By What Authority? (Part 2)

“Where’s the justice, where’s the law;
raise your healthy voice.”
~Ted Nugent~
(Stormtroopin, 1975)

Before I continue with Part 2 I want to do a short recap of Part 1. I hope that I have firmly established 4 distinct points. The first is that the people of the United States are the true sovereigns in this country; that they alone hold the supreme political power and authority. Secondly, prior to the Constitution the States were sovereign and independent entities which were loosely united for their mutual benefit; a Confederation. Next, the Constitution was a compact written under the delegated authority of the State Legislatures and implemented by the voice of the people who lived within the 13 States. Finally I addressed the subject of what a Preamble is; a declaration of intent which states the purpose for which our Constitution was written and adopted.

Before I take one step further in my discussion, I need to make absolutely clear what a constitution is. This may be my own personal opinion, but the best definition of what a Constitution is can be found in Thomas Paine’s book, The Rights of Man, wherein it states, “A constitution is not a thing in name only, but in fact. It has not an ideal, but a real existence; and wherever it cannot be produced in a visible form, there is none. A constitution is a thing antecedent to a 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 its government. It is the body of elements, to which you can refer, and quote article by article; and which contains the principles on which the government shall be established, the manner in which it shall be organised, 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, everything that relates to the complete organisation of a civil government, and the principles on 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.”

People today seem to have forgotten that the Constitution is a law. Yet in 1866 the Supreme Court held that to be its status, “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.” (Source: Ex parte Milligan) If I might impose upon you to answer a question, what term do we use in society for those who break the law? Why, isn’t it criminals? Therefore, if those we elect do not obey the restrictions placed upon them by the document which created our system of government, does that not make them criminals? Not only has the Court held that the Constitution is a law, but the Constitution itself declares that to be the case, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in the Pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme law of the Land.”

But people fail to see that little caveat within that statement regarding the laws our government might choose to enact, that they be in pursuance of the powers given Congress by the Constitution. Our government cannot decide for itself the extent of the powers it might choose to exercise on our behalf. This fact is attested to by both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

In 1798 Thomas Jefferson declared, “…that the government created by this compact [the Constitution for the United States] 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…” (Source: The Kentucky Resolutions)

Madison also stated something very similar, “[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.” (Source: Speech in the Virginia Ratification Assembly, June 6, 1788)

As Congress is the lawmaking body of our government, it should be obvious that the powers given our government be contained in the Article of our Constitution which outlines the powers given Congress. Those powers are found in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Depending upon how one interprets Article 1, Section 8 there are either 16 or 18 powers given Congress; and therefore our government as a whole.

The reason I say there are either 16 or 18 powers is twofold; the first reason being is that the first power listed is the power to raise taxes. The power to raise taxes is a power, of that there is no doubt, but the power to raise taxes can only be exercised if it is to raise the money required to perform the other specific areas our government was given authority to legislate upon. In 1791 Thomas Jefferson explained this point as follows, “To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, ‘to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.’ For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union.” (Source: Jefferson’s opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank)

The other reason I say there may be either 16 or 18 powers given Congress is due to the last power described, “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

This clause is known as the Necessary and Proper Clause, and has been used to justify many an expansion of our government’s power. Yet once again this is not an open door for all manner of implied powers, but is specifically directed towards the fulfillment all powers mentioned beforehand. This belief is confirmed in Federalist 33 where Alexander Hamilton declares, “This simple train of inquiry furnishes us at once with a test by which to judge of the true nature of the clause complained of. It conducts us to this palpable truth, that a power to lay and collect taxes must be a power to pass all laws NECESSARY and PROPER for the execution of that power; and what does the unfortunate and culumniated provision in question do more than declare the same truth, to wit, that the national legislature, to whom the power of laying and collecting taxes had been previously given, might, in the execution of that power, pass all laws NECESSARY and PROPER to carry it into effect? I have applied these observations thus particularly to the power of taxation, because it is the immediate subject under consideration, and because it is the most important of the authorities proposed to be conferred upon the Union. But the same process will lead to the same result, in relation to all other powers declared in the Constitution. And it is EXPRESSLY to execute these powers that the sweeping clause, as it has been affectedly called, authorizes the national legislature to pass all NECESSARY and PROPER laws. If there is any thing exceptionable, it must be sought for in the specific powers upon which this general declaration is predicated.”

Let me sum up what I have proven to be the case so far. Our Constitution is a law; in fact it is the supreme law of the land. Yet it is only supreme when the laws our government enacts are in pursuance of those specifically enumerated powers found in Article 1, Section 8. Anything our government does that exceeds those powers can be called many things; usurpation, unconstitutional, and yes, even criminal.

Now I must address a point that I know will anger some, and make others uncomfortable. If the very act of our government passing laws which the Constitution does not authorize it to enact is a criminal violation of the Supreme Law of the Land, what then do you call those who enforce such unconstitutional laws upon the people?

I’m not specifically targeting local law enforcement; although they are certainly included in my question. I’m also talking about every government agency whose job is to enforce the laws passed by Congress; from the Drug Enforcement Agency all the way to Park Rangers who enforce federal law upon land the government has no authority to claim jurisdiction over.

The 16th American Jurisprudence is an encyclopedia of law. It holds no authority and cannot be used to try those accused of breaking the law; its sole purpose is to explain legal principles and maxims. That said, there is something contained within its covers that one needs to understand, “Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”

Where exactly in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution does it give Congress the authority to enact any law which requires that the public obtain health insurance? Where in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution does it give Congress the authority to criminalize the use of a naturally occurring substance such as marijuana; and to create an entire agency dedicated to enforcing that law; the Drug Enforcement Agency? Where exactly in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution does it authorize Congress to regulate environmental issues and establish the Environmental Protection Agency? Where exactly in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution does it authorize Congress to regulate the food supply of our nation and create an agency dedicated to enforcing that law, such as the Food and Drug Administration?

Do you want me to go on? I can you know, I can provide you with dozens of other examples of laws our government has enacted that are unconstitutional, and the agencies it has created to enforce these unconstitutional laws.

Then of course there is the pink elephant of local law enforcement enforcing unconstitutional laws as well. And if you don’t know what a pink elephant is, it is something which is obvious, but something nobody seems to want to notice or discuss.

Listen, I’m all for having a police force to serve and protect the people from the true criminals amongst us; but I am against them enforcing laws which are unconstitutional, or which violate my rights.

I realize that law enforcement officers hold, for the most part, a thankless job; that they are forced to face the underbelly of society, and that they often encounter situations where they have to make split second decisions that may mean their lives, or the lives of criminals are forfeited.

Nonetheless, they take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and if they enforce laws that are unconstitutional they are violating that oath.
I have heard the saying that they are only doing their job; following orders. Well that’s no excuse when the orders they follow violate my rights, or the rights of someone else. They would do well to remember a little thing called the Nuremburg Trials where it was held that following orders did not shield the burden of guilt from those who were charged with violating simple human rights.

If you go all the way back to where I discussed the Preamble, you’ll recall that one of the reasons our Constitution was written was to secure justice. People believe that justice is the fair and impartial application of the law. While that may be what some dictionaries define it to be, that is not necessarily the true meaning of the word justice. I say that because what is the purpose of law? If we are to believe that America was founded on the concept of liberty, then there is something Thomas Jefferson said that you need to permanently embed in your minds; that being, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” (Source: Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816)

If a law is unconstitutional, or if it violates any of our unalienable rights, how can anyone say that justice is being served when these laws are being enforced by the coercive power of law enforcement or some governmental agency; all who have been given the authority to use deadly force in the enforcing of these laws?

How can one say that justice is being served when our court system does not recognize the limits imposed upon government by the Constitution, or the rights which have been placed beyond the legislative authority of government by the Bill of Rights?

In 1829 James Madison made the following comments to the Virginia Assembly regarding the purposes for which governments are instituted, “It is sufficiently obvious, that persons 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. These rights cannot be separated.”

If you’ll note, Madison did not say regulate or manage, he said protect. Therefore when any law passed by our government deprives us with our right to property, or any of our rights as declared under Natural Law, then that government and those who enforce such laws become tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson once posed the following question to William Small in letter he wrote in 1775, “Can it be believed that a grateful people will suffer [individuals] to be consigned to execution, whose sole crime has been the developing and asserting their rights?” Were Jefferson alive today I think he would be astonished at how readily the public stands to condemn those who do just that; assert their rights that is.

There is no justice when the power of the government is arbitrary and routinely violates the limits imposed upon it by the Constitution. There is no justice when a standing army of law enforcement and jack booted thugs hiding under the cloak of law enforce unconstitutional laws upon the people.

You know, back when our country was beginning to tire of the tyranny of King George, there was no law enforcement as we know it today. Those who enforced the Kings law were the Redcoats; the Regulars of the British Army. It was they who our Founders squared off against in the Revolutionary War; as the King himself, and Parliament damn sure didn’t travel across the Atlantic to enforce the Kings laws. That is why our Founders spoke so often about the threat posed by standing armies. I wonder what they would say about how foolish we have been in allowing our government to create a standing army of its own as it has in the various agencies which enforce federal law. I wonder what they would say if they could see how our local law enforcement has become a militarized force that uses force at the drop of a hat and routinely violates the rights of the people they are sworn to protect.

And that is why I began each segment of this two part series with that quote from the Ted Nugent song, Stormtroopin; because I’m wondering where the justice has gone, where is the law to protect our rights? I certainly don’t see it in operation, do you?

What I see is exactly what Frederic Bastiat says in his opening statement in his book The Law, “The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!”

I’m just wondering when the rest of the country is going to wake up to what I see with such clarity? In closing I’d like to return to another quote found in Federalist 33, “If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.”

When are the people of this country going to recognize that their government is corrupt and that it is evil; and has forgotten the purposes for which it was established? When are they going to stop supporting it and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution and restore America to a nation where the rights of the individual are respected and where justice once again reigns supreme?

As Mr. Nugent said, I have raised my healthy voice; the question is, will anyone hear it?

Posted in General | Leave a comment

By What Authority? (Part 1)

“Where’s the justice, where’s the law;
raise your healthy voice.”

~Ted Nugent~
(Stormtroopin, 1975)

I often wonder if people have ever stopped to think about the reasons for which our government was established, and if there are any limits to the things they believe it can and cannot do for them. From the conversations I have had with people, I seriously doubt it. What makes things worse is, that when presented with facts, people reject them; often violently, because to them the lie has become their truth and they cannot face the fact that all that they believe in is based upon the lies they have been taught/told. It’s like noted scientist Carl Sagan said, “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. The bamboozle has captured us. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

Whether you have or have not asked that question of yourself, I’m going to ask you now; can you give me at least one of the reasons for which our system of government was established; and more importantly, can you tell me where the answer is found? If you can answer even one of those questions, you are more informed than 99% of the people living in this country; and as my friend told me just the other day, saying that 1% can is being very generous.

