I can’t recall how many times have I used a particular quote from the Declaration of Independence, but of all the quotes I have used I believe this one is the most important that people understand. So I will repeat it again, “…that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men…”

Far too many people in this country don’t care about the history of this nation, or how our constitution came into existence. They are completely unaware that when the convention that produced the constitution was called, the purpose was only to amend the Articles of Confederation, nothing more.

If I can’t get people to take the time to sit down and read the constitution, I am pretty certain that they won’t read the Articles of Confederation either. Yet they are just as important as the constitution because they allow you to see what changes were made to our system of government when the constitution was ratified.

The Articles of Confederation were written in 1776 and sent to the states for ratification in 1777. They are considered to be our nation’s first actual constitution. I won’t bother to include the entire document, but Articles two and three should be read so that people understand what was to be the purpose, and the limits imposed upon government.

Article II. 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.

Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defence, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding them-selves to assist each other against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever.

If you notice, in Article II we once again come across that word sovereignty. It is of the utmost importance that people understand the meaning of that word. Sovereignty means, a) supreme authority, b) freedom from outside interference and the right to self-government, and c) a politically independent state.

In the Supreme Court case of Julliard vs. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 we find the following quote, “There is no such thing as power of inherent Sovereignty in the government of the United States. In this country sovereignty resides in the People, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it; All else is withheld.” That is the highest court in the land saying that we the people retain the power, and the government cannot assume any power which has not expressly been granted it by the constitution.

The primary purpose of government is to protect our inherent rights, rights which we derive from God, “…That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”

Our constitution was written to grant government the least amount of power necessary to manage the affairs of the nation, while reserving the remainder of the power to the states, and to the people. It was never the intent to give the government the power to micromanage, or regulate the lives of the people!

These facts are plainly stated for anyone who would take the time to read, and understand, the 9th and 10th amendments to the constitution;

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Even with the limitations upon government contained within the constitution, not everyone was happy about the idea of a stronger, more centralized government. Out of the fifty five delegates to the convention, thirteen refused to attend and out of those who did, only thirty nine were willing to affix their names to it.

In particular, the delegates from New York, John Lansing, and Robert Yates walked out of the convention because they felt that the changes being made could not “afford that security to equal and permanent liberty which we wished to make an invariable object of our pursuit.” Perhaps these men foresaw the dangers to our liberty which would be made possible by a strong central government.

To summarize what I have discussed so far, we the people are sovereign, and the protection of our rights, which God endowed us with, is the main purpose for which government was instituted. Therefore, when we allow our government to trample upon our rights, we are allowing them to take away something that is a gift from God, something which they have absolutely no authority to infringe upon.

People think that these documents which created our system of government were the first such documents to bind the states together is some form of perpetual union. By assuming that they are wrong.

One hundred and thirty years prior to the Declaration of Independence, a group of colonists got together and wrote The Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England.

From that document I quote, “Whereas we all came into these parts of America with one and the same end and aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and to enjoy the liberties of the Gospel in purity with peace.”

Furthermore, the second Article states, “The said United Colonies for themselves and their posterities do jointly and severally hereby enter into a firm and perpetual league of friendship and amity for offence and defence, mutual advice and succor upon all just occasions both for preserving and propagating the truth and liberties of the Gospel and for their own mutual safety and welfare.”

That may not go over too well with those who espouse the belief of a separation of church and state, but the people who founded this great nation came here to advance the Kingdom of God and enjoy the freedom to openly practice their religious beliefs.

We certainly have come a long way, haven’t we? From a nation whose purpose was to allow people to openly worship, and retain their God-given liberties, to one in which an all powerful government infringes upon both.

1 Corinthians 10 states, “Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?” Yet isn’t that exactly what is happening? Aren’t we allowing other men’s conscience to be the judges or our liberty?

If our rights and liberty are indeed gifts from God, how can anyone who claims to be Christian, sit back and allow their government to take from them what they have no right to take, and what they have no right to surrender?

In the book of Isaiah we read, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness…” Edmund Burke once said, “All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing.” That is exactly what is happening in this country today. Evil is winning because people are too concerned with their own happiness and security, or they are too concerned that they may offend someone else by speaking out.

As Christians we are told not to condemn, yet is it not also our jobs to proclaim the truth, to enlighten people about the errors of their ways? In 1 Corinthians 6 we read, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

In 2 Corinthians 6 we are warned to “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?” Our first president, George Washington, once said, “Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation. It is better be alone than in bad company.”

He also said, “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.”

