they in fact support these laws even though they are clearly not among the powers granted government, does that make these laws binding upon those who oppose them?

I say no, they are not binding upon us, and I can prove it.

In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton declared, “No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy (agent) is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people; that men, acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. It is not to be supposed that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by judges as fundamental law. If there should happen to be a irreconcilable variance between the two, the Constitution is to be preferred to the statute.”

Former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart stated, “The right to defy an unconstitutional statute is basic in our scheme. Even when an ordinance requires a permit to make a speech, to deliver a sermon, to picket, to parade, or to assemble, it need not be honored when it’s invalid on its face.”

And then there is this, taken from the 16th American Jurisprudence, the definitive Encyclopedia of the law, “The general misconception is that any statue passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail .This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. As unconstitutional law, legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, in so far as a statue runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”

But, were you to find yourself in court because you disobeyed an unconstitutional law, do not for a moment think that you could quote that and find yourself free of all charges against you. That is why the people must stand up for justice, and support the law. And that is where the duty of the jurors come in.

Few people are aware of the concept of jury nullification, but it is a principle firmly rooted in our nation’s history. Jury nullification is basically the jury, or a number of jurors, apply the principle contained in the 16th American Jurisprudence, and find that the law is, in fact, no law at all.

John Jay, our nation’s first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court declared, “The Jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”

Harlan Stone, the 12th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court also declared, “If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offense is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant’s natural god-given unalienable or constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime at all, for no one is bound to obey an unjust law.” (my emphasis)

But to do that requires courage. Judges, especially of late, have shown a clear disregard for the Constitution, stating that the jurors must apply the law as explained to them by the judge. Yet in U.S. v. Dougherty, (1972), the Court ruled, “The pages of history shine on instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge…”

You have to remember that judges are also bound by the Constitution, regardless of whether they choose to apply it in court. It therefore falls to the jurors to ensure that it is upheld. For, as Thomas Jefferson once said, “If [as the Federalists say] “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,” … , then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please.”

Our country; the people and our government, have forgotten, or chosen to ignore, the Constitution and the limits it imposes upon the government it established. It is up to those of us who love liberty, and the principles which guided our Founders in establishing our Republic, to stand up for it, even in the face of overwhelming opposition.

As George Washington once said, “The name of AMERICAN, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.”

In America today that means disagreeing with a vast majority of the people in this country. Yet as John F. Kennedy once said, “In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility – I welcome it.”

Or to quote Patrick Henry, “Give me liberty or give me death.”

And I truly apologize for the length of this, but I had a lot of facts I needed to provide to get my point across.

I have a question for some of you. Where do you think your rights come from? The reason I ask is because, aside from a few of my like-minded friends, I think the vast majority of the people in this country don’t have the faintest idea. Let me ask you another question. Do you think your government grants you your rights? Please don’t say yes, because if you do you are beyond hope.

Hopefully most of you have, at least, heard of the Bill of Rights, regardless of whether you have any idea which rights it protects. Yet it wouldn’t surprise me if most people thought the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights are the only rights we have. Not so. The Ninth Amendment clearly states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” In language you can understand, what the means is that just because a certain right is not found anywhere in the Constitution does not mean it does not exist.

Getting back to my question, do you think that government grants you your rights? Well let me see, our Constitution was ratified in 1789, our Declaration of Independence was adopted in 1776, and the first colonists settled in Jamestown Virginia in 1607. So, if you think that our government, which was established in 1789, granted us our rights, do you mean to imply that for the nearly two centuries after the first colonists settled in Jamestown they had no rights? After all, by your logic if government grants you your rights, and since our government was not established until 1789 then all those living in America prior to its establishment had no rights.

On the other hand, if the colonists did indeed have rights prior to the establishment of our government, then how can anyone believe that the people of this country would establish a system of government for the purpose of limiting them? In fact, the reverse is true, government was established to protect our rights as James Madison plainly stated, “It is sufficiently obvious, that persons now and property are the two great subjects on which governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which government was instituted.” It can’t get any clearer than that.