The purposes for which our government was established are found in the Preamble to the Constitution. Many believe the Preamble to be a grant of power within itself; but this is not the case. As Joseph Story wrote in Section 462 of his Commentaries on the Constitution, “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.”

When researching for this article, I turned to two dictionaries of law for the meaning of the word Preamble. Black’s Dictionary of Law defines it as follows: A clause at the beginning of a constitution or statute explanatory of the reasons for its enactment and the objects sought to be accomplished.

Bouviers Dictionary of Law describes it thusly: A preface, an introduction or explanation of what is to follow: that clause at the head of acts of congress or other legislatures which explains the reasons why the act is made.

The Preamble to our Constitution does not grant our government any power or authority; it only explains the purposes those who wrote it sought to accomplish. So, if the Preamble is only a statement of intent describing why the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention wrote our Constitution, what exactly did they hope to accomplish by writing it? The only way to answer that is to read the Preamble, which says, “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.”

There is this mistaken belief among people that, due to the words, ‘We the people…’ that the Constitution was an act of the people establishing a system of government for themselves. That belief is not entirely accurate. To understand the inaccuracy of that belief you have to first have a complete understanding of the words sovereign and sovereignty.

I know I’ve probably talked about it dozens, if not hundreds of times, but sovereignty is the supreme or absolute political power in a nation/country. Sovereignty is the source, or wellspring from which all delegated authority originates. In the United States, sovereignty resides not in the government, but in the people. Therefore, it can be said that sovereignty is the supreme political power in a country, and that sovereigns are those who hold that power.

I know there are a great many people who scoff at what they derisively call, the sovereign citizen movement, but that is due to the fact that they themselves do not understand the meaning of the words sovereign and sovereignty. When I talk of sovereignty I get these looks from people as if they are thinking that I’ve lost my mind. Regardless of what they think of me, I’m basing my beliefs on historical fact; which makes me wonder what they are basing their beliefs upon.

As early as 1793 the Supreme Court of the United States held, “…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country…”

Then as recently as 1958 this was reaffirmed by a lower court in the case of Perry v. United States, “In the United States, sovereignty resides in the people who act through the organs established by the Constitution…”

As sovereigns it is fully within our power to gather together and choose for ourselves what laws to enact and which to revoke; that would be what people today mistakenly believe our government to be, a democracy. A pure democracy is a system in which the people themselves gather together and make the law. However, in a country as large as ours, and with so many conflicting interests, a pure democracy is simply not feasible.

The next step up from that is a Representative Democracy, where the people vote for others to enact laws for them; with the majority vote all that is required to enact law. In all honesty, this is the system I think most people in this country believe we have. The problem with any form of democracy is that there are no safeguards for the rights of the minority; a simple majority is all that is needed to deprive the minority of their rights, as there are no limits placed upon the governing body as to what laws they may enact.

No people, what we have is a Republic; which is similar to a Representative Democracy, but which has a written law which clearly outlines the shape our government is to take, the powers of each branch, and more specifically, the overall power held by the government itself. We do have a democratic process by which majority votes are all that is required to elect those who represent us and enact law, but there is a written law which places limits upon what areas our government may legislate upon. That is a clear distinction which many people simply do not want to accept; for it would mean that if they were to accept this principle that many of the things they have come to expect from government would suddenly go away.

I kind of got off track here, but I believe it was necessary to explain these things so that you would have a fuller understanding of what I wanted to say. So let’s continue with the discussion of whether or not our system of government was established by the people of this country.

One of the big problems I think people have when discussing subjects such as this is that they look at things from their perspective in whatever age, or era they live in. There isn’t a sole alive today who lived in a time when we did not have a federal government, so they cannot picture what life would have been like without it. But there was a time when it did not exist, and if you want to understand the nature of and purpose for government you have to put yourself into the mindset of those who lived prior to the drafting and ratification of the Constitution.

In 1787 the United States was a Confederation; a loose alliance of sovereign and independent States; each of whom had their own system of government. They had joined together as a Confederation to fight a common enemy; the British, and remained a Confederation for their mutual benefit afterwards to show unity to the world that they were capable of existing as a nation.

Whether the Confederation Congress established created by the Articles of Confederation truly was inept, or whether or not those were mere fabrications to support the belief that a stronger central government was necessary is irrelevant at this point. What is relevant is that in 1787 the State Legislatures chose delegates to attend a convention in Philadelphia to amend the Articles of Confederation, with the sole authority to propose amendments that would strengthen the powers of Congress to meet the needs of the Confederation.

Of course we all know that is not what happened. As soon as they had a quorum they locked the doors and decided to throw the Confederation into the trash heap and write an entirely new document, creating an entirely new system of government. Nonetheless, those attending what we now call the Constitutional Convention were acting on the authority given them by the State Legislatures which had chosen them. This is a crucial point, and you need to keep it in mind as we continue.

Although the delegates to this convention were overstepping their delegated authority, the fact is that the Articles of Confederation was the existing law which granted their government its authority, and therefore any amendments or alterations to it would have to be done in accordance to the manner they prescribed.

The manner in which the Articles of Confederation could be altered or amended is found in Article 13, where it states, “And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”

No where exactly in that quote does it say that alterations to the Articles of Confederation were to be made by the people; I don’t see it, do you? The State Legislatures were the governing bodies of each State, and they acted solely by virtue of delegated power; given to them by the true sovereigns; the people.

When the Constitution was finally completed, and voted upon by the delegates to the convention which produced it, it was then sent to the State Legislatures for their consideration. That should have been the end of it. Either all the State Legislatures would have agreed to it and the system of government it established went into effect, or it was rejected and the existing Congress remained in power.

What happened though is that the terms for ratification found within the Constitution itself, (a document that at this time was nothing more than a mere proposal for a NEW system of government) were used to ratify it. It’s almost like that ridiculous quote Nancy Pelosi made a few years back, “We have to pass the law so we can find out what’s in it.”

So instead of the State Legislators deciding whether or not to accept or reject this proposed new form of government, ratification assemblies were held in the various States; consisting of people drawn from among the great body of the people. Whether this was done because the Preamble declares that the Constitution be ordained and established by We the People, or whether it was done because nobody really knew what to do about it is beside the point. The point is that although it was eventually ratified by consent of the people of each State, it was originally written under the delegated authority of the States themselves.

Therefore, a very strong argument can be made that the Constitution is a compact between the States to establish a system of government over them, which was then ratified by the voice of the people; as they are the true sovereigns and have the final say in what form of government they might choose to live under.

I had hoped to fit everything I wanted to say into one single document. I see that I will not be able to do that now; so now would be as good a time as any for an intermission. I will continue this in another segment soon.

Posted in General | 1 Comment

Liberty Once Lost…

When anyone mentions the word liberty I am torn between a sense of overwhelming grief and anger. I feel grief because we do not have liberty in this country; not anymore that is. I feel anger because the preservation of their liberty is at the bottom of most people’s list of priorities. Not only that, but were you to ask the average person what liberty was, they would not give you the correct definition.

Black’s Dictionary of Law defines it as: Freedom; exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons.
Bouvier’s Dictionary of Law provides this definition: Freedom from restraint. The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature.

Using either of those definitions, how many of you would still proclaim that liberty exists in abundance here in America right now? Yet our country was founded upon the principle of individual liberty; it is what our Founders sought when they declared their independence from England. Sure, they fought for their independence, but liberty was what they were after.

John Hancock, that fellow who signed the Declaration of Independence in huge scrawling letters so that King George III could not fail to miss it, once said, “We have all one common cause; let it, therefore, be our only contest, who shall most contribute to the security of the liberties of America.”
Patrick Henry, that patriot who stirred the hearts of his countryman towards independence, also said, “I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

I would like for you to answer a question; you don’t have to answer me directly, just ponder it for your own benefit. The question is: When you go to the polls to cast your vote for candidates to hold office, is the preservation of your liberty among the reasons why you have decided to vote for a particular candidate? I’m betting that the answer, at least for most people, is no.

I wonder, do people actually think that liberty simply exists, just like the air that we breathe; that it is always there and can never be taken from us? If that is the case, then why would Thomas Paine make the following comment, “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”?

Do you think the citizens of Germany during the period when the Nazis held power had any liberty? Do you think the people of Soviet era Russia enjoyed full liberty? Do you think the people of North Korea or China today enjoy liberty? If liberty simply existed, as many seem to believe it does, why then do so many not have it? More importantly, why is it that so many are unable to see that it has vanished from the American political landscape?

Do people think they can just go to their local hardware store and buy a gallon of liberty? Do they think it is found in the refrigerator section of their local convenience store, in 8 oz cans right next to their favorite energy drink? Do they think it grows on trees?

This country has a statue, sitting in New York Harbor, given to it by the people of France, which is dedicated to liberty. We have a patriotic song which sings its praises; My Country Tis of Thee. It is written into our Founding Documents as the preservation of it is what governments are instituted to protect. It was the underlying cause for which every single soldier, sailor, airman and marine who gave up their lives for their country was defending.

Why then do people care so little that it simply does not exist to the full extent our Founders had hoped it would when they established America as a free and independent nation; at the cost of their wealth, and sometimes their lives?

When Nathan Hale was led to the gallows for treason against the Crown, he declared, “I regret that I have but one life to give for my country.” What Hale was dying for was the belief that America could become a land where liberty flourished. How many of you would die to preserve liberty in America? How many of you would rather see liberty restricted as long as you were safe and sound within your homes, and you had a job that provided you with enough funds to provide you with food and your favorite means of entertainment?

Liberty is more than just the ability to exercise our rights; although that certainly is part of what liberty is. Liberty is the ability to chart your own course in life without anyone telling you what to do, or depriving you of the success you might achieve. Can you honestly say that you enjoy full liberty when you are taxed to fund programs and wars that the Constitution does not authorize?

Can you say that you enjoy full liberty when you have to watch what you say because someone might get offended if you speak your mind? Can you say that you have liberty when you are required to obtain a permit to exercise a constitutionally protected right; such as the right to bear arms? Can you say that there is liberty in America when you cannot enter into your own home and be free of the prying eyes and ears of the NSA?

Where is this liberty everyone seems to believe exists; I want to see it for myself!

The problem with most people is that they look to the very people who have deprived them of their liberty to restore it. Let me tell you something, you’d have more luck getting a thief to give you back something they stole than you would asking your government to restore the liberty it has deprived you of. So why do you still support it when any thinking person can see that government no longer cares about preserving your liberty; and hasn’t for quite some time?

Liberty is not a tangible item that you can reach out and touch, it is something one must experience for themselves; and defend against all those who would encroach upon it. Liberty is a state of mind, not a state of existence granted you by the good graces and mercy of your government. Let me tell you a little secret you may not like; if you want liberty, you may have to get your hands dirty fighting to defend it.

