Neal's Soapbox

I have a trivia question for y’all. Out of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, which subject is addressed most often in them? The answer may shock you, but it’s the right of suffrage, or who shall be allowed to vote. That right is covered by 4 constitutional amendments, the 15th, 19th, 24th and the 26th. Yet if you were to read the Constitution itself, without any of the amendments, there is no reference as to who shall be allowed to vote.

The right of suffrage is an interesting subject as it brings up many questions in and of itself. The first question we should address is; why does one vote? Let’s put aside any political agenda people may have and get to the basic reason why people believe they should be allowed to vote; that being to choose those who will represent them in a system of government.

In a roundabout way this brings up the question of what kind of government did they institute in 1789, a national one or a federal one; or possibly a combination of both. If I were to ask you your nationality, how would you respond? Most, I’m sure, would say Americans, or United States citizens. Therefore, when you vote you are casting that vote in that capacity; with that frame of mind. Gone is the idea that your state is your country; America has become the country most people claim allegiance to.

The scope of powers held by a national government is far broader than those of a federal government, as it encompasses the entire nation; going beyond state borders to apply directly to every citizen. A federal government, on the other hand, has far fewer powers, with much of the power being retained by the component parts of the federation.

That is the type of government that existed under the Articles of Confederation; prior to the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. Under this system the States held more authority than the central government, and each measure proposed by the Congress had to get the unanimous approval of all 13 States before it could become binding upon any of them. Each State got one vote in Congress; making them all equal partners in the union; preventing one large state, or group of smaller states, from being allowed to join together to the oppression of other states. Furthermore, the representatives in Congress could be recalled by their respective states, at any time, if they failed to adequately represent the will of the people living in those states.

The establishment of a bicameral Congress by the constitution; meaning two legislative houses, altered that; raising the question of whether we were to be governed by a federal system or a national one.

When the constitution was being debated by the states those in support of it felt the need to write a series of essays countering the accusations that the drafters had sought to increase the power of government too much; consolidate the States; and a whole range of other complaints. I response to the question of consolidation, and the extent of the proposed government’s power, James Madison promised; let me repeat that, PROMISED, “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.”

This question is/was of such great importance that it led to what became the 10th amendment; for all the good it has done from preventing government from overreaching its specifically delegated powers. The 10th Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Now that may sound pretty clear cut, but there is a loophole in that amendment big enough to drive a tank through; that being the omission of the word expressly prior to the word delegated. Had that been included, and it was in the proposal but Madison edited it out because it would have limited the power of his new creation by far too much; but had that been in there the loophole I spoke of could have been closed tightly. That loophole is called construction; or what Alexander Hamilton called; implied powers.
The number of laws that have been passed which fall under heading of what is considered ‘commerce’, the ‘general welfare’, or ‘necessary and proper’ is astronomical; all because the government has decided that these things serve the general welfare, or are necessary and proper. In short, they are interpreting the constitution for themselves to grant themselves more power.

In 1798, in opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts signed into law by President John Adams, Thomas Jefferson secretly wrote a set of resolutions for the state of Kentucky and urged James Madison to do the same for the state of Virginia. These resolutions decried the overreach of power, with Jefferson’s draft reading, “…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; . . . . that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority…”

How does all that tie into voting? Well if we have a national government, then it represents the people, and the people are the masters who decide what powers the government shall be allowed to exercise on their behalf. But since we have a bicameral Congress, the states were also given a say in what should become law. Of course that was done away with when the 17th amendment was questionably ratified. After that fraud, the election of Senators was by the people, taking the states out of the operation of the federal government entirely; and if you ask me, made us a wholly national government, with all vestiges of federalism fading into history.

So, the people were to now elect lawmakers to both houses of Congress; which brings us right back to the subject of voting. As I have previously stated, the constitution makes no reference as to who shall be allowed to vote. The reasoning was that it was the state’s responsibility/authority to decide who within their borders shall be allowed to vote.

Most states only granted that right to white property owning, or tax-paying citizens. Now in today’s more enlightened world, that may seem wrong; but it has its benefits; as well as its pitfalls. Does it not make a certain amount of sense that those who pay for government should get to decide those who make the laws that government enacts? But this question begs another question; are those who vote voting for the overall public good, for the preservation of the rights and liberty of all the people, or are they voting to elect those who will pass laws that benefit them?

In 1850 Frederic Bastiat addressed this subject in his book The Law. In it Bastiat states, “In fact, if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the organized combination of the individual’s right to self defense; if law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression and plunder—is it likely that we citizens would then argue much about the extent of the franchise?” And that brings us right back around to the flaw in the 10th Amendment that does not limit the power of government to those powers ‘expressly’ delegated to it.

So in reality, what we have become is the charade of an elective democracy; where the majority gets to control the direction that government takes. I say charade because that’s what it is. These people campaign for your votes, making all kinds of promises to do things based upon the platforms of the two political parties.

However, very few of those promises, if any, deal with securing the rights and liberty of those who voted for them; and once they are elected they rarely keep their promises.

We are taught that the constitution has all these wonderful checks and balances to keep each branch from overstepping its authority, while protecting our rights and liberty. Patrick Henry declared those checks and balances to be, “specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and balances.” They may be written there on paper, but as those who we elect get to decide what their powers are, those checks are meaningless without any ability on our part to enforce them; to punish breaches of them.

Patrick Henry railed against this deficiency; the inability of the people to punish those in government if it violated their rights or liberty, “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?”

Tell me, how can you punish anyone holding office if they vote in favor of a law that deprives you of any of your rights? You can vote them out of office; if there are enough people who dislike what they have done. However, with well over an 80%, closer to 90% I believe, re-election rate for Congress, I certainly don’t see much voting out of office going on. And voting out of office is not punishing; not when you compare what happens to you if you violate the laws they pass. After all, they have a standing army, (federal and local law enforcement), to make sure you obey the law; what do you have against them?

Patrick Henry railed against that as well, “A standing army we shall have also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny: And how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your Mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?” How are you to stand up to the National Guard, with all their military hardware, or local law enforcement with their militarized SWAT teams, when all you have are single shot and semi automatic pistols and rifles? Besides, it takes a thorough knowledge of what your rights are, and the courage to defend them, for even the best equipped militia to be of any use; both of which are sorely lacking amongst most of the people these days. Don’t believe me, just look at how many obey these ridiculous mask mandates.

It may seem like I keep drifting away from the subject of voting, but it all ties in together. From its very inception this government has been one in which the power delegated to it, with numerous loopholes thrown in for good measure, has been one which was designed to give it the power of coercion over those it governed; the people. A good government, one designed to secure the rights and liberty of all people under its authority, would not require the power to use force, or penalties; the people would obey the laws willingly; unless of course they sought to use the system as a tool to enrich themselves and oppress others.

Most of those who wrote the constitution, and later supported its ratification, were of the upper class of society; the elite you might call them; they were lawyers, bankers and business men. It would go a long way towards explaining the coup of 1787 if one undertook a serious study of the writings and business dealings of the primary figures involved in the drafting of the constitution; you may have your eyes opened if you do.

Take for instance on Robert Morris. Morris was the man to go to during the Revolution when it came to procuring arms and supplies for the Continental Army. He was also, what you might call, the treasurer during that period. During the Revolution Morris secured a loan to the U.S., which he then deposited in his bank. Some of that money was loaned out to his friends, on the promise that they use it to buy stocks in his bank.

One of the Anti-Federalists opposing the constitution, Centinel, wrote the following about Morris in his 23rd essay, “When we consider the immense sums of public money taken up by Mr. Morris, as commercial agent, to import military supplies, and even to trade on behalf of the United States, at a time when the risk was so great that individuals would not venture their property; that all these transactions were conducted under the private firm of Willing and Morris, which afforded unrestrained scope to peculation and embezzlement of the public property, by enabling Mr. Morris to throw the loss of all captures by the enemy at that hazardous period on the public, and converting most of the safe arrivals, (which were consequently very valuable) into his private property; and when we add to these considerations, the principles of the man, his bankrupt situation at the commencement of the war, and the immense wealth he has dazzled the world with since, can it be thought unreasonable to conclude that the principal source of his wealth was the commercial agency of the United States during the war?”

These were the nature of the scoundrels who wrote your precious constitution; with all its imaginary checks and balances, and protections for your rights. They didn’t care about your rights, had they cared they would have included a bill of rights in the document when delivering it to the states for consideration. It was only when their precious plan met resistance that they acquiesced and said they would produce one if the constitution were just ratified first. All they cared about was getting the framework in place; and when the time came to fulfill their promise they butchered the amendments sent to them by the states.

You are a tax slave, and for the entire history of this system of government it has been a history of increased power, with the increased need for revenue to fund its operations; with a few examples to the contrary; such as Jefferson’s first term in office, and possibly when Andrew Jackson fought against the central banking establishment. Heck, the first serious threat to the power of government came in response to taxes; specifically a tax on distilled liquor…whiskey; which saw the President Washington march an armed militia into Pennsylvania. There is that coercive power I mentioned earlier.

You see, for government to be able to expand its powers it had to convince the people that there was a need for such expansions of power; a crisis or emergency of some sorts. One of the things they had to overcome is people’s desire to have a limited government; one that would simply leave them alone to live their lives. Yet even as early as 1788 there were signs that people were forgetting the cause which they had so recently fought for; with talk of a great American empire with a government which would benefit and boost economic growth.

Again, Patrick Henry tried to remind people of the purpose for which governments are instituted among men, “You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.”

Then, in a somewhat sarcastic tone, he bemoaned how people had already forgotten about that principle, “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.”

A Scottish judge by the name of Andrew Fraser Tytler once wrote, “Great nations rise and fall. 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.” The first four steps of that took place with the American Revolution and subsequent independence. The next step began almost immediately afterwards, and it is to that change, forsaking the cause of liberty, that Patrick Henry bemoaned.

Once the constitution had been ratified, and implemented, the people sought to elect those who could bring about economic prosperity; or create jobs. Sound familiar all you Trump supporters? Prior to becoming the 20th President of the United States, James Garfield wrote the following in a letter to B. A. Hindsale, “It is not part of the functions of the national government to find employment for people — and if we were to appropriate a hundred millions for this purpose, we should be taxing forty millions of people to keep a few thousand employed.”

And let me play devil’s advocate and pretend that it is the responsibility of the government to create employment for the people, why then is government telling small business owners that they must operate at reduced capacity, or shut down entirely, all in response of this Covid crisis? Has that not created massive unemployment; not to mention businesses going under, never to be reopened? If the government is supposed to create jobs, then the mandates it is trying to impose upon us for Covid go against governments intended purposes.

You can’t have it both ways people; either government has no business creating jobs, or it has no authority to take steps that puts people out of work. But this brings us back to voting, because most people care more about comfort and security than they do their rights and liberty; and the more people they can get voting, the better chance they have of passing measures based upon the promise of delivering one or the other.

So the federal government, after the Civil War, breached the boundaries separating their powers and the powers of the states by proposing the 15th; which gave the newly freed blacks the right to vote. That should have been up to the states, as they’d already had restrictions upon other classes of people; such as women. But they got their feet in the door with the 15th Amendment, on the basis that it was a Civil Rights amendment designed to give the right of suffrage to former slaves.

Then the 19th Amendment was ratified; giving women the right to vote. Then the 24th Amendment was ratified; prohibiting a person’s right to vote from being denied for failure to pay a poll tax. Then finally the 26th Amendment lowered the voting age to 18. This particular amendment was driven by the fact that young men were being drafted into the military to fight in the Vietnam conflict, yet they were not allowed to vote due to age restrictions. Funny, they didn’t lower the drinking age to 18 either. After all, if you’re old enough to go off and fight or die for your country, you ought to be old enough to have a beer too.

Now almost everyone over the age of 18 can vote in this country; which brings me to my final point – ignorance and apathy. James Madison once wrote, “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives. A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both.”

How much knowledge would you say the average voter, or you yourself, have regarding the specifics of what the constitution says, how it came into existence, and the overall history of your country? Would you allow someone who has never read a medical book to crack you open and tinker around inside with your internal organs? Why then would you allow someone to if they do not understand how their system of government is supposed to function, and the limits placed upon its power?

Author Robert Heinlein described what happens when you give the right of suffrage to all the people, “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. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it… which for the majority translates as ‘Bread and Circuses.’

‘Bread and Circuses’ is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader—the barbarians enter Rome.”

Lysander Spooner looked at the whole process of voting from an entirely different perspective, ” it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two.”

Let me again repeat a quote I provided earlier, from Bastiat’s book The Law, “In fact, if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the organized combination of the individual’s right to self defense; if law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression and plunder—is it likely that we citizens would then argue much about the extent of the franchise?”

Does it not seem that if that’s all government did, secure to us the rights of life, liberty and property, and the right to defend them, then there would be no arguing over who ran government; no political parties? But since neither party does that, there is always going to be conflict between the opposing ideologies; while our rights and liberty circle the toilet.

In 1788 the man who is famous for establishing the first American Dictionary, Noah Webster, wrote, “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.”

How many of you can say that? How many of you can name more than one individual who attended the convention which drafted the constitution? How many of you can list the names of 5 prominent men who argued against the ratification of the constitution? How many of you can list all 10 amendments to the Bill of Rights; describing which rights they supposedly guarantee against government interference?