Our country is in its current sad state of affairs because we have done just that, disregarded the eternal rules of order which Heaven itself has ordained. We justify sin under the banner of political correctness and tolerance. We look to government to fix all that ails our country, when all we need do is to look inside our own lives and seek to live according to the laws contained in Scripture.

Scripture is full of times when the faithful fell into evil ways. The blessings bestowed by God were withheld from them until they became repentant and returned to a life of righteousness. What makes Americans think that they are any more deserving of the blessings of liberty and freedom when they refuse to renounce their evil ways an return to God?

Part of the problem is that during the winter months I get somewhat depressed as I am a warm weather person. I remember times when, as a military contractor, I would get sent to the middle east. While most people stayed inside nice cozy air conditioned trailers, I would sit outside in the 120 degree sun just soaking up the rays. The heat from a hot summer day does something to energize and revitalize me, and during the winter months I lose that feeling of vitality.

However, there is more to it than just the cold dreary weather getting me down. Imagine for a moment someone you loved was diagnosed with an incurable terminal illness. Think about how painful, and depressing it would be as you watched this person whither away, knowing there was nothing you could do to stop it.

That is similar to how I feel, but it is not a person who is dying, it is my country, and I feel powerless to stop it. I have been told I am anal retentive because I constantly write about the same subject matter over and over again. But didn’t George W. Bush say that you have to keep repeating things for “…the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”

I have to keep repeating myself because people just don’t seem to understand the seriousness of the subject matter I discuss. What bothers me the most is the depth of the apathy of the people I come into contact with on a daily basis.

It would be impossible for me to meet every single person in this country, so when I say that the people of this country are apathetic, and to a certain extent, ignorant, I am basing those comments the attitudes of the people I do come into contact with.

It is sort of like my own localized poll which gives me a overall idea of how the rest of the country feels regarding the issues I discuss. I know that it isn’t scientific, and probably isn’t very accurate either, yet the attitudes and opinions of those I do speak to on a daily basis is discomforting.

Even among those who read my articles there are those who remain unconvinced that the actions of their government are detrimental to their rights and their liberty. It seems almost as if the people who read my articles consider them works of fiction, without any basis in reality.

Can people really be too lazy, or preoccupied with whatever it is they do in their spare time, to take the time to do research about the damage their government is doing to their rights?

People care more about whether they will get laid this weekend, the outcome of their kids soccer match, what is on sale at the mall, or whether their favorite football team is going to win next Sunday.

For the life of me, I cannot understand how these things can be of such great importance that they would ignore the fact that their very freedom is slowly being taken from them by the very people they entrusted to safeguard it. What I find even more astounding is that people actually support the actions of their government concerning these infringements of their rights. They believe their government when they are told it is necessary for their safety and security.

Daniel Webster once said, “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.”

Yet people still believe that the sole purpose of government is to do things to make their lives easier, safer, and more comfortable. It is a commonly held belief that people are entitled to a safe comfortable life, and if they cannot provide for it themselves then it is the job of the government to provide it for them.

It matters little to people that our government does not produce anything. Everything our government does comes at the expense of the taxpayer. Every project they fund, every subsidy they provide is paid for by someone whose wealth is confiscated to provide for those who are less fortunate, or too damn lazy to obtain it themselves.

That is plunder, pure and simple. Frederic Bastiat once said, “But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them and gives it to the other persons to whom it doesn’t belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.” Bastiat also said that when such laws are found, they should be abolished without delay.

For instance, this whole belief that the government has the power to mandate that people purchase some form of health insurance, or that the government itself can provide it for them, is a huge assumption of power and authority nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

People are crying out for health insurance, but they refuse to take responsibility for their own health. They feed themselves junk, swill beer and sodas, smoke cigarettes, and sit on their asses watching television. Does that sound like people care about their health to you? No, they only want someone to fix the problems they themselves create.

Maybe that is why people don’t care if their freedom is being taken from them. Maybe it is because along with freedom comes the responsibility of accepting the consequences of their actions. Far too many people want all sort of benefits without the hassle of having to earn them themselves.

I see this daily at work, people clock in and think that their very presence is enough to earn them a pay check. Heaven forbid they be expected to do anything that would cause them to break a sweat. Just today I saw someone repeatedly ask someone else to go get a box from a pallet because they were too damn lazy to get their fat ass off a stool and take two steps to get it themselves. I have nothing but contempt for people like that. It is people like that who think that the government, and society in general owe them something, that they are entitled to these benefits and subsidies.

Along the same lines, the same applies to watching over the actions of their government. They want someone else, someone like me, to do it for them. They claim not to have the time, when in reality they just don‘t have the inclination to do it themselves. Yet Thomas Paine once said, “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”

So, you can see how I might feel a bit stressed that I cannot get people to see the damage their government is doing to their liberty. But the issues I discuss are just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak.

