Insidious

What would you call someone who ignores evidence that a crime has been committed, or a breach of trust has been perpetrated? Let’s say you know for a fact that your best friend’s wife has been having an affair; sneaking around your friends back and cheating on him. You try to convince your friend of the affair but he refuses to face the truth, no matter how much evidence you provide. You ask yourself, “What’s it going to take for him to believe me? Is he going to have to come home and find his wife and her lover having sex on the floor of his living room?”

I imagine you would be mentally calling your friend a fool, an ignoramus, and any of an assorted number of colorful adjectives you might be able to come up with. Because he is your friend would you keep trying to convince him, or would you eventually give up?

If you can picture that happening in your head, then multiply how you would feel by a hundred, a thousand, a million, and you’ll begin to get an idea of how I feel day to day. To say that I am frustrated would be the understatement of the year.

For years now I have been trying to tell people that a breach of trust has occurred; not only a breach of trust, but a crime of the severest of magnitudes and all I can get out of people, if they even pay attention to what I’m saying, is ‘that’s interesting.’ It’s both frustrating and infuriating.

It seems that in today’s modern world facts, evidence, and THE TRUTH, are no longer important. The only thing that is important is the illusion that things are going according to plan. It’s as if the people of this country have been partially lobotomized; with the part of their brains which perform critical thinking removed.

I know that’s not the case; everyone has not had part of their brains removed, but I often feel like that is what has happened. The truth is that most people have not been taught to use that part of their brains. Instead, they have been taught to follow orders, accept what they are told by those in positions of authority as the absolute truth, and most importantly, not to rock the boat.

It’s no skin off anyone’s back to disagree with, or argue with me over the things I write about. But if you were to accept what I say as the truth then you would be forced to face the fact that your government is your enemy. It may sound daunting at first, admitting that the government is not your friend, and then being told by friends, family, co-workers that you are out of your mind for saying the things you do; but actually it is liberating because suddenly all kinds of things begin to make sense.

Another thing, if you have the courage to accept that your government has become your enemy, history takes on an entirely new meaning to you. By history I don’t mean the rubbish they teach our children in school, I mean the true history; the stuff you have to dig for to find. The search for the truth becomes almost like an archeological expedition as you shed the layers of lies you have been told all your life to uncover the truth hidden beneath.

After all, that’s what education should be all about; the teaching of our children how to question things, how to seek out the truth, how to analyze data and come to conclusions based on facts and not emotional responses. But for generations now our schools have slowly, incrementally, gone from teaching our kids the truth, how to think, to giving them a revised version of the truth and producing graduates who accept whatever the government tells them without ever questioning the authority behind the government’s actions.

When you think about it, it is quite insidious; how they’ve been able to produce entire generations of voters who still believe that our government exists exactly as it did the day the Constitution first went into effect in 1789. People believe that simply because they have the ability to go to their polling place and choose between this candidate or that candidate that we have a democracy and all is well in America.

Sure, there may be the occasional crisis, or scandal that causes the people to become somewhat upset over the actions of government; but they still retain their faith in the system and keep voting for the same quality of scum to represent them in office. As I said, the change in what we’ve been taught is both insidious; but it is also brilliant in its effectiveness.

I could go up to almost anyone in this country and pull out a copy of the Constitution and show them in black and white where the Constitution says one thing but our government does something entirely different. You know what people say? They shrug their shoulders as if what I had just shown them was as insignificant as an ant crossing the sidewalk.

I remember when Barack Obama was first gathering steam as the Democratic nominee for president. I can’t count the number of people who called me racist because I opposed him. I can’t count the number of people who told me I had to give him a chance once he’d been elected.

To these people facts did not matter, standing up for beliefs did not matter; the only thing that mattered is that our country had finally elected a black man to office, or that we were all going to see real hope and change.

I remember when the question of Obama’s eligibility began to become a problem for him; do you? Do you remember the question of whether he was born in Kenya or Hawaii, as if that made a bit of difference? Then came the big unveiling of, what has been proven to be a fake, his birth certificate. It didn’t matter to people that the name of the hospital listed on the birth certificate was not the name of that hospital in 1961 when he was born; that it was named something entirely different.

But people told me that I should get over it, a birth certificate had been provided, Obama had been duly elected, and I should get over my anger and go on with my life.

But these people never understood my questions about Obama’s eligibility never had anything to do with whether he was born in Kenya or in Hawaii, it was whether he met the Constitutional requirement of being a Natural Born Citizen.

These people who argued with me over the issue assumed that a Natural Born Citizen was one who was born on US soil; and that since a birth certificate was provided that settled the issue… end of story. Not so; the question remains unsettled, and Congress has sat back and done nothing about the biggest Constitutional Crisis our country has faced; whether the person serving as president of these States united is actually eligible to hold the office he does.

When our Founders gathered together to draft the Constitution Ben Franklin had in his possession a book; Emerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations, written in 1758. This book was reference frequently by those in attendance at the convention which produced our Constitution.

Had you taken the time to actually read our Constitution you would find that the term Natural Born Citizen only shows up once; in the requirements for president. Our Founders did this to ensure that no foreign influence might seep into the highest office in the land.

So, what exactly is a Natural Born Citizen? Well, according to Vattel, a Natural Born Citizen is “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” (Emphasis added)

Barack Obama’s mother was an American citizen, Stanley Ann Dunham, however his father Barack Obama Sr. was not. His father was a citizen of Kenya on a scholarship to the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Therefore BOTH his parents were not citizens, making Obama ineligible for the office because he does not meet the Constitutional requirement of being a Natural Born Citizen.

It is like my son, as much as I love him, he will never be eligible to become president. I am a citizen but my wife was not at the time of his birth. Even though she later became naturalized, it does not matter; at the time my son was born my wife claimed citizenship in the Philippines. Therefore my son is not a Natural Born Citizen and therefore ineligible to become president.

So, for 7 years now we have had someone acting as president who should never have been allowed to run for the office he holds. All this time Congress has remained mum on the issue; even the esteemed Ron Paul, darling of the Tea Party was reluctant to broach the subject.

Could it be that Congress did not want the people of this country to begin examining the Constitution in detail as that might expose the crimes they’ve committed all these years? Or could it be that both parties are fundamentally the same and only differ in outward appearance? Or, could it be both?

In either case, for 7 years Congress has sat back while a man serves as president who should never have been elected. Now we have the other party, the GOP, running a candidate, Ted Cruz, who is the Republican, (oh, excuse me, the Tea Party) version of Barack Obama; a candidate who is ineligible for the office he seeks because he is not a Natural Born Citizen either.

Yet that doesn’t stop people from supporting him any more than Obama’s ineligibility stopped people from supporting him either. And that’s the problem right there; if a crisis of this magnitude does not even cause the people of this country to step back and say, ‘Hey, wait a minute. What’s going on here.’ then what will?

People have forgotten, or conveniently chosen to ignore, that our Constitution is not a basic list of suggestions, it is a law; written by our Founders to describe the shape our government shall take, the powers it shall have, and the powers that are to be withheld from it.

Over the course of many generations our government has grown into this monstrosity that does not even come close to resembling the type of government described within the Constitution; yet people, in their ignorance, do not care.

Worse, those of us who cry out about this abuse of power, this tyranny, are treated just like the guy who tried to warn his friend that his wife was cheating on him. We are called all kinds of names or ignored. Then, if we have the audacity to talk about a return to the limited government described by the Constitution, or heaven forbid, a revolution, we are thought of as terrorists, or treasonous.

Yet patriotism is not blind loyalty to your government. Patriotism is loyalty to the principles that government was founded upon. If that government oversteps it’s just powers then it is the duty of patriots to speak out against these abuses of power. If that government seeks to deprive the people of the rights it was instituted to protect, it is the patriots duty to speak out, and resist if necessary, these violations of their rights.

Yet you, the average citizen to whom these articles are addressed, refuse to accept that anything I say remotely resembles the truth. You trust those in the news media, and worse, those who you vote for to tell you the truth about their actions. If there ever was a definition for foolish, that would be it.
It wasn’t always thus in America. When I was growing up people still, (even though our nation was well on its way to becoming the mess it is today), understood what patriotism meant. They still understood the basic premises outlined in the Constitution; and our parents and our grand-parents would be shocked at what we’ve allowed to happen to this country.

But this brainwashing, indoctrination, conditioning, call it whatever you want, perpetrated by our public education system has been very effective; people no longer have the slightest understanding of how our system of government is supposed to work; and more importantly they don’t care. As long as that government gives them things they believe it to be doing the job it was designed to do.

Which leads me to my final thoughts. I believe that there is a subtle, well not so subtle if you look at it from my viewpoint, force at work which is hell bent on destroying everything our country once stood for. These people own the media, they dictate what our children are taught in school, and they control the government.

But these people are arrogant, showing a level of hubris, [excessive pride and self-confidence], and like to rub our noses in the truth, disguising it as entertainment. The films that come out of Hollywood are often chock full of subtle references to the truth; but since they come out of Hollywood people treat them as fiction.

Take for instance the film The Matrix. Audiences cheered for the heroes, Neo, Morpheus, Trinity, while they fought to free minds from the Matrix and battle against the system. Yet at one point Morpheus tells Neo, “The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.”

That right there is a perfect metaphor, analogy, for the struggle that I, and the other patriot writers, face as we try to inform YOU of the truth. You fight, you argue, you call us names, all to protect a system which enslaves you.

Your conditioning is so complete, so thorough, that you refuse to admit that you are enslaved and you will ignore, or condemn, those who try to tell you the truth about it. Like I said, it is both insidious and brilliant in its conception and execution.

It is also frustrating and infuriating to try and inform a people who refuse to accept the truth; even when it is right there in black and white.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

A Gun Control Rant

Upon awakening this morning one of the first sounds to accost my ears was the sound of a TV News report that Barack Obama intends to push forward with ‘Smart Gun Technology’; with or without Congress.

For those who don’t know, Smart Gun Technology is a type of gun which can only be fired by the owner of that particular gun. There are various ways which this could be accomplished; biometric sensors in the grip which recognize the owner; a wristband or a ring worn by the user which unlocks the firearm for use, or a wristband that allows the user to enter in a code which would unlock the firearm for use.