Liberty is not found in your local supermarket or convenience store; it is not found in old parchments or speeches written by people who have been dead for hundreds of years. In 1944 Judge Learned Hand delivered a speech dedicated to the Spirit of Liberty, in which he states, “What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws, and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes.

Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it.”

When I leave my home and enter into the teeming mass of society, I am always wondering to myself what thoughts are passing through the minds of the people I see. I always ask myself if the preservation of their liberty is among the jumbled mass of thoughts inside their heads; and from the conversations I’ve had with some of them, I’ve come to the conclusion that liberty is the last thing on most people’s minds.

And that right there is the problem in America in a nutshell.

One final thought for you. In 1775 John Adams wrote a letter to his wife in which he stated, “But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever.”

If liberty means anything to you, I have some bad news for you; you aren’t going to find it at the voting booth at this stage in the game. For too long we have chosen for us leaders who sought not to preserve our liberty, but those who promised us goodies to keep us from thinking about how they have been depriving us of the liberty they were supposed to be safeguarding for us.

If we want liberty, we’re gonna have to do as our Founders did; fight for it. As Jefferson said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Well, a lot of patriots have had their blood spilled defending liberty, maybe the problem is that the blood of tyrants has not been added to the mix.

I know that words like that frighten and offend some of you, but remember this; John Adams once wrote, “The right of a nation to kill a tyrant, in cases of necessity, can no more be doubted, than to hang a robber, or kill a flea. But killing one tyrant only makes way for worse, unless the people have sense, spirit and honesty enough to establish and support a constitution guarded at all points against the tyranny of the one, the few, and the many.”

And if there ever was a time for the words of Samuel Adams, it is now:

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

Posted in General | Leave a comment

The Evil That Is The 14th Amendment

The Civil War was over, Lee had surrendered to Grant at Appomattox Courthouse and things could now go back to normal. Yeah, right! There’s an old saying in regards to wars, “To the victor go the spoils.” The North, or more specifically the army under the command of Abraham Lincoln had won, and now the government could take one of two paths; reconciliation or revenge–it chose the latter.

The period of American History directly following the Civil War is known as the Reconstruction Years. On the surface that word, reconstruction, sounds harmless enough; an attempt to reconstruct the South after years of war; but words can often be used to hide more sinister and benign intentions.

Before I begin to discuss Reconstruction, I need to go back in time to when Lincoln was first elected as President. In his first Inaugural Address Abraham Lincoln made the following statement, “It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that ‘resolves’ and ‘ordinances’ to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.”

Lincoln believed that the States could not lawfully secede from the Union, and that what the Southern States were doing was not declaring independence, but revolting against the legitimate authority of the government, or more particularly, the Constitution itself.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power and authority to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union and to suppress insurrections. It was under this Article and Clause of the Constitution that Lincoln justified his raising an army to invade and force his will upon the South.

In the Thirty-Seventh Congress, it was enacted that, “…if any person shall hereafter incite, set on foot, assist, or engage in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States, or the laws thereof, or shall give aid or comfort thereto, or shall engage in, or give aid and comfort to, any such existing rebellion or insurrection, and be convicted thereof, such persons shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten years, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars…”

Throughout the duration of the Civil War there was a conflict, not only on the battlefield, but in the minds of those who fought. The North, or more specifically, the government believed that the Union was inseparable and perpetual, and that any attempt to leave it, or nullify federal authority within a State’s borders amounted to rebellion, insurrection, or even possibly treason. The South, on the other hand, believed that the Union was a voluntary agreement between the States, and that any time any State retained the right to leave said Union.

If you believe, as did the North, that the Union is perpetual and that secession is not allowed in our Constitution, then you cannot justify your belief that the Colonists held the right to sever their ties with England and declare their independence; not unless you want the world to see you as the hypocrite that you are.

Many States, during their ratification proceedings, made it known that should the government they were about to agree to ever become tyrannical and oppressive, that they held the right to resume their status free of federal authority. For instance, Virginias Ratifying Assembly listed this as the first statement in their ratification statement, “We the Delegates of the People of Virginia … Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression…”

If the government created by the Constitution can declare that it’s authority is supreme and that it is impossible for any oppressed party to remove themselves from its authority, then we are no better off than were we under the authority of a totalitarian dictatorship.

But the key point here is that it was Lincoln’s, and the government’s belief that the Southern States had not legally left the Union; they were merely in a state of rebellion against the political authority of the government. You need to keep that thought in mind as we continue.

Therefore, if the Civil War was waged by the North against the South under the belief that the South had not left the Union and become an independent nation; and that it was therefore authorized to suppress any such rebellion or insurrection within its borders, then how could they then turn around and ignore the Constitution AFTER the war ended?

Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution declares, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…” How is it that, after the war ended the South was divided into five districts, each of which was run by a former Union General under what amounted to martial law? How is it that the people of the South were not permitted to hold any office within their own State governments if they had shown any support for the Confederacy? Is that not a violation of their right to have a Republican form of government?

Again, I’d like to see people justify their beliefs on this without revealing their hypocrisy.

On March 2, 1867, President Andrew Johnson vetoed the Reconstruction Act which had been sent to him by Congress. Although his veto was overturned by Congress, it is interesting to note some of the things Johnson said in his veto message.

First off, Johnson states, “The bill places all the people of the ten States therein named under the absolute domination of military rulers… It declares that there exists in those States no legal governments and no adequate protection for life or property, and asserts the necessity of enforcing peace and good order within their limits.”

Johnson then goes on to say, “Such a power has not been wielded by any monarch in England for more than five hundred years. In all that time no people who speak the English language have borne such servitude. It reduces the whole population of the ten States-all persons, of every color, sex, and condition, and every stranger within their limits-to the most abject and degrading slavery. No master ever had a control so absolute over the slaves as this bill gives to the military officers over both white and colored persons.”

Johnson then references Article 4, Section 4 when he says, “The United States are bound to guarantee to each State a republican form of government. Can it be pretended that this obligation is not palpably broken if we carry out a measure like this, which wipes away every vestige of republican government in ten States and puts the life, property, liberty, and honor of all the people in each of them under the domination of a single person clothed with unlimited authority?”

People believe that Lincoln and his Republican cohorts in Congress are responsible for the Constitutional Amendment which forever put an end to slavery. Yet they are not taught the prior to the outbreak of the Civil War they had proposed another amendment, that had it been ratified, would have become the 13th amendment to the Constitution. This amendment made slavery permanent and irrevocable in the United States, and Lincoln himself supported its ratification, “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution–which amendment, however, I have not seen–has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

If Lincoln truly was this saint everyone believes him to be, and that he fought a righteous war to end slavery, then how can they reconcile the fact that upon his inauguration he supported an amendment to make slavery permanent in the United States?

However, as is the case with nearly all politicians, Lincoln did a 180 when he was elected for a second term in 1864; making that abolishment of slavery one of his top priorities. Although the Republicans had gained some seats in the House in the recent election, they still weren’t enough to guarantee passage of the 13th Amendment in the House. So he instructed his Secretary of State, William Seward, to procure the votes needed to pass it; by any means necessary. Seward had a huge slush fund which he used to bribe some Democrats to garner their votes in favor of the proposed amendment. When money wasn’t enough, he offered some positions within the administration or made contributions to their re-election funds. After the amendment was finally passed by the House, Thaddeus Stevens is said to have stated, “…the greatest measure of the nineteenth century was passed by corruption, aided and abetted by the purest man in America.”

Once the amendment got the votes required by the House, it was then sent on to the States for their ratification; this being done on February 1, 1865. By the end of the month it had supposedly been ratified by 18 States, including the two Confederate States of Virginia and Louisiana. Soon Arkansas and Tennessee also ratified it; which led to the question of the legality of the ratification, because the States were under military dictatorship and did not have a truly Republican form of government. Even Lincoln called this a ‘pernicious abstraction’, saying, “Obviously, they were not “in their proper practical relation with the Union”; whence everyone’s object should be to restore that relation.”

Lincoln was assassinated three days later.

The question which is of great importance is; was the 13th Amendment legally ratified? If the former Confederate States did not have a true Republican form of government, then was the 13th Amendment ratified by governments loyal to the North and not representative of the will of the people of the South? How can it be said that a constitutional amendment was legally ratified when those who voted in favor of its passage were carpetbaggers and scalawags?

And if you think that was done with the slightest degree of impropriety, you haven’t seen anything yet.

You see, once the former slaves were freed the country didn’t know what to do with them. For its entire history, this country viewed slaves as property, not as human beings with any rights. The freed slaves could not vote, could not own property, could not enter into contracts, and a whole slew of other things we take for granted today.

On November 19, 2008, former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel made the following comments in an interview for The Wall Street Journal, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Emmanuel could have taken lessons from the Republicans in the North after the end of the Civil War as far as not letting a good crisis go to waste.

It certainly was a crisis, all these freed slaves running around with no legal status in society. The solution was another constitutional amendment; granting them citizenship; along with the rights associated with it; the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment is responsible for all manner of mischief and has led our government to support measures under the equal protection clause of that amendment which it was never intended the government even become involved in. But was this amendment ever ratified legally? I say it wasn’t, and I’ll explain why.

As recently as the 1950’s it was commonly accepted that the 14th Amendment was never legally ratified. In fact, U.S. News and World Report stated in one of their publications, “Of course we all know that the 14th Amendment wasn’t legitimately ratified.”

To understand why the 14th Amendment was never legitimately ratified, you have to know how an amendment can become part of the Constitution. Proposals for amendments can come about by one of two ways. Either 2/3’s of both Houses of Congress may make proposals, which are then sent to the States for their ratification, or 2/3’s of the State Legislatures may call for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution; which then have to be ratified by 3/4 of all the States.

When the 14th amendment came before a vote in the Senate there was a newly elected Senator from the State of New Jersey named John P. Stockton and Stockton was known to be against what the 14th Amendment proposed to do. Stockton had been duly sworn in at the beginning of the 39th Congress and those in favor of passage of the proposed 14th Amendment realized that they were one vote short. So a motion was made to unseat Stockton. Congress cannot simply unseat one of its members who has committed no offence; but in the case of Stockton, that’s exactly what they did. This had the effect of lowering the number of votes needed for passage of the proposed 14th Amendment; ensuring its passage in the Senate.

If you think that is improper, keep reading.

Once the proposed 14th Amendment made its way past Congress, it was then submitted to the States. Well Tennessee had many who opposed the ratification of the 14th Amendment; so many in fact that many of them refused to show up at the State House to vote upon it; thereby denying a quorum, (the required number of people to do business). This posed a problem for those in favor it its passage; they could not do business until the requisite number of people were present in their deliberations. Their solution was to kidnap two of the legislators who opposed the amendment and forcibly bring them to the State House; declaring them present and establishing the needed quorum. They were clearly outnumbered by those who supported ratification, and therefore the amendment was passed with ease; although two of those present during the vote were there under duress.