I know history is a boring subject for most, but just think back to the very beginning of time when man first made his appearance on this planet, did government also suddenly make an appearance so that it might grant man his rights? No, in the very beginning man was a solitary creature whose survival depended upon his ability to work; to till the soil and plant crops, or to hunt for meat, and also to find shelter from the elements. If man failed to do any of these things he perished.

That right there is the origin of man’s rights, a condition in which he is free to do as he desires without constraint. But it also brings about another very important point, that he alone is responsible for the outcomes of the choices he makes.

It wasn’t until man joined civil societies that rules or laws were imposed upon him. In most cases these rules were designed not to restrict mans rights, but to safeguard them so that others may not try to limit his enjoyment of them. And so it was when our Founders established our system of government, they designed it to manage the most basic of our nation’s affairs, while granting the people almost unrestricted freedom to exercise their rights. As Frederic Bastiat wrote in his treatise The Law, ” Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.”

So, if man existed before government, and if man had rights prior to the existence of government, it follows that government could not have granted man his rights. It also follows that government either exists to protect mans rights, or to limit them. In one instance man is free, in the other he is a slave to those who curtail his rights. It’s that simple. But I’d like you think about something Frederic Bastiat said way back in 1850, “Life, faculties, production–in other words, individuality, liberty, property―this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.”

In fact, the Supreme Court ruled pretty much the very same thing back in 1943, “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

You may not agree with my view, you may actually hate it, but it is supported by plenty of evidence, our rights come from our Creator, and that the purpose of government is to protect those rights, not to enact laws to restrict them, no matter how much you believe doing so will serve the public good.

In an 1824 letter, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.” Just in case some of you reading this do not know what inherent and unalienable mean, inherent means that it is part of the very nature of something, and therefore permanently characteristic of it; and unalienable means that it is incapable of being alienated, that is, sold or transferred. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, pg 1533)

Our Constitution was written to establish a system of government to manage the basic affairs of our nation while preserving the liberty of the people who inhabit the states. It is the Supreme Law of the land, superseding all other laws. Yet it did not create a government of unlimited powers. The 10th Amendment clearly states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

So the Constitution grants certain powers to the federal government, while it leaves others to the states. And since it is the Supreme Law of the Land, both the federal and state governments are bound by oath to obey it. Then, if the Bill of Rights, having been properly ratified, is also part of the Constitution, then the rights it lists are protected from both intrusion by the federal, AND the state governments.

Now there is something else Bastiat said back in 1850 that I’d like for you to read, “The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose!” This is the America we live in today, where government enacts laws which are contrary to the purpose for which governments are established, and they, by use of various ‘enforcement’ agencies impose their will upon the people.

I fully understand that for a society to survive some semblance of order must be maintained, and that laws must be enacted to provide for the public safety, and that officers of the law be hired to serve and protect the people. But when laws are enacted which are contrary to the purpose for which government was created, i.e. laws that infringe upon our inherent and unalienable rights, and when law enforcement agents become mere enforcers of these perverted laws, we live in a police state. In a police state the people have no recourse to the law, the law is what those in power say it is, and it is enforced without mercy. In a police state it does not matter that someone like me can provide a long list of quotes, or court rulings, those in power simply disregard what is just, and enforce the law as they see it.

But what is the law…honestly? According to Bastiat the law is nothing more than the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. Let that sink in…

Bastiat continues by saying, “Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

If every person has the right to defend—even by force—his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right—its reason for existing, its lawfulness—is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force—for the same reason—cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.”

Therefore, if one of the primary functions of government is to safeguard our rights, why is it that so many people clamor for their rights to be restricted? Why is it that any of us tolerate our rights being restricted? Is it because too many don’t know, or understand their rights? Or could it be that they have fallen prey to political correctness, fallen victims to fear, that they would so willingly give up their rights just to feel safer, or not be offended? In either case those who would so willingly give up their rights are fools.

Let me tell you a dirty little secret, you do not have the right to NOT BE offended. When I was growing up my parents used to tell me that sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never harm me. I grew up in an age where people could speak what was on their mind and not have it censored by political correctness. Sure I was taught to exercise common sense and not utter profanities when around certain company, but nowadays it seems that you can’t criticize anything without being told “You can’t say that.”