If you can’t do any of those things, how can you call yourself informed? I may not be the most educated person in this country; but in comparison to most people I’m a frickin’ genius! Yet if I were to tell you that you could not vote until you could recite the constitution to me; backwards and forwards, how would you react?

And that right there, (sorry to say it), is why we’ll never fix this country; we have a bunch of brain dead voters voting for their choice of criminals/masters; with no regard for their individual rights and liberty. As long as that remains true government will continue to trample all over your freedom; tossing you bread crumbs of assistance; comfort and security, as it goes.

If you want to fix this country you’re going to have to give up the government handouts and start craving freedom again; crave it enough that you’ll risk your life to get it back from those who have stolen it from you. And, from one look at how many mindless drones I see wearing their face masks in response to a virus that has a 99% survival rate, that ain’t happening anytime soon.

So enjoy today while you can, tomorrow will be worse, the day after that, and the day after that; until you wake up in chains and wonder what the fuck happened. But if you’re going to wake up, do so quickly. Remember that passage from Tytler, “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.” Well, were in the final stage now, dependence back into bondage. The clock’s a ticking, and lady liberty is wondering where all her defenders are.

Question: What do you call a group of people who go about their lives oblivious to the fact that they are slaves?
Answer: Americans.

The above question is either a sad commentary on the people of this country, or a shining example of the success of the indoctrination process they have undergone at the hands of their educators and the mainstream media. Whichever one it happens to be, the majority of those living in this country are unable to see that they live their entire lives minus one crucial element – freedom. Sure, they are allowed to scurry back and forth, but their essential rights and liberty have been stripped away from them with nary a whimper of protest; and often at their own request. Sure, they get to elect those who have passed that laws that have denied them this freedom; but allowing the inmates of a prison to elect who will be the warden and guards does not make them free.

There is a quote, written some 230 years ago, by a man named Thomas Paine that accurately describes how I feel most of the time these days. The quote goes, “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 could almost tolerate people choosing servitude over the animating contest for liberty if their choice didn’t drag me down into bondage with them; and if you’ll notice, I said almost. The nature of man, as a species, is to be free; therefore bondage and servitude is a condition that is, not only forced upon them; it goes against all that is natural in the world. Yet go outside into the teeming mass of society and count the number of people wearing face masks versus those who don’t and you’ll readily get an idea of how many people willingly accept the yoke of bondage.

Oh I know, our leaders tell us we must wear the mask; must social distance; the scientists and doctors tell us we must; and the news media parrots their narrative. But have you ever considered that a truly free individual requires no leaders; no one to tell them what they can and cannot do so long as they do not violate the unalienable rights of others. For that is what liberty is; the ability to live your life as you choose; without restriction or constraint.

I constantly hear the masses say that they know their rights, or that they have rights. Sometimes it takes all my will to not bitch slap them while saying, “The hell you do!” Your rights are yours and no one can take them from you. Sure, they can tell you that you cannot exercise them; but those rights never vanish. If I tell you to shut up, and you listen to my command, have you lost the ability to speak? Of course not, you simply choose to obey my command. It is the same with your rights; they are still there; you have just chosen to obey the commands telling you not to exercise them.

The purpose of government, at least according to the Declaration of Independence, is to secure to each individual their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Is it so difficult to understand that if a system of government denies you the ability to freely exercise all of your rights it is not serving the purpose all governments should serve?

But Neal, it’s not my parties fault, it is the ‘other’ parties fault; they are the ones that enact all these laws that restrict our freedom. Is that so? Then why is it that, while your party is in power all those bad laws remain in effect; why are they not rescinded or repealed by your party? Can you answer that question for me? If there truly was a difference between the two parties you would go through a cycle in which you had periods where you were free to exercise your rights without restraint and a period where your rights were restricted. As that does not happen, the problem is not political parties, it is the system itself.

But Neal, we need government. Do we; I certainly don’t find it to be of any use in my life; it is much more of a hindrance than a benefit to me. Only those who are unable, or unwilling, to accept full responsibility for their own wants and needs actually need government; a free man has no need for government; aside from the need to ensure that laws are passed protecting the rights of all and defending the country they live in against foreign invasion/attack.

A free individual does not need, nor would they ask, for their government to provide them with their basic needs, comfort, and security. A truly free individual would find it a badge of dishonor to have to ask the government to provide for them the things that it is their responsibility to provide for themselves. I recall how, while I was growing up, my father found it repulsive to have to apply for unemployment when we went through a period where he could not find employment. That mindset is gone; a thing of the past. Now you have people who not only accept that government should provide that safety net for them; they abuse the system because they are unwilling to live within their own means, or are unwilling to go out and provide for all their own wants and needs.

Have you ever heart the saying that you do not bite the hand that feeds you? What it means is that if someone is providing you with something you need, you do not criticize or disrespect them; as they are apt to deny you the thing you have come to depend upon from them. A long time ago Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.”

I hate to come across as sounding condescending but I am willing to bet that a lot of people probably would not understand what that means; due to the use of the words subservience and venality; so allow me to explain. Let’s begin by defining those two words. Subservience means the willingness to obey others without question. Venality means the willingness to behave dishonestly for monetary compensation.

So what the first part of that passage means is that if you are dependent upon something it causes you to obey willingly those who provide that thing you need, and it also causes you to behave dishonestly to attain it. But Jefferson did not stop there, he continued by explaining that dependence the germ of virtue. Now what on earth might he have meant by that?

What exactly is virtue? Well, virtue is the highest state of moral integrity. Therefore a person who is virtuous would not ask that others provide for them the things that it was their moral obligation to provide for themselves. Therefore, when people become dependent upon others for their wants and needs, that dependence suffocates whatever virtue they may have had.

Finally Jefferson concludes by saying that this dependence ‘prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.’ What that means should be obvious, but I’ll explain it anyway. What it means is that if there are those who lust for power and control over others, they will see that by providing you with certain things; such as comfort, security, or sustenance, they can exercise control over all of your rights and liberty without fear of you resisting; hence the saying, “You do not bite the hand that feeds you.”

There is a story about the legendary blues guitarist Robert Johnson, and how he promised his soul to the devil if the devil would make him a great guitarist. As to the factuality of this story I will leave that to you to decide. The point, or moral, is that Johnson traded something of great value, his soul, for the promise of something much less important; the ability to play the guitar with great skill. Now if you apply that moral to today, you might ask yourself if you have traded something of great importance, (your freedom), for the empty promises of comfort and security.

An individual who loves and cherishes their liberty would not support an entity that passes laws that deprive them of that sacred gift; no matter how many other benefits it provides. Patrick Henry, the great orator who sparked the resistance to King George III and his tyranny, once said, “You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.”

Liberty was of such importance to Henry, and those who felt like him, that they were willing to trade their lives in its defense; “Give me liberty or give me death.” How many people today could say that; and mean it? I’d be willing to guess that if you were to go into a WalMart and look around you would not find any of the mask wearers who would be willing to say it; and possibly not all of the non-mask wearers. But Neal, aren’t they resisting government? Yes, in this instance they are; but what about all the other laws that infringe upon and violate their other rights, are they resisting those as well?

Since I brought up WalMart, let me tell you a quick story about what happened outside my local WalMart this past summer. As I was leaving the store with my purchases there was a booth set up where some people were collecting signatures for ballot measures. I walked over to see what they were proposing and one of them was a measure that would grant reciprocity for CCW holders. What that means is that if you had a concealed carry permit in one state, it would be valid in the others without having to go through the process of obtaining one for each state you might travel to.

As I approached the booth one of the guys asked me if I wanted to sign their petition; I politely declined, saying I don’t need a CCW to exercise a right, and I’m not going to sign a petition that puts my ability to keep and bear arms to a vote; especially since the majority of those living in California have shown an inclination to support measures the restrict that right. The guy looked at me kind of funny; as if I was some anti-gun nut; so I went on to say, “Listen, I support what you are trying to do, but you should not need a permit to exercise your right, and that is why I refuse to sign your petition.”

By this time a few of those gathered around the booth had begun to pay attention to the conversation, so when the guy said we need to take baby steps to restore our rights, I again politely disagreed. I said we never lost our rights; we lost our willingness to stand up to tyrants who have passed laws that tell us we cannot exercise them. By this time my wife was getting impatient, so I broke off the conversation; but I would like to continue discussing it further here.

If you recall, a bit earlier I asked whether if I told you to shut up and you obeyed, you had lost the right to speak. I said no, you were just obeying my order; you were being subservient. It’s the same with all these gun laws that tell us what kinds of guns we may own, when and where we can carry them, and under what circumstances we can use them.

These laws have force because we accept the premise that government has the ability to pass laws that restrict our rights; not just our right to keep and bear arms, all of them. No Neal, you’re wrong, those laws have force because the police will arrest or shoot you if you disobey them. Is that so? Did the King’s police, (the Redcoats), and there threat of force or violence stop the Colonists from standing up and defending their rights when they came under attack?

I know I’m going to make a lot of people angry with this, but what the hell; it needs to be said. If the police stuck to the purpose of protecting others from violence or harm, and sought to preserve the rights and liberty of all people, then these laws would fall flat on their face; for you can rest assured that those who pass them are not going to leave their comfortable offices to make sure you obey them. They need a policing force to make sure you obey; and if law enforcement neglects their duty to protect the lives, liberty, and property of the people, they are no better than the tyrants who write the laws they enforce!

But in the end, it all boils down to you, the people. You have the choice to either accept, and support, this entity that writes and enforces laws that strip you of your freedom; or you have the choice to grow a spine, or a set of balls, and stand up for what is rightfully yours.

Your rights, your liberty is still there, just waiting for you to claim them. As Emma Goldman once wrote, “People have only as much liberty as they have the intelligence to want and the courage to take.” If you are willing to trade away those rights for the meaningless promises of comfort and security, you deserve the fate that awaits you; for as Ben Franklin so accurately said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Furthermore, if you are among those who would trade away your liberty for the promise of comfort and security, you are not among those I consider friends, or worth saving should the shit hit the fan; you are dupes who have willingly sacrificed the only thing of value in your pathetic lives, and I want nothing to do with you. As Samuel Adams once said, “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

The time is quickly approaching when you must choose to either stand for your rights, or live the remainder of your lives on your knees. There is no guarantee that standing up to tyranny will be a successful venture; but the alternative is far worse if you ask me.

But it all boils down to the question of whether or not you are going to continue to support, and obey, an entity that thinks it knows what’s best for you, or if you are going to rise up and live up to the promise that this country once held; when men fought for the ideal that all men are created equal, and bestowed with the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If you make the wrong choice now, don’t look to people like me to lift you out of bondage; we’ll all probably be taking that long dirt nap. By the time you realize the error of your ways it will be up to you to either accept servitude, or to rise up and show the same courage that your ancestors did in 1776; for as Emiliano Zapato said, “Tis better to die on your feet than live on your knees.” But you’re going to learn that lesson soon enough; trust me on that.

I just hope that if posterity does rise up out of the bondage we’ve bestowed upon them, they learn from our mistakes and don’t create a system that has the power to deprive them of their most precious rights and liberty. I hope that they will also maintain a more watchful eye upon whatever form of government they establish, so that it will not become as tyrannical and oppressive as ours is right now. That is my fervent wish and prayer; for we’ve done screwed to pooch!

Whereas tax revenue has not kept pace with government spending; allowing the national debt to swell to an astronomical $27 trillion;

Whereas if something is not done to correct this imbalance the debt is estimated to reach $48 trillion by the year 2024;

We, the representatives of the people are paying heed to the writings of Founders such as Thomas Jefferson, who warned, “We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.”

Therefore, until our debt has been paid off, or down to a level that is sustainable under current tax revenue collection levels, we are curtailing all non-essential services. These services shall include, but not be limited to:

-all taxpayer funded subsidies and benefits

-all federal funding to the states

-all current military engagements outside the continental United States

-all federal law enforcement; to include the FBI, DEA, BATF, Secret Service, Federal Marshalls, Park Rangers, Homeland Security Officers, and officers of the Bureau of Land Management.

These federal programs may be reinstated upon future review; based upon whether or not they are absolutely essential to the survival of the Union, contingent upon whether or not the revenue collected via income taxes are sufficient to fund them without having to borrow funds to continue them.

Furthermore, all staff member positions for the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches will be terminated; being deemed non-essential. Each officer of the federal government will be allowed to maintain one secretary to answer calls and perform all requisite administrative duties.

Furthermore, as this will decrease the current spending levels of your government, it will do nothing to eliminate the existing debt;

Therefore, as this debt is your responsibility, each citizen will begin receiving a monthly bill, above and beyond all income taxes collected; which shall be payable within 30 days after receipt.

This debt collection process will continue until the debt is paid off in full.

This program is non-negotiable and there shall be no exemptions; each citizen shall be required to pay their fair and equal share until the debt is paid off.

As it stands at this moment, the current amount each citizen is obligated to pay stands at $82,592. To ensure that this does not place too heavy a burden upon the people we will spread these payments over a 48 month period; meaning each citizen will be required to pay $1,719 per month; above and beyond what is withheld from your pay in income taxes.

These steps may sound drastic, but the result is an economic collapse that will bring ruin upon the entire country; if not the world.

This debt, while contracted on your behalf by those you elect, is ultimately your fault. You kept asking us to do more and more for you; while you complained when your taxes went up. The only alternative was to borrow money to pay for the things you asked/expected us to do for you.