Then in Oregon the Legislature voted to ratify the amendment, only to discover that two of the newly elected Republicans who voted in favor of it had not actually received enough votes to win; that Democrats had. When the problem was rectified and a second vote taken on the proposed amendment with the proper people seated, the amendment was defeated. However, the federal government basically told them the second vote didn’t count; even though two of those voted had no legal authority to vote upon the measure.

New Jersey and Ohio had also first voted in favor of ratification of the 14th Amendment, only to rescind their votes later. Once again the federal government refused to accept that they could ‘change their minds.’ In their statement regarding why they had reversed their opinion, New Jersey delegates stated, “…we are fearful that this amendment has been worded ambiguously with deliberate intent, so that it can be used to deprive us of our liberties…”

But the biggest reason why the 14th Amendment was never legally ratified is in how the Southern States supposedly ratified it. Remember now, these Southern States were under military rule; it having been declared that anyone loyal to the Confederacy, (which was just about everyone), not be allowed to hold office of any kind. What passed for government in the Southern States at this time were mere proxy governments loyal to the radical Republicans in the North who sought to punish the South for the war.

Thaddeus Stevens, the purported leader of the radical Republicans in the North, once said, “The talk of restoring the Union like it was, and the Constitution as it is, is one of the absurdities which I have heard repeated until I have become sick of it. There are many things which make such an event impossible. This Union never shall, with my consent, be restored under the constitution as it is … The Union as it was and the Constitution as it is–God forbid it. We must conquer the Southern states and hold them as conquered provinces.”

So tell me, how can it be said that the 14th Amendment was duly, and legally ratified by the voice of the people of the Southern States when the governments instituted over them did not represent their wishes; it merely subjugated and controlled them according to the will of the radical Republicans?

The ratification of the 14th Amendment by the South was done by military dictatorships, not duly elected representatives of a Republican form of government, as guaranteed by the Constitution.

It is a legal premise that when multiple parties enter into a contract they must do so of their own free will for said contract to become binding. Any time one party is forced to enter into a contract under duress it nullifies the contract.

Therefore, if the Constitution is to be considered a contract between the States and the people to establish a system of government, then any modifications or alterations to it must be done by the free will of those the government represents. This simply was not the case with the 14th Amendment; it was ratified by puppet governments loyal, not to the Southerners, but to the Republicans in the North.

Taking all this into consideration, I don’t know how anyone can claim that the 14th Amendment was legally ratified. Yet the 14th Amendment has done much to enslave us to our government.

If I were to ask you what your citizenship status was, I’d be willing to bet, except for those who are still citizens of other countries, that most would say they are U.S. citizens. However, if you were to ask me the same question, I would reply I am a citizen of the State of California, (even though that is not something I like to brag about).

Are you aware that prior to the supposed ratification of the 14th Amendment there was no such thing as a U.S. Citizen? The 14th Amendment created that position solely for those who had been freed from bondage by the 13th Amendment; it did not apply to any white person in the United States. This fact was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1872, “No white person born within the limits of the United States and subject to their jurisdiction…owes his status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution.” (Source: VAN VALKENBURG V. BROWN)

Numerous times I have addressed the subject of sovereignty, the supreme or ultimate political power in a nation. In America sovereignty belongs to the people, as affirmed in Chisholm v Georgia in 1763, “At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people…”

The text of the first clause of the 14th Amendment reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any States deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

First off, what is a person? If I were to ask you that you would probably look at me as if I were stupid, but it’s a serious question that I don’t believe many know the real answer to. There are two definitions for a person; one is the natural person who has unalienable rights, and the other one is a corporate entity with ‘privileges and immunities.’

Which one are you? Well, to answer that all you have to do is reach inside your wallet or purse and pull out any piece of identification you have. Look at how your name is spelled. If your name is fully capitalized, then that document identifies you as a corporate holding, a legal person without any rights.

For instance, if my name is spelled as follows: Neal H. Ross, then I am a human being with all the rights that come along with being human. However, if it is spelled, NEAL H. ROSS, then I am considered a piece of property belonging to the corporation which is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; which is not governed by the organic Constitution ratified in 1789. Instead it is governed by the government of the corporation UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

In 1871 Congress passed a law incorporating the District of Columbia and the seat of our federal government. If you are therefore under the jurisdiction of that government, you are not free, you are a corporate holding; and as such your labor, your earnings, and your property belong to the government. Also, as a corporate holding you have no rights, you have privileges; and privileges can be, and routinely are, revoked.

Let us not forget, when New Jersey reversed their decision to ratify the 14th Amendment they said, “…we are fearful that this amendment has been worded ambiguously with deliberate intent, so that it can be used to deprive us of our liberties…” Well there you have it, their fears came to pass; for we have all lost our liberties due to the evil perpetuated under the guise of granting rights to those freed from slavery.

When the 14th Amendment states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” have you ever stopped to ask yourself exactly what that means? Well, according to Black’s Legal Dictionary defines the term subject to as being subordinate or inferior.

If sovereignty is defines as absolute and supreme political power, than how can we be sovereign and subordinate at the same time? The simple answer is, we can’t. Either we are sovereigns and our government represents and works for us, or we are subordinates, and we work for our government and must obey whatever laws it passes; regardless of whether those laws are passed in pursuance of the specific powers granted government by the sovereigns via a written constitution.

Now you tell me, and be honest, which do you think you are; sovereign or subject? Sovereigns do not require permission from their government to exercise their rights. You need a license to drive your car, you need a permit to make additions to your home, you need a license to hunt or fish, you need a license to get married, and you even register your children as corporate holdings via a birth certificate, whereupon they are issued a corporate ID card, (Social Security Card) which contains their taxpayer ID number.

I’ll bet you didn’t know any of this. Of course you didn’t know it; they wish to perpetuate they myth that most believe; that they are free and they have open elections where their voices make a difference. But we are not free, and no matter who we vote for government keeps on spending, keeps on depriving us of more of our liberty, and the people go on watching their sports, their Reality TV, their Twitter and Snapchat accounts; completely oblivious to the fact that they are slaves.

Madison said that knowledge will forever govern ignorance; well the people of this country certainly are ignorant. So it is only reasonable to assume that the people would not have the ability to recognize that they are free range slaves on the plantation called the United States of America.

The question is, what are YOU going to do about it now that I have exposed you to the truth?

Posted in General | 2 Comments

Could You Pass Neal’s Civics Test?

Are you aware that the right of suffrage, or of voting for you laymen, is not specifically guaranteed to anyone by the Constitution and Bill of Rights? The closest the Constitution comes to specifically mentioning voting is in Article 1, Section 2, “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.”

Then, in the 12th Amendment, it again mentions electors when they change the manner in which the President and Vice-President are elected. The first time voting is specifically mentioned comes, ironically, in an amendment which was never legally ratified; the 14th Amendment. It is again mentioned in the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th amendments; further expanding the right to every citizen, over the age of 18 who is not serving time in prison or on parole.

Prior to the Constitution being amended, it was left to the States to decide for themselves which of their citizens would be allowed to vote in an election. Typically, in the early years of our nation, most States only allowed white adult male property owners to vote. The succeeding amendments to the Constitution extended voting rights to blacks, women, and they even lowered the age at which one became eligible to vote to 18.

While you may disagree with me, I believe those who drafted the Constitution were wise when they did not specifically make voting a protected right for all citizens; such as they did with freedom of speech, or the right to keep and bear arms. I also believe it was wise that they did not extend voting privileges to everyone. While I disagree with not allowing women or blacks to vote, I do believe there was a certain amount of wisdom in not giving the vote to every Tom, Dick and Harry in America. I believe, and current events tend to support the position that not everyone is educated enough on our system of government, and therefore should not be allowed to choose those who fill the seats of power within it.

I know he is not a political scientist or philosopher, but science fiction writer Robert Heinlein once made a very telling statement about voting, “The America of my time line is a laboratory example of what can happen to democracies, what has eventually happened to all perfect democracies throughout all histories. A perfect democracy, a ‘warm body’ democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens… which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens.”

James Madison, the so-called Father of our Constitution, once said, “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” Although we do not directly govern ourselves, as is implied by Madison’s words, we do select those to govern in our stead; and if we are not informed, or if we place our own selfish desires above the law which establishes our government, then does it come as any surprise that our government has become just as corrupt, if not more so, than those who chose the people that occupy positions of power within it?

Noah Webster once made the following comments as a warning to those who were given the privilege of voting for others to represent them in government, “When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, ‘just men who will rule in the fear of God.’ The preservation of [our] government depends on the faithful discharge of this Duty; 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. If [our] government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine Commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the Laws.”

I’m just one pissant out of over 320 million other pissants and my opinion means nothing in the grand scheme of things, but I would like to put forth an idea that I have held for quite some time now. My idea has, as its origin, another quote from Noah Webster which states, “But every child in America should be acquainted with his own country. He should read books that furnish him with ideas that will be useful to him in life and practice. As soon as he opens his lips, he should rehearse the history of his own country; he should lisp the praise of liberty, and of those illustrious heroes and statesmen, who have wrought a revolution in her favor.

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

I believe that the privilege of voting in elections should be based upon the successful completion of a course of study on American History and our system of government. This course of study would not be a single semester or school year, such as it was when I made my way through the Public Fool System. Rather, my recommendation is that our children begin their educations at a much earlier age and it continues all the way through high school; whereupon they would be required to pass a comprehensive exam which tested their understanding of history and our system of government. If they failed, they would not be permitted to vote in any election until they could prove that they had become sufficiently informed as to make sound choices when voting.

I can almost hear people’s thoughts now, “How dare Neal suggest that I become informed before I am allowed to vote!” Don’t you have to prove that you know the rules of the road before you are given a license to drive a motor vehicle? Don’t some of you believe that before a person may purchase a firearm they be required to successfully pass some kind of safe handling course? Why shouldn’t you prove that you know the law of the land before you are allowed to vote? Or, does your hypocrisy know no limits?

It is with that thought in mind that I have made up a simple short history/civics test for you. This is just an example of the kinds of questions I would like to see people be able to answer correctly before they are given the right to vote. If I had my way I would like to see a 100 question test, primarily made up of questions that require essay answers and with no multiple choice questions, along with a minimum 2,500 word essay on what it means to be an American. These are the requirements I would like to see put into place before anyone be allowed to vote. I’m betting that the number of people who vote in any election would drop drastically if these ideas were put into place; as most people would not be able to successfully pass.

Anyway, here are but 10 questions I would like for you to try and answer. I don’t require you to let me know how you did, but I would hope that if you cannot answer them all, then you take some time to learn a bit more about our system of government and how it is SUPPOSED to work.

1) Define sovereignty, and explain who holds it.

2) What is a constitution?

3) Why did those who drafted our Constitution establish a bicameral Congress?

4) Explain the difference between a democracy and a republic.

5) Explain the difference between a federal form of government and a national one.

6) Explain the functions of each branch of our government.

7) How many powers are specifically mentioned as being those given our government; name 5 of them.