The First Amendment simply declares that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…” And since Congress is the lawmaking entity under our system of government, if Congress cannot abridge our freedom of speech, then the public cannot censure it as well. Neither can the courts rule that certain speech is deemed to be unconstitutional, as all speech is freely protected…even that which ‘offends.’

So if prayer offends you, too bad, you don’t have to participate in it, but you cannot tell people that they are prohibited from praying. But on the flip side you cannot mandate that they pray. Speech, to be truly free, must be something that a person chooses to do of their own volition, not something that is mandated. So all this talk about hate speech, or speech that is offensive to others is merely a means to control our speech, to limit what we can and cannot say, and it is an abridgement of our right to speak freely.

The same goes for the Second Amendment, which states that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not say what type arms, what capacity magazines, it merely says arms. The purpose for which the Second Amendment was included in those comprising the Bill of Rights was so that the people might have the means to rise up and shake off their government should it become tyrannical. It would be inconceivable for our Founders to have envisioned a government armed with the most modern of weapons while the people were left holding muskets and flint lock rifles. They would have wanted the people to be as well armed as those who might oppress them.

Therefore any law which requires registration of our personal firearms, and a permit to own or carry them, or a restriction on which type arms we may own would be repugnant to those who understood the purpose for which this amendment was written.

I could go on; how the Fourth and Fifth Amendments have been nearly obliterated with all the laws passed to fight terrorism. But this paper would be far too long were I to go through and list each instance of our rights being infringed by those who have sworn an oath to protect them. Yet there are two rights left in the Bill of Rights which I’d like to take a bit of time discussing; the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which state, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” and “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

As human beings we are free to pursue happiness, security, and even wealth, without our government interfering in our pursuits. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1787, “The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.”

Nowhere, and I mean NOWHERE, is it among the powers specifically delegated to government that they make take, by force, a portion of your earnings, and then give it to those in need in the form of subsidies, or taxpayer funded social programs. Our government simply does not have the authority to mandate that we give of our income to provide for those less fortunate. If we choose to do so of our own volition that is fine, as that is charity. As George Washington once said, “Let your heart feel for the afflictions and distress of everyone, and let your hand give in proportion to your purse.” But again, nowhere is it among the powers granted or government to take from one, and give to another. This includes all manner of subsidies, INCLUDING foreign aid, where our money is given to other countries based upon their ‘need.’

And, at the same time our government does not have the power, nor authority, to mandate that we participate in any form of government funded social programs. Therefore Social Security, Medicare, AND Obamacare cannot be force fed to us, or our participation in these programs be made mandatory. These are simply among those other rights, those mentioned in the Ninth Amendment, of which our government is guilty of violating.

This is no longer the home of the free, as we do not have freedom, we have the appearance of freedom. Sure we can pick and choose which vehicle to buy, what to eat, (and even that is being limited to a certain extent), which clothes to wear, what music to listen to, and what to watch on television. But when it comes to the things that matter, our unalienable rights, we have lost them because we have not stood up for them.

I don’t know if anything I could ever say will change all this. All I do know is that America is now the home of the meek and the land of the slaves. Until we stand up against our oppressors and take back what is rightfully ours, THAT will never change.

Do you want to know what really angers me? It is when I hear people talking about our DEMOCRACY; I hear our elected representatives say it, I hear news anchors say it, and I hear everyday people say it. It angers me because none of them know what the hell they are talking about. I’ll pay anyone $20 if they can find the word democracy in the Constitution. If actually take the time to look, you won’t find it because it’s not there…anywhere. If you want to know what our nation is you only have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance which says, “…and to the republic for which it stands…”

People think we have a democracy because we use a democratic process to elect representatives, and that those representatives pass laws in a democratic manner. But that does not make America a democracy! In a pure democracy the majority rules. Here, let me give you an example. Let’s say a town has a population of 1,000 people, with 600 men and 400 women. A ballot measure is voted upon which proposes that the men can demand that the women allow the men to have sexual relations with them any time they wish, regardless of whether the women agree. The ballot measure passes with all 600 of the men voting in favor of it. In a democracy the women would then be forced to obey the new law. But that’s rape you say, there is a LAW prohibiting it. Now you’re beginning to get the picture.