I’ll tell you right now I’m against it. Not only is it another infringement of our right to keep and bear arms; it is a stupid idea. Say a married couple purchases a pistol for home protection and the gun is matched to the husband. What happens if someone breaks into the home when the husband is away and the wife does not have the ability to use the weapon as a means of defense? Or, if there is an active shooter in the area and the person to whom the firearm is matched is shot; then nobody else could pick up that firearm and use it to protect themselves.

How is this technology to work; is it going to be battery powered? What if the battery dies and the gun is needed? Are you going to have time to swap out batteries, enter the pass code, and fire the weapon in time to save your life?

How much is this technology going to cost? Will it raise the price of firearms to where only the super rich can afford to buy one? We’ve already seen, at least here in California, how gun companies have moved out of the State to make their weapons elsewhere because they found it too expensive to refurbish their machines so as to micro stamp each shell casing as per California law. Will this Smart Gun Technology do the same in other places?

When are people, and by people I mean the average American, going to realize that our government is never going to tell us that there have been enough gun control laws passed; that their goal of making America a safer place for all has been achieved? Folks, it ain’t gonna happen; they are going to keep nibbling away at the right to keep and bear arms until it is gone altogether. That is their ultimate goal, not the safety of the people, but the total disarmament of the people.

Our government, and that includes those in various State legislatures as well, want to see a nation in which the people are disarmed; as a disarmed people cannot fight back against them. Can you not see that this is the exact scenario Patrick Henry warned us would happen when he spoke in front of the Virginia Ratifying Assembly, “Oh, Sir, we should have fine times indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people. Your arms wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone…”

You see, Henry also said, “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect anyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. ”

That quote, right there, explains the 2nd Amendment; its purpose and reason for being included in the Bill of Rights; to allow the people of this country to retain the force needed to fight back against their government should it become too big, too powerful, and too oppressive. It is not so we could hunt deer or shoot those who break into our homes; although those are secondary benefits of owning guns. No, the right to keep and bear arms is so that we could shoot tyrants.

Over the course of my 57 plus years I have watched as our country went from one in which guns were treated as tools to be respected and used in a safe manner to a nation where they are feared and gun owners despised. Instead of teaching proper firearms safety in our schools they make them gun free zones where the mere pointing of a finger and saying ‘bang bang’ is enough to get a child suspended from school. Yet at the same time our culture glorifies gun violence; it is in our movies, our music, and the video games our children play. This is a recipe for disaster, and we are witnessing the results every time some misguided youth picks up a gun and goes on a shooting spree.

It’s not only the lack of proper firearms safety training that plays a part in this either; it is the fact that our children are being raised to believe that they are entitled to success; and when they don’t achieve it they don’t know how to react; so they lash out. Add to this toxic mix the fact that many of our kids are on prescription medication which alters their brain chemistry and causes them to have violent, and suicidal thoughts, and you have the perfect weapon to cause a society to call for the complete removal of guns from private ownership…which is exactly what our government wants.

But the average Hoplophobe is too ignorant to see this. All they see is red when any there is any talk of lessening gun control restrictions. They cry out, “What about the children?” When had they done their job as parents and taught their children a respect for human life, the fact that life isn’t easy; you are gonna have to work to obtain success, and that guns are simply a tool to be used safely, then we could have seen a serious reduction in the amount of gun violence in America.

I grew up around guns; they were all over the house. My father taught me to shoot when I was but a wee lad. I lived through the nightmare that was my teenage years when both my parents were drunk, pointing loaded pistols at each other and the cops being called to my home to settle yet another domestic dispute. Yet I do not blame the guns; I blame my parents for not being able to settle their disputes without alcohol and threats of violence.

What is it that sets me apart from all these people who call for tougher gun laws? Why is it that I have survived the living hell that was my childhood, yet I do not fear guns? I have guns, although not in the numbers some people like to believe. Since I am so outspoken about the right to keep and bear arms people seem to think my home is one big arsenal with enough guns to supply a small army. Not so, but I’m not going to tell you how many I have; as that is none of your damned business!

All you people who are pushing for stricter gun laws fail to realize that it is our right to have them. You simply do not understand that it is our right to be armed equally as well as the government the 2nd Amendment was put into place to protect us from. If the government can possess all types of military weaponry, so can we. If the government can possess 30 round magazines, so can we. That is the nature of the 2nd Amendment; it places no limitations or restrictions upon what type, size, or capacity of the arms we may keep and bear. It is only through the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by the courts, (agents of the very government the 2nd Amendment is supposed to protect us from) that laws have been upheld that restrict our unalienable right to keep and bear arms.

Now by my saying that the 2nd Amendment was written to allow the people to fight back against government should it become too oppressive you may call my words dangerous, seditious, and even treasonous. That’s your right to feel that way, but it is not your right to limit or deny me the ability to exercise my God-given right to protect myself, my family, my property, and yes, MY LIBERTY!

Call it treason if you will, to which I reply by quoting Patrick Henry, “If this be treason, make the most of it.”

I have always been a law abiding citizen; trying to obey the laws to the best of my ability. These gun laws are pushing my resolve and I am near the point in which I become an outlaw and tell those who would see me disarmed, “You want my guns? Come and take them from me.”

Another thing, I’m not alone in feeling this way; there are millions of us out here who are at the point where we no longer care what you, or the government thinks. We will hold on to our rights, and our guns, and anyone who comes for them will be treated as an enemy.

Victorious or not, our battle cry will be heard round the world, “Remember Lexington and Concord.”

Posted in General | 1 Comment

Got Tyranny?

I just finished watching a new Mike Rowe, (Dirty Jobs), podcast in which he opened by talking about how, a few months back, he had watched The Fugitive with Tommy Lee Jones and Harrison Ford. He spoke of how being falsely accused of something is fundamentally and profoundly terrible. He then went on to say that the only thing he could imagine as being equally frustrating was to be absolutely certain you were correct about something important, but being completely dismissed by the rest of the world as crazy.

After hearing that I thought to myself, ‘Welcome to my world Mike.’ That is exactly how I feel each and every day; dismissed as being crazy by people who, for the most part, couldn’t explain to me the most basic of principles regarding how our system of government is supposed to function.

I do not blame people for their ignorance even though I may become frustrated and annoyed by it, but I do become angry when they come off all self-righteous, and make the claim that their beliefs have any validity when they can’t provide a shred of evidence to support them. Every time that happens I’m reminded of the Isaac Asimov quote, “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’”

I can’t count the times I’ve been told that I write too complicated; using words many of my readers do not understand. There are two things wrong with that statement; first, if you think my writing is complicated you should try reading some of the things our Founders wrote; or the men whose writings influenced our Founders. If what I write is confusing, the things they wrote would probably make those people’s heads explode.

Secondly, and more importantly, that statement shows that people are mentally lazy. If I come across a word I do not understand I look it up to find out what it means. That is how we learn; how our vocabulary expands. But to disregard something I say simply because the words I use to say it are beyond your comprehension is just an excuse for mental laziness.

I also realize that people often try to visualize the words they are reading. I’ve done it myself; I can’t help it sometimes. Someone says the word Constitution and my mind automatically conjures up a mental image of the actual document.

Take for instance the word tyrant, or tyranny; what image immediately comes to mind? Do you see some dictator in full military apparel like Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, or Kim Il Jung? While all three are/were tyrants, to think that tyranny only comes in the guise of a military led government would be to misunderstand the definition of the word.

If you look for the word tyranny in your standard dictionary you will find a definition that reads similar to this; “Cruel and oppressive government rule.” That is a definition of tyranny; but it is not the only definition of it.

Now, if you were to go to a legal dictionary which contained the meaning of words from a legal point of view, the word tyranny is defined thusly, “The violation of those laws which regulate the division and the exercise of the sovereign power of the state. It is a violation of its constitution.”

That gives the word an entirely new meaning; doesn’t it? Now if you were to apply the legal definition to the word tyranny and then conjure up an image in your mind; what image comes to mind? Hopefully it is the same image that comes to my mind; our current government.

I’ll bet you didn’t know that the English language has undergone a radical change in that many of the words we use today once held entirely different meanings. When trying to understand how our system of government is supposed to function you not only need to know what the words in our founding documents mean; but what they meant at the time those documents were written.

Do you know what synonyms and antonyms are? A synonym is a word that has the same meaning as another word; and an antonym is a word that has the exact opposite meaning. Now let’s look at the word tyranny for a moment. Were you to do a Google search for antonyms for the word tyranny what word do you think comes up more often than others? Here, let me help you; the answer is the word democracy.

If tyranny is cruel and oppressive government, or a government that violates the laws which created it, then is democracy the answer to restore liberty? According to modern English it is, but what did our Founders have to say about democracy?

James Madison, (Father of our Constitution), said that “Democracy is the most vile form of government.” Thomas Jefferson, (Author of the Declaration of Independence), said “Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine percent.”

Then there is this, from Noah Webster, (Father of the American Dictionary), “In democracy … there are commonly tumults and disorders … Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.”

Hmmm, if a modern day thesaurus tells us that democracy is the antonym of tyranny, why then did Noah Webster say it was typically tyrannical? Call me a stickler, a hair splitter, but that sounds to me that democracy is a synonym, not an antonym for tyranny. So why do people continue to make the asinine statement that America is a democracy?

Well, it’s taken almost two pages to do it, but I think I’ve finally explained the basics; now I can get to the meat and potatoes of this article; the fact that our government is tyrannical, and that there were those who warned that we would have no defense against it becoming this way.

Politics today is something people only think about every 4 years when it comes time to elect a new president; or possibly when the government enacts some law which an overwhelming majority of the people do not like. The rest of the time thought of politics and government are tucked safely away in the corner of their minds; while their daily lives, sporting events, TV shows, and social media sites occupy most of their thoughts.

It was not always so in America. Before the days when there was a TV in every home; before the days of PC’s and cell phones the people did not have all these distractions, (for distractions are exactly what they are; things to keep people’s minds off the important issues). People paid much more attention to the affairs of their government back in the olden days; and this becomes even more so the further you go back in our nation’s history.

Prior to the Constitution’s being ratified each State held its own convention to discuss whether to adopt, or reject, the proposed plan. Discussions regarding the benefits, or dangers, of this new plan were heard everywhere; you could scarce avoid them. You might say the level of attention people paid to this important decision consumed their thoughts. I find it both sad and funny how time changes a people. Two hundred plus years ago the people of this country examined the Constitution in minute detail; today you can’t even find one in ten who know what is says.