8) Explain where our rights come from and the difference between a right and a privilege.

9) Using the original intent of those who drafted the Constitution, explain what is meant by the phrase, the General Welfare.

10) The First Amendment guarantees the people the right to petition their government for a redress of grievances. Explain what this means, and describe the various forms of recourse the people have when their grievance is against government itself.

Well, how did you do? Remember, this is only a small example of the type of questions I would like to see people be required to successfully prove they know the answers to before they be allowed to vote; oh, and a passing grade is 100%.

So, using that as a guideline, would you be allowed to vote in the next election, and if not, what are you going to do about remedying your ignorance?

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Seek The Truth or Believe The Lie

I am currently on my sixth or seventh re-read of Ayn Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged. Atlas Shrugged was first published on October 10, 1957; right about the time I was conceived, making it 60 yrs old now. I think Atlas Shrugged is one of those books that, should you choose to read it, you are either going to love it or hate it.

It’s also not an easy read for a fiction novel; there are lengthy dialogues that consume pages and you have to force yourself to concentrate on what is being said. It’s also a lengthy novel; coming it at over 1,100 pages. There are 645,000 words in it and it is said the average reader reads around 300 words per minute. If you do the math, that comes out to 3,150 minutes to read Atlas Shrugged; or 52.5 hours.

Atlas Shrugged, although it is a fiction novel, is one of those books that forces the person reading it to think; that may be why I have read it over and over again. It is similar in nature to Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, or Huxley’s Brave New World in that it uses fiction as a means to convey a warning to those whose minds are open and ready to receive it.

The underlying theme of Atlas Shrugged is that America has reached a stage where society no longer believes in absolutes and truths and that the rich are viewed by society as representative of all that is evil in the world. The story revolves around two primary characters, Dagny Taggart and Henry ‘Hank’ Reardon. Taggart is Operating President of Taggart Transcontinental Railroad and Reardon is the owner of Reardon Steel. The two heroes are constantly having to deal with incompetence, and the burdensome laws being passed by government to help those less fortunate.

The subplot, if you can call it that, is that there is a hidden force, a destroyer running around snatching up men of talent; making things much more difficult for Taggart and Reardon. As the story progresses the reader finds that this destroyer is a single man, John Galt, who years ago worked at a company which produced electric motors. The company was inherited by 3 heirs who instituted a policy of, from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

Galt, a brilliant young engineer, refused to work for a system that enslaved him, and his mind to what Rand calls, Moochers and Looters; those who rob you of your mind and the profits you earn by using it. During the meeting in which the plan was introduced, Galt walks away; declaring the he intends to stop the motor of the world; meaning he intends to deprive the world of those whose minds are necessary to keep society functioning. To put Galt’s plan into simple terms; he intends to give society exactly what it is asking for; a world in which those who are viewed as evil do not exist. Unfortunately, as society soon learns, that without people who can use their minds to produce, the things which they had produced become scarce and society suffers an ultimate breakdown.

Throughout the book as society reaches a crisis due to the failed policies government has introduced, the government enacts another law which only serves to make matters worse for those who produce the things society needs to function; which then leads to more and more of the producers to up and vanish. Towards the end of the book Galt is captured by the government and attempts are made to get him to help them fix what is wrong. Galt’s answer to them is, “Get out of my way”, meaning stop passing burdensome regulations and taxes upon those who produce. Government, of course, is unwilling to comply with his request, so Galt refuses to help them. He is then taken to a facility where he is tortured in an attempt to get him to comply; whereupon he is rescued by his friends and taken back to the compound where they had been hiding from the world while they await the inevitable outcome of societies beliefs; the collapse of society itself.

I didn’t really want to take nearly two pages explaining the plot of Atlas Shrugged, but I felt it necessary as a precursor for what I really wanted to say. When I read Atlas Shrugged I see a huge similarity in how Rand describes her fictional public and the real life public I deal with on a daily basis. I see incompetence not only accepted as normal, but rewarded. I see those who are competent forced to work harder to compensate for the incompetence or laziness of others. I see a huge segment of society that believes the rich are evil and that they should be taxed to subsidize the existence of those who have not achieved a similar level of wealth. I see a society in which government is believed to be endowed with more power than those who created government in the first place. I see a society in which the truth is not only ignored, it is shunned and ridiculed.

Yet, just as in Atlas Shrugged, the people of society today are too ignorant about and too dependent upon the creator of all our problems and they end up turning to them to fix the problems they are responsible for creating. Who is this entity? Why, it is government.

On March 4, 1801, newly elected President Thomas Jefferson delivered his first Inaugural Address. In his address Jefferson states, “A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government…” Let’s break that down, shall we?

A wise and frugal government, what does that mean? I’d hope everyone already knows what it means to be wise, but frugal is another matter altogether. Frugality is often confused with stinginess; but they are two entirely different things. A person who is stingy refuses to spend money; often even when it is necessary. A person who is frugal, on the other hand, does not spend money unnecessarily; they only spend it when it is needed.

If you believe that our Constitution established our government and is the supreme law of the land, then you have got to accept the fact that somewhere within that document the powers given our government are listed; otherwise we would have essentially created a system of government and handed them a blank check as to the powers it might exercise over us. Therefore, if government oversteps the powers listed within that document, and in doing so is required to levy taxes to fund these programs, what word would YOU use to describe such a government?

I can think of many, including tyrannical, oppressive, but frugality certainly would not be among the words I chose to describe such a government. Just look at our current national debt; which has now reached the astronomical amount of $20.5 trillion. Our government may be many things, but one thing it is not, is frugal!

Jefferson then goes on to say, “…shall refrain men from injuring one another…” There are many ways besides physical attacks that man can bring harm or injury to one another. The first amendment to our Constitution declares that freedom of speech shall not be abridged. Before speech can occur some form of thought must take place before the words are written or spoken. To deny anyone the free expression of their thoughts is an assault upon a fundamental right which is inherent in all men. How often do we see someone whose freedom of speech HAS been abridged simply because society deems what they are saying to be politically incorrect, or offensive?

How many of our rights have we seen violated and infringed upon simply because society deems the exercise of them to be a threat to their security, or that it is necessary for the security of the nation as a whole? What is slavery if it is not the total deprivation of a person’s unalienable rights as a freeman?

In a letter to the Officers of the Army, 1783, George Washington wrote, “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” How can people engage in honest, open debate about issues when certain ideas and beliefs are deemed to be offensive and facts not allowed? How can anyone arrive at the truth when they are not permitted to examine and ponder ALL the facts relating to an issue? The simple answer is, you can’t; and if you are not allowed, or do not permit yourself to examine all sides of an issue, then you are being led around by those who decide what thoughts or facts you are allowed to speak aloud.

Moving on, Jefferson then states, “… shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement…” How many laws and ordinances do we have which do the exact opposite of what Jefferson speaks of? If you want to improve your home you need to first obtain a permit from government, and then have your work inspected to make sure it adheres to code. Is that the type freedom Jefferson spoke of? I wonder, was Jefferson required to obtain a building permit every time he modified Monticello? You cannot run even the smallest of businesses without having to conform to mountains of regulations and ordinances. Is that what you people call freedom?

Jefferson then closes by saying, “… and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned…” What, possibly, could he be talking about if it is not taxes? In a perfect state of freedom each man is responsible for providing the things they need in life for their survival. It is through mans labor and the use of their mind that they either survive or die. The benefit of the use of these faculties is what is called the fruit of labor.

When government takes a portion, even if that portion is only a small percentage, of the fruit of one’s labor, and then turns around and gives that out in the form of subsidies, grants, or any other form of benefits, it is depriving a person of the full enjoyment of the fruits of their labors.

Today people, for the most part anyways, believes that it is societies responsibility to provide for those in need, those who are less fortunate than others, or those who suffer some kind of disaster; be it man made or natural. Sure, a charity is a fine quality to possess, but not when it is mandated by governmental decree. If a community wishes to pull together and help those in need, or rebuild after a natural disaster, go for it. But to have tax dollars taken from the whole of the country and then distributed to those the government deems need it more than those who have earned that money goes against all that Jefferson believed in.

In fact, in a letter to Joseph Milligan, Jefferson states, “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” (April 6, 1816)

Our government has evolved from the one Jefferson describe in 1801 to one which exercises absolute control over our lives; and most people don’t even notice it; in fact, many believe government does not do enough to control us, or assist us in our daily lives. Most people would rather sign over their most sacred rights for the false promise of safety and security. And yet these people call themselves patriots when they don’t know what being a true patriot entails.

People go to the polls, completely ignorant of the purposes for which our government was originally established, believing it to be true to the Constitution which created it. They believe that just because there are those they don’t like in government, or there are those who are corrupt, that our government is still basically the one established in 1789.

It’s an illusion people; a fantasy designed to keep you from seeing the truth. You believe that just because you have frequent elections that government is doing what it is supposed to be doing. Well, you’re wrong! Congress enacts laws it is not authorized to enact; and it allows the Executive to usurp their powers without a whimper of protest. The Supreme Court routinely ignores the Constitution and decides what the law is by their rulings. It is a sad truth that lawyers and judges are not taught Constitutional principles in law school; instead they are taught judicial law; how the SCOTUS has interpreted the Constitution through its various rulings.

Have you ever heard the term cronyism? Cronyism is the appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority regardless of their qualifications for the position. Good examples of cronyism are found in many third world countries where elected leaders appoint family members to positions of power within the government.

Yet there is another form of cronyism; crony capitalism in which a close relationship of mutual benefit exists between business and government. While many of the government programs instituted to assist those in need, or less fortunate are socialist in nature, the relationship between government and the powerful banking and business interests could be best described by the word Fascism.

It is said that Benito Mussolini said this about Fascism, “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.” If you think about it, that is a pretty good definition of what we have now. We have powerful special interests who contribute funds to the campaign coffers of those seeking office, then lobby them once they get elected to vote in favor of laws that benefit them. It could be said that the illusion is that our government represents the people, and reality is that it represents business and banking interests.

It is also said that upon nearing death, former President Woodrow Wilson made the following comments, “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”

You have to realize, Wilson was the one who was in power when the 16th and 17th Amendments were ratified, as well as the illegal and totally non government entity known as the Federal Reserve was created.

This crony capitalism, or fascism if you choose to use that term, is not something new; it dates back to before the Civil War and can be said to be at the root of that conflict. If the government had adhered to Jefferson’s definition of good government there would have been no need for the Southern States to secede. But, it didn’t; it imposed taxes, (tariffs), which the South was forced to bear the brunt of, which was then spent on internal improvements in the North which benefited the banking and business interests which controlled the Republican Party.

Confederate General Thomas ‘Stonewall’ Jackson once said that if the North triumphed it would be more than the “…destruction of our property, but the prelude to anarchy, infidelity, and the ultimate loss of free responsible government on this continent. It is the triumph of commerce, banks and the factory.”