You see in a democracy it does not matter, if a majority votes in favor of something it becomes law. But we are a republic, which is defined as : a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote for representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. We the people hold the power in this country, a fact that has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, “In the United States, sovereignty resides in the people who act through the organs established by the Constitution.” Perry v. United States (1935)

In 1791, Thomas Paine, author of Common Sense, wrote The Rights of Man. In his booklet Paine explains exactly what a Constitution is, “A Constitution is a Thing antecedent to Government, and a Government is only the Creature of a Constitution. The Constitution of a Country is not the act of its Government, but of the People constituting a Government. It is the Body of Elements to which you can refer and quote article by article; and which contains the principles upon which the Government shall be established, the manner in which it shall be organized, the powers it shall have, the Mode of Elections, the Duration of Parliaments, or by what other name such Bodies may be called; the powers which the executive part of the Government shall have; and, in fine, every thing that relates to the compleat organization of a civil government, and the principles upon which it shall act, and by which it shall be bound. A Constitution, therefore, is to a Government what the laws made afterwards by that Government are to a Court of Judicature. The Court of Judicature does not make the laws, neither can it alter them; it only acts in conformity to the laws made: and the Government is in like manner governed by the Constitution.”

The Constitution is the law which we the people imposed upon those whom we elect to represent us. It is what distinguishes us from a democracy, because those whom we elect cannot do whatever they choose in our behalf, nor can they do what a majority of the people wish them to do. They can ONLY do what the Constitution says they can do, and anything that goes beyond those specifically delegated powers is usurpation. It wouldn’t surprise me if there are a few out there who do not understand what usurpation means. To usurp something means to take and keep something without the right to do so. So when our government assumes powers which are not among those specifically granted them by the people, it has usurped powers, and since the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land, by usurping powers not delegated to it, our government has committed a crime against the people.

It does not matter that a majority of the people desire that their government overstep its authority so that it may do things which they believe serves the general welfare, or is for the common good, legally they cannot do so. In1866 the Supreme Court ruled that “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.” (Ex parte Milligan)

So, if our government is not one of unlimited power; if it enact laws because a majority of the people ask it to, is there any way of finding out what exactly is the purpose for which our government was established? In fact there is, and it is by simply be reading the preamble. I’m sure many people would recognize the preamble, but do they really know what purpose it serves? A preamble is defined as a preliminary statement, especially the introduction to a formal document that serves to explain its purpose.

Former Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story said this about preambles, “The importance of examining the preamble, for the purpose of expounding the language of a statute, has been long felt, and universally conceded in all juridical discussions. It is an admitted maxim in the ordinary course of the administration of justice, that the preamble of a statute is a key to open the mind of the makers, as to the mischiefs, which are to be remedied, and the objects, which are to be accomplished by the provisions of the statute.”

However, Story goes on to say, “And, here, we must guard ourselves against an error, which is too often allowed to creep into the discussions upon this subject. The preamble never can be resorted to, to enlarge the powers confided to the general government, or any of its departments. It cannot confer any power per se; it can never amount, by implication, to an enlargement of any power expressly given. It can never be the legitimate source of any implied power, when otherwise withdrawn from the constitution. Its true office is to expound the nature, and extent, and application of the powers actually conferred by the constitution, and not substantively to create them.”

The preamble to our Constitution states, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Justice Story sums it up by saying, “The design is to establish a form of government. This, of itself, imports legal obligation, permanence, and uncontrollability by any, but the authorities authorized to alter, or abolish it. The object was to secure the blessings of liberty to the people, and to their posterity.”

In short, it was created by us and those who are employed by us to serve as our representatives are bound by its legal constraints, and the only people who can enlarge the powers granted government are authorities authorized to alter or abolish the Constitution…the people. As George Washington said, “The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.”

So why have I just wasted two pages trying to re-explain something I have gone over before? It’s simple, because people simply don’t understand that by their government going beyond the powers that granted it by the Constitution the tables have turned and instead of the people being the sovereign which tells the government what it can and cannot do, it has become the sovereign telling us what we can and cannot do. Daniel Webster once said that “There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.” In our case, if those whom we elect cease being accountable to the people, if they cease upholding the law and instead pass laws which limits the very liberty the Constitution was written to protect, then they have become our masters. And if they are the masters it can only mean that WE are the slaves.