I am certain that many would like to see me placed into a padded cell if I dare discuss what is really going on in this country. If people cannot see the truth about something as simple as the infringement of their rights, how are they going to believe the extent of the conspiracy our elected representatives are participating in?

As former director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover once said, “The individual is handicapped by coming fact to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.”

People, for the most part, still believe that it is the government which runs this country. That has not been true for a very long time. Those people we call our elected representatives are simply puppets to those who own and control them. Yet whenever someone brings this subject up, they are immediately dismissed as some sort of kook, a believer of far-fetched conspiracies.

However, former New York Mayor John Hylan understood the truth, and he explained it in no uncertain terms, “The Real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state, and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of a self created screen. At the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both political parties.”

This invisible government is comprised of the wealthiest of the wealthy. They sit atop fortunes that dwarf that of people like Bill Gates, and their desire is for world dominion.

One of these, James Paul Warburg, once said, “We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.”

For these people, taking control of nations is nothing more than a hostile takeover on a global scale. They can do this because they control the money in this country. Mayer Rothschild, of the Rothschild banking dynasty is quoted as saying, “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws.”

Josiah Stamp, former President of the Bank of England also stated, “Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money and control credit, and with a flick of a pen they will create enough to buy it back.”

Our Congress, back in 1913, gave away it’s right to coin our nation’s currency. They gave that right to a group of these bankers when they passed the Federal Reserve Act, creating the Federal Reserve Bank.

H. L. Birum once explained exactly what the Federal Reserve Bank is, “The Federal Reserve Bank is nothing but a banking fraud and an unlawful crime against civilization. Why? Because they “create” the money made out of nothing, and our Uncle Sap Government issues their “Federal Reserve Notes” and stamps our Government approval with NO obligation whatever from these Federal Reserve Banks, Individual Banks or National Banks, etc.”

The first step was to give these international bankers control of our money supply. The next step was to severe the ties that money held to anything substantial, such as gold.

Even former FED Chairman, Alan Greenspan admitted that by saying, “In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. … This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process.”

You might ask, why does our government put up with this? It is simple. When our government only had the money it took in from taxes to fund its operations it was limited in what they could do because of financial constraints. They allowed it to happen because now they have the FED, which is more than willing to loan them billions of dollars to fund their operations.

What people don’t realize is that the payment for this debt, that is incurred by their government to fund all these programs, is the responsibility of the people of this country. Your Congressman, your Senator, and past and present Presidents are not the ones who are liable for the current $12 trillion national debt, you are.

These banking interests have created organizations whose job it is to ensure their plan for global domination move forward. One of these organizations is the Trilateral Commission. Barry Goldwater told us just what their function was to be, “The Trilateralist Commission is international…(and)…is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States.”

I am guessing that by now, many are thinking I have lost my marbles, that I am certifiably insane. I am sure you are thinking that if all this is true, why haven’t we heard about it on the news? It is because these people own the media as well.

On February 9, 1917, Congressman Oscar Calloway made the following statement, which is recorded in the Congressional Record, “In March 1915 the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interests, and their subsidiary organizations got together twelve men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press of the United States. These twelve men worked the problem out by selecting 179 newspapers, and then began, by an elimination process, to retain only those necessary for the daily press throughout the country. They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of twenty-five of the greatest newspapers. The twenty-five papers were agreed upon; emissaries were sent to purchase the policy, national and international, of these papers; an agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.”

In fact, David Rockefeller gave praise to the media at a meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations, “We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

This conspiracy, and that is exactly what it is, has been in progress for a long time. Even former President Franklin Roosevelt knew it because he said, “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson. History depicts Andrew Jackson as the last truly honorable and incorruptible American president.”

Still you ask, why haven’t you heard about all this? Playwright Arthur S. Miller knew why, “Those who formally rule take their signals and commands not from the electorate as a body, but from a small group of men. This group will be called the Establishment. It exists even though that existence is stoutly denied. It is one of the secrets of the American social order… A second secret is the fact that the existence of the Establishment - the ruling class - is not supposed to be discussed.”

It would be my guess that to most people the preceding quote sounds vaguely familiar. I know for certain that anyone who has read my articles has definitely read it. Sadly I am of the belief that the vast majority who read it just glance over it without giving it more than a moments thought.

It seems to me that documents such as the constitution and the Declaration of Independence are taken for granted. But it is the principle contained within that quote which forms the foundation upon which our entire system of government was built. Therefore people would do well to take just a bit of time from their busy schedules to really think about what Thomas Jefferson meant when he penned those words.