I recently wrote a piece about consent of the governed and the other day I was reading through the past writings of my friend Mike Gaddy when I stumbled across this; “It is important to understand at what point governments morph from ‘consent of the governed’ to ‘ by order of the government.’” (The Rule of What? April 8, 2016) You see, the question Mike is asking us to consider is at what point our government shifted from one based upon liberty to one which became tyrannical.

I would like to pose another question for you to ponder; Was our Constitution written to intentionally allow for tyranny to develop or did tyranny develop because the people simply ignored what the Constitution says?

If you are being honest with yourself you can’t help but realize that America has indeed become a nation ruled by tyrants. If you utilize the legal definition for tyranny, our government no longer abides by the limits imposed upon it by the Constitution and it uses force to coerce our obedience. If that does not demonstrate that our government has become tyrannical I don’t know what will.

The best way to find out if something our government does is tyrannical is to ask yourself what would happen if you did the same thing to your neighbor. If I were to spy upon my neighbor, install listening devices so I could hear his phone calls, read his e mail, and monitor his finances I would go to jail. Yet our government does it to the entire country with impunity.

You have to realize that whatever powers the government holds it holds by a grant from the people. As Paine once said, all power is either delegated or assumed; if it is delegated then it cannot be any greater than the powers held by people as individuals; that is a concept espoused by Locke in his Second Treatise; “…It is not, nor can possibly be absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people: for it being but the joint power of every member of the society given up to that person, or assembly, which is legislator; it can be no more than those persons had in a state of nature before they entered into society, and gave up to the community: for no body can transfer to another more power than he has in himself…”

If that power is assumed, (by virtue of us having a Constitution which clearly outlines the shape our government shall take, and the powers granted it), then it becomes tyrannical the moment it oversteps the limits the people imposed upon it; and this is true whether or not the acts of the government are undertaken with the support of a majority of the people. Remember, our Founders declared that we are NOT a democracy; we are a Republic ruled by law, not the arbitrary will of the people or their government.

Had you studied the ratification of the Constitution in the detail that I have you might know that, at first, it was basically forced upon the states; shoved down their throats whether they liked it or not. Open debate of it was limited, at best; those who opposed it were publicly chastised and ridiculed; and those who refused to acquiesce were drug from their hotel rooms and forced to participate in the proceedings which voted in favor of adopting it.

Even though their voices were not given the chance to be heard in the discussions prior to their state adopting the Constitution, they still found the chance to express their concerns vial the Dissent of the Pennsylvania Minority.

This dissent goes into great detail their treatment as delegates to the ratifying assembly, and their concerns over the system of government the Constitution establishes. Of particular note is the following:

From the foregoing investigation, it appears that the Congress under this constitution will not possess the confidence of the people, which is an essential requisite in a good government; for unless the laws command the confidence and respect of the great body of the people, so as to induce them to support them, when called on by the civil magistrate, they must be executed by the aid of a numerous standing army, which would be inconsistent with every idea of liberty; for the same force that may be employed to compel obedience to good laws, might and probably would be used to wrest from the people their constitutional liberties.

A standing army in the hands of a government placed so independent of the people, may be made a fatal instrument to overturn the public liberties; it may be employed to enforce the collection of the most oppressive taxes, and to carry into execution the most arbitrary measures.

Does that not sound exactly like government today? We have a government that passes laws saying we cannot take certain drugs for recreational use; a power it is nowhere within their purview to do; and we have the DEA, an armed and militarized agency to enforce those laws.

We have a government that violates the 2nd Amendment by telling us what type, caliber, magazine capacity, and all sorts of laws governing the sale and transfer of these weapons, and if we disobey then we have the ATF, a fully armed and militarized agency to enforce those laws.

We have a graduated income tax, the amendment which created it being illegally ratified, which goes against the Constitutions provision that all direct taxes be apportioned, and if we disobey, or make a mistake on our tax returns, we have the IRS another government agency that can seize your assets or ruin your life.

And of course we have the recent passage of the Affordable Care Act which requires that every American purchase health insurance. Where, may I ask, is the power given to Congress to force the American people to purchase ANYTHING? Yet if we don’t abide by this unconstitutional law the IRS will seize your assets, your income or bank account, and force you into paying for it.

How many examples must I give before you realize that our government is not one based upon liberty, it is one which enforces its will under the iron fist of tyranny? When Patrick Henry stood on the floor of the Virginia Assembly protesting the proposed Constitution, he said one thing you need to keep in mind, “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.”

You see, Henry, and many others predicted that this would happen…and few listened. I think I understand how he must have felt; as I write about these encroachments of power and violations of our rights and few listen to me.

So, for your edification, here are a few select quotes from Patrick Henry’s epic speech in opposition to the Constitution. Read and heed:

-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.

-My great objection to this Government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging war against tyrants…

-The Honorable Gentleman who presides, told us, that to prevent abuses in our Government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. Oh, Sir, we should have fine times indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people. Your arms wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical; no longer democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?

-It is on a supposition that our American Governors shall be honest, that all the good qualities of this Government are founded: But its defective, and imperfect construction, puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs, should they be bad men…

-But in this, there is no real actual punishment for the grossest maladministration. They may go without punishment, though they commit the most outrageous violation on our immunities. That paper may tell me they will be punished. I ask, by what law? They must make the law — for there is no existing law to do it. What — will they make a law to punish themselves? This, Sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility — and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves.

How, do we as freedom loving Americans, punish those responsible for the crimes they have committed against our liberty? Voting them out of office is not punishment by the way, that only takes the limelight from them and does nothing to punish them for their crimes.

If a person even dares talk of revolution they are considered treasonous and unpatriotic. Yet patriotism is not blind obedience and support of their government; patriotism is love of the principles upon which their country was founded. There is a difference you know.

I have been told my ideas, my views, are quite radical and subversive even. Yet the same could have been said, and probably was, to those who spoke of the Colonies becoming independent States.

As early as 1765 the young Patrick Henry was making a name for himself. In speaking against the Stamp Act, Henry declared, “Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell and George the Third―” at which point someone yelled out the word TREASON, to which Henry replied, “may profit by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it.”

Henry, and many others, were not afraid to stand for their beliefs, and it was upon those beliefs that our country was founded. Is it radical to fear that the people have forgotten…lost…that spirit of liberty that beat in every heart of those men who fought to gain our nation’s independence?

As H.L. Mencken once said, “The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.”

I do not want another revolution in this country. I do not want to instigate, nor participate one. But, should one occur, I know which side I will take. And a revolution is coming, make no mistake about that. It could be averted if the people would open their eyes and stop voting according to party and get out a copy of the Constitution and read it; then apply that as a guide in deciding whom to vote for.

But I don’t see that happening, not in the near future any way. So you may lie to yourselves that we still live in the land of the free, but I know the truth; we live in a land ruled by tyrants; and eventually they will push the remaining freedom loving people too far and they will be forced to fight to retain the last vestiges of their liberty. It may come next week, it may come next year, it may come in ten years. But make no mistake, it is coming because you people are leaving the freedom loving people no other options.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Are You Nuts?

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human
stupidity; and I’m not so sure about the universe.”
Quote attributed to Albert Einstein

Einstein may or may not have said that, but it really doesn’t matter; the point is still valid. I know it might ‘offend’ people who read this, but I believe that there are a great number of stupid people living in this country. There, I’ve said it; let the butt-hurt flow.

Case in point; people confuse the words stupid and ignorant. If someone calls you ignorant they are not saying you are stupid; they are saying you are uninformed, or misinformed. Stupidity, on the other hand, is when a person knows that information is available, yet choose not to seek it, or reject it outright without considering it, and making choices and decisions based upon faulty information.

The German statesman von Goethe once said, “Knowing is not enough; we must apply.” It is not enough that you know the facts, or truth, you must put that information to use in your decision making process; if you fail to do this you cross the line which separates ignorance and stupidity.

Since I’m quoting Einstein, here are two more gems he supposedly said, “We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them.”, and “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

Sound familiar? Is any of this sinking in, ringing a bell, causing you to feel a bit uncomfortable? Good, those are the warning signs that your brain is working; telling you that maybe something is wrong with your decision making process; the facts you base your choices upon and the continued repetition of the same choices which created the problem in the first place.

As citizens of this formerly great nation it is your responsibility to be informed about its past history, its system of government, and the actions of the people you elect to represent you. Am I asking a lot of you? Yes I am, but it comes with being an American; the responsibility to learn the history of your country, and to preserve the principles it was founded upon. Thomas Paine once wrote, “THOSE who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.”

Sir Josiah Stamp once said, “It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities.” You can choose to remain ignorant; you can choose to remain stupid; but you cannot choose to accept the responsibility that your ignorance and stupidity is the cause of the problems this country faces. Of course I’m not being entirely fair here, the responsibility is not completely yours; it falls upon the generations which preceded you. But make no mistake; your ignorance and stupidity are only exacerbating the problem.

I have had people refuse to read these little commentaries I write because they call me some right-wing, conspiracy theory believing, nutcase. If holding dear the principles our Founders built this country upon is considered right-wing, I’ll gladly assume that title. If weighing facts and evidence against ‘official’ reports and coming to my own conclusions is considered being a conspiracy theory believing nutcase; I’ll gladly accept that title. You see, my detractors are either unable, or unwilling, to weigh facts and evidence which goes against the ‘official’ story regarding events, such as what really happened on 9/11. They willingly swallow the Kool Aid given them by their elected officials and the news media; totally oblivious to the fact that the real truth remains hidden right below the surface of the lies they are being told; and all they have to do to find it is dig a little.

You see, I’m man enough to accept whatever title or nickname you give me; if it is deserved. Are you willing to accept that you are ignorant or stupid? I didn’t think so.

I think there is a lot of truth to something Freud once said, “Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.” It would go a long way towards answering why people sit back and let their government grow far bigger than the outline contained in its founding document, the Constitution. It would go a long way to explaining why people so willingly surrender their rights for the false sense of security it provides them.

But there is more to it that just the fear of responsibility; I believe people to be fundamentally lazy. Aside from the oddball exception, people are only going to put forth the bare minimum of effort in things that do not involve their entertainment or self-gratification. Hard work, critical thought, and the demands made upon their time being a responsible citizen requires is simply too much to ask of most people; therefore they refuse to do these things.

Yet, as Josiah Stamp said, you cannot dodge the consequences of these things. If you choose to remain ignorant…stupid…then expect that your government is going to take advantage of that and become venal and oppressive. As former President James Garfield once said, “Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature…. If the next centennial does not find us a great nation … it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.”