God gave us all brains and our Founders gave us all the information we would need to maintain our republic in a state of vigor. All we had to do was study the writings of those great men who established our republic, and apply those principles and America would remain the land of the free and the home of the brave.

In an 1830 letter to A. Stevenson, James Madison wrote, “As the people of the United States enjoy the great merit of having established a system of Government on the basis of human rights, and of giving it a form without example, which, as they believe, unites the greatest national strength with the best security for public order and individual liberty, they owe to themselves, to their posterity and to the world, a preservation of the system in its purity, its symmetry, and its authenticity.”

Madison, in his Memorial and Remonstrance, furthermore stated, “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.”

In his farewell address, our nation’s first president George Washington said, “Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts.”

Thomas Jefferson once said that “The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution the measure of its powers.”

Unfortunately for our country to remain a republic the rule of law must remain as the most important thing in the hearts and minds of the people. Otherwise the government can, and will pass laws in accordance to the wishes and desires of the majority, plainly put, our nation will become a democracy…something our Founders feared and detested.

And as is attributed to a Scotsman named Tytler, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.” You tell me, with our current national debt hovering around $17.5 trillion, was Tytler right, or was he wrong?

On top of our government spending us into a black hole we may never climb out of, they have done irrevocable damage to the Bill of Rights which amended the Constitution to protect certain rights from governmental infringement.

Going back to James Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance, Madison declared, “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 rulers who are guilty of such encroachment exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are tyrants. The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them and are slaves.”

In the 1943 case of West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson ruled “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

I mentioned a few moments ago that God gave us all brains. Could we all pause a moment and use them? What do you think Justice Jackson meant when he said that our rights are beyond the reach of majorities and officials? When he said that our rights cannot be submitted to a vote he meant it. As former Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black said, “It is my belief that there are ‘absolutes’ in our Bill of Rights, and that they were put there on purpose by men who knew what the words meant and meant their prohibitions to be ‘absolutes.’”

Our government, including the Courts are under solemn oath to protect our rights against all violations. Yet going back to the period following the ratification of the Constitution there were some who feared the power of the courts. Chief among them was Thomas Jefferson who said, “If [as the Federalists say] “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,” … , then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law …”

Years later Justice Hugo Black would say, “In my judgment the people of no nation can lose their liberty so long as a Bill of Rights like ours survives and its basic purposes are conscientiously interpreted, enforced and respected so as to afford continuous protection against old, as well as new, devices and practices which might thwart those purposes. I fear to see the consequences of the Court’s practice of substituting its own concepts of decency and fundamental justice for the language of the Bill of Rights as its point of departure in interpreting and enforcing that Bill of Rights.”

So when the First Amendment says that we have the right to freely exercise our religion then the courts cannot rule prayer unconstitutional simply because it offends someone. When the Second Amendment says that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it means that no legislative body may enact any law which limits what type weapon we may own, what capacity magazine we might own, and demand that we obtain a permit to carry them or even to register them with the government. When the Fourth Amendment says that we have the right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers and effects it meant that without a warrant the NSA cannot spy on us without a warrant, the TSA cannot subject us to searches without a warrant, and that DHS cannot look at our banking transactions or other personal affairs without a warrant. When the Fifth Amendment says that No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime without a presentment or indictment at a grand jury, then all people shall have the right to face their accuser and be presented an opportunity to hear the charges leveled against them. That means no indefinite detentions at Gitmo…And that also applies for the Sixth Amendment.

You see, our government, at all levels, is guilty of trampling all over rights that were supposed to beyond their reach. And aside from a few vocal patriots, we have sat back and let it happen because we are afraid. Afraid of crazy people owning guns and going on a wild shooting spree; afraid of the next terrorist attack. Well, Ben Franklin once said that “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” And James Madison said, “It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.”

Yet I see people all the time saying that their political party is better than the other one, or that if we could just get this one guy into office, or if we could prevent someone else from getting elected, that we could save our country and our Constitution. BULLSHIT!!!! Our Constitution has already been shredded. What we have now is just a circus sideshow designed to give us the illusion that we still have some say left in how things are run in this country.