Maybe next time you’ll be more thoughtful when you ask us to do these things for you; things which far exceed the spirit and intent of those who ratified the Constitution in 1789.

As John F. Kennedy once famously said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” Well, your country needs your help; it needs some fiscal responsibility; and if the only way to teach you that lesson is to make you pay for what you want without passing on the burden of perpetual debt onto your posterity, so be it. As the saying goes, “Nothing in life is free.” It’s about time you learned that lesson.

The final part of this bill will go into effect once the debt has been paid off, and will provide those who wish to exempt themselves from government programs, and taxes. A form will be provided, that each citizen must fill out; declaring their intent; whether or not they wish to receive government funded benefits, or go without them. Those who choose not to participate shall be exempt from having taxes withheld from their pay; making only those who receive these benefits responsible for funding the programs that provide them.

Those who choose to exempt themselves shall be ineligible for government assistance of any kind, including 911 services, FEMA funding during national disasters, but at the same time they shall not be obligated to fund those programs for those who utilize them.

Furthermore, those who exempt themselves shall be treated by those who wish to remain under our jurisdiction as sovereign citizens; their lives, their rights, and their property are protected against violations and infringements by the general public, and if those rights are violated by anyone under the jurisdiction of this government it shall be considered as an act of war against them; and they are authorized to use whatever deadly force they deem necessary to defend what is rightfully theirs.

Signed this day by:

The title of this little ditty refers to the fact that it is always easier to spot the dangers of a choice after you’ve made the choice and suffered the consequences of it. How do you think man learned that fire burns? Do you think man came hardwired with that critical data stored away in their craniums, or do you think somewhere along man’s long history, someone may have stuck their hands into a fire and said, “Holy shit, that fucking hurts”, or something similar.

If you look back to your childhood you may recall that your parents tried to pass on to you the lessons they had learned from their own past mistakes; I can certainly vouch that my parents tried to do that for me – but I was too pigheaded to listen to them and had to learn the hard way. That’s what parenting is all about, preparing your children to assume adulthood by teaching them the lessons you’ve learned while growing up; many of those lessons having been passed onto them by their parents.

There is a word that describes this, and it may come as somewhat of a surprise, seeing as how so many people either hate it, or disregard it. That word is history, and its purpose is to guide us in our decision making processes so we don’t repeat the same mistakes past generations did. The problem with all this is that if you ignore history, you tend to give credence to what George Santayana said, “Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.”

There is a Founding Father, my favorite in fact, who said the following on a March day in 1775, “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.” The thing about that is, if you aren’t taught the past, [history], then you will be unable to benefit from the lessons to be learned from it; which is why you end up repeating the same mistakes those in the past did.

Even worse is when you are taught a false version of the past; which in turn shapes your future decisions. If that happens you may be absolved from some of the guilt for the choices you make based upon what you were taught; but I only say some because you still have the freewill to fact check the version of history you have been taught to verify its accuracy.

Unfortunately, when generation after generation have been taught lies about the history of their country, the lie becomes self-perpetuating; being passed from generation to generation as the truth; giving validity to what Lenin said, “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”

Once that has happened, once the lie has become established as the truth, it becomes difficult, if not downright impossible to convince people that what they believe to be true is, in fact, a lie. In fact, what Dresden James said becomes the norm, “When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” But, as John Adams said in his defense of the British soldiers accused of firing upon the crowd in the Boston Massacre, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

Let me now ask you something. If all that I’ve said up to this point is accurate, or at least plausible, then if you are making decisions based upon what you have been taught, is it not logical to say that your thoughts have been shaped, manipulated, programmed by those who control what you were taught. If you were taught only one side of a story, is it not conceivable that you would be biased against the side whose story was not told?

The Civil War is a perfect example of this, as most of the history we are taught about that conflict was written from the perspective of the victors; the North. Another example is the ratification of our Constitution. We are taught that the Constitution is a miraculous document, written by men who were inspired by God to establish the best form of government mankind has ever seen. Yet had you been taught the opposing side, the side taken by the Anti-Federalists, you probably would be saying right about now, “Maybe it wasn’t such a good idea to adopt this system of government back in 1789; those Anti-Federalists were right, it sucks.”

Since you were only taught what they wanted you to learn, (only those things that would make you support this government, obey its laws; become a mindless drone incapable of critical thought), then you have been programmed, or indoctrinated; and anyone who challenges your position with facts and evidence is to be ignored, or ridiculed – the brainwashing has become complete. George Orwell wrote about this process in his book Nineteen Eighty-Four, “Those who control the present, control the past and those who control the past control the future.”

If the history you were taught was not fact based, or if it was biased toward one position, then you have been indoctrinated, and the decisions you make based upon the knowledge you have learned will be controlled by those who control the flow of information into your mind. The same goes for the news media. If the network and cable news is all you rely upon to form your decisions upon the important issues facing this country, then those who control the news, control you.

How much thought have you given to what freedom actually means? To me, freedom means living my life free of external control or restraint. I cannot say that I am free when what I am being told is untrue, or biased; therefore if I wish to remain free I must, on my own, seek out the truth. For 20 some odd years I have been doing just that; and I’ve only touched upon the tip of the iceberg as to what truths have been hidden from me. Yet that miniscule amount is enough to convince me that almost all of the history I was taught in school, and all the garbage being spewed by the news media, is absolute bullshit and lies. They may enslave my body, but my mind is free; all because I have chosen to seek out the truth.

Now it may seem like I’m simply rambling around, ranting about totally unrelated subjects; that couldn’t be further from the truth. Going back to the Patrick Henry speech I quoted from a few moments ago, we find the following, “They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?”

Years later James Madison would address that in a roundabout way in his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, “We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle.”

Our Founders, the ones who fought for their independence, not the ones who wrote our Constitution, did not wait until they had been reduced to absolute bondage to their system of government; they saw the threat that allowing government to infringe upon a fraction of their rights and liberty posed to the rest of their rights and liberty, and they resisted – with force I might add.

Yet here we are in America today, ignoring the lessons of history while the chains of servitude have been laid upon us; all with nary a whimper of protest from the masses – and yet people still have the unmitigated gall to say they live in the land of the free. Why, they wouldn’t know freedom if it came up and introduced itself to them!

If you were to draw a line on a piece of paper and write freedom at one end and slavery at the other; for they are in fact diametric opposites, then where we stand right now is about 90% of the way towards slavery; with true freedom being but a distant speck in our rear view mirrors. The sad thing is, it’s about to get worse, much worse, if people do not pull their heads out of the sand, or their asses; whichever place they may be hiding them. The time to resist comes before you are enslaved, not when they have placed the shackles upon your wrists and ankles!

How would you define slavery? Would you say it is when one man, or group of men, owns other human beings? That could be one way of defining it, but what if someone were to purchase another human being, then educate that person, give them a home, a plot of land, and the ability to live their life as they saw fit; would that still fit into your thoughts on what slavery is? To me, slavery is when one group of people has absolute control over the lives and actions of another group of people; the complete and utter lack of ability for one group to live their lives as they saw fit; which is how you define liberty.

Now I’m going to sidestep my belief that this Covid virus is/was man-made and was released upon the public intentionally. What I do what to address is the affect it has had upon us; and by us I mean the world. Before I do that I want to refresh your memory as to something said by Obama’s former White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel; that being the quote, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

This Covid crisis, and our reactions to it are a perfect example of how Hegel’s dialectic has been used to control the masses. First, a crisis is introduced, which in turn elicits a response, or a reaction. That reaction, in turn leads to measures being taken to remedy the crisis; or in other words, what Emmanuel said, “… an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

Think back to ten, fifteen years ago, how would you have reacted had your government told you that you MUST wear a face mask; that you MUST maintain six feet from the person closest to you; that you MUST shut down your business for the public safety. You probably would have either said, why, or maybe even, go fuck yourselves. There would have been no logical reason for government to mandate those things.

But, introduce a virus, hype the hell out of it with a well planned advertising campaign, (extensive network news broadcasts promoting doom and gloom), and you’ve created a climate where the majority of the people will submit to things they wouldn’t have without the crisis. Hegel’s dialectic in action right in front of your eyes! They did the same thing with 9/11, and they do it every time there is a mass shooting. Why should they stop when it works so well?

The problem is, we have ignored the warnings of men like Patrick Henry, who told us that the only way to judge the future is by examining the past. Since people have either not been taught the past, or ignored the lessons it teaches, they cannot foresee the future with the same clarity that those who have studied the past can; they are totally unaware of what’s coming; and will be blindsided by it when it happens. These are the ones who will, inevitably say, “Why didn’t someone try to warn us?” What the hell do you think I’m trying to do right now?

This Covid virus, be it real or man-made, is the perfect tool for the complete control of society. We cannot see it, and if we base our opinions upon what we are told on the news, then we are being led by the nose right into the cells that will bind us to their will for the rest of our pathetic lives; unless you have the courage to resist RIGHT NOW; before they slam the door shut on what remains of your freedom!

Those in government, and those behind the scenes pulling its strings, may be evil; but they aren’t stupid. They push us, restricting a bit of our freedom, then sit back and watch how we react. If they push too hard, and we react with anger, they lessen the impositions they have placed upon our freedom; although they never restore all of it. This gives us time to become accustomed to these impositions until the next time, when they push a bit more. They will keep pushing, and pushing, and pushing, until they are met with resistance; and if you are acquiescing to these infringements upon your rights and liberty based upon your fear, (which is being manipulated by the media), then they can push you as hard as they want and you will not resist until you find that you have lost all your freedom; which is why hindsight is always 20/20; because when that happens you’ll be unable to resist; you’ll be a slave.

What’s in our future? Good question. This is what I see coming down the pipeline. They have already conditioned the majority to accept that face masks are the ‘new normal.’ They have already conditioned us to accept other social distancing guidelines. We have allowed them to tell us which businesses can remain open, and which must be close for the public safety.

I think the real push, or the real test will come when they release a vaccine for distribution. I think that is when we will see whether the people of this country have what it takes to be free, or if they will willingly put on the chains that bind them in servitude to their masters – government; and its puppet masters.

I could be wrong, but I think that once they release a vaccine for the public they will try to implement some form of Social Credit Score along with it. I think that if you refuse to take the vaccine they will try to deny you entrance into stores, banks, medical facilities, and all the other places you take for granted now. They will claim you pose a threat to the public safety, of course, but in the end what they want to do is isolate and vilify those who do not willingly comply with their edicts; the true patriots, the troublemakers.

China has already initiated such a program, basing a person’s Social Credit Score upon a wide variety of facts; from their online usage, to their resistance to authority, to how well they serve the state. Those who obey without question have a very high Social Credit Score, and the more radical, the more subversive you are, the more your score drops; denying you status and access to the essentials of life. I see a similar program coming to America, and it will all be done to combat the spread of Covid.

The writing on the wall has been there for quite awhile; if only people would read what was being written. Look at how people who speak out against the government with truth are vilified; treated as dangers to society or second class citizens. Look at how those who speak and write against certain actions by government are placed upon some kind of watch list; simply because they chose to exercise their freedom of speech. The signs were there, and nobody paid any attention to them. Well I did, and I’ve been trying to warn people for a long time. The problem is, my warnings fall upon deaf ears, or I’m called a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist; that couldn’t happen in America. I’ll remind you that you said that when it does happen; that’s assuming I survive what’s coming; for I will not comply!

I pity those yet to be born in this country. They will grow up in a land devoid of the basic freedom that makes life worth living; all because their forefathers did not have the courage, or the knowledge, to stand up and defend their own while they still had the chance. And that’s the saddest thing about all this; your ignorance, your inaction, is going to bind your posterity to tyrannical masters you could have resisted had you had the courage to do so. And if that liberty you have failed to defend is, indeed, God’s gift to all mankind, then I don’t think He’s going to be too happy with you bequeathing slavery upon your grandchildren.

But hey, at least you’ll be protected from Covid, right? Just keep your why didn’t someone warn me thoughts to yourself please.

Every evening roughly 5.3 million households sit down and turn on the television to watch the network news. Add to that another 8.6 million who get their news from the cable news services, (FOX, CNN and MSNBC), and you have a whopping 13.9 million people who are being brainwashed every night by the government controlled media. George Orwell must be rolling over in his grave, thinking his book 1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual! Imagine what would happen if you could pull the plug on all 13.9 million of them; wake them up. Imagine what a powerful force they could become for liberty and limited government if only they’d stop letting others spoon feed their thoughts and beliefs to them via the Boob Tube.

Throughout our country’s history there have been times when large groups of protestors congregated in our nation’s capital; protesting one thing or another. Back in the year 1913 five thousand women gathered together, protesting in support of a woman’s right to vote. Then, in 1925 forty-thousand Klansman gathered together to protest in Washington D.C.; some bringing their wives and children with them as if it were a picnic. In 1969 a quarter million people showed up in our nation’s capital to protest our involvement in Vietnam.

Although these protests may not have had much effect upon policy, the vast number of people must have given pause to those in power. Imagine how they’d react if 13.9 million people flooded into the nation’s capital and demanded that government stop messing with their rights, or face the consequences. What a sight to see that would be! Unfortunately, the only time I’ll ever see something like that is when I’m dreaming.

You see, protesting is one of our unalienable rights; one which is supposedly protected by the First Amendment. Not only is our right to peaceably assemble one of the rights listed in the First Amendment, the right to petition government for a redress of grievances is listed as well. Unfortunately there is not one single clause in the Constitution that says anything about government listening; to either our protests or our petitions.