By the very fact that people are paying all this attention to the circus that our presidential elections has become I see that very few people have learned a damned thing from these articles I write. Had they been paying attention to what I’ve said they would pay far more attention to the election of the person/s who represent them in Congress, or to the election of who represents them at the State level. It is they who make the laws, and it is they who can repeal laws already passed. The president is a mere figurehead whose job is to see that the laws already passed are faithfully executed. He cannot make law, and he cannot fulfill all these campaign promises unless Congress first passes legislation to send to his desk for his signature. But by the number of times per week I am asked who I support for president I can see that people still do not understand this concept.

I remember the insults I got when I told people I supported Ron Paul for president. People told me all kinds of things, from my vote being wasted to it being a vote for Obama. People said I should put aside my beliefs and focus my attention on voting for someone who could win. It is that attitude which has allowed corrupt politicians to be elected; the fact that party over principle is the ruling mentality.

John Quincy Adams once said, “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” To those who told my voting for Ron Paul was a wasted vote; that he was unelectable, I have but one thing to say. The only reason Ron Paul was unelectable was because you chose to vote for party over principle. Had you the courage to vote according to principle Ron Paul could have won in a landslide that would have dwarfed the one Reagan won by in 1984.

We are all born with a brain, capable of performing a multitude of miraculous tasks simultaneously. Whether you choose to use yours is entirely up to you.

But don’t complain when the same flawed thinking gets the same corrupt results over and over again. If you want to fix this country you really need to take the time to sit down and examine how it got screwed up in the first place. Until you do that you’ll only be repeating the same thing over and over again.

And according to Einstein, that means you are insane.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Does Our Government Care About Consent of the Governed?

Our story begins almost 400 years ago in 1620 when a small group of men and women set sail for a new continent in search of one thing; the freedom to worship God as they saw fit. Their desire for freedom, particularly religious freedom, was so strong it caused them to brave hardship and uncertainty to achieve it. Fast forward 396 years and the descendents of these first settlers to the America’s can’t seem to give their freedom away fast enough in the search for safety and a false sense of security.

Upon arriving here those first settlers were, most likely, the only Americans to ever experience true freedom. There was no government here to make laws which they were required to adhere to, no taxes were laid upon them; stealing from them the fruits of their labors. They experienced true freedom in that they alone were responsible for their survival, and they were free to enjoy their success should they achieve it.

Not many Americans today would be willing to severe all bonds which tied them to the known, the safe, and expose themselves to circumstances where they alone held the responsibility for their very survival in their own hands with no safety net of social service programs or relatives to turn to should they fail in their endeavors.

For a time being the population of this country grew and the occupants experienced a period of relative freedom; for although they were basically free from governmental interference they were still subjects under a sovereign King and subject to his arbitrary will.

However, as history has shown time and time again, as the people began to prosper their government began to enact laws which violated the freedom which they believed to have as its origin Natural Law. As any freedom loving individual was wont to do, they resisted these violations; and with each instance their government enacted new, stricter laws, further violating their freedom.

Finally the time came when they were forced to admit that it was only going to get worse, not better. They decided to severe the ties which bound them to their system of government and stated their reasons thusly, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism … Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.” (Declaration of Independence)

The Declaration of Independence is much more than a piece of parchment declaring the reasons why our Founders felt they must separate from England; it is its birth certificate. America was conceived in the hearts of liberty loving men and women, and born of violence and bloodshed. The Declaration is a statement which outlines how our Founders viewed their rights, and the purpose for which governments should exist.

One of the most crucial points explained in the Declaration of Independence is “That secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” Government exists only because the people it governs allows it to exist; they built it, they can tear it down if it no longer serves the purpose for which it was established.

That may sound almost treasonous to many in today’s modern, enlightened society; but it is a fundamental principle our Founders believed in, and enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”

People confuse patriotism for the love of, blind obedience to, and support of its system of government. That is not patriotism; that is the mark of a slave. Patriotism is love of country, and the principles it was founded upon, not its system of government. As Edward Abbey once said, “A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.”

It was just a short time after our nation achieving its independence that men felt the need to establish a strong central government. Call their reasons what you will; ambition, lust for power, or simple greed, the outcome was the same; they established a flawed system which, over the course of over two centuries has grown to be far worse than the one they fought to free themselves from.

It has been said that our revolution was fought over a tax upon tea; not true, but allow me to use that as an example to prove my point. The tax imposed upon the tea the Colonists were forced to purchase was a mere pittance in comparison to the taxes we pay today; I believe it ran around 3%. Today, via the graduated tax scale, Americans are required to surrender anywhere from 10% to almost 40% of their earnings to the government via the illegally ratified and unconstitutional 16th Amendment which established an income tax.

Our Founders stood their ground and fired upon agents of their government, [Redcoats], when their government tried to take their guns at Lexington and Concord; these guns by the way being what were considered the ancient equivalent of weapons of war, the same modern weapons of war that government at both the State and Federal level have banned from private ownership in violation of the 2nd Amendment protected right to keep and bear arms.

I could go on and on; list the rights trampled upon by our governments, the powers it has assumed which it was never intended it possess, but if you don’t get the picture that our government today is much more an enemy to freedom than the one our Founders fought to free themselves from…then there isn’t much hope anything else I could say will sway your opinion.

Yet there is still that fundamental principle contained within the Declaration of Independence; that government derives whatever powers it holds by consent of the governed. What if those governed were to simply withdraw their consent; what if they were to say to government, “You no longer have any authority over me?”

Do you think government would simply pack its bags and go away quietly? No, government, if it has proven anything, will do whatever it takes to preserve its own existence. The Civil War should be enough proof to convince you of that. Had the South been allowed to secede in peace the government would have fallen apart without the revenue provided by the tariffs imposed upon the South. The Civil War was a war waged by the government against those who sought to deprive it of its very existence by withdrawing themselves from the Union, and taking with them the finances required to support it. The government could not allow that to happen; so they declared war upon the South which was merely exercising what was universally considered to be a right of each State; to withdraw from the Union whenever adherence to the Union became detrimental to its existence.

In my last commentary I quoted from Centinel to show that many did not like this new form of government created by James Madison and his cohorts at the Philadelphia Convention. Today I wish to focus my attention on comments made by Patrick Henry in opposition to the ratification of the Constitution.

Before I continue I want to make it clear that I believe the basic structure established by the Constitution is not completely bad. The only problem is that for our system to function as designed the people must remain virtuous and elect virtuous men and women to sit in the seats of power. That is why I believe Franklin foresaw the inevitable outcome of their efforts when he said, “…I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.”

That being said, on June 5, 1788 Patrick Henry stood up and delivered a lengthy speech in opposition to the Constitution; a feat which he did again two days later on June 7th. In his speech on June 5th, Henry said, “Let us suppose (for the case is supposeable, possible, and probable) that you happen to deal those powers to unworthy hands; will they relinquish powers already in their possession, or agree to amendments?” (Referring to Constitutional Amendments to limit the powers of government) Henry was asking the same question I asked moments ago, do you think that government is going to give up any power it has amassed?

As to the checks and balances the Federalists claimed would restrain government, Henry had this to say, “There are no checks, no real balances, in this Government: What can avail your specious imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances?” How effective have those supposed checks and balances been in keeping the various branches from overstepping their legitimate powers? How effective have they been in keeping government within the specific powers granted it? How effective in safeguarding our rights? Henry saw through the deception and tried to warn people. People ignored his warnings, and look at the consequences; an Executive who legislates, a Legislature which yields its legislative authority to the Executive, and a judiciary which legislates from the bench by saying what the law means according to the interpretation of the individual justices. Some checks and balances!

Henry would go on to say, “Sir, I am made of such incredulous materials that assertions and declarations, do not satisfy me. Sir. I shall retain my infidelity on the subject, till I see our liberties secured in a manner perfectly satisfactory to my understanding…”

Liberty and freedom, the very things the first Colonists sought a century and a half prior; the defense of those was Henry’s primary concern, not how we could become a great and powerful empire, or how wealthy we could become as a nation.

Henry also declared, “The Honorable Gentleman who presides, told us, that to prevent abuses in our Government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. Oh, Sir, we should have fine times indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people. Your arms wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical; no longer democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?”

Do you honestly believe that any number of people, from a mere thousand, to a couple million, would be enough to cause government to cease exercising unconstitutional powers, or surrender for punishment so that justice could be found for the people of this country? If you do, you are more foolish than I thought.

Answer me this then; do we have a system in which those that govern exercise just powers by consent of the governed? Before you answer, ask yourself what would happen were you to refuse to obey a law you could not find any constitutional basis for its existence. Do you think government will simply say, “Okay, we see you do not consent to this law, so you are not required to obey it?” Good luck with that.

My guess is that some federal bureaucracy will send out agents, probably in full military gear, to force your compliance, or kill you as they did Lavoy Finicum. Either that, or local law enforcement, which is increasingly becoming more and more militarized, will come, seeking to force your compliance or arrest you for disobedience.

The point I’m trying to get at is that government does not care if you give your consent to the laws it passes; it is going to do whatever it wants; with or without your consent. If you choose to stand up against, what you consider to be unjust laws, you will be labeled a criminal and the full weight of the government will be brought to bear upon you. And yet you have the audacity to say that this is still the land of the free!

Until more people open their eyes to the tyrants that masquerade as representatives of the people do not care about consent of the governed and withdraw their support and, their participation in a system that does not care about them, nothing is going to change in America.

We could revolt; that is always an option; but the outcome is uncertain and even where we to win we would still be faced with the problem of a majority of the population who liked things the way they were. How long before things went back to business as usual? After all, it is next to impossible to find one candidate for any office who is worthy of our vote; try finding enough wise and virtuous men and women to fill ALL the seats of power.

You can go on believing that we still have a Constitutional Republic if you wish; I know better. The only thing Constitutional about our government is the mode of electing those who run it. The limited powers given government…gone! The rights it was created to protect…gone!

All you are doing by going to the polls and casting your vote for whomever you decide to vote for is choosing to replace one tyrant with another. No matter who you elect, government will not relinquish any of the power it has amassed; in fact, it will continue to grow. The sad thing is, that by the time most people realize this fact it will be too late to do anything but bow submissively to their master and mourn the loss of the freedom they had the chance to restore had they only put aside their party loyalty and examined the facts.