In his dissenting opinion of Olmstead v. U.S., Justice Louis d. Brandeis said, “Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means — to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal — would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face.”

In conclusion, we are, or we were at least, a government of laws, a republic where the people we elected were our servants, limited in their actions by the Constitution. Those days are long gone as both the people, and the government, no longer give a rats ass about what limits the Constitution imposes upon the government, and what rights said government was established to safeguard.

Our government has put itself above the law and in so doing has elevated itself from servant to master. We have become slaves to tyrants, and to the debt that they have created providing us all these benefits that we so eagerly sought from them. I hope your damned good and happy. As Samuel Adams said, “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 that hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

I really haven’t felt like writing anything for the past week, I felt like what’s the use, I’m not getting through to the people who I really need to, so why bother? But for me, writing has become almost like an addiction, I can only go so long before I have to sit down and write something…anything…just to get rid of the urge to do it. So here I am, sitting here wondering what the hell I am going to talk about this time.

I don’t know if you have been paying attention, but I have noticed the initial maneuverings of the two primary political parties to select who they will submit to us as their choice for the next presidential election. I just read a CNN e mail that says 60 something percent of registered Democrats support Hillary Clinton as their choice for the Democratic nomination. A few months ago I heard that the GOP was thinking about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, until a scandal cost him support. I find it difficult to believe that a closure of a few lanes of traffic on a bridge comes anywhere close to Hillary’s disastrous handling of the Benghazi affair, but then again that’s just me and I tend to look at things a bit more logically than most.

It really doesn’t matter to me who either party nominates because both sides are going to present us with candidates who adhere to their respective party platform, and anyone who doesn’t isn’t going to stand a snowballs chance in hell of getting their party’s nomination. I’ve even heard rumors of Sarah Palin making a run for it, but as far as I’m concerned she talks a good talk, but she is just another RINO, (Republican in name only), who would endorse the same policies that McCain would have had he been elected.

Hell, if you want someone who is really going to stand for, what you conservatives call your belief system, why don’t we all elect Ted Nugent? He makes just as much sense as Sarah Palin and I think he’d be much better for us when it came to supporting our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. But this is just rambling when I should be getting to the point.

When you vote for a candidate, no matter if it is for a president, a senator, a mayor, or even a member of your city council, you should ask yourself what is it that you are voting for. Are you voting strictly along party lines, or possibly are you voting for the candidate who supports the issues you feel most strongly about? In either case there is something you are all failing to consider. How does your candidate stand when it comes to supporting the Constitution of the United States?

When our Constitution was first ratified there were two camps of thought among the colonists. There were those who felt that the Constitution said what it means and meant what it says, that is that there was no room for interpretation of its clauses. Then there were those who felt that the Constitution left room for interpretation, that there were ‘implied’ powers not specifically mentioned that the government should take.

Before I go any further, you have to understand, that all elected officials swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. So when these ‘politicians’ and oh, how I hate that word, run for office they are doing so either with the full knowledge that the Constitution imposes limits upon the things they can do, or they believe that it is full of loopholes which grant them the power and authority to do almost anything they want. So when YOU vote for them you have to ask yourself where you personally stand on the matter of Constitutional limitations upon your government…and you SHOULD vote accordingly.

Getting back to when our Constitution was first ratified, the two factions who fought for control of our government were the origin of the political parties we have today. One believed in a limited government which only did the things the Constitution authorized, and the other felt that the government had more powers than were specifically mentioned.

But no matter what you believe, James Madison, who is considered the driving force behind our Constitution, in Federalist 45 declared that “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.” That means there was no room for interpretation, that all the powers were there in black and white for everyone to see.

Whenever you cast your vote for a candidate based upon the promises they make, there are two things you should ask yourself before casting your ballot―by what right do I ask that this person act upon the promises they make, and under what authority do they do so. You see we have fallen prey to the misuse of words when talking about those people whom we elect. We have taken to calling them politicians, when in truth they are public servants―they work for us.

But, unfortunately this country has become so divided along these so-called party lines that all we can see is our hatred of those who belong to the opposing political party. Most Americans have fallen prey to this belief in conserves versus liberals, Republicans versus Democrats, yet they all fail to recognize that the party they belong to has strayed from its commitment to upholding the Constitution.