So what do you do when your protests, your letters, your phone calls, go unheeded? Do you shrug your shoulders and say, “Oh well, we tried”? Is that all you’ve got, ‘oh well, we tried?’ Had the Colonists had that attitude there’s no telling how much longer they would have remained subject to British rule. What they did was they resisted the laws that infringed upon their rights and liberty by refusing to obey them, and by committing other sundry acts of civil disobedience; such as tarring and feathering tax collectors.

But Neal, we can’t resist the law; we might get arrested or shot. Do you think that thought never crossed their minds when they did what they did? Do you think that the threat of fines, jail time, or even death was not a possibility in response to their actions? Yet they had one thing the American people of today do not, a love of liberty, and the courage to risk their lives in its defense.

Have you ever heard of 16 American Jurisprudence? American Jurisprudence is an encyclopedia of American Law. It does not contain every law ever written, it explains the legal principles that form the basis of our system of justice. Justice, now there is another thing that has gone the way of the dodo in this country; had it not our prisons would be full of politicians, not people like you and I!

Getting back to 16 American Jurisprudence, it states, “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.” Read that again, and Again and AGAIN until you understand thoroughly what it says; for what it says is that if a law is unconstitutional we are under no obligation to obey it; and any actions taken to enforce it are unjust. So you see, it is your right to resist laws that violate your rights and threaten your liberty; you just need to have the courage to do so; to stand alone in a crowd when you’re surrounded by obedient little sheep who obey the commands of their masters.

Now I’d like to take some time discussing how all that ties into this so-called Covid pandemic. Let’s just, for the sake of argument, say that there is, in fact, a virus that is spreading across the country; across the globe. One might call this an emergency, right? The question is, does this emergency grant government the authority to curtail your life, force you to wear a mask, limit how many people can assemble, (remember the First Amendment), in your home for the holidays, or shut down your business to prevent the spread; flatten the curve?

Not according to a decision handed down by the Supreme Court in 1934 it doesn’t. In the case of Home Building & Loan Assn v. Blairsdell Justice Charles Evans Hughes held, “Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved.” So, if the government did not have the power to impose these restrictions upon you prior to Covid, (which it did not), then it does not have them now; making their actions unconstitutional!

So, why are you not resisting? I’ll tell you why you’re not; you’re all cowards; at least those of you walking around voluntarily wearing face masks; those of you ratting out your friends and neighbors for not adhering to social distancing guidelines. You are cowards because you are afraid of a virus that has a 99% survival rate across almost all age groups.

According to the CDC, Centers for Disease Control, the survival rate by age group is as follows:

-From 0 to 19 years of age the survival rate is 99.997%
-From 20 to 49 years of age the survival rate is 99.98%
-From 50 to 69 years of age the survival rate is 99.5%
-It is only when you get to the elderly, 70 yrs of age or older, that you see a dramatic increase; jumping to 94.6%.

For all this, a virus that kills less than 1% of all the people it infects; aside from the elderly, you’re willing to be led around the nose like a bunch of farm animals; having your rights, your liberty, your livelihood taken from you? Why? Again, cowardice; fear over a disease that kills less than 1% of those it infects. Boy, Patrick Henry must be spinning in his grave. You see he preferred death over a life without liberty. But Patrick Henry had courage; something that is sorely lacking today. Then again there was Ben Franklin, who once said, “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” Does that ring a bill, cause you to feel ashamed? It should; for I’m ashamed to call you my fellow countrymen because of how willingly you surrender your liberty for the promises of comfort and security!

So why are people so bloody afraid of this thing when over 99% of those infected by it survive? I’ll tell you why, because you watch the fucking news; that’s why! Turn on any news channel and you’re liable to see 50% of its broadcast time devoted to instilling fear in you over this Covid crisis. I try to avoid even turning network, or cable news on if I can, but sometimes I cannot avoid hearing the TV in the background while my wife exercises or prepares her lunch for work. All I hear is Covid this, Covid that; increases in the number of cases; number of people hospitalized. FEAR, FEAR, FEAR; they are spoon feeding you fear and you’re gobbling it up like it was candy. I swear if there was any justice in this country, even the remotest semblance of it, those news broadcasters would be tried for crimes against humanity; if not dangling from the end of ropes; having been hung by lynch mobs!

It simply astonishes me how much people trust these news agencies to deliver the truth to them; when all the evidence points to the fact that they are the propaganda arm of your government. In 1917 a United States Congressman by the name of Oscar Calloway stood before Congress and said: In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interests, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States, and a sufficient number of them, to control generally the policy of the daily press….They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers.

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

Does that sound to me like the news media is concerned with providing you with the truth; with the facts, so that you can exercise your own critical thinking skills to form opinions? Or, does it sound like the freedom of the press is gone; that it has been bought out, sold to big business so that it can be used as a tool of propaganda to indoctrinate the masses? And it’s not just television news either. Go to any of the Social Networking platforms on the internet and you’ll find that those attempting to share the truth are having their accounts frozen, or their posts removed.

The truth is an anathema to those who seek to control you; and if you don’t know the meaning of the word anathema it is something that is disliked or detested. You see, the truth exposes these people as the criminals, the tyrants that they are; therefore it must be silenced at all costs for them to retain their control over you. The sad thing about it all is that they have been quite effective at indoctrinating/ conditioning/ brainwashing, call it what you will, the vast majority of those living in this country; to the point where they are incapable of accepting the truth, and unwilling to even consider that what they’ve been told might be a lie.

My God, just look at 9/11 if you don’t believe me. We are to believe that a group of men, armed with boxcutters, hijacked commercial airliners, and then flew around for hours, off course, without being intercepted; and then made maneuvers that highly skilled pilots have been unable to reproduce on simulators; and flew them into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon? Then, if that wasn’t incredible enough, the Twin Towers collapse into their own footprints; even though burning jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. Then, if THAT isn’t enough, we are to believe that Building 7 of the World Trade Center, which was NOT HIT by a plane, collapsed into its own footprint; just the same way a building that was brought down by a controlled demolition would.

And after all these amazing feats we buy the official story and surrender our rights and liberty to prevent it from happening again. Let me tell you something, if you want to prevent something like that from happening again, it’s too late; for it’s happening again with this Covid scandemic!

But Neal, that was a terrorist attack, and this isn’t. Is that so? There is a movie entitled V For Vendetta, starring Hugo Weaving as the protagonist V. In that film there is a scene in which Chief Detective Finch is speaking to his colleague, Dominic regarding his concerns. This is the transcript of that conversation:

Finch:
I want to ask a question, Dominic. I don’t care if you answer me or not. I just want to say this aloud… The question I want to ask is about St Mary’s and Three Waters. The question that’s kept me up for the last 24 hours, the question I have to ask, is: What if the worst, the most horrifying, biological attack in this country’s history was not the work of religious extremists?

Dominic:
Well, I don’t understand. We know it was. They were caught. They confessed.

Finch:
And they were executed, I know. And maybe that’s really what happened. But I see this chain of events, these coincidences… and I have to ask: What if that isn’t what happened? What if someone else unleashed that virus? What if someone else killed all those people? Would you really want to know who it was?

Dominic:
Sure.

Finch:
Even if it was someone working for this government? That’s my question. If our own government was responsible for what happened at St Mary’s and Three Waters… if our own government was responsible for the deaths of almost a hundred thousand people… would you really want to know?

I want you to hold on to that train of thought, if that’s at all possible, while I explain a few things to you. Are you aware that one of the legitimate powers delegated to government by the Constitution is the power to grant patents to inventors? Basically a patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state to an inventor, which gives them a temporary monopoly over their invention. That Clause is found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, where the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

You see, patents are designed to reward inventors so that they can profit off what they have invented; granting them exclusive right to those profits for a specified period of time. The key word in all this is ‘invented.’ Government may grant a patent for a water purification system; but it cannot grant a patent for water. Water is a naturally occurring substance; therefore it was NOT invented. The same goes for air…and yes, for viruses; as they are naturally occurring. The Supreme Court has held this to be the case, ruling that, “a naturally occurring DNA segment in an isolated form is a product of nature and is, therefore, not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” (Source: Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. 2013)

So, if this Covid virus is naturally occurring, it cannot be granted a patent by the United States government. Back in 2007 the following news story was published in newspapers across the country:

Coronavirus isolated from humans

The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Disclosed herein is a newly isolated human coronavirus (SARS-CoV), the causative agent of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Also provided are the nucleic acid sequence of the SARS-CoV genome and the amino acid sequences of the SARS-CoV open reading frames, as well as methods of using these molecules to detect a SARS-CoV and detect infections therewith. Immune stimulatory compositions are also provided, along with methods of their use.

So why is it that in, or around 2006, patents were applied for in regards to this virus? Here, look for yourself; it took some digging, but I found these patent applications for SARS/Coronavirus:

Methods and compositions for infectious cDNA of SARS coronavirus
Jan 19, 2006 –
The present invention provides a cDNA of a severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus, recombinant SARS coronavirus vectors, and SARS coronavirus replicon particles. Also provided are methods of making the compositions of this invention and methods of using the compositions as immunogens and/or vaccines and/or to express heterologous nucleic acids.

Patent History
Publication number: 20060240530
Type: Application
Filed: Jan 19, 2006
Publication Date: Oct 26, 2006
Patent Grant number: 7618802
Applicant:

Inventors: Ralph Baric (Haw River, NC), Rhonda Roberts (Durham, NC), Boyd Yount (Hillsborough, NC), Kristohper Curtis (Frederick, MD)

Application Number: 11/334,877
Now this one you need to pay particular attention to:
This is a division of co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/822,904, filed Apr. 12, 2004, and issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,220,852 on May 22, 2007, which in turn claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/465,927 filed Apr. 25, 2003. Both applications are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.

STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

This invention was made by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an agency of the United States Government. Therefore, the U.S. Government has certain rights in this invention. (My emphasis)

STATEMENT OF PRIORITY

This application is a continuation-in-part application claiming priority to PCT Application Serial No. PCT/US2004/023548, filed Jul. 21, 2004, which was published in English on Apr. 21, 2005 as PCT Publication No. WO 2005/035712 and which claims the benefit of U.S. provisional application No. 60/488,942, filed Jul. 21, 2003, the entire contents of each of which are incorporated by reference herein.

STATEMENT OF FEDERAL SUPPORT

This invention was supported by government funding under grant numbers A123946 and GM 63228 from the National Institute of Health, Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The United States Government has certain rights to this invention. (My emphasis)

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to compositions of infectious cDNA of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus, recombinant SARS coronavirus vectors. SARS coronavirus replicon particles, methods of making the compositions of this invention and methods of using the compositions as immunogens and/or vaccines and/or to express heterologous nucleic acids.

What you have just read, that’s assuming you read them, are actual patent applications for the SARS Coronavirus by the United States government. How can they do what when only INVENTIONS can be patented; unless of course the government did invent this thing? That’s why I asked you to keep in mind that conversation from the film V For Vendetta, for I think we may be witnessing something quite similar.

In 1929 the nations of the world gathered together in Geneva, Switzerland, and adopted the Geneva Protocol; a ban on the use of asphyxiating, poisonous, or other gates, and of bacteriological methods of warfare. Therefore, if this Coronavirus was created in a lab in America; possibly Fort Detrick, Maryland, or a university receiving federal funding; such as Chapel Hill, North Carolina, or in the CDC itself, or even in China, at the Wuhan Lab under funding by the United States, it can be classified as a biological weapon. And just to make sure we’re on the same page, a biological weapon is defined as, “a harmful biological agent (as a pathogenic microorganism or a neurotoxin) used as a weapon to cause death or disease usually on a large scale.” So, if the news reports are accurate, (which I don’t believe for a second), then these deaths are caused by either the intentional, or accidental release of a biological weapon; and those responsible for it are criminals.

Are you aware that in or around 2013 that the National Institute of Health, headed by Doctor Anthony Fauci, gave the Wuhan Lab in China 3.7 million in federal grant money to study the SARS/Coronavirus; a virus they applied for a patent for? Call me paranoid, but something about this whole thing stinks to high heaven.

You see, if the government holds these patents, they not only have a monopoly on the virus, (which would explain why they did not want people who had died from it having autopsies performed on them), it also grants them a monopoly on any vaccine produced to fight it. Helluva a deal, wouldn’t you say; create a virus, then reap huge profits off the vaccine for it?

But you can’t make any money if people aren’t kept in constant state of fear over something; even though it has a 99% survival rate; which explains the media blitz, or advertising campaign for this Covid virus, and vaccine. And thanks to my friend Danielle Mottale for the analogy of an advertising campaign.

All one has to do is to go to any crowded public place to gauge the effectiveness of these fear tactics; they are working as designed, keeping the people afraid of a disease that is no more lethal than the annual flu.

And for all this you’re going to throw what remains of your freedom down the toilet? You should be ashamed to call yourselves Americans; an American would fight for their liberty, not bend over and let Uncle Sam ram its red, white and blue tyranny right up their ass!

In closing I’d like to leave you with the immortal words of Patrick Henry, a man who knew what liberty was, and was willing to die defending it. He knew when it was time to petition, to protest, and when those avenues of redress had failed, and it was time to fight for his liberty. So, without further ado, here are the words of Patrick Henry:

Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight!