All I know is that I have withdrawn my consent from this government. It may choose to enforce its unconstitutional mandates upon me, but that only proves that it is no longer consent of the governed, it is government by duress; and that is the same thing as tyranny and oppression.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

A Continuation of Yesterday’s Subject Matter (or Why Maybe We Should Have Listened to the anti-Federalists)

In my previous commentary I spoke of how I felt it may have been a mistake to adopt the Constitution and create our federal government. I would like to revisit that topic, and expand upon it in a bit more detail. However, for what I want to say to make any sense I have to provide some background material first.

When the first settlers came to America they did so under a charter from their sovereign, the King of England; establishing colonies here on the American continent. A colony is defined as: a country our area under the full or partial political control of another country, typically a distant one, and occupied by settlers from that country.

One of the grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence was that England had suspended the duly elected legislatures of the colonies and replaced them with men loyal to the Crown; thereby governing over them without their having any representation in the passage of the laws which they were required to obey.

The very purpose for which the Declaration of Independence was written, aside from an statement regarding the nature and origin of the rights of men, and the purpose for which the Colonists believed governments should exist, was to declare, “That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States…”

Once independence was achieved by defeating the British Army, that is how the States, and the rest of the world viewed these States united; free and independent States. Even the Treaty of Paris which officially ended the war declared, “His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states…”

I think too many people view the United States as this huge nation which consists of subjugated states under a single system of government; which would be a mistake. At the end of the revolution each State became an independent nation; free to form its own system of government.

Yet as independent sovereign States they were vulnerable to attack from foreign enemies and they also had no means of regulating commerce or raising revenue for the overall management of the Union; so they formed a confederacy, or a confederation; hence the document which preceded the Constitution; the Articles of Confederation.

A confederacy, as defined by Bouvier’s Dictionary of law, is an agreement between two or more states or nations, by which they unite for their mutual protection and good. It does not create a body which is superior to or sovereign over the States which form the confederacy.

The Articles of Confederation which formed this bond between the States declared, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

Now some of you may simply breeze past that statement without giving it much thought, but that is why I get so upset with people; because they don’t actually take the time to think about what is being said.

That statement says that each State remains free and independent. It also says the States retain all powers which are not expressly delegated to Congress by the Articles of Confederation. And finally, it infers that the United States, as an entity, exists only in terms of when the members of Congress were assembled to tend to the affairs of the confederacy.

This is a critical point because it gets to the root of much of the distrust some had of the system of government proposed by the Constitution. State sovereignty and State’s Rights were very important to the people who lived within these free and independent States; much more so than they are today. Therefore, to take any step towards diminishing the sovereignty of the States was to raise a warning flag and set off all kinds of alarms within the States themselves.

There were those in the convention who produced the Constitution who wanted to see the individual States stripped of almost all their authority; James Madison being one of them. But he was not the only one. For instance, George Read of Delaware declared, “Too much attachment is betrayed to the State Governts. We must look beyond their continuance. A national Govt. must soon of necessity swallow all of them up. They will soon be reduced to the mere office of electing the National Senate.”

Comments like that did not go over well amongst the various State Legislatures, who felt they were being pushed to the sidelines and left without any say in how a central government ruled over the Union. For a country that still harbored distrust over strong centralized government, and remembered taxation without representation, the States felt that by agreeing to the proposed Constitution they would once again be taxed by a strong central government, but not really represented by it.

This subject was of much contention during the convention which produced the Constitution. Roger Sherman of Connecticut stated, “If it were in view to abolish the State Govts. the elections ought to be by the people. If the State Govts. are to be continued, it is necessary in order to preserve harmony between the National & State Govts. that the elections to the former shd. be made by the latter. The right of participating in the National Govt. would be sufficiently secured to the people by their election of State Legislatures.”

If you were paying attention you would have noticed that Mr. Sherman said that the States, were they continued as sovereignties, would participate in the National Government, not be subordinate to it.

But there is one word which has now been seen twice; that being the word national. I have written about this before, but it is worth repeating; a national government and a federal government are not one and the same; they are entirely different creatures.

A National Government encompasses and is superior to all its subordinate units; i.e. the States. I can understand how to give a government the necessary authority to enforce lawful legislation it must be superior to the States, but to create a National Government makes the laws it passes binding upon all; the States and the people.

A Federal Government, on the other hand, is a system which is characterized by a central government which is composed of lower governments; such as the State Legislatures, or their representatives in the Senate. In one the government is superior in all things making the States and the people under it mere subjects to be governed, while in the other the States and the people actively participate through representatives in the running of the government.

Madison, in the Federalist Papers, was guilty of typical political double-speak when he said that the government created by the Constitution was to be part federal and part national. Yet it was not enough to satisfy men like Patrick Henry, who was so opposed to the Constitution he said, “It is said eight States have adopted this plan. I declare that if twelve States and a half had adopted it, I would, with manly firmness, and in spite of an erring world, reject it.”

What caused Mr. Henry to oppose it so vehemently? It’s quite simple actually he felt it created a wholly National government. In his speech of June 5, 1788, Henry stated it thusly, “Mr. Chairman … I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious: The fate of this question and of America may depend on this: Have they said, we, the States? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation: It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, Sir, on that poor little thing-the expression, We, the people, instead of the States, of America. I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a monarchy, like England-a compact between prince and people, with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a Confederacy, like Holland-an association of a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely. Had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition, from a Confederacy to a consolidated Government.”

As I said in my last commentary, there were those who left the convention in disgust over the proceedings, and there were those who saw it through to the end but refused to sign the document once it was completed. Of the three who refused to sign it was one George Mason of Virginia. In his objections to the Constitution Mason declared, “This government will set out a moderate aristocracy: it is at present impossible to foresee whether it will, in its operation, produce a monarchy, or a corrupt, tyrannical aristocracy; it will most probably vibrate some years between the two, and then terminate in the one or the other.”

Those who opposed ratification of the Constitution, ironically named anti-Federalists, when in fact they favored a federal form of government, pushed hard for amendments to be added to the Constitution to better secure certain rights; among them a preservation of State sovereignty in regards to powers not expressly delegated to the government by the Constitution. This is the origin of the 10th Amendment.

Madison and Alexander Hamilton, the two primary authors of the Federalist Papers, opposed a bill of rights. Madison called them mere parchment barriers and Hamilton said they would be dangerous and by listing certain rights it might imply that other rights, not listed, would be violated because they were not specifically listed.

Yet were it not for the promise of a Bill of Rights it is likely that the Constitution would not have been adopted and our government established; that is the degree of opposition to certain aspects of the Constitution the anti-Federalists felt.

The Bill of Rights is something people today take for granted, and disturbingly, ignore. The history of how it came into existence is even less known. I would be surprised to find one in ten who knew that Madison took it upon himself to write it. I would also be surprised to find one in ten who knew that each State submitted their own list of rights they sought to see protected by Constitutional Amendment.

Madison called the task of writing this Bill of Rights a ‘nauseous project.’ That ought to show you the disdain he felt towards having to include a Bill of Rights which would diminish, or limit the power granted government by the Constitution he fought so hard for.

For instance, I’ll bet you didn’t know that the very first of the amendments proposed by Rhode Island stated the following, “That the powers of government may be reassumed by people, whenever it shall be necessary to their happiness.” Madison certainly couldn’t let that be included in any Bill of Rights as it would have set forth the authority to demolish the government he sought to establish; therefore he left it out of the Bill of Rights.

But there are also other subtle differences between the wording of proposed amendments and how they eventually were written. For instance, George Mason submitted a list of amendments, among them being one which stated, “That the People have a Right to keep and to bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free State…”

That is much different than the current 2nd Amendment, which states, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Notice the placement of the right to keep and bear arms, how in the 2nd Amendment it follows the militia clause. Had it been written as proposed by Mason all doubt would be erased that the right to keep and bear arms is separate from service in the militia.

I could go on and on with examples of how those who pushed so hard for the ratification of the Constitution did so with full knowledge that what they sought would eventually lead to the consolidation of all power and authority into the central government with a corresponding loss of freedom for the people of this country. However, I will let the Dissenting Opinion of the Minority from Pennsylvania speak for me, “The Continental convention met in the city of Philadelphia at the time appointed. It was composed of some men of excellent characters; of others who were more remarkable for their ambition and cunning, than their patriotism; and of some who had been opponents to the independence of the United States. The delegates from Pennsylvania were, six of them, uniform and decided opponents to the constitution of this commonwealth. The convention sat upwards of four months. The doors were kept shut, and the members brought under the most solemn engagements of secrecy. Some of those who opposed their going so far beyond their powers, retired, hopeless, from the convention others had the firmness to refuse signing the plan altogether, and many who did sign it, did it not as a system they wholly approved, but as the best that could be then obtained, and notwithstanding the time spent on this subject, it is agreed on all hands to be a work of haste and accommodation.

Whilst the gilded chains were forging in the secret conclave, the meaner instruments of despotism without, were busily employed in alarming the fears of the people with dangers which did not exist, and exciting their hopes of greater advantages from the expected plan than even the best government on earth could produce….”

The anti-Federalist writers tried to warn the people of the dangers of this proposed Constitution, but the people, for the most part, did not heed their warnings and went ahead and adopted it. The anti-Federalist writer Centinel warned, “All the blessings of liberty and the dearest privileges of freemen, are now at stake and dependent on your present conduct.”

Centinel would go on to say, “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.”

The anti-Federalists, Mason, Henry, Centinel, and many others, predicted the growth of the government created by the Constitution and the loss of freedom of the people. I’ll leave it up to you to judge who was right. But if you want my opinion, maybe adopting the Constitution wasn’t such a good idea after all.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Was It A Colossal Mistake?

I’m pretty sure I’m not alone in thinking that if I could go back in time, knowing what I know now, that there would be certain things I’d do differently; choices I wouldn’t make for instance. Some people say talk like that is silly; that it isn’t possible, so why bother thinking about it? Well, that’s just the way my mind works sometimes; it grabs hold of an idea and tosses it around just for fun.

However, this time the idea isn’t that I travel back in time and make changes to the course of my life; rather it is I have been wondering if our Founders are sitting up there in Heaven looking down upon us thinking that if they knew America was going to turn out like it has, would they have done things differently. I’m inclined to think they would.