People do not see the truth about the Civil War because they have been indoctrinated into believing that it was fought solely over the issue of slavery, when that is far from the case. Lincoln sought to consolidate government’s power and authority over the States, (all of them), and subjugate them under the will of the federal government. In essence, while the 13th Amendment may have freed the chattel slaves held in bondage, the illegally ratified 14th Amendment made slaves of every man, woman and child in America by making us U.S. citizens, subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government. Our labor has become to property of the government to pay off the debt it creates. We no longer have rights, we have privileges; and privileges can be revoked. We are a nation of free range cattle who work and slave our lives away to serve those who don’t care one whit about us. And we consent to all this every time we go to the polls and cast our votes for those who assume positions within this counterfeit government we put our trust and faith into.

I know this is difficult to accept, but it is true. People need some kind of hope to cling to when all seems to be falling apart around them, but as Patrick Henry said in his speech of 1775, “… it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.”

Even I, who present this to you, am not fully cognizant of the extent and legal means by which all this has taken place, but I am making efforts to educate myself in regards to the extent of the treason of our government against the people of this country; and yes, it is treason.

If you truly love this country, if you truly believe yourself to be a patriot, then you will stop supporting this faux government and start seeking out the truth. You can take the blue pill or the red pill; choose the truth or choose to continue believing a lie. But whatever choice you make, realize one thing; should you choose the blue pill, the truth will always be the truth; you have simply chosen not to seek it out or believe it when it is presented to you.

Just know this, if you truly want the truth you are going to have to go out and find it; and it won’t be found on MSNBC, CNN, or FOX News as those news outlets are there not to inform you, but to manipulate and mold public opinion to serve their corporate masters.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

From Beginning to End (How America Lost Its Soul) Part 7

When Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, that officially ended the war, but the hostilities continued until word made its way to all those still engaged in combat. Yet as soon as word reached Philadelphia, the Congress realized that they would need to choose delegates to negotiate a treaty of peace between themselves and the Crown. They chose John Adams, Henry Laurens, Benjamin Franklin, David Hartley, Richard Oswald and John Jay to represent them in the negotiations.

You have to remember one thing, back then they couldn’t just hop on a plane and be there in 10-12 hours; they had to board a wooden ship and travel across the Atlantic; a journey that could take from 6-8 weeks, depending upon weather conditions on the open seas.

It was then, in April of 1782 that the delegations arrived in Paris and began their discussions; which lasted more than a year. One thing people need to remember, or learn if they didn’t know, is that the War for America’s independence was not only a war fought between the Colonies and England; it had spread into a global conflict involving both Spain and France as well. So the terms of peace were not limited to solving the dispute between the new independent Colonies and the Crown, it was settling disputes between all warring factions.

All parties were tired of the war and wanted peace, except for Spain that wished to continue until it gained control of the island of Gibraltar. In September French Foreign Minister Vergennes offered a means for Spain to accept peace without the British giving up Gibraltar; they would establish a Spanish held territory in the south of the colonies; in what we now call Florida.

The delegates from the Colonies were not content with the French proposal and sought to shut them out of the discussions entirely by dealing directly with the British. Hoping to get a better deal directly out of London, John Jay told the British that the U.S. was willing to negotiate directly with them. Prime Minister Shelburne agreed as he saw this as an opportunity to give the Americans more of what they wanted in return for them breaking free from a permanent alliance with France. This would create a powerful trading partner for England in the newly independent American Colonies.

From a purely political point of view it was a shrewd move by the American delegates, as they got a much better deal from the English. But if you look at it from a moral viewpoint, it was a stab in the back to the French; for had they not entered the war on our side it was very likely we would have lost and remained English colonies. Nonetheless, a year later, after the French had been cut out of negotiations, a treaty was signed by the representatives of the Crown and those representing the Colonies.

Much of the treaty of 1783 deals with navigation rights to the Mississippi, the borders of the newly established United States of America, fishing rights, and trade agreements; however it is the very first article of the treaty that I wish to focus your attention upon. The first article of the Paris Peace Treaty of 1783 declares, “His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors…”

If you’ll notice, the King, in whose name the British negotiated the treaty for, recognizes each State to be free and independent from the others. That is a crucial point one has to understand if we are to continue; each State was, for all intents and purposes, a nation unto itself. Each State had written a constitution for itself, establishing a government to handle all the needs of those living within the independent States. In the America of 1783 the States were no different than Germany, Italy, Spain, and France, today; independent nations joined together in a confederation.

Prior to the negotiations for the peace treaty began, the then Colonies had finally ratified the Articles of Confederation; formally joining together for their mutual benefit and protection. The full title of the document establishing this first centralized government is, The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Although the title may sound like it created a consolidated union of the States, the text of the document itself proves that was anything but the case.

Article II of the Articles of Confederation states, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

And Article III of that document declares, “The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defence, the security of their Liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever.”

Although it was not written into any man made law, it was widely accepted by the citizens of each Colony that political power and authority flowed upwards from the people; that is each citizen was sovereign unto themselves and that the only authority others might exercise over them must be delegated authority; otherwise the exercise of undelegated power became tyranny.

This was one of the key principles upon which our Founders based their decision to sever the political ties which bound them to England; that they were not represented in the British government, and that they no longer consented to the authority of a government that had sought to subjugate them and suppress their rights.

By ratifying the Articles of Confederation they were delegating certain powers to a unicameral legislative body, a Congress, to act on behalf of them all. Yet for any law passed by Congress to be binding upon them, it must first be agreed to by the State legislatures of all 13 States; which is found in Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, “Every State shall abide by the determinations of the united states, in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards con-firmed by the legislatures of every state.”

One final point I would like to bring to your attention before I pause before the next segment; in Article XIII you’ll notice that they refer to the united states using lowercase letters, not like we do today with the first letter of each word being capitalized; United States. If you’ll also note, in Article II they do refer to the United States as we are familiar with; being capitalized.

Why the difference? The use of capitalization back then was important, as it referred to a pronoun describing the item being discussed. The title of these States united was to be the United States; hence the capitalization. However, in Article XIII they use the lowercase, denoting that the States were united together for the common causes found within the Articles of Confederation.

Remember now, all political power is delegated, and since the people are the original source of all political power, they may delegate it to certain bodies, then those bodies may, by the consent of the people from whom their authority originates, delegate certain powers to a higher body. But never can those who are the holders of delegated power delegate MORE power than they themselves have been granted.

Think of it this way; if you hire a contractor to make repairs to your kitchen, and he needs to hire subcontractors to perform a portion of the work, that subcontractor cannot be given the authority to make repairs to your bathroom as well. So, if the people of the States had delegated certain powers to their State governments, then those State governments could not delegate more power to a central government than they themselves held.

Another way of looking at it is this; if you take a pyramid and divide it into segments, the wider portion at the bottom is the power held by the people. The next higher up level might be the local governments; mayors or commissioners voted for directly by the people. The next level up may be the State governments, and finally, above that, any central government. Each level up decreases in size and scope of their powers and authority. That is the true nature of political power and authority. The perversion of that principle is to invert the pyramid with the point at the bottom and say that is the amount of power held by the people, with each level up increasing in the amount of power it exercises upon those below it.

These are all important principles you must understand before I move on to the first step towards our future enslavement, the drafting of and ratification of our Constitution. Until then, ponder the things I have discussed in this segment.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

An American Fairy Tale

Once upon a time there was a land where the people understood what liberty was, and they stood ready to defend it from all those who would seek to deprive them of it. They understood that government existed because they had created it; and that government had limits which, when overstepped, amounted to treason against the people who had created government.

These people understood that the responsibility for their success or failure in life rested solely upon their shoulders; it was not the burden of society or government to care for their every needs.

These people understood that knowledge was the key to success in life, not how many song lyrics they could recite, or how much sporting trivia they had memorized.

These people valued truth and justice above all else, and to be branded a liar was the utmost of disgraces.

That land still exists, but the people have forgotten what it meant to be free, and to stand ready to defend that freedom against any who would threaten it; including their own government. In case you haven’t figured it out already I’m talking about us, the people of the United States of America.

It is said the when Ben Franklin left the Philadelphia Convention that he was confronted by a woman who asked him, “Well, Doctor, what have we got―a Republic or a Monarchy?” To which Franklin is quoted as replying, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Now why would Franklin add that little caveat, if you can keep it? The answer is quite simple, really; it is because in a Republic the ultimate responsibility for ensuring its survival rests with the people, not the government.

A Republic differs from a Representative Democracy in that in a Republic there is typically a law which governs what the government can and cannot do. In a Representative Democracy the will of the majority is all that is required for something to become law.

I know I have mentioned it before, but I wonder how many had been taught in school that prior to the delegates voting either to accept or reject the document they had just produced, that Ben Franklin had a speech read for him in which he stated, “I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administered; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.”
If you’ll note, Franklin states that government will become despotic only when the people become so corrupted that despotic government is what they require. Like I said, I’ve used that quote many times in the past, but have you ever stopped to think about what kind of corruption Franklin was speaking of? I know I certainly have.

When people abandon the principles upon which any system of government is established it can be said that they are corrupting their form of government by enabling it to exercise powers beyond those specifically granted. If people accept corruption, mediocrity, ineptitude in those they choose to hold seats of power and authority within their government, then they deserve the consequences of their choices and have only themselves to blame for not holding those they elect to a higher standard.

Our system of government could have taken many forms, as those who attended the convention proposed everything from a much more authoritarian government than the one outlined in the Constitution, to an elective monarchy. What restrained them from creating those forms of government was primarily one thing, the little matter of States Rights. The States, particularly the smaller States, felt that without some means of their having a check upon what laws might be passed by the government they were creating their rights would be violated and abused by the larger States, and possibly by the government itself.

The fact that they established a bicameral Congress with one house representing the people and the other representing the States was their attempt to solve this dilemma. If the representatives of the people, acting upon the will of the people, chose to push forth a piece of legislation that could threaten the sovereignty of the States, those who represented the States could block it by refusing to vote in favor of it in the Senate, and vice versa.

In theory this is all well and good, but it does not take into account the introduction of factions, or political parties as we call them today. In his Farewell Address, Washington spoke at length of the dangers posed by factions to the security and stability of our system of government. He concluded his comments on them by saying, “However combinations or associations of the above description 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.”

Two years after the Constitution was written Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to Francis Hopkinson in which he stated, “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.”

Our Founders understood human nature far better than most do today; except for those in government who understand it fully and use our foibles and weaknesses to subvert our liberty. It was hoped that the Senate would act as a check upon the impetuousness nature of men in general who might call for measures they later regret. Madison spoke of this in Federalist 62 where he stated, “The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions.”

As the Senate was to be directly accountable to the Legislatures of the States they represented, it was hoped that they would provide a check against the central government’s ability to pass any law which threatened the authority of the States. And what exactly was the authority which belonged to the States? Well, in Federalist 45 Madison declares them to be as follows, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

Does that even remotely sound like the balance between State and Federal authority in 2017?