Shortly after the skirmishes at Lexington & Concord the Second Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia hoping to find a way to restore peace between themselves and Great Britain; while at the same time retaining their rights as freemen. Whether things had progressed to a point where there could be no peaceful resolution, or if it was just time for the Colonies to ‘…assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…’ is hard to say. Whichever of the two it may be, the following summer they would come to the conclusion that there could be no more union; the only way to regain their lost rights and liberty was to sever the ties that had bound them to that system of government.

Anti-government sentiments had been growing throughout the Colonies, inspired by a young Virginia lawyer by the name of Patrick Henry, who in March of 1775 had delivered a fiery oration in which he said, “If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!” Henry concluded his immortal speech by saying, “I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

So it was that on July 2, 1776 the delegates to the Second Continental Congress gathered together to vote on the momentous decision to separate [secede] from the British Empire. I often wonder if people realize that the delegates to the Second Continental Congress had already voted upon a measure to sever the bonds that had tied them to Britain two days before they voted on whether to adopt the Declaration of Independence.

The actual measure which declared their desire to become free and independent States is known as the Lee Resolution; named after the man who introduced it to the delegates of the Congress – Richard Henry Lee. Lee had just received instructions from the Provincial Governor of Virginia, Edmund Pendleton, authorizing the Virginia delegates to vote in favor of independence, and the Lee Resolution is the document expressing the sentiments of the Virginia Assembly.

The Lee Resolution was introduced on June 7th and caused quite the uproar, as some delegates were not ready to take the giant leap from peaceful reconciliation towards complete and total independence. Regardless, for the next few days the delegates argued over whether to adopt Lee’s resolution, and on June 10th a committee was appointed to draft a formal declaration should the vote for Lee’s resolution run to the affirmative.

Therefore it was that on July 2nd the Congress met once again to vote upon Lee’s resolution. The occasion was extremely solemn, as each delegate recognized what their vote would mean – war; and if unsuccessful, their execution for treason. Thirty-five years later Dr. Benjamin Rush would reminisce over the events of that day in a letter to John Adams, “Do you recollect the pensive and awful silence which pervaded the house when we were called up, one after another, to the table of the President of Congress, to subscribe what was believed by many at that time to be our own death warrants?”

So that was the condition in the Colonies in 1776; you had a government that felt it was unlimited in its power to enact laws upon his colonies; and you had a group of 13 Colonies that had protested, remonstrated [begged] for the King to respect their rights – all to no avail; rather they were met with more punishment. You had a group of Colonists [Patriots] telling their government that they’ve had it with its unlimited power and lack of concern for their rights; they presented the King with their middle fingers and they went to war against him.

That was the nature of those we supposedly honor on July 4 every year. They knew what their rights were; and when their government infringed upon them, they protested. When the King continued to pass more laws that violated their rights, and their protests went unheard, they picked up their guns and said God damn the King!

Those were the patriots we should all aspire to be; not the knocked kneed pansies who pretend to be patriots; hiding behind their precious constitution; hoping they can work within a corrupt system to regain what is their right to stand up and fight for! Like I said at the beginning of this, “We’ve come a long way baby” and it’s all been a downhill journey.

So those Colonists we honor with a national holiday, they knew what their rights were, what liberty was, and when it was threatened they rose up and fought against those who posed the threat to them. They didn’t need marching orders at Lexington and Concord; they heard that the Redcoats were coming with the intent of depriving them of their right to be armed; and they shot the bastards! [And people condemn the Branch Davidians for firing upon federal agents’ after they were fired upon first]

So here we are in 2020 with people who are nice and comfy, sitting on their couches watching TV, complaining that their rights are being taken from them; and the answer to all this for them is to vote harder the next time there is an election. How’s that shit been working out for you? I’m really, we’ve had four years to Trump; name for me one right he’s eliminated government control over; I don’t say restored to you, because you never lost it; you were just too lazy, occupied, or cowardly to defend.

I may not be the best patriot, but at least I do not wear a mask! This whole Covid b.s. has shown me clearly who the patriots are, and who are the weekend warriors; the wannabe patriots. I see people all the time wearing patriotic t-shirts and wearing their bloody face mask. I see people driving 3% or Don’t Tread On Me decals on their trucks; all wearing masks. If you are going to let your fear of a virus with a 99% survival rate, scare you, what are you going to do if they come to your door and say they WILL vaccinate you; like it or not?

The time to fight back, to resist, was a long time ago. However, that does not mean that resistance, at this point in the game, if futile. They are not the Borg; they are people, and we outnumber them by an overwhelming number. And here’s a little secret they don’t want you to know; they need us but we don’t need them!
Although I do see and hear about singular and pocketed instances of resistance, for the most part I see mindless drones walking around with their face masks on. It reminds me of that scene in the Pink Floyd movie adaptation of The Wall where those faceless children are marching straight into a meat grinder.

Listen, I’m not saying there is not a virus out there, (although I am saying I believe it was manufactured in a lab and either accidentally or intentionally released at Wuhan China), but I am saying your fear of it is way out of line with the seriousness of the threat. I mean how patriotic is it be forced to wear a mask for a virus with a 99% survival rate? You are letting the media’s non-stop reporting on this thing to spread constant fear; fear that is being used to control you and your ability to exist. Turn off your TV’s and start researching what it is that is going on; beginning with the effectiveness of face masks!

Not only are people not respecting my right to choose whether or not I personally want to wear a mask, society gives me funny looks, and condemns me for threatening their safety by not wearing one; even when they are. That alone tells me that people do not understand the meaning of rightful liberty.

Not only that, but there are also the #stasikarens out there; those who verbally, and sometimes physically, assault those who do not conform to the mask mandate. I myself almost got into a fistfight with one of them in my local post office a few months ago.

Now if you’re not familiar with who, or what the Stasi were; let me acquaint you with them. The Stasi were the State Police of East Germany before the Berlin Wall came down. They were probably the most effective, and ruthless of all the State Police’s during the Cold War era; spying upon the actions of the people through a vast network that included thousands upon thousands of civilians turned informants. It is estimated that at the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall, one out of every three East Germans worked as an informant for the Stasi.

Our government has been spying on us for a long time, which only increased after 9/11. But isn’t the same thing they are doing now in response to Covid with their ‘contact tracing?’ They want to know where you are, where you go, and who you come into contact with. For crying out loud, why don’t you just wear an ankle monitor for them; like those on house arrest do?

Do you see what’s happening around you, or has the fear induced cloud that poisons your minds prevented you from seeing that you’re accepting slavery; and there’ll be no escaping it, no end to this nonsense? Oh, you think this Covid is going to go away, and that things are going to return to normal? Have things gone back to pre-9/11 normalcy? You don’t get it, do you? Once government gains power over the government, it never relinquishes it! NEVER WITHOUT A FIGHT THAT IS!

The people of this country, for the most part that is, have lost their understanding of what liberty is, or their will to defend it. Government knows this; they know that if we’d had the will we would have fought back, resisted a long time ago. They are going to keep nibbling away at what remains of our freedom, and you’re going to hand it over to them willingly because that’s what you do right, follow orders? Well if they ordered you in front of a firing squad, would you obey them then? Of course by that point in the game resistance would be futile!

As Patrick Henry said in 1775, “if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight!”

I’m not condoning violence; I’m not saying you should revolt. What I am saying is that you should JUST SAY NO to these bullshit rules and restrictions imposed upon you to protect you from a virus 99% of the people survive! I am saying that you should not take the virus until you have researched the history behind them and what is inside of them. Oh, and while you’re at it do a little research on the qualified immunity granted to the pharmaceutical companies; meaning they can’t be sued for any side effects you get after taking a vaccine.

If government can tell you how you must live your life, under what conditions you will be permitted to gather together with friends and family, and that you MUST take a vaccine or be confined to your home like a prisoner, or worse, hauled off to a camp for non-compliance, then you do not live in the land of the free; and it’s time you got off your lazy asses and did something about it before ALL your freedom is gone.

In 1944, in a park in New York, judge Learned Hand delivered a speech that laid it all out for the American people. In that speech Hand said, “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, 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.”

Liberty does not come from government, it comes from your Creator; from that fact that you are human beings; it is something that no government can take it from you. However, you can refuse to defend it; and by virtue of that, you may lose it; which is what I see happening in America today.

If you want your liberty, or what’s left of it, you’re going to have to show a little backbone and resist those in power – that’s the only way. You may lose some friends if you do so, but what is more important to you; friendship or freedom? Our Founders risked more than friends to secure this liberty for us; they risked their lives. And you honor their sacrifice by willingly submitting to the will of tyrants? Shame on you!

Shortly after the delegates to the Second Continental Congress had voted in favor of independence, John Adams sat down and wrote a letter to his wife that said, “Posterity! You will never know, how much it cost the present Generation, to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good Use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it.”

If he hadn’t already, he most certainly repented of it after seeing how willingly you submit to this bullshit regarding Covid. Yeah, we’ve come a long way baby; from the pinnacle of liberty to the dungeons of tyranny. There won’t be any fixing this at the election booth; the hard choice will soon have to be made; risk your life to defend your liberty, or live on your knees, bowing to your master.

I think you know which side of the fence I will be on…

Psychologists have written numerous papers discussing how human beings have this innate desire to belong; to be accepted into groups. Maslow felt it was important enough to earn the number 3 position in his Hierarchy of Needs. I don’t want to get into a bunch of psychological mumbo-jumbo; I just want to address something; that being that if you are denied that social interaction it can, often have a negative effect on you. For instance, you may develop poor social skills, as since you never had that social interaction you did not get the chance to develop them. It also would not surprise me if psychologists say that lack of social interaction might also contribute to people becoming sociopaths; people who have antisocial attitudes and very little empathy.

However, depending upon the circumstances, being denied access to groups may be of some benefit; as it builds a strong sense of individuality; as the person being denied access to those groups has to rely upon them self for emotional support and companionship. I can say that with a certain amount of confidence because I am one such example.

When I was young certain things happened that pretty much slammed the door shut upon me being allowed to mix and intermingle with others; have friends or belong to groups, or cliques. I was teased, ridiculed, and bullied mercilessly beginning in the 5th grade, and continuing all the way through high school. Two things happened as a result of this. First I learned to develop a thick skin; to not care what others said about me. Second, as I lived in such fear of what people would say or do if I was around them, I chose to pretty much stay away from groups as much as I possibly could. That is also why I sought escape in drugs and alcohol; they helped to numb my mind to the cruelty of the world that surrounded me.

That self imposed isolation came to an end in 1979 when I found myself without a job, and decided to enlist in the Air Force. In the military there is no escaping people; especially boot camp where they try to break down your individuality and train you to become part of a group/unit.

My decision to join the military forced upon me the decision to start forming acquaintances/friends again, rather than live a life that shielded me from others through self-imposed isolation. The military did one other thing for me; it taught me that I wasn’t as stupid as people had been saying I was for most of my life; I could learn/accomplish things. So it built self confidence in me as well.

Although I no longer fear being part of a group, I don’t have the overwhelming need for it either; I can go for very long times not being around, or talking to others. Those lessons from my youth have not been forgotten; in fact they helped shape me into the person I am today. You see, when you live in a world where you are pretty much a loner, you come to rely solely upon yourself; as there is no one around to provide you with whatever it is you want/need/crave.

There is something else I learned from that period of self-imposed isolation; I don’t care what others think about what I do or say; their opinions do not matter to me – not one single bit. You would not believe how liberating that is; to not have the need to censor your thoughts/actions/speech just so you do not offend/upset your group. Right now, the only person whose thoughts/opinions of me matters is my wife. As to everyone/anyone else, if what I say bothers/upsets you, fine, I’ll go my merry way without you.

I know that was a rather lengthy prelude, but I wanted to provide a solid foundation for the remainder of what I want to say; so I hope you’ll forgive me for spending so much time talking about ‘me.’ You see, I think the fact that I imposed a sort of isolation upon myself when I was younger gives me a distinct advantage when it comes to understanding the true meaning of liberty.

As the old Santana song went, “I ain’t got nobody that I can depend on.” That was me, I had no one besides myself to seek companionship with, or provide for my wants and desires. Sure, my parents were there, but around this time frame I became somewhat of a rebel, and whenever we spoke it was usually when we were arguing; if we spoke at all. Most times I would come home from school, go straight to my room, and hide from them as well; only emerging to eat, or go out and get drunk or stoned at night.

I know that what I’m saying might make you feel sad; maybe even evoke pity for me; but I’m not asking for, or looking for anything of the sort. I’m glad that it happened, as I feel it made me a better person; one who does not allow the opinions of others dictate their feelings or actions; it made me understand what being free is all about. As Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, “To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment.”

I could be wrong, but I think that period of my life planted the seeds that grew into the love I have for individual liberty today; it just took awhile for them to germinate and bring forth fruit. I think it may also be why I understand what rightful liberty is, when so few today don’t. So let’s take some time discussing what rightful, or individual, liberty is.

Thomas Jefferson defined liberty as, “…unobstructed action according to our will within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” Another Thomas, Thomas Paine, described it in similar terms, “Liberty is the power to do everything that does not interfere with the rights of others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of every individual has no limits save those that assure to other members of society the enjoyment of the same rights.”