Our Founding Fathers lived in a much different era, with different attitudes and beliefs, than does the typical American today. Some may call their beliefs outdated, or antiquated, but you have to understand that it was upon those beliefs that they established our system of government. For our system to function as designed it must be looked at from the same perspective which was held by the men who created it; not from the perspective of a person living in a modernized society almost 2-1/2 centuries later.

Our values, our beliefs, are incompatible with those held by the men who participated in securing the independence of this country and establishing its system of government. To think that we can expect our government to function as designed using our beliefs and values is like inserting improper values into an algebraic equation and expecting it to produce the correct answer; it simply won’t work.

I would hope that all who live in this country would have at least heard the name Ben Franklin. Did you know that of all the Founders Franklin is the only one to have signed all four of our nation’s founding documents; The Declaration of Independence, the Treaty of Alliance with France, The Treaty of Paris which ended the American Revolution, and the Constitution?

On the final day of the convention which produced the Constitution, Franklin, being too weak to speak, had James Wilson read aloud a speech he had prepared in the hope of garnering unanimous support for the document they had just produced.

In said speech Franklin states, “In these Sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administered; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.” (My emphasis)

Then immediately following the vote, and the close of the proceedings of the convention, Franklin is quoted as answering the question what type government they had produced by saying, “A Republic Madam, if you can keep it.”

Taken together these two statements leads me to think that Franklin had his doubts about future generations being able to maintain possession of the freedom and liberty his generation had fought so hard to bequeath to them.

This belief is reinforced by something John Adams said in a letter to his wife, written on April 26, 1777, “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.”

Our Founders may have spoken passionately about things like liberty and rights, but they were not rash men; they understood the gravity of their actions and how they would affect future generations. However, they also understood basic human nature; a skill so many today do not possess.

If the men who established our Republic were anything, it was students of history. Read the writings or speeches they gave, and you will find references about past civilizations and their systems of government; how they either secured the people’s liberty or they diminished it. The Federalist Papers are chocked full of such examples if one has the initiative to read them.

I think deep within their hearts they knew that at some point in time America would follow in the footsteps of all the great civilizations which had preceded it, and revert back to one in which the liberty they had sought to secure would vanish; it is only a matter of when that would happen that they were unsure of.

Jefferson stated as much in a letter to Spencer Roane, written in 1821, “Time indeed changes manners and notions, and so far we must expect institutions to bend to them. But time produces also corruption of principles, and against this it is the duty of good citizens to be ever on the watch, and if the gangrene is to prevail at last, let the day be kept off as long as possible.”

That letter was written 30 years after our Constitution went into effect. Just four short years later, in a letter to William Giles, Jefferson would state, “I see,… and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that, too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power… It is but too evident that the three ruling branches of [the Federal government] are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic.”

Our school systems, by design I believe, do not cover the period which saw our Constitution ratified very well. In fact, they just gloss over the fact that the debates over whether to accept or reject the Constitution were heated and those who supported resorted to means, let’s just say less than fair, to see that it passed the various ratification assemblies.

I was over 40 yrs of age before I even learned of the Federalist and anti-Federalist Papers; those articles written by those who supported and those who opposed the Constitution. What does that tell you about the depth of coverage our schools devote to the contentious debate over the proposed system of government we now live under?

I had also never been exposed to the notes taken from the convention which produced our Constitution either. These notes give those, who have the desire to read them, a clearer picture of the views the delegates had regarding the structure and powers granted the government created by the Constitution.

For years I grew up almost idolizing James Madison for his brilliance and his patriotism; now I am not so sure that he was the great man I felt him to be. I believe that he may have had our countries best interests in mind, but nonetheless he was the driving force behind the move to trash the Articles of Confederation and replace them with his goal of a much stronger central government.

It may, or may not, be true that our country needed the government created by the Articles of Confederation to have more power to collect revenue and regulate commerce, but that could have been accomplished by simply amending them; not tossing them aside and creating a system that had many flaws which has allowed it to grow even more powerful than Madison had hoped.

I was not aware, until I began researching the Constitutional Convention, that there were those who left the convention prior to producing a finished document. I was also not aware that there were those who attended the convention to the end, but refused to sign it. These were men who had participated in our country achieving its independence; men like George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, and Edmund Randolph. These were men whose status in society and views were both admired and respected; so their refusal to sign the document ought to raise a small amount of alarm over whether the Constitution produced as good a system as we have been led to believe.

Then there was Patrick Henry, that firebrand who, in defiance to the tyranny of King George III, declared, “If this be treason make the most of it.” Henry was probably the most outspoken of those who opposed the ratification of the Constitution and during the Virginia Ratifying Convention he delivered two lengthy speeches in opposition to it. Maybe the delegates should have listened, as much of what Henry feared has come to pass.

One of Henry’s major concerns, aside for the loss of liberty by the people, was the consolidation of power that would eventually deprive the States of all their authority. I find it quite interesting that in the Jefferson letter I spoke of a few moments ago Henry’s fears were already being seen as coming to pass by Jefferson; the usurpation of power by the central government of powers reserved to the States.

The problem, as I see it, is not that the Constitution creates a bad system of government per se; instead the problem is that it relies too heavily upon the people for it to work as designed. Hence the affirmation of Franklin’s warning to the woman outside the convention, “A Republic Madam, if you can keep it.”

The government created by the Constitution was to represent two distinct and separate entities; the people of this country, and the States which make up the Union. The States, via representation in the Senate, could arrest and halt any impetuous desires by the people to have laws enacted that they would later come to regret. The people, on the other hand, could through, representation in the House, halt any usurpation of powers by the State governments which might be made on federal power. These checks and balances were critical for the government to function as designed.

But the problem is that political parties, or factions as they were often called by our Founders, became too strong, too influential, and too divisive and the limits upon governmental power and authority became meaningless as the people’s loyalty was to party, not principle.

In his Farewell Address, George Washington warned the people, “However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

In a letter to Jonathan Jackson, John Adams wrote, “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

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

It is by the division of our country into red and blue states, Republicans and Democrats, that we are kept divided over issues we are told are of great importance while the true issue, the usurpation of power by the federal government and the loss of liberty, is kept in the background and ignored.

If you had the courage to examine the Civil War with an open mind, putting aside the issue of slavery, you would see that it was a war fought because one segment of the Union sought to leave and form their own nation, and the federal government, not the Northern States, told them they could not, and used force to compel obedience. The Civil War was not a war fought between North and South, it was a war fought by the federal government against the South; in short, it was a second war for independence; one which was lost, with a coinciding loss of State authority. It has all been downhill ever since.

Just as I know that the sky is blue and the grass is green, that John Adams long ago repented in Heaven for all the effort he put forth to preserve our freedom. I’m certain that even the ghost of Madison is astonished at how far we have let our government grow and how tamely we have submitted to a corresponding loss of our most basic of rights.

Everything those men who affixed their signatures to the Declaration of Independence, (knowing full well that they had just signed their own death certificates should they lose the upcoming battle), they hoped and aspired for has been lost to a government that has become monstrous in its breadth and scope of powers.

It’s as if the people of this country have tunnel vision and can only see partisan politics; not the fact that the Constitution no longer has any meaning other than to outline the shape the tyrants which govern us will take. The powers it grants this government, and, more importantly, the limits upon what powers it will wield, are of no importance. Neither are the rights protected by the Bill of Rights, as they are now subject to interpretation by an arbitrary judiciary who is as equally loyal to party over principle as the corrupt people who claim to represent the people of this country in Congress.

How many of you have seen the Mel Gibson movie The Patriot? Do you recall the scene were Gibson stands up and says, “Why should I agree to swap one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?” That quote is taken from something Byles Mather, a Boston Loyalist, said, “Which is better – to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?” Mather was dismissed from his position as minister of Hollis St. Congregational Church for his comments, yet they proved to be quite prophetic when one considers that we now live under a government far more tyrannical and oppressive than the one which our Founders fought to free themselves from.

One question has kept coming to the forefront of my mind lately, and it is why I refuse to participate in choosing who will sit in any seat of power in the federal government; that question being, “Did our forefathers make one monumental mistake when they adopted the Constitution and created this tyrannical monstrosity we now live under?”

But we can’t go back and undo what has been done, so we’ll never know how things would have turned out if the Constitution had been rejected instead of ratified. But the question is something you may wish to ponder on your own.

That is if you are inclined to think about such things…

Posted in General | Leave a comment

A Challenge

I know that some people read these little rants of mine as I get comments from time to time, or they will send me an e mail saying that although they do not comment on them, they do read them. It is not to those people to whom I address the following comments.

Did you know that we are almost 1/3 of the way into 2016? It doesn’t seem that long ago that New Years Eve came and went; yet 116 days have passed since then. I’ll bet you didn’t know that since that day I have written 81 of these little rants, commentaries, or articles; whatever you choose to call them.
I’ll bet you also weren’t aware that since I began archiving these articles I have amassed over 1,000 of them, 1,015 to be exact. Typically, with the font face and size I use, a single page contains roughly 900 words per page. My articles can run anywhere from a page and a half up to seven or eight pages long; depending upon how much information I’m trying to share, or how long-winded I get. So an 8 page article can run upwards of 7,000 words.

A few years back my friend Jeffrey Bennett suggested I go through my archives and pick out 3-5 articles on each of the subjects I’ve written about and submit them to him for publication. The result was my first book; Ross Unmasked, which contains 33 of my earlier articles. The book runs at 230 pages, including the introduction and author’s biography. If 33 articles can fill a 230 page book, imagine how thick a book it would take to fit over 1,000 articles.

I’m not boasting on my book, or my writing skills for that matter. I’m just trying to give you a feel for how many words I’ve put to paper over the past decade.

I love to write; no doubt about that. Ever since the 7th grade when I had a Creative Writing class in Junior High. My teacher, Mr. Dawson said I had the rough talent to become a decent writer; if I worked at it to hone my skills. I’d say 10 yrs of writing and over 1,000 articles qualifies as honing my skills; or at least making an effort to hone them. I have been told that I’ve improved as a writer, and I can go back and read some of my earlier stuff and see how pathetic my efforts were back then.

That said I do not sit here day after day for the enjoyment of it. I do it because I think there is a need for people to have the information I impart. Everyone has their own character traits that sets them apart as an individual; one of mine is I listen to and observe the people who surround me. I may not join your conversations, or activities, but I’m aware of what you are saying and doing.