But what is conservatism and liberalism? Is it adherence to what you consider to be either conservative or liberal beliefs, or is it adherence to the original idea that the Constitution either does, or does not impose limits upon our government?

Before I go on I want you to do a little exercise with me. Get out a piece of paper and draw a long line on it. Then right in the middle make a dot on that line. That dot represents a strict adherence to the Constitution, while the right represents conservatism, and the left, of course, represents the liberal belief.

Now if you spread your thumb and forefinger apart as far as you can and then place them on that line with the dot evenly between them you will see that there are conservatives beliefs on the right, and liberal beliefs on the left. BUT, if you shift your hand either to the right or to the left, you will see that in both cases you have shifted in some direction further from a strict adherence to the principles contained in the Constitution.

What has happened in this country is that we have come to believe that our belief system, be it liberal or conservative, is the only factor we should consider when voting for candidates, when in fact both sides have strayed from a strict adherence to what the Constitution actually says.

I liken our country to a drunkard who is staggering down the road. Every four years it takes a drunken step to the right, then in four, or eight more years, it takes a drunken step to the left. But it NEVER changes course, it continues to stagger drunkenly in the same direction.

We are drunk because, as Americans, we are woefully ignorant of the principles which guided our Founders in establishing our Republic. We have fallen prey to the belief that if we vote outside the two party system our vote is wasted and helps to elect ‘the other guy’.

We believe that our government has to do things for us. Be you conservative or liberal, you believe that unless the government is doing something, passes new laws, it is not serving its purpose. But you never think to ask yourself what is it exactly that our government is supposed to be doing.

Did you ever stop the think that these people you vote for are interviewing for a job? Well they are, and we the people of this country are the employer. They work for us and as with any job there are certain standards we should hold our employees to. In most cases if an employee does not perform according to the standards set by their employer, they are terminated. Why is it then that we as Americans do not hold our elected representatives to the same standard of conduct?

I’ll tell you why, it is because we want things from our government, we want it to do things for us to make our lives either safer, or more comfortable. That is what separates what I consider true conservatives from the rest of you. We don’t want our government to do a damned thing for us other than leave us alone in the enjoyment of our rights, and the freedom to pursue happiness. We get mighty upset when our hard earned money is taken from us, in the form of taxes, and spent upon programs we do not support, spent upon wars we do not condone, sent in the form of foreign aid to other countries, or used to enrich those who contribute to, what we consider to be, a corrupt political system.

It does not matter if you consider yourself a liberal or a conservative, both of your parties are guilty of overstepping the limited power granted them by the Constitution. Liberals believe that it is the duty of the government to take care of the needy, the less fortunate, and certain special interests who get benefits from the programs they institute. Conservatives tend to favor big business at the expense of the working man and they tend to be more hawkish in their stance on world affairs. BOTH are guilty of passing laws which take from us of our income to support the programs their party stands for, and BOTH are guilty of infringing upon our rights.

It won’t be until the people of this country stop being so selfish, stop being so greedy, stop being so reliant upon government to take care of them, that we will ever see a change in the way things go in our nation’s capital. As long as there are people who feel it is perfectly fine for our government to take from one, and give to another, nothing will change. As long as there are people who feel that the infringement of our rights is justified for the greater public good, nothing is going to change.

These are not the beliefs held by our Founders, and they would be disgusted by what they see in this country were they alive today. Samuel Adams once said that “...the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for eh support, protection, and defense of those very rights: the principal of which [] are life, liberty, and property.” James Madison also said, “It is sufficiently obvious, that persons now and property are the two great subjects on which governments are to act; and that the rights of the persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which government was instituted.”

We are they employers, and therefore the bosses of those who represent us. It won’t be until we demand a change, in sufficient numbers, that they will listen to us. Whether we do it by calling their offices in sufficient numbers to get their attention, by protesting in the streets of our nation’s capital, or by armed resistance is completely up to us. But unless one of these three things happen you may as well stay home on election day, because no matter who you vote for, nothing is going to change.

As Roger Daltry of the Who once sang, “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss…”