Liberty, according to former president Calvin Coolidge, “…is not collective, it is personal.” He then states, “All liberty is individual liberty.” Before I continue I would like to take a moment to look at that term, individual liberty, from a grammatical viewpoint. Now if you understand the basics of the English language you will know that there are nouns, there are verbs, and there are adjectives. A noun is a word that identifies the subject of a sentence or phrase. A verb describes the action that is taking place, and an adjective is a word that qualifies, or describes the noun. Therefore, in the phrase individual liberty, liberty is the noun and individual is the adjective that describes it. It is important that you understand that, for my liberty is mine and mine alone, while your liberty is yours and yours alone, with each of us free to exercise it as we see fit.

When the Colonies agreed to separate from Great Britain those who acted as representatives of each Colony voted to support the document presented by the Committee of Five, authored by Thomas Jefferson; known as the Declaration of Independence. It is that event that America celebrates every July 4, yet it boggles my mind how little people know about what they are celebrating, and how readily they surrender the very thing that document says governments our instituted to secure – their liberty.

What that document says is, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” That passage brings up 4 key points; the first being that our rights do not come from government, they come from our Creator.

Secondly, those rights are unalienable; which is something I’m not sure everyone seems to understand. The word unalienable means; incapable of being alienated, that is, sold or transferred. (Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523)

Before the Declaration of Independence had been written, a man by the name of George Mason wrote something called the Virginia Declaration of Rights. In that document Mason writes, “That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”

Therefore, if both the belief that our rights are unalienable, and the belief that we cannot, by compact, divest ourselves or our posterity of them; then we cannot create a system of government and bestow it with the power of doing just that; not if we wish to call it a just form of government. Now, let’s get back to what the Declaration of Independence also says.

The next statement of importance is that ‘…to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…’ A government with that purpose in mind would be in accordance to what Mason said; one that could not divest the people of their rights. Finally, the Declaration of Independence explains that government derives ‘their just powers from the consent of the governed…’

Before I move on to my next point I need to address something the Supreme Court would hold in the year 1793, that being, “…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.”

I know I’ve addressed it numerous times in the past, but in case you’ve forgotten, I’ll define sovereignty once again for you. Sovereignty is defined as; the absolute, or supreme, political power in society. Since we have an elective, or representative system of government, one that derived its authority by the consent of the people, is it not logical to conclude that those who created government are sovereign; not the entity they created?

Now let me ask you something, and prefix it with a statement to base your answer upon; if all men are created equal, and if all men are sovereign and in complete possession of all their individual rights and liberty, then how can any system of government be just if it was created by a small percentage of the people; or those holding positions within it are elected by a simple majority of those who vote?

If you are as equal in power and in your rights as are the people standing beside you, how can you say that a system of government protects the rights of all equally when it does things that restrict the actions of those who did not vote for the same people you did? There is something Ayn Rand once said that I would like for you to ponder, that being, “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”

After all that I’ve just said about what individual liberty is, it’s properties, and the purpose for which your system of government was established, how can you support such a system as we currently have when it, not only infringes upon the liberty of those you disagree with, it infringes upon YOUR liberty as well? I could understand it if you were to say you wanted an oppressive despotism; I can’t understand it if you say that you love and cherish liberty.

In 1788, arguing against the ratification of the proposed constitution, Patrick Henry warned his fellow Virginians, “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.”

A few years later James Madison would write, “Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution.” (emphasis added)

Here we have two leading Founders saying that it is our obligation, our DUTY, to guard the public liberty; to take alarm at anyone who threatens it. I find it ironic that the one, Patrick Henry, was arguing that the brainchild [the constitution] of the other, James Madison, posed a threat to that liberty.

Yet here we are, 231 years later, with a population that cares very little about safeguarding their liberty against intrusions upon it by their government/s. There are numerous examples of how we have sacrificed that liberty for comfort our security; the very things Franklin said we would lose if we did just that. A few quick examples are:

-How we’ve allowed government to deny us the ability to operate a business; require that we wear a mask; and possibly be forced to take a vaccine against our will; all because of a supposed virus; a virus which the evidence proves was not naturally occurring; instead that it was created in laboratories right here in the U.S. and those which were funded by the U.S. in Wuhan China.

It does not matter if this virus is real or not, or if it scares you and makes you want to support acts by your government/s that deprive you of your rights…you cannot do so. Remember Mason’s words, “That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity.” You cannot force tyranny and oppression upon me just because you’re scared of a virus; end of story, no further argument!

-What about the War on Terror; how many rights have we given up to keep us safe from terrorism? The first amendment has suffered a serious wound; the 4th amendment is all but gone due to the right of law enforcement, and the NSA, to search your homes, your medical records, your banking records, and your private communications with friends and family. The 5th amendment has also suffered a serious wound in that people can, and have been, detained as suspected terrorists; without warrants, or due process of law; a complete and utter revocation of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

-What about all the gun laws that have been passed, and upheld by the Supreme Court, that infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms? Every time there is one of these mass shootings, government follows the admonition by Rahm Emmanuel to not let a good crisis go to waste, by passing further, more restrictive, gun laws.

I could provide more instances in which government, based upon your fear, or the overall cry that ‘something must be done’ which have led to laws being passed that restrict even further your already severely restricted liberty; and nary a whimper of protest about it from the true sovereigns of this country.

On instance of our liberty being infringed upon by government might be permitted to be attributed to the people, or government, succumbing to fear and panic; but a long train of them? No way; as Jefferson stated, “Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers (administrators) too plainly proves a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery.”

If you were to look at the history of this government, from its inception up through today’s incarnation, you will find that it has been one long train of abuses and usurpations, all designed to reduce us under an absolute Despotism. And what was Jefferson’s solution to such a government? Was it to submit to it willingly; obey the laws that deprive you of that precious jewel called liberty? Was it to vote, hopefully, for a better quality of candidate; one who would better secure that liberty for you? No, Jefferson said it was our duty to abolish or replace it with a government that would serve to preserve our liberty.

When you have a government that exercises power in such a way as to deprive you of your God-given rights and liberty, there is no other word to describe it other than tyrannical; except maybe Despotic. As this government is an entity created by the people, and endowed with whatever powers it has by those who created it then the people, at any time, have the right to revoke their consent and return to a status of perfect freedom.

This was made clear when Virginia ratified the constitution, saying in their declaration of ratification, “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.”

Now if you recall what the Supreme Court said in 1793, all people are equal in their sovereignty; if that is so, then if the people of Virginia retained the right to revoke their consent for this system of government, then why the hell does not every single individual retain that right as well?

That is a rather moot question anyways, as Abe Lincoln squashed that right when he waged war against the South to prevent them from establishing a confederacy of their own making; which goes against the very principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence.

How can you not say we are slaves when we must submit to this government in all things; which is one of the very things the Colonists took great offense in; the ability of the King of England to bind them in all cases whatsoever? Did not Madison say that it was the prudent duty of all citizens to take alarm at all experiments upon our liberties; that this was the noble characteristics of the Revolution? If that is so, then why do so many people willingly submit to infringements upon their rights and liberty without resisting?

If you’ll recall I also mentioned that Patrick Henry warned the people to guard the public liberty. Well Henry continued by saying, “Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force: Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”

Now that might sound rather drastic to most people today; yet it was that very principle which led the Colonists to take up arms against their government; and it is a principle we have abandoned today. We submit to the laws government passes that violate our rights and restrict our liberty, while re-electing those who write those laws around 90% of the time. We idolize those who enforce those laws upon us; waving our ‘thin blue line’ flags, when they are as guilty of being tyrants as are the lawmakers.

Yet four years before the Declaration of Independence was written, Samuel Adams penned the following in a report for the town of Boston, “Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can–Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature.” (my emphasis)

That right there is one of those unalienable rights I mentioned earlier; a right that we cannot sell or transfer. Therefore, if each of us is sovereign, and equal in our sovereignty; and if each of us is equal in our rights and our liberty, then you cannot demand that I submit to a system which deprives me of my rights and liberty; even if you support it. To do so makes you as guilty of being a tyrant as the lawmakers and the law enforcers.

There is a question I’ve asked numerous times; one which I’ve yet to get a satisfactory answer to; so I’ll ask it again; How many of you would agree to the following proposition, “If any considerable number of the people believe the Constitution to be good, why do they not sign it themselves, and make laws for, and administer them upon, each other; leaving all other persons (who do not interfere with them) in peace?”

If you do not agree with that, if you believe that every individual living in this country MUST submit to the authority of a government they do not consent to, then you are as much a tyrant as the people you elect! If you say that I MUST submit to this government, and its taxes and laws, then you have no understanding of individual liberty, and everything I’ve just written has fallen upon deaf ears and brain dead statists.

Don’t you people dare tell me you cherish liberty if you demand that those of us who do not consent to its authority must submit to it at the cost of our rights and liberty; not unless you want to assume the label of hypocrite. For as Ayn Rand once said, “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”

I’m a minority of one, and I do not consent to having my rights or liberty taken away just to satisfy your wants, needs, fear. Those I call my friends, and they are few in number, are of like mind. We do not want, or need this government telling us what we can and cannot do for the general welfare and security of the rest of you. We do not like having our income taxed, to be spent upon things we have not given our consent to. We do not like being told that we must submit/obey just because some idiot puts his signature on a piece of legislation, making it law; for as Jefferson so accurately said, “Law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”

My friends and I are all individuals, and we do not consent to having our liberty stripped away from us by your government; for we claim no allegiance to it. We do not like having the public tell us we must submit to laws which they feel are designed to keep them safe and comfortable; not when those laws deprive us of the ability to live our lives in the full enjoyment of our unalienable rights and liberty.

We are being pushed into a corner, and as the most dangerous animal is the one who finds itself backed into a corner, we will one day be forced to stand as Patrick Henry did, and declare, “Give me liberty or give me death.” And believe me, that day is much closer than you think; so keep pushing and see what happens.

“A man is responsible for his own ignorance.”
~Milan Kundera~

I know it may come as a shock to some of you, but it is my firm belief that there will be no fixing this country; making it great again. I’m not saying that we could never be great again; just that it is highly unlikely that it will happen. I have multiple reasons for saying that, but the primary one has to do with how people define great.

Some might say greatness comes from being either an economic or military superpower. I don’t buy that; China has grown into an economic and military superpower, but that does not mean I would want to live there. Others might say that America is great because the poor and needy are taken care of. It might be great if you are poor and needy, but not so great for those whose money is taken from them to fund the programs that take care of those people.

So, as you see, greatness can mean different things to different people, and it is the divisiveness as to what it means that will prevent us from ever being, a truly great country again. In the Book of Matthew we read: Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. With so many people divided in this country over what greatness means, and then voting to further their own agendas by electing people with similar attitudes and agendas, America will, most likely, never become great again.

The question people must ask themselves is; was America ever a truly great country, and if so, what made it great? To come to an answer to that people must undertake a study of history; beginning with the period that saw this country begin its struggle towards independence. If you can’t, or won’t do that, you’ll have better luck hitting the bulls-eye while playing darts blindfolded than you will obtaining greatness.

Before I delve into that I want to address an argument that I’m sure some are thinking; that being that America is still a much better country to live in that others. That, most certainly, is true, but the problem with that argument is that I’m not comparing America to other countries I’m comparing it to its own potential; what it could become.

Getting back to the point at hand, if you were to travel back in time, figuratively speaking, and read the writings of the leaders of the movement we call the American Revolution, you would notice they all held certain core beliefs in common; values they were ready to defend with their lives. Those values should serve as our starting point if we wish to track the progression of America from 13 Colonies to where we are today; and if we ever truly achieved greatness along the way.

That too precludes America from ever becoming great again, for people today have little desire to learn what men, long ago dead and buried, thought or believed. Yet if people wish to rise up out of their current situation; to stop wallowing in despair and frustration, they must learn how they got to where they are today; otherwise they will just be spinning their wheels; repeating the same mistakes that led them to their current situation.

Regardless of all that, those who risked their lives in the pursuit of independence had one thing in common; they were all fighting for the preservation of their Natural Rights and God-given liberty. All one has to do is read seven simple words, uttered by Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775 to learn what it was they were fighting for, “Give me liberty or give me death.”

Liberty was that uniting principle; the cornerstone upon which America was founded, and it is our failure to preserve that liberty for ourselves, and our posterity, that all our troubles rest upon. When Thomas Jefferson was tasked with writing a draft of a declaration of independence, he could very well have simply written a lengthy list of all the abuses and usurpations upon the Colonies by King George III. However, Jefferson chose to go beyond that by writing a treatise which outlined the principles this country was to be built upon.

These are Jefferson’s words; well his words as edited by the other members of the Committee responsible for producing a declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

That is your starting point; the point in history where the principles this country was built upon were laid down for all to live by. The problem was, just as it is today, that people are weak; they are often ignorant, and they are easily misled and manipulated by fear. To begin with, I’d be willing to bet that most people today could not provide a well thought out, and accurate, description of the word liberty. I think if you were to ask most people, the best they could do is say freedom. Ah yes, freedom; but freedom to do what?

Right now, amidst this Covid plandemic, are you free to go out without a facemask? Are you free to open your business at full capacity? Are you free to carry a firearm on your person for your own protection; without having to obtain permission from ‘government’ to do so? Are you free to collect rain water; make improvements upon your home without a permit or license; or free to hunt and fish without a license? If you think you are free, that you have liberty, under those conditions, then you must believe that there are restrictions to liberty. There are, but not like you think.