Part of that comes from just having a good sense of situational awareness; knowing what’s happening all around you at any time to identify potential threats or hazards. But part of it is also a curiosity concerning human nature; I like to try to figure out what makes people tick.

One thing I have found is that people, in general, have this need to belong to a group. They may make these big claims about being individuals, but were you to force them to isolate themselves from a group environment they wouldn’t know what to do with themselves. This group mentality, or, as some people call it, herd mentality, also applies to their thinking; as people tend to associate with people of like minds regarding certain subjects or issues.

For instance, you would not find a member of PETA, (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals) associating with members of the NRA, (National Rifle Association); their ideologies and beliefs would clash and therefore the members of these two groups tend to seek out others who think the same way they do.

The reason I bring this up is because I find it interesting when people from different groups, with different mindsets, find are thrown together and begin discussing issues where the two groups are in direct opposition to each other in regards to their views on said issues. The resulting conversations, if you can call them conversations, tend to be quite lively and animated.

What I find interesting though is that very few facts are provided during these ‘conversations’. It often sounds like people are just repeating the 30 second sound bites they hear on TV and claiming them as their own beliefs. What I find even more interesting is how these people react when someone well armed with facts enters the foray.

When that happens it seems to show me that most of the people engaged in discussion of the issues have never had an original idea of their own; they just mimic what they’ve heard on TV. Facts are something they are not prepared to deal with; so they resort to tried and true tactics; they resort to name calling or insults.

It seems that honest open debate is a lost art from in America these days. Instead of researching a subject thoroughly and then examining both sides of an issue, people choose a side then stick by it no matter how weak the evidence backing their position is. They become angry, violent even, when someone with facts that shoot their position full of holes enters the discussion, as they are unprepared for it.

I also have noticed that there is a lot of hypocrisy and double standards these groups have. I can’t count the times I’ve had people cheer me on as I ripped into someone because the candidate they chose made comments that I disagreed with. But then that same person who cheered me would become angry when I ripped into the candidate they support for doing the same exact thing the candidate they opposed had done. There is not a lot of integrity in people who say it is okay for one party to do something, but when the other guys do it they say it is wrong.

The point I’m trying to get at here is that I do not see a lot of critical thinking going on here. Sure from time to time I encounter someone else who has truly researched the issues. But you know what, when I find these people they tend to think the same way I do; that things are totally screwed up in this country and that there isn’t much hope to repair the damage that’s been done.

That’s the thing about facts; they eventually lead you to a conclusion. For those who ignore facts they are caught in the illusion that our system still functions as designed, even though certain members of our government may be a tad corrupt, or drunk on the power they hold. These people have not examined the facts, not in any great detail anyway, and therefore they still believe in a broken system and will argue till they are blue in the face that their beliefs, their ideology, will take America into the future and fix all that ails her.

History is a great teacher; if you are willing to learn from it. However, if you choose to ignore it you are doomed to repeat it. Have you ever seen a sine wave? A sine wave is a mathematical curve used to map out fluctuations in things. Typically a sine wave builds up to a peak level then gradually decreases and then begins building to a negative peak; whereupon it begins climbing back towards a positive peak again. This process is repeated over and over again. If you have ever watched any of the old Outer Limits TV shows by Rod Serling you will have seen a sine wave at the beginning of each episode.

If you were to take a sine wave and then put freedom at the top of the graph and put slavery at the bottom, I think you would get a fair representation of the course which humanity takes over the ages. History is full of examples of how people rose out of servitude and gained their freedom, only to fall back into bondage again. If you think that could not happen in this country then you have not studied, and I mean truly studied, history.

Now you may be asking yourselves why has Neal gone from talking about how many articles he has written to sine waves to freedom and bondage. Glad you asked. It is because I have been studying the history of this country for over a decade now. Although there are others I know who have been at it longer than I have, I still have a better understanding of it than the average mall rat, soccer mom, or beer guzzling football fan.

So to all who disagree with the things I have been writing about I would like to issue a challenge. I would like for you to try writing an article a day for 2 weeks; a homework assignment of sorts. Your articles must be at least 3 pages in length and contain verifiable facts and evidence to support your opinions. Think you can do that? After all, it is only 14 articles, and I’ve going at an article a day pace for twice that long.

I ask this of you not to punish you, but to get you to research the validity of your beliefs; does the evidence back them up or does it tear them down. You may be surprised at what you find.

Aside from my friends who already write articles similar to mine I don’t expect anyone to take up this challenge. I expect that most will be content to live their lives believing the lies and propaganda they hear on TV and read in the papers.

If you choose not to accept my challenge I only ask one thing of you; keep your mouths shut if you are not in possession of the facts to back up your opinions. Your ignorance is making me sick.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

The Magic Words

When I was growing up manners were something that were pounded into children’s heads 24/7. I remember constantly being told that ‘PLEASE’ was the magic word. You don’t see manners that much these days; kids today go around saying things that, when I was that age, would have caused my parents to wash my mouth out with soap. You rarely hear the words please, thank you, or Yes Sir, Yes Ma’am anymore. I’m betting most of these kids have never felt the sting of a belt across their backside for disobeying a parent. But I’m not here to talk about the lack of manners, or the disrespect children have towards their elders, I’m here to talk about the magic words I’ve been waiting to hear.

You see, children come into this world as blank slates; their minds similar to a new computer with just the most basic of operating systems. Their young minds are just developed enough to keep their hearts beating, their lungs pumping air, and their muscles working. But through their senses; sight, touch, smell, hearing and taste, their minds become virtual storehouses of information. It just depends upon what they are exposed to over the course of their developmental years that determines what they will grow up to be as adults.

I’m not saying that a child born into a living hell is defined by their childhood; but it most definitely leaves memories and can shape you. Believe me, I have some very unpleasant memories from my own childhood which caused me, at times, to make stupid decisions and do things I would later in life regret.

I think there is one crucial point people often forget; they do have freedom of choice in life. My dad used to always tell me, when I made excuses for my actions, that no one was twisting my arm to do something, I had a choice to make and, since I was being lectured or disciplined, it was obvious I had made the wrong one.

You see, as much as I rebelled against my parents when I was a child, those teachings had been planted in my mind; it just took longer for them to take root and grow fruit than my parents had hoped. I’ve often wondered what my father would think of me today if he were still alive to see the person I’ve become. Would he approve, or would we still butt heads over everything as we did when he was still alive? It’s a question I’ll never get the answer to, but one which I think about often.

Why am I talking about all this? Partly it is reminiscing, partly it is I have nothing else on my mind but still felt the urge to write; but I think there is something else going on in the back of my mind that has yet to reveal itself; so I’ll keep on pecking away at this keyboard until it makes itself known to me.

I really don’t know what to make of kids today. They whine and complain about life and think it is so hard, but from my perspective kids today have it way too easy. I grew up in a one TV house; and it was a 13 inch black and white with no cable. We had a party line phone and were not allowed to make or receive calls on it. We played outside and followed our parent’s orders. We didn’t connect with friends on Facebook or by text messaging; we rode our bikes over to their homes and talked to them face to face. Nothing was given to us; we had to earn everything. I remember buying my first car, a beat up 1965 Volkswagen Beetle; but I was so proud that I had worked and saved up enough to buy my own car.

It wasn’t just these things that made the America of the 60′s a different place than it is today; it was the overall climate, or atmosphere in America that was different, but undergoing a subtle change that would eventually lead us to where we are today.

You see, back then patriotism and American Pride were a big deal. Some may call it blind patriotism; standing behind your country even when it’s wrong, but even if it was misguided the basic principles which people believed in were different than they are today. And there is something else that was different; people tended to think a lot more back then than they do today.

Like I said, we didn’t have a TV in every room; we didn’t have PC’s, laptops, or iPads; we didn’t have cell phones, video games, and all the other things kids today take for granted. So we read…a lot! Our schools used to give us books to read; and after reading write a book report upon. We didn’t have Wikipedia to go to and get a quick synopsis of the book, thereby cheating on the homework assignment; we actually had to read the book, and then explain how it made us feel.

As stupid as that may sound to today’s kids, that forces a child to think. You couldn’t just read a book and then write, “There was this guy, an astronaut, who got sent to the moon but his spaceship crashed and he had to build another one out of spare parts and fly it back to the Earth.” No, you had to actually think about how the book made you feel, and what the author may have been trying to convey. Was his book an analogy for something else; a grander metaphor for society, or was it just a science fiction story?

You see, thinking is not a skill you are born with; it is a skill that has to be developed. It is said Thomas Edison once said, “Five percent of the people think; ten percent of the people think they think; and the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think.”

People confuse what they do on a day to day basis with thinking; making decisions is not critical thought. It does not require much thought to decide which clothes to wear, what food to eat, or which political candidate to vote for, for that matter. Deep critical thinking; the kind of thinking where you examine something from all angles, putting aside your emotions and prejudices and weighing facts on both sides of an issue, and coming to a conclusion based upon your examinations, that does not occur that often in people’s lives.

The thing about critical thinking is that the more you do it, the easier it becomes. Another thing about it; once you get into the habit of doing it you find that you can’t stop; you analyze everything; even while you sleep. I can’t count the times I have gone to bed at night, only to wake up with the concept for an article fully fleshed out in my mind. I wasn’t even aware I had been thinking about that subject, but my mind was busy at work, tossing ideas around until it had a finished product just waiting for my fingers to enter into my keyboard.

There is this thing I think about from time to time; my mind keeps coming back to it like a pet project of sorts. It is how over the course of our nation’s history we have had critical periods where the course which our country would take was decided.

The American Revolution is, of course, the first of these periods. The Founders took principles they had learned, or been exposed to, and incorporated them into our founding documents and the resulting system of government. The principles of individual rights, self-reliance, and love for their God played paramount roles in how they viewed the future course our young nation should take.

Yet when the drafters of the Constitution left the building Ben Franklin was accosted by a woman who asked what system of government they had produced, a Republic or a Monarchy. Franklin replied, in either a moment of wit or a serious comment on human nature; “A Republic Madam, if you can keep it.”

I tend to think Franklin was expressing his doubts on the ability of people to keep alive the principles upon which this country was founded upon. Why else would he say to those who participated in creating our Constitution, “…there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administered; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.”

If Franklin was being a bit prophetic, then the question one must ask is how long is this Course of Years he spoke of; which leads me to the next critical period in our nation’s history; The Civil War.