Political parties, as we know them today, sprang out of the division of beliefs between men like Alexander Hamilton; who felt that the Constitution was a loose outline of powers and that government had many implied powers that could be asserted for the general welfare of the nation, and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison who felt that the Constitution was very specific in what powers it granted the government.

Hamilton, and his followers were primarily representative of business and banking interests, and they formed the genesis of what we now call the Republican Party. Jefferson and his followers were those who gave birth to the modern day Democrats.

The party of Hamilton chose to use the power of taxation to raise money to expand and improve the infrastructure and commerce which was primarily in the North. The South sought to restrain the expansion of governmental authority and keep it within its specified limits. When the burden of taxation, of which the South bore the majority of, they sought to nullify the tariffs in the 1830’s; which even led to a sitting Vice President choosing to resign so he could fight alongside his State to resist these burdensome tariffs.

Not only that, but as slavery was used to account for representation in Congress, those in the North sought to halt the expansion of slavery westward, thereby increasing their control in both Houses of Congress. Now I’m not saying slavery is, and ever was moral; but the fact is that it was legal under the Constitution, and unless Congress specifically passed a law banning it, they could not legally prohibit its expansion into newly admitted States.
So now you have the double whammy of the South being taxed to fund improvements in the North, and their diminishing power and authority in Congress and all that was needed was a spark to ignite an existing powder keg.

For the longest time the office of the Executive had been held by a Democrat, which gave the South some level of comfort in knowing that someone of like mind held the office of the President; but that all changed in 1860 when a Republican named Abraham Lincoln was elected. Lincoln was that spark which caused the South to choose to sever the ties which bound them to the Union.

I know y’all believe the Civil War was fought over slavery, and only slavery; but that simply isn’t the case, and never was. There would have been no Civil War had Lincoln simply let the South leave in peace; of that fact you cannot possibly argue. Jefferson Davis himself never wanted war with the Union, in fact he once said, “I live the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it.”

That may sound like a tongue-twister at first, but it basically means that the government had abandoned the principles contained in the Constitution and become no less tyrannical and oppressive to the South than King George III and Parliament had become for the Colonists; and they exercised the same right the Colonists did when they chose to leave the British Empire and become a sovereign and independent nation. Only this time Abraham Lincoln was the tyrant raising an army to stop them, not King George III.

Major General Patrick Cleburne, of the Confederate Army, is quoted as saying, “I am with the South in life or in death, in victory or in defeat…… I believe the North is about to wage a brutal and unholy war on a people who have done them no wrong, in violation of the Constitution and the fundamental principles of government. They no longer acknowledge that all government derives its validity from the consent of the governed. They are about to invade our peaceful homes, destroy our property, and inaugurate a servile insurrection, murder our men and dishonor our women. We propose no invasion of the North, no attack on them, and only ask to be left alone.”

The loss of the South heralded more than just the ratification of the 13th Amendment which ended slavery; it was the end of the idea of government being representative of the States and of a States right to leave a voluntary union of independent sovereignties.

You have been taught the Civil War was all about slavery and nothing else, but you have been taught a lie. Why would non slave owners sign up to fight when they could have cared less about owning or freeing the slaves were it not for the fact that they were fighting for their State’s right to defend itself against invasion and the tyranny of their former government?

The fact that Reconstruction was not a means of rebuilding the South after the war, but of subjugating the South by establishing proxy governments which represented Northern interests and denying anyone who supported the Confederate cause should be sufficient proof that the North sought to forever kill off the idea that a State had the right to resist federal authority.

But as V said to Creedy in the film V For Vendetta, “Behind this mask Mr Creedy is an idea, and ideas are bullet proof.” You cannot kill an idea that has at its roots the very principles this country was founded upon; not matter how many of the symbols and monuments dedicated to that ideal are torn down. You may be able to hide the flame of liberty so that others may not see it, but you cannot extinguish that flame; and there will always be those who seek out its warmth and defend it to their last dying breath.

The other day one of my friends on Facebook posted something I felt was very profound, and spot on. The person who posted this was a newcomer to my friends list, but one who I have found to be very wise and insightful; her name is Danielle Mottale, and her comment is as follows, “Facts no longer matter to the demoralized and brainwashed person. They are fully programmed and conditioned to the extent that even the laws of nature, the laws of physics, tangible facts are disregarded. Government is a CULT, literally, and therefore its proponents are cult followers.”

I’m going to tell you something, and I want you to think long and hard over it. Government can either serve the purpose for which it was established, or it can serve another purpose altogether; the deprivation of the rights of those it was established to represent. In this there is no middle ground, absolutely none whatsoever.

If you support a government that seeks to serve the purpose for which it was established, you are a patriot. On the other hand, if you support a government that seeks not to serve the purpose for which it was established, then you are a follower who can’t see the truth through all the lies, and you are a danger to the liberty which our government was instituted to secure.

This is true no matter whether you believe your party is right in its platform for what is best for the country. The Constitution is the law which dictates what our government can and cannot do; and either you support it, or you are an enemy to the liberty government was instituted to secure and protect.

I’m tired of people throwing this two party paradigm in my face and saying, “We have to throw our support behind ___________ so that _________ doesn’t win.” I’m tired of people saying that it is okay to violate my rights to serve the public safety or the security of our nation. I’m tired of having 15-25 percent of my wages taxed to be spent upon programs and wars I do not support. I’m tired of being told I can’t say this or I can’t say that because some spineless bastard might become offended.

I began this by saying that once upon a time there was a nation that loved liberty. Well that nation has long since died, and it has been replaced by a nation whose citizens shun the truth and hide from liberty because it imposes too many responsibilities upon them.

Well, Franklin was correct, we would get despotic government when we were incapable of any other form, and it certainly appears to me that the majority of the people in this country are incapable of understanding what it means to be free and have a government which was limited by a written law, (The Constitution), and a populace which was ready and willing to hold those they elect accountable for supporting and defending it.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe once said, “None are so hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe themselves to be free.” Well, enjoy your fairy tale, one of these days reality is going to come knocking upon your door; I hope you’re ready for it.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

A More Perfect Union (Yeah, Right)

I have come to the conclusion that liberty is the last thing people care about in their lives; until they are completely deprived of it that is. Those who do not enjoy liberty are those who most fervently wish for it; but once it is obtained they tend to forget what life was like without it, and tend to allow it to be taken from them by those who seek power and dominion over mankind.

From time to time I have used the quote by Tytler about how nations rise and fall which states, “The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.”

I think that there is a great deal of validity to that statement. I think that once people obtain liberty they soon become more concerned with temporal enjoyment and comfort and allow those who govern to gradually enact laws which deprive them of it. The ancient Greek philosopher Plato once said, “The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”

I don’t know how you define evil, but as it relates towards government I would define evil as anyone or anything which limits the liberty government was instituted to secure. In 1791 Thomas Paine, whose pamphlet Common Sense played a large role in stirring the hearts and minds of the Colonists towards independence, wrote another book in response to Edmund Burke’s attack upon those Frenchmen who were in the midst of fighting tyranny in their land. This book was called The Rights of Man, and in it Paine states, “When I contemplate the natural dignity of man, when I feel (for Nature has not been kind enough to me to blunt my feelings) for the honour and happiness of its character, I become irritated at the attempt to govern mankind by force and fraud, as if they were all knaves and fools, and can scarcely avoid disgust at those who are thus imposed upon.”

I think that is a fitting word, disgust, as that is what runs through my mind when I hear most people discuss issues of a political nature. In the film Apocalypse Now there is a scene where Colonel Kurtz is talking to Captain Willard where he tells Willard, “There is nothing that I detest more than the stench of lies.” I would add to that, “…and those who blindly accept them as the truth.”

When you look at the history of the world, the time span which America has played a role on the stage is but a fleeting moment. If you were to break that down even further, the period of American history which saw liberty and freedom consume the hearts and minds of those who occupied the land we call America was but the blink of an eye. Now anyone who speaks of liberty and freedom is deemed old fashioned, a radical who has no place in the modern world, or a threat to the security and happiness of the people. As the historian Charles Austin Beard so correctly stated, “You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence.”

For the briefest of moments, liberty was the all consuming thought in America; but like a match that burns brightly for a moment, only to be extinguished, that flame long ago died out except for a few who remember the immortal words of Patrick Henry, “Give me liberty or give me death.”

Yet it wasn’t even two decades after he uttered those inspiring words that he would lament, “Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man, may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old fashioned: If so, I am contented to be so: I say, the time has been when every pore of my heart beat for American liberty, and which, I believe, had a counterpart in the breast of every true American.”

I’ve lived almost six decades now; just shy of my sixtieth birthday by six months. In the course of my lifetime I cannot recall once hearing anyone other than Ron Paul, or possibly Chuck Baldwin speak about liberty when running for political office. The sad truth is that talk of liberty does not garner votes; it is the talk of what government can do for the people, regardless of who constitutional it is, which gets people to vote for candidates.

That is because liberty imposes one thing upon people which a majority of them are unwilling to pay; responsibility. People are of the belief that it is the responsibility of government to regulate their lives in order to make them safer and more comfortable. It is the belief of many that it is the responsibility of government to watch over and coddle us from cradle to the grave. Many people believe that it is government’s responsibility to provide us with a safety net should we fail in life.

Just look at how people would react if someone had the audacity to suggest that Social Security be abolished; “How dare someone even advocate that I live frugally and save towards my own retirement; I’m entitled to that money!” Yet were you able to travel back in time to the period immediately following the ratification of our Constitution and suggest to those in our government that they create a program which taxes people and then pays that money back to them gradually over time upon retirement, you would be laughed out of town. But talk about repealing it now and you’re the one who is laughed out of town. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, “The closest thing to eternal life is a government program.”

I don’t make any claims to being any kind of prophet or visionary; I am only one guy who has chosen not to fall victim to the lies that our government cares one whit about the liberty it was established to safeguard.

I think there is one thing that people fail to understand about government; the more power it exercises the less free those who are governed become. In that aspect it is almost like a see saw; as governmental power goes up, liberty goes down.

There is a term, rather derogatory I might add, that is used to describe most of the people in this country; that term is Sheeple. Any animal which provides the meat which we eat does not realize that it is enslaved to those who will eventually take them to the butchers to be slaughtered. Watch any of the old western movies and I’m sure you’ll see one in which there is a cattle drive where the cowboys herd their cattle around on horseback. The cows don’t realize that eventually they will end up on someone’s dinner plate in the form of steak or a nice roast, they just follow the herd without any concern as to where they are being led.

That is how I view most Americans; one giant herd that is led around by the nose by lies and political rhetoric which is designed to keep them under the impression that they have a constitutional form of government that represents them. Nothing could be further from the truth; and this has been the case for a very long time; going back at least a century and a half.

In 1944 Judge Learned Hand delivered a speech in which he said, “What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws, and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it.”