Allow me to provide quotes from two men who played vital roles in America’s struggle for independence, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine; both of whom defined liberty in their own words.

Beginning with Mr. Jefferson, we read, “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.”

That is Jefferson’s definition of liberty; let’s see what Mr. Paine had to say about it, “Liberty is the power to do everything that does not interfere with the rights of others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of every individual has no limits save those that assure to other members of society the enjoyment of the same rights.”

Now, using either of those as your definition, can you say that you enjoy liberty in this country; right here and now? If your answer is no, then why not? Is it because your government/s have passed laws that deprive you of certain rights? Well gee, let’s look at what the Declaration of Independence said about what we should do when government no longer secures to us our rights and liberty; it says, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”

Because most people are ignorant about the history of this country they probably don’t know this, but there were those who fervently opposed the plan of government written by the Convention of 1787. You aren’t taught about these men because those who control what you are taught want you to believe that these men, and their finished product, were the best thing that happened to America; they were inspired by God to produce a marvelous system of government. Had you been taught about those who opposed the Constitution you may have actually thought for yourselves, and not fallen for the lies you were being taught.

I don’t want to waste all your time providing dozens of quotes criticizing the Constitution, but if you’re truly interested in reading what these men had to say, send me a message or an e mail and I’ll zip off some of their writings for you to read. In the meantime, I’ll stick to just posting one quote from a man named Samuel Bryan; writing under the pseudonym of Centinel, “Having premised this much, I shall now proceed to the examination of the proposed plan of government, and I trust, shall make it appear to the meanest capacity, that it has none of the essential requisites of a free government; that it is neither founded on those balancing restraining powers, recommended by Mr. Adams and attempted in the British constitution, or possessed of that responsibility to its constituents, which, in my opinion, is the only effectual security for the liberties and happiness of the people; but on the contrary, that it is a most daring attempt to establish a despotic aristocracy among freemen, that the world has ever witnessed.”

Patrick Henry saw what was happening in America; we had won our independence and the people were becoming soft; forgetful of what they had risked so much to obtain. He tried to warn them of the dangers of this new constitution by saying, “You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.”

Henry also, not so subtly, told them that they had forgotten what it was they had fought for, “But I am fearful I have lived long enough to become an fellow: Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man, may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old fashioned: If so, I am contented to be so: I say, the time has been when every pore of my heart beat for American liberty, and which, I believe, had a counterpart in the breast of every true American.”

Yet regardless of the valiant efforts of those who opposed this constitution, it was ratified, and put into effect; establishing the government we suffer under today. Before I continue now, there is a quote from Henry David Thoreau’s book, Civil Disobedience, “I heartily accept the motto, “That government is best which governs least”; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe- “That government is best which governs not at all”; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.”

Mankind, if it was moral, virtuous, and self-reliant, would not need government; for people would treat each other the same way they would like to be treated; the Golden Rule. But since man is not kind, not virtuous, not self-reliant, it needs some kind of government; a force that is able to protect and defend the rights and liberty of all, equally.

If government is, as the Declaration of Independence says, established to secure the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to the governed, then every law passed by government must have that as its end; lest government stray from its intended purpose and become tyrannical. I think that premise is accurately explained by something Frederic Bastiat wrote in his 1850 book, The Law:

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

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

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

For a time this government was fought over by those who sought to use it to benefit the very goals Patrick Henry warned against, (those who sought to increase trade and establish America as a mighty empire), and those who sought to keep government as close to its few defined powers as possible. One such man was Thomas Jefferson…imagine that! In his Inaugural Address Jefferson said, “Still one thing more, fellow-citizens — 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.”

I agree, that is the sum of good government, but can you imagine a candidate running for office today saying that they weren’t going to do anything for you; they were going to get out of your way and let you succeed or fail based upon your own drive and ability? Why, that candidate would be laughed right off the stage and into a loony bin! How dare he say that government is not going to help the poor, the needy, and all the other special interests? What’s the use in having government if it’s not going to do things for us? MY POINT EXACTLY; WHY BOTHER HAVING GOVERNMENT AT ALL?

If you ask me, herein lies the fundamental problem in this country; people may say they want liberty, but what they really want is comfort and security. I think, deep down, although they may not admit it, they know that the preservation of their liberty asks too much of them; more than they are willing to pay.

First of all there is the responsibility that comes along with having liberty; you alone are responsible for your safety, your sustenance, all your wants and needs. As Eleanor Roosevelt so ably said, “Freedom makes a huge requirement of every human being. With freedom comes responsibility. For the person who is unwilling to grow up, the person who does not want to carry his own weight, this is a frightening prospect.” If you take away government, take away that safety net, people will live or die based upon their own ability to provide the things they need in life; and that scares the hell out of them.

Then there is this, the fact that liberty requires constant attention and protection against those who would take it from us. In 1777 Thomas Paine expressed that in the most simple of terms, “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.”

But Neal, we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights that do that for us. Do you? Do you trust a piece of parchment and the virtue of those you elect to keep your liberty safe and secure? Patrick Henry warned against that deficiency in the Constitution as well, “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.”

In 1787 Thomas Jefferson wrote the following in a letter to James Madison, “The people…are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” Let me ask you something, if words written on pieces of paper, or parchment, are all that is required to secure our rights and liberty, why didn’t the Colonists march into battle waving a copy of the Declaration of Independence for the British to see; why did they have to take guns with them?

In 1944 a Judge by the name of Billings Learned Hand delivered a speech in New York City in which he gave an answer to my question, “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 even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it.”

But how can we defend liberty against the power of government? Well, Patrick Henry answered that question for us, “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force: Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” The only thing that tyrants and usurpers understand is resistance; armed resistance. Today, just as in the time of the Colonists, they laugh at our petitions and remonstrances, our letters and phone calls. What good have any of those done for restoring the rightful liberty your government has stolen from you?

There are but two ways to regain our liberty. One is for every man woman and child to stop participating in choosing people to fill the seats of power within government, then to simply refuse to obey any of the laws they enact. But Neal, that would lead to anarchy. Precisely, but not the way you think of anarchy. You see, my definition of anarchy is not the same as yours; mine is best described by what Emma Goldman said about it, “The philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary.”

Sure, they may try to use force against us; compel our obedience, but if we remain steadfast and unwavering, they will realize that without us they have no one to govern; no one to pillage to fund their system; and they will either submit to our will, or wither and die. But that takes knowledge of why governments are instituted among men, and the courage to stand up to their oppressors. Is that too much to ask of you? Why, it certainly wasn’t too much for the patriots who fought, bled, and died on the battlefields of the Revolution. Are you saying they were better men than you are? If you won’t say it, I will; they WERE better men than those inhabiting this country today, and we should be ashamed of ourselves about it!

The only other way to regain our lost liberty is through revolution; which is not a course of action I recommend unless all other modes of redress have been tried first. It may yet come to that, but God forbid it does; for people know not what it would entail. But should it come, I will not back down from my duty as one who cherishes liberty over all else; if I must die fighting against my oppressors, so be it; for as Emiliano Zapato said, “I’d rather die on my feet, than live on my knees.”

It is government, powered by the consent of the voters that has deprived us of the liberty our ancestors fought so hard to secure for themselves, and their posterity. It is because people no longer care about liberty that we have this divisiveness over who gets to hold the reins of power in government; Democrats vs. Republicans. We are no better than animals trapped in a cage; for there is no escaping the outstretched arm of tyranny. Sure, you can go off grid; live like a hermit; but why should we have to when liberty is ours for the taking if only we had the courage to take it back.

In 1772 Samuel Adams wrote, “Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can–Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature.”

It is not only our right to defend our liberty, it is our duty; for as the Declaration of Independence states, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” (My emphasis)

We haven’t done so because we have not been taught the purpose government should serve; we’ve been lied to and indoctrinated into believing that government exists to provide all these wonderful benefits for us; comfort, security, universal health care, blah, blah, blah.

In 1576 a French Judge by the name of Etienne de la Boetie wrote, “It is incredible how as soon as a people becomes subject, it promptly falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and so willingly that one is led to say, on beholding such a situation, that this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement. It is true that in the beginning men submit under constraint and by force; but those who come after them obey without regret and perform willingly what their predecessors had done because they had to. This is why men born under the yoke and then nourished and reared in slavery are content, without further effort, to live in their native circumstance, unaware of any other state or right, and considering as quite natural the condition into which they were born.”

There is an analogy, of sorts, to that, found in the lyrics of a song by the Canadian rock band Rush. The song is titled Natural Science, and the lyrics are as follows:

When the ebbing tide retreats
Along the rocky shoreline
It leaves a trail of tidal pools
In a short-lived galaxy
Each microcosmic planet
A complete society

A simple kind mirror
To reflect upon our own
All the busy little creatures
Chasing out their destinies
Living in their pools
They soon forget about the sea…

Liberty has not died in America, for it is one of those things that cannot die so long as mankind lives; the two are inseparable. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Summary View of the Rights of British America, “The god who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.”

We may not enjoy liberty today, but that is merely because we don’t know what it is, our have the courage to take it back from those who have deprived us of it. As Emma Goldman said, “People have only as much liberty as they have the intelligence to want and the courage to take.”

I have given up writing for those who are alive today. If you ask me, they, for the most part, are beyond redemption. No, I write for posterity so that when the go back and read our history, (that’s assuming that history isn’t scrubbed and sanitized like it was for us), so they can see that not everyone alive today was a willing participant in their own enslavement.

To the people alive today, particularly those who seek to fix the problems by voting new people into office every few years, I have but one thing to say to you, and I stole this from Thomas Paine, “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.”

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

The truth, it is said, shall set you free. Unfortunately for America, people don’t know the truth, and when people try to share it with them they run and hide from it; for having to accept it would mean that they also accept that everything they had placed their hope and trust in was a lie; and that they might have to break a sweat, or shed a little blood to regain what they had allowed to be taken from them.

But, as Thomas Jefferson said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” Our ancestors realized that, and they were willing to pay the price. Can you look in the mirror and say that you would do the same? I doubt it, for if you could you would be by my side right now; opposing this system of government with every ounce of your being; not consenting to, and participating in your own enslavement.

And that is why we’ll never be great again; because people don’t have the courage to defend what made America great to begin with. In closing, I’ll leave you with a quote from P.J. O’Rourke, “No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we’re looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn’t test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power.”

You should not worry whether or not you may test positive for Covid; you should worry which of those you would test positive for.

Authors NoteThis may require some thinking, so if you’re not up to the task, just move along…

Last Tuesday saw the American people undergo their quadrennial ritual of choosing who will be president for the next 4 years. Joe Biden is running around making speeches as if it’s a done deal; he’s already in office, while Trump is filing lawsuits and making claims of irregularities in the vote count in certain states. Me, I’m just sitting here shaking my head in disbelief; trying to figure out what the fuss is all about.

The point I’m getting at is, eventually someone will be declared the winner and about half the people will be happy and the other half will be either sad or mad. Explain to me, if you can, how any system of government can be said to be good when there always seems to be about 50% of the people who do not like what that government is doing.

Throughout your lives you have been indoctrinated to believe that America is a democracy; that because we consent to this system of government we must also submit to its authority and the laws it passes; simply because a majority of the people voted for whoever happens to be in power. What that describes is a democracy; an elective democracy, but a democracy nonetheless.

Most people are probably not aware that almost every single Founding Father despised democracies; some despised it so much they preferred a monarchy over a democracy. In case you don’t believe me, in case you need me to support that claim, here are a couple of quotes from two of the more well know Founders.

“Democracies have been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.” James Madison. “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” John Adams.

Then of course there is something Winston Churchill said about democracy, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” Or what H.L. Mencken said about them, “Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.” Ouch, bet that hurt!

Another thing people do not seem to realize is that, although they may not like, support, or agree with what government is doing while one particular party is in control of it, they always have the chance of regaining control of government through the election process; so they can do things the other half of the country does not take too kindly to. That is not true with people like me; those who simply don’t like the idea of having a government that passes laws that deprive us of the very thing government is supposed to secure to the people – liberty.

You see, the problem in this country is not the laws being passed by either the Democrats or the Republicans, it is a complete and utter lack of understanding regarding the function government should serve. Take for instance those who voted for Trump, so that he continue with his plan to make America great again. How exactly do you define great; a booming economy?

In 1788 Patrick Henry declared, “You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.”

Then, close to a century later, President James Garfield stated, “It is not part of the functions of the national government to find employment for people — and if we were to appropriate a hundred millions for this purpose, we should be taxing forty millions of people to keep a few thousand employed.”

So if that is one of the reasons you voted for Trump, then you are voting for someone to do things that it is not their function to do. But hold on, the Democrats are just as bad; if not worse. If there was a term that best describes Democrats, I would say it would be ‘social justice warriors.’ Democrats believe that it is the function of government to solve all injustice; bring about pure equality in all things for all the people; even if it means taking away the property or liberty of some so that they can raise others up to the same status.

Well Democrats, I wonder what you would have to say about something Thomas Jefferson said, “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.”

Then to both parties I address the following, taken from James Madison’s veto of a bill which would have provided subsidies to Cod Fisheries in the New England States, “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.”

Seems to me as if neither party in this country today understands, or cares, about the purpose government is to serve; which is found in the Declaration of Independence, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”, those rights being, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

In 1772 Samuel Adams penned the following words, “Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can–Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature.”