The Civil War tore this country in two, and in some areas that chasm still festers like an old wound that has never fully healed; of that I think we can all agree. The reasons why that war took place and the things both sides stood for is where the disagreement comes into play. But I don’t want to talk so much about the reasons for, but instead I would like to talk about the consequences of that war.

If one had studied the founding of this country to the extent that I, and a few others have, you would realize that in creating our system of government the States were to be co-equal partners in the deciding of what powers the government shall wield; the other body being the great mass of the people. The Constitution may have outlined the general powers, but it was the will of the people and the States which directed the actions of the federal government.

In the years leading up to the Civil War the federal government became almost like an Artificial Intelligence that has become self-aware. During these years the federal government began usurping, [assuming] powers that rightfully belonged to the States. When certain States felt that these usurpations had reached a point in which they felt the federal government was detrimental to their well being they chose to withdraw from the Union; exercising the same powers our Founders had when they withdrew from the British Empire and became an independent nation.

However, Abraham Lincoln, and his cronies in the Republican Party, decided the States did not have the right to secede, that the federal government itself was sovereign over the will of the States and their citizens. Lincoln used force to compel the seceded Southern States into adherence to the Union, thereby solidifying the power of the federal government as sovereign over them. That is the consequence of the Civil War, and it matters not whether the war was fought over tariffs, slavery, or any of the other reasons I have had thrown in my face.

The next period which, once again, altered the path of this nation was the era which saw the Great Depression and World War II. I will not deny the fact that I believe the Depression to have been engineered by the banking cartels to shift wealth from private hands into their own. You may disagree, but I believe that were you capable of critical thinking that the evidence is there to prove I am probably correct in my statement. Yet it is not how the Depression happened, but, once again, the consequences of it that I wish to speak about.

As the Civil War made the States nothing more than provinces under the control of the federal government, the era of the Depression and WW II saw the people become dependent slaves to the federal government. FDR’s New Deal programs, many of which still exist today, enslave a people to their government through the dependence upon the benefits they receive from good ole benevolent Uncle Sam. After all, one would not bite the very hand that feed them; would they? A people are far less likely to wish to see their government reduced in size, shut down, or overthrown when the people are reliant upon the funds that government provides for their existence.

The next period I wish to discuss is the 60′s; the period in which I grew up. The assassination of John F. Kennedy rocked this country like no other event ever had, except for maybe 9/11. I remember the shock, the awe, the way people mourned his death. It was as if a vital aspect of our beliefs had been ripped out of our being and tossed into the fire. America never was the same after that tragic day in Dallas in 1963.

However, it is the aftermath of Kennedy’s assassination that I wish to discuss. When LBJ assumed office he followed in the footsteps of FDR and instituted his Great Society. More social programs were established to help the poor and needy; thereby creating an even larger percentage of people dependent upon the government as well.

This period of American History was also the period when another war, this one on foreign soil, tore this nation asunder; Vietnam. The anti war movement and the hippy culture which flourished during this tumultuous time was fertile breeding ground for principles that were diametrically opposed to those held by the very men who had established this Republic over 170 yrs prior. Marxist Socialist ideology crept into the hearts and minds of many and resulted in an even greater shift in how people viewed the purpose of their government. Government came to be looked upon as the equalizer, the settler of all social injustice, and the benevolent granter of equality to all. These beliefs killed, for the most part, the self-reliant attitudes held by the men who created our Republic and I have often wondered if this isn’t the exact moment in our history when we achieved the state Franklin spoke of when he said we would be, “… so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.”

I see these events, these periods in American History as stages which have taken us from being a free people to a people who are slaves to their government and the moneyed interests which control it. But there was/is one final stage which must occur for our slavery to be complete; which leads me to my final critical period of American History; 9/11.

The Kennedy assassination may have tore out our hearts and caused us to fear that our leaders may, at any time, be taken from us, but 9/11 exposed an even greater fear; our vulnerability. If there is one thing people fear, it is fear. They hate being afraid that they aren’t safe and sound in their cozy little lives. 9/11 forever shattered our illusion that the world is a safe place.

Again, just as I believe the Depression was engineered, I also believe 9/11 was planned and executed to get the people to support a War on Terror and all the resulting Draconian anti-liberty legislation that ensued. How else to better enslave a people than for them to come begging to government to make them safe; even at the cost of their most precious rights?

Look at all that has happened since 9/11; the Patriot Act, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the growth of the TSA and NSA and their spying upon us. The police state which grew up out of the ashes of 9/11 is the enforcement arm of a tyrant and if you can’t see that you are blind! Look at your local police force and how they have changed from foot cops who knew the people they protected to fully militarized agencies who abuse anyone who questions unlawful authority. If these changes in the climate in America do not frighten you, I don’t know what will.

Like I said, I believe there is a force at work, evil in its intent, which seeks to undermine and destroy everything this country stood for when it was established in 1776. This force is everywhere, it runs the government, it runs our schools, and it owns the media. It also likes to tease us with little clues to its acts. In films it often hides the truth in a fictional story to see if anyone is paying attention; if anyone is thinking. Most aren’t.

For instance, in the Captain America film the Winter Soldier there is one scene where the Captain and the Black Widow find the room where HYDRA has stored the mind of Doctor Zola on banks of computers. Zola tells them the truth about the agency they work for S.H.I.E.L.D., “HYDRA was founded on the belief that humanity could not be trusted with its own freedom. What we did not realize was that if you tried to take that freedom, they resist. The war taught us much. Humanity needed to surrender its freedom willingly. After the war, S.H.I.E.L.D. was founded, and I was recruited. The new HYDRA grew, a beautiful parasite inside S.H.I.E.L.D. For 70 years, HYDRA has been secretly feeding crises, reaping war. And when history did not cooperate, history was changed.”

Well a parasite has been growing in America for years, and it is eating away at all that America was founded upon. I find it alarming that most of the presidents responsible for bringing about these drastic changes in America are considered by many to be great presidents. FDR, Lincoln are both seen as great men when the truth is they perverted the beliefs this country once stood for.

Which brings me around almost full circle. In the beginning I spoke of the magic words I was raised to use; please being first and foremost. But I have my own magic words that I long to hear from people; yet have consistently been denied; those being, “I never thought about it like that.”

So people, I will use the magic word I grew up hearing and beseech you to use your brains, and PLEASE think about what is happening to your country before it is too late.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

If I Were To Ask You Who Just Died

April 21, 2016 the world is shocked when it hears the news that music superstar Prince has been found dead. Suddenly it is all over the news; speculation and rumors abounding with suggestions that he may have overdosed on painkillers.

Was Prince talented; no doubt about that, he was. Was he a great guitarist; again, no questions about it, he was. But people die every day and they don’t get a moment’s notice on TV unless they are a celebrity. Are we in for another love-fest such as the one that followed the death of Michael Jackson; where people pay tribute to his music, his life, and how he touched their lives?

Did you know that the CDC, (Centers for Disease Control), reported that 2.5 million people died in the United States last year? That’s over seven thousand people a day! Terminally ill patients, car accidents, victims of violent crime, and all sorts of other causes of death could be listed for these deaths, but why is it that one superstar, one actress, one elected official dies and the world goes nuts.

I’m sorry, I can’t help but think of that scene in The Dark Knight when the Joker tells Harvey Dent the following, “You know what I’ve noticed? Nobody panics when things go according to plan. Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blow up, nobody panics, because it’s all part of the plan. But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds.”

What is it with people that we place these celebrities up on these pedestals and then when they die we are devastated? My dad often told me stories about how he met people of status over the course of his life; Generals, Public Leaders…Presidents even. You know what he told me? He said that he treated them just like he would treat anyone else; he gave their position no special treatment. After all, he said, they all put their pants on the same way as he did. That has always stuck with me.

Now I would be lying to you if I said there were no celebrities I wanted to meet; of course there are. There are some people whose brains I’d love to pick. Then there are others I’d like to meet face to face so I could tear into them; rip them the proverbial new asshole. But you know what? If they died life would go on and I wouldn’t miss a step. I don’t know about the rest of society, but my life is not founded on an emotional attachment to the lives of some celebrity, and it doesn’t fall apart when that celebrity dies. I have more important issues to worry about.

I don’t know if all these things, things like professional sports, Reality TV shows, social media sites, and everything else people do these days are there so they can keep people distracted from reality, or if the people just use them to avoid reality.

Again, to use a movie analogy, it reminds me of the scene from Gladiator when Falco and Gracchus meet outside the Coliseum and are discussing the games, “Rome is the mob. Conjure magic for them and they’ll be distracted. Take away their freedom and still they’ll roar. The beating heart of Rome is not the marble of the senate, it’s the sand of the coliseum. He’ll bring them death – and they will love him for it.” Replace Rome with the United States and you have an exact description of how I see the general population of this country.

Even in politics I see a resemblance of how people view candidates compared to how they view celebrities. I remember seeing news coverage of the throngs of people at Obama’s campaign rallies, standing there, shoulder to shoulder, with this awed expression on their faces, some with tears rolling down their cheeks, like they were witnessing the return of Jesus. Honestly, it was right then and there that I lost all hope for humanity; if they could not see through the facade and see what Barack Obama represented, then there was no hope.

This is not an isolated event, or an indictment of Obama; the same could be said for the rabid followers of anyone; Cruz, Trump, Hillary, Sanders, any of them. We Americans put these people up onto pedestals as if they were gods and then we ignore the fact that they are, in fact, just human beings; subject to all the flaws that we are. We ignore the fact that they violate their oaths of office and exercise powers it was never intended any of them have. We ignore the fact with each successive change of administrations our rights diminish just a bit more.

Yet when I try to warn people about these things they look at me like I’m out of my mind. Yet in 1774, in his Rights of British America, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “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.”

Can people not see that the danger Jefferson spoke of is happening right in front of their very eyes, and that they are participating in choosing who will be the slave-owners? People get so bloody offended today over all things Confederate because they say these images represent slavery. Yet if these same people were to open their eyes and use their brains, they would see that the icons of both the Republican and Democrat Party’s, the red white and blue elephant and donkey, represent who will be the slave master over the people who are foolish enough to believe that the people they vote for have any intention of adhering to the limits upon their power, or respect for our rights.

Liberty died a very long time ago in America and very few even batted an eye. One musician dies and the entire country, all the way up to the Imposter in Chief mourns. That alone ought to tell you all you need to know about this country.

Posted in General | Leave a comment