I don’t mean to direct this at anyone in particular, but when our Founders were in the midst of deciding whether or not to seek independence from England, Samuel Adams directed this quote to his countrymen, “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

As Thomas Paine once stated, “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.” Thomas Jefferson once declared that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. That is the cost of liberty; people must be ready to defend it at the cost of their own life if needs be.

I have to wonder, how many people would be willing to pay that price; especially when you can’t even get people to take a few minutes each day to try to learn about the history of their country, or the truth about why their system of government was established.

How readily people today are willing to sacrifice their rights for the false promises of comfort and security. Patrick Henry would roll over in his grave if he could but see how quickly people are willing to give up the rights he so fervently fought for. As his June 5, 1788 speech to the Virginia Assembly states, “Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings-give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else.”

It wasn’t long after our forefathers gained their independence from one tyrant, only to have the means for tyranny to take hold in America be approved by the people who had just fought a war to fight it. I’m relatively sure that most people know that in 1787 a convention was held which produced our Constitution. How many know that it was held in secret; its delegates sworn to secrecy? How many know that Madison proposed a much stronger government than the Constitution outlines; one which gave the federal government an absolute veto over any and all laws passed by the States? How many know that Alexander Hamilton proposed what can only be described as an elective monarchy?

Our Constitution did not give us any of those things; it gave us a Republic. Yet as Franklin told the woman upon exiting the convention after the Constitution had been voted upon, “A Republic Madam, if you can keep it.” You see, it was, and always has been, up to we the people to hold government to the limits imposed upon it by the Constitution. How can we do that if we’ve never read it, or don’t fully understand what it says? How can we do that if we care more about what our government can do to make our lives more comfortable and safe than we do about the liberty it was instituted to protect?

Patrick Henry opposed the ratification of the constitution with all his heart and soul; he saw the potential for harm and mischief within it and sought to warn others of its hidden dangers; but no one heeded his warnings. On June 7, 1788 Henry warned, “Where is the responsibility — that leading principle in the British government? In that government a punishment, certain and inevitable, is provided: But in this, there is no real actual punishment for the grossest maladministration. They may go without punishment, though they commit the most outrageous violation on our immunities. That paper may tell me they will be punished. I ask, by what law? They must make the law — for there is no existing law to do it. What — will they make a law to punish themselves? This, Sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility — and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves.”

We may hear from time to time of how an elected representative is found guilty of ethics violations, but when was the last time you heard that an elective representative was found guilty of violating the limits the Constitution imposes upon the office they hold? I can’t recall one instance of where anyone was found guilty. Even Nixon, who resigned before he could be impeached, was not found guilty by Congress or a court of law.

I think Patrick Henry’s warning has proven to be pretty darned accurate.

If government can pass any law it wants, and then enforce it at gunpoint, you have lost your liberty. If government can tax you at will, and then punish you if you refuse to pay, you have lost your liberty. If government decides that it is the sole decider of what constitutes the general welfare of the nation, then it has forgotten what Madison said about the general welfare, “If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress… Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.” (Source: speech to the House of Representatives opposing bounties for Cod Fisheries, February 3, 1792)

In Federalist 51 James Madison wrote, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

If government cannot control itself, and if the people are unable, or unwilling to control it, then that government is unfit to exist; as it always leads to the total loss of the liberty of those it governs…ALWAYS!

If the document which establishes this form of government does not provide the means by which the people can effectively restrain their government from overstepping the limits imposed upon it, then it too opens the doorway to those who would seek to deprive the people of their liberty.

And, as Lysander Spooner, who fought the government’s monopoly on mail delivery, and lost, once said, “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.” And therefore, if the document which established our government is unfit to exist, then what does that say about the government it created?

Food for thought; especially since people continue to look towards more government programs in answer to all the problems this country faces.

Posted in General | 1 Comment

Invasion of the Liberty Snatchers

In 1956 Allied Artist Pictures released a Don Siegel starring Kevin McCarthy and Dana Wynter titled Invasion of the Body Snatchers. In 1978 United Artists did a remake of it starring Donald Sutherland, Brooke Adams, Jeff Goldblum and Leonard Nimoy.

The premise of the film is that alien seeds land on Earth and go on to produce pods that are capable of producing exact replicas of humans; which then take the place of the person they duplicated. From all outward appearances these replicas look and sound just like the person they replaced; except that they are devoid of emotion.

In the 1978 remake, the last scene of the film shows Veronica Cartwright walking hesitantly down the street and she sees Donald Sutherland. Thinking he had escaped being replaced by a pod version of himself, she hesitantly approaches him, but then he lets out this scream that lets the other duplicates know that a ‘real’ human is among them. The look of abject horror on Cartwright’s face is what I imagine people would feel if they were to be forced to face the fact that every single thing they had ever been taught; all that they believe about their government was a lie.

I don’t know, there is something about movies like Invasion of the Body Snatchers and the Matrix that speak to me in ways they don’t speak to others who watch them. Both these movies depict societies that have been transformed into versions of themselves that, from all outward appearances, look normal; but then when you discover the truth, they are anything but normal. Films like that, at least for me, are powerful analogies for how I view real life here in America.

Americans, well most of them anyways, live in a dream world where they believe they are free and that we have free and open elections where their votes elect people who will then go on to this thing called government and represent them. The truth is that our votes don’t matter; that no matter who we elect this thing we call government is going to continue to grow in power, borrow more money, and deprive us of more of what remains of our freedom.

Let me ask you to do a simple exercise. Open your wallet or purse and pull out one of those bills you use to buy things. It doesn’t matter if it is a $1 bill or a $20, just pull one out. Now what is it that gives that piece of paper and cotton any value? It is only your faith, or belief that it holds any value that allows you to take that into a store and exchange it for goods or services. Without the faith of the people behind their currency system, the entire system would collapse.

Such is our government. Our Declaration of Independence says that government derives its power from the consent of the governed. In the 2001 remake of the film Clash of the Titans, the gods talk of how they derive their power from the prayers of man, and that since man has stopped praying to them, they have grown weaker. Government, at least a government in which the people believe represents them, is much the same; it derives its power only because we put our faith and trust into it. If you were to take that faith and trust away, government would lose all its power over us.

Can you imagine the damage to government that would occur if every single one of the 300 plus million people in this country refused to pay their taxes anymore? Can you imagine the terror those in Washington D.C. would feel if the entire population of Virginia and Maryland one day decided to march into our nation’s capital; carrying pitchforks, axes and nooses and guns?

I speak a lot, no, that’s not right, I harp all the time about ignorance; but ignorance is a disease that protects those in power from the wrath of those who they were sent to our government to represent; but have long since betrayed.

For a brief period in American history, the people of this country enjoyed true freedom and liberty. Under the rule of a monarch there were those who got an inkling of what it meant to be free, and they wrote a document which explained their beliefs on freedom and the nature of government. They then found the courage within themselves to go out and fight to obtain that freedom.

However, as I myself have found, people’s attention spans and memories are about the length of a 30 second advertisement on TV; and those who had fought a war to gain their freedom turned around and ratified a document which opened the doorway to the enslavement of future generations; and yes, I’m talking about the Constitution.

What people have to realize is that power, and those who hold it, is always of an expanding nature; it is almost like a virus that spreads and consumes all that is in its path. There is a quote I’ve read that I’ve been unable to find the source for, but nonetheless bears some attention. It states, “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”

But political power, especially delegated political power, such as we have in America, cannot suddenly and drastically expand without those who have delegated it rising up in protest. No, it must occur in small increments over an extended period of time. In that, it is almost like the process of aging. You would be shocked if you went to bed one evening looking like the average teenager, then awoke to look like you had aged 60 yrs overnight. But the slow gradual process of aging goes much more un-noticed than the sudden appearance of wrinkles and all the things that come with old age.

Government is the same; it chips away a little bit at one of your freedoms here, and then goes on and chips away at another one over there, only to return later to chip away some more at the other one; in a never ending cycle. It does so that you don’t notice its ultimate goal is to take away ALL your freedom. It’s the same with taxes; government imposes a relatively small tax here, and then goes on and imposes another small tax upon something else; while people never see the cumulative effect of all these taxes. I’ve always said that if people paid no taxes on anything throughout the year, then on December 31st had to write a check to Uncle Sam for all the taxes they owed, they’d be on a plane to D.C. the next day to help overthrow the government.

But people, it seems, like to believe in illusion and fairy tales; that is the only explanation I can find which justifies their continuing to support, and continuing to put their trust and faith in a government that clearly has exceeded its delegated powers and has deprived the very people who vote for its members the liberty it was established to safeguard and defend.

Patrick Henry tried to warn people, at least those in Virginia, of the dangers this constitution posed to their liberty; but they refused to listen; much like people refuse to give any credence to the things I write today, I might add. Henry warned that if the people ratified the proposed Constitution that the States would lose their sovereignty; and they have. He warned that this Constitution provides those who cherished their liberty no means of defending it against the government the Constitution establishes; and it hasn’t.

Now the Constitution itself is irrelevant, leaving people divided along political party ideologies; and people STILL believe that our system of government is just chugging along in the manner in which it was intended. How obvious must the truth become before people will see it?

While pondering how to format the things I wanted to say in this commentary, a thought came to mind. That thought being, “If ignorance and apathy were terminal diseases, most Americans would be lying in hospital beds hooked up to life support systems.”

Ignorance and apathy are so rampant in America that if there was any sanity to the world, a state of national emergency would have been called to combat them. American’s priorities are bass ackwards; just go up to any American on a Monday morning during football season and try asking them questions of a political nature.

I realize that people have been educated, (I prefer to use the terms indoctrinated or programmed), to believe that America has a democracy, and that our government is doing the things that it was established to do; but a person of strong mind and strong moral character would accept the fact that things aren’t what they seem if they were presented with enough evidence to prove that to be the case.

Not Americans, not right now anyways. They go on believing in the system; putting their trust and faith into it in the hopes that just the right candidate will come along with all the answers and solve all their problems. If it weren’t so scary, it would be pathetic.

It’s like Morpheus tells Neo in the Matrix, “You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.”

The truth is out there people; if you want to go out and find it. It may be hidden in bits and pieces, but it is out there; all you have to do is be willing to look for it. Well that’s not exactly true, you also have to have the mental capacity to distinguish the truth from all the lies that are out there as well; and you can only develop that by using that old grey matter between your ears; something most Americans are loathe to do.

As Thomas Edison is attributed with saying, “Five percent of the people think; ten percent, think they think; and eighty-five percent would rather die than think.” Most prefer the comfort that comes with believing in lies and false security over the risks they face when they go out in seek of the truth. But I’ve always been somewhat of a rebel and a daredevil; so I suppose it comes as no surprise that I chose to seek out the truth.

But if liberty and freedom truly mean anything to you, I suggest you develop a little bit of courage and a whole lot of motivation, and go out and look for it yourself…before it’s too late, if it isn’t too late already that is.

Posted in General | Leave a comment