Do you understand what he meant by the term Natural Rights? Natural Rights are those rights which are ours by virtue of our being human; as compared to civil rights which are granted to use through compact. Therefore, our Natural Rights are life: no one can take that away without violating the laws of Nature; liberty; which is the ability to do as we please as long as we don’t interfere with the right of others to do likewise; and Property; the right to own things; either material possessions, or our thoughts and ability to express them.

Not only did Adams say that these are our Natural Rights, he also said it was our right to support and DEFEND them in the best manner we can. Now I want you to read something rather lengthy from Locke’s Second Treatise; and it may require that you put on your thinking caps:

Sect. 17. And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me.

Sect. 18. This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.

According to what Adams and Locke have said, my life, my liberty, and my property are mine, and I have the right to defend myself against those who would try to take those rights from me; up to and including the death of those who would do so.

Now there is another lengthy passage I’d like for you to read; this from Bastiat’s book, The Law:

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

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

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

Therefore, how can anyone say that this government we have serves the purpose of preserving and securing to each individual their right to life, liberty, property, or the pursuit of happiness? This government, or at least those who vote for those holding the seats of power within it, can best be described by something Lysander Spooner wrote in 1870, “…a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave.”

It boggles my mind how people can vote for people to ‘represent’ them in government, then turn around and let those representatives become their masters; their rulers. The 18th Century French Judge Etienne de la Boetie wrote something that echoes my sentiments today, “A people enslaves itself, cuts its own throat, when, having a choice between being vassals and being free men, it deserts its liberties and takes on the yoke, gives consent to its own misery, or, rather, apparently welcomes it.”

If you don’t mind another question, how did this government come into being? Yes, it was written in 1787, and then ratified; but how could a system that was supposedly designed to represent all the people in America have any power over those people when all of the people were not given a say in whether or not to adopt it?

In 1789, when the Constitution was ratified, there were approximately 3.9 million people living in these United States. How can a system of government be established by 39 votes in favor of it for that many people, and still be said to have the consent of all the people? How can the document that outlines this system of government be said to represent all the people when only a small fraction of the people attended each of the State Ratifying Assemblies? How can a system of government be said to be established to secure the blessings of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness when that government was forced upon people who had no say in its creation?

And even if what happened in 1789 was the legitimate establishment of a system of government, (which I don’t believe was the case), how can that system be binding upon future generations who had absolutely no say in its establishment, or continuance?

I would like for you to read a few more quotes now. The first comes from Thomas Paine’s book, The Rights of Man, “There never did, there never will, and there never can, exist a Parliament, or any description of men, or any generation of men, in any country, possessed of the right or the power of binding and controlling posterity to the “end of time,” or of commanding for ever how the world shall be governed, or who shall govern it; and therefore all such clauses, acts or declarations by which the makers of them attempt to do what they have neither the right nor the power to do, nor the power to execute, are in themselves null and void.”

The next comes from a letter written to James Madison by Thomas Jefferson in 1789, “The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be transmitted I think very capable of proof. I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self evident, “that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;” that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it.”

The third comes from Lysander Spooner’s book No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, “The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. … Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. … It is plain, in the first place, that this language, as an agreement, purports to be only what it at most really was, viz: a contract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing.”

If government derives its just authority from the consent of the governed, then each of you reading this must somehow give your consent to it. Consent cannot be passed on from generation to generation unless the people make no effort to resist the unlawful exercise of power over them.

You consent to this government by voting; by paying the taxes it imposes upon you; by supporting those who enforce the laws that deprive you of your rights and liberty; and by supporting the war machine that goes in search of monsters to destroy in foreign lands.

Getting back to Boetie for a moment, he also writes, “It is incredible how as soon as a people becomes subject, it promptly falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and so willingly that one is led to say, on beholding such a situation, that this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement.”

Slavery, submission, is all you know; you were born into it, and you think that by voting it gives you some measure of freedom. Well it doesn’t; it only replaces those who rule over you, and they toss you occasional bread crumbs while you bow down before them in humble thanks.

Yet there are those of us who have taken the time to research, to think, to learn how this system enslaves, not only us, but you as well – you’re just too ignorant to see it, that’s all. Boetie wrote about us as well, “There are always a few, better endowed than others, who feel the weight of the yoke and cannot restrain themselves from attempting to shake it off: these are the men who never become tamed under subjection and who always — like Ulysses on land and sea, constantly seeking the smoke of his chimney — cannot prevent themselves from peering about for their natural privileges and from remembering their ancestors and their former ways. … These are the ones who, having good minds of their own, have further trained them by study and learning. Even if liberty had entirely perished from the earth, such men would invent it. For them, slavery has no satisfactions, no matter how well disguised.”

Let me ask you another question. If you were to sign up for a membership in one of those big box stores, such as Costco or Sam’s Club, do you think that you, and your posterity, should be required to maintain your membership; or would you be free to cancel that membership if you felt doing so was in your best interests?

Do you not think that the same principle applies to government; an institution supposedly created by the will of the people it represents? How can you not call it tyrannical when your obedience to it ceases to be voluntary, and becomes mandatory? How can you say this system serves the purpose all governments should serve when 51% of the people can elect people to tyrannize and oppress the other 49%?

Must those who suffer under such tyranny suffer in silence; have they no recourse? I don’t know how well your memory serves you, so I’ll remind you of something Samuel Adams said, ” Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can…”

If you say we must submit to this government in all things, then you are just as evil as the government you say we must submit to. If you are in a position in which it is your job to enforce the laws passed by government, you have the choice of refusing to enforce those laws, or being as much a tyrant as those who wrote those laws.

I find it ironic as hell that the people of this country celebrate Independence Day every year, yet they refuse to allow those living today the same right to seek their own independence from a government far worse than the one the Colonists sought to free themselves from in 1776. How can you say that this government derives its authority from the consent of the governed, when in 1860 it waged war against a portion of the country that had revoked its consent to it?

If you believe in individual liberty, in free will, then you MUST agree with the concept that each individual has the right to decide for himself whether they will be subject to the will and authority of anyone else; including government.

I wonder, how many people would be willing to submit to government under these conditions, “If the people of this country wish to maintain such a government as the Constitution describes, there is no reason in the world why they should not sign the instrument itself, and thus make known their wishes in an open, authentic manner; in such manner as the common sense and experience of mankind have shown to be reasonable and necessary in such cases; and in such manner as to make themselves (as they ought to do) individually responsible for the acts of the government.”

How would each of you like it the next time your government, or those employed enforcing its laws, kills someone unjustly in the line of duty, and YOU WERE HELD PERSONABLY RESPONSIBLE FOR IT? How would you have liked to been hit with 80 counts of murder when your government burnt down the Branch Davidian compound in Waco; or even a single count when FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi fired a shot at an unarmed Vicki Weaver at Ruby Ridge?

Bet you wouldn’t like that, would you? You want to vote for these people, then go back to your lives while those you elect run rampant over the lives and liberty of others. Your ignorance gives you plausible deniability; you don’t know what your government is doing because you’re ignorant, so you can’t be held liable for its actions.

Well, okay, I’ll play devil’s advocate for a moment and buy into that; even though government is supposed to be ‘representing’ you. How about this then, would you accept these terms, “If any considerable number of the people believe the Constitution to be good, why do they not sign it themselves, and make laws for, and administer them upon, each other; leaving all other persons (who do not interfere with them) in peace?”

In those terms I’m not asking that you accept responsibility for what government does; only that you formally declare your consent to its authority, while leaving people like me free to decide not to fall under its authority and jurisdiction. Is that too much to ask; for the choice of whether to be free or a slave? Oh, by the way; both of those quotes are from Lysander Spooner’s book. You ought to read it; you might actually stimulate a few brain cells.

What you people believe is that, because there is this thing called government, that you have the right to choose people who will hold power over every single individual in this country. And during the time those people are in office, their power is absolute, with no concern for the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I may not be able to escape the clutches of this thing called government, (at least while I’m living), but I’ll be damned if I’m going to support it with my vote! I will resist this thing called government with every ounce of my being, as much as is humanly possible. If you wish to bow down and worship it, feel free to do so; just don’t ask me to join you. From what I see when I leave my home, you’re certainly not lacking for company; after all, I still see almost 2/3 of the people walking around with face masks on when all it would take is for them to grow a set of balls and say NO.

But that would take courage; something that is sorely lacking in this country today. What this country needs is not more politicians making enticing promises; what we need is more Son’s of Liberty who resist the unlawful exercise of power over their rights and liberty. What we need is more Patrick Henry’s, who have the courage and passion to declare, “Give me liberty or give me death.”

While I await that moment, I think I’ll do another bong hit or two, and sit back and laugh while you argue over which of those two ass clowns gets to be King for the next 4 years; it’s one huge circle jerk. And in case you’re not familiar with the term, it means, “a situation in which a group of people engage in self-indulgent or self-gratifying behavior, especially by reinforcing each other’s views or attitudes.”

As I sit down to begin this it is currently 5:32 Pacific Standard time; which means that on the East Coast the polls are starting to close down for Decision 2020. By the time I finish this, post it, and people begin to read it, (that’s assuming anyone reads it at all), a good number of the ‘in person’ ballots should have been counted and we may have an idea who gets to sit in the big chair for the next four years.

Are y’all excited…apprehensive? I’m not, not in the least. The way I see it, no matter which of the two meatheads wins, I lose. Whoever comes out on top of this thing is irrelevant, government will keep on doing what it has been; passing laws that either take more of my money or more of my rights – probably both. If you ask me, that’s nothing to get excited about; nothing at all.

I’m tired of talking about politics – I truly am. I don’t know if I can stomach debating with people who won’t allow facts into the discussion; it’s a complete and utter waste of my time. All that seems to matter to people these days is that whoever wins has an R or a D next to their name; principles, the limits imposed upon government, and their individual rights don’t matter to people; all they care about is if their team wins – and I’ve had about all I can stand of it.

All I see out of this government, and this has been true regardless of which party has a majority and control of the Oval Office, is a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evincing a design to reduce me under absolute despotism. If either of the two parties were truly any better than the other, we would see a cycle in which our rights were violated under the rule of one party, and then they would be restored when the other party is in power. I don’t see that happening; what I see is law after law after law being heaped upon one another; all designed to gradually enslave me. Why in the hell should I participate in choosing which party gets to pass the laws that take my freedom from me?

Most people today probably could not define liberty if you handed them a dictionary; which is why they can’t see how they are losing it. Yet the preservation of our liberty is the function of government; if you don’t believe me, dig out a copy of the Declaration of Independence and read it sometime. Those of us who know this, and see that this government is not serving the function it is supposed to are ignored, insulted, and placed on government watch lists; all because we stand for the same thing those men who affixed their names to that document did all those years ago.

If we were even mention this system of government we are looked at like we’ve lost our marbles; yet that’s exactly what the Declaration of Independence tells us we should do when government becomes tyrannical and oppressive. Heaven forbid we had the courage of our ancestors, and went around burning down tax collection offices and threatening to lynch elected officials; yet that’s exactly what our ancestors did when their government passed laws they didn’t like.

My God, all one has to do is go to any crowded place and count the number of people wearing face masks versus how many aren’t to see how willingly people surrender their freedom for a little comfort or security. We all know what Ben Franklin said about that; but if, perchance, you have forgotten, I’ll remind you, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Our rights are all but gone; not because the Bill of Rights was weak and ineffective, but because we do not know that it is our duty to stand up and resist every encroachment upon them. The Bill of Rights does not grant us a damned thing; our rights existed long before that document was ever written. Our rights come from our Creator, and as He is superior to man, or any government created by men, we owe it to Him to stand up for them; lest we be held accountable.

Thomas Jefferson, the man who wrote our Declaration of Independence, also wrote, “…can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

Yet we obey the laws that deprive us of our rights and liberty for we fear either having the benefits government provides taken from us, or placing our lives at risk by standing up to those who enforce those laws upon us. Well let me remind you of the mettle of those who established this country as free and independent States; “Give me liberty or give me death.” Does that ring a bell to anyone? Does anyone reading this think they have a fraction of the courage, and love of liberty, as the man who uttered those words?
I thought not.

America is circling the drain and all people can be bothered to do is vote every couple of years; hoping that this batch of crooks will set things right so they can get back to their Reality TV, game shows, sporting events, and round the clock shopping. And people wonder why I’m disgusted and disgruntled.

I take partial blame for the current state of affairs in this country; for at one time I was just as ignorant as the rest of y’all. But I finally pulled my head out of my ass and began studying; not only the document that produced our system of government, but how it was established and how it has allowed for government to become the monster it has become.

We could neuter our government right now if 75% of the people flat out refused to obey the laws it passes, and refused to pay the taxes that fund it. What could they do if that many people simply said, NO? That won’t work though when only a minute fraction of the people care enough about restoring their liberty, and have the courage to tell government to go take a flying fuck at the moon!

So you go right ahead, see if you can vote your way out of this mess. I’ll be sitting here waiting for the bullets to start flying; saying I told you that shit wouldn’t work, but you wouldn’t listen to me.

Thomas Jefferson, author of our Declaration of Independence, gave us the solution years ago, “And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Unfortunately, nobody listened to him, they didn’t listen to Patrick Henry when he warned that this system of government would deprive the people of their liberty, and they damned sure aren’t listening to me.

So go ahead, vote until you’re blue in the face; after all, it’s worked stupendously so far!