Weighty issues such as rights and liberty are no longer of much importance to the average American. People are more concerned with their own comfort, security, or their quest for gratification.

Because of that, it has been an easy task for our government to expand it’s powers far beyond those originally intended, and in so doing slowly, but surely strip us of the liberty that our founders sought to protect.

That being said, I have to agree with Ben Franklin, who said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” But I get ahead of myself. Let us go back and see what exactly Jefferson meant when he placed those words in the Declaration of Independence.

In my last article I spoke about maxims, things that are widely accepted as true. Self evident is just another way of saying maxim. Therefore when Jefferson said that these truths were self-evident, he meant that there was no disagreement, they were accepted as a truth.

Jefferson continued by saying that all men were created equal and that they were endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Jefferson, as well as many of the founding fathers, was a follower of the principle of natural law. Natural laws exist due to our status as humans, not due to the benevolent grants given by man, or government.

John Adams also believed in the principle of natural law, which was proven by the following from his draft of the Declaration of Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, “All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.”

Natural laws predate any form of government. The Bible does not state that God first created government, then man. Therefore if our rights are a gift from God, then they existed at the time God created the very first man, Adam.

Eighteenth century Judge, Sir William Blackstone, once wrote an extensive treatise entitled Commentaries on the Laws of England, from which I quote, “MAN, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his creator, for he is entirely a dependent being.…And consequently as man depends absolutely upon his maker for every thing, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his maker’s will.

THIS will of his maker is called the law of nature. For as God, when he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature…”

Government, in whatever form it takes, is a creation of man, and therefore natural law supersedes any laws created by man, or by governments instituted by man.

Government, for a very long time now, has been slowly working to restrict, or completely do away with our rights, and our liberty. This goes at least as far back to when not so honest Abraham Lincoln was president.

Many believe that Lincoln was one of our greatest presidents, right up there with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. They believe this because they have been taught that he fought a war to free the slaves. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Lincoln didn’t care one way or another about freeing the slaves. That may be hard to accept for many, seeing as how they have been lied to all their lives about the history of the civil war. Yet all one has to do is to research the matter and they would find the truth for themselves.

From a letter to Horace Greeley, let’s see what Lincoln himself said, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

In fact, Lincoln was of the belief that the blacks were unequal and inferior to whites. In a presidential debate against Stephen Douglas, Lincoln stated, “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”

History books are filled with lies about supposedly great presidents who, in reality, abused their power and authority, and in so doing trampled upon our rights. And the sad thing is that the abuses continue to this day, all the while people are too preoccupied with their own trials and tribulations to learn the truth.

There is one thing that people, especially those who profess to be Christian, should give a great deal of thought to. In the case of Robin v. Hard away (1772), George Mason argued the following, “All acts of legislature apparently contrary to natural right and just are, in our laws, and must be in the nature of things, considered as void. The laws of nature are the laws of God; Whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us.”

In the book of Luke Christ admonished us by saying, “Take heed that ye be not deceived.” Yet we have been deceived, by the very people we put our faith in to uphold the constitution, and safeguard our rights.

I would ask that, if you be so inclined, that you read 2 Timothy, Chapter 3 in its entirety. Could that be the reason we pay more attention to trivial matters, than we do in fighting for the very rights which are a gift from our God?

Our most fundamental rights have been infringed upon so much that they are virtually gone. Anytime I need to obtain a permit, pay a fee, or obtain permission from any governmental agency to do something, it has ceased to be a right.

In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson described one final right we also held, “…that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

Remember though, the southern states tried that once, and not so honest Abe took our nation to war to prevent them from asserting what was rightfully theirs, their sovereignty.

Some people may read this, then go back to their lives without giving it much though. Others might just say I am spouting more conspiracy theories and ignore me completely. To those who refuse to learn the truth I would like to quote Patrick Henry, “Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.”

To those of you who accept the lies fed to you by your elected officials without even bothering to question the truth, or learn the legality of their actions, remember, Christ warned you, “Take heed that ye be not deceived.” How are you going to explain yourself when you are asked why you let the rights God gave you be stripped from you by deceitful men? I hope you have a good answer.

While no nation, or system of government is perfect, it is my belief that due to the principles contained in our founding documents, the united states of America comes about as close to perfect as one could expect.

In a speech delivered to the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin stated, “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 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. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. … It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does…”

In drafting, and ratifying the constitution, the several stated created a new form of government and granted it certain limited powers to manage the affairs of the union as a whole. It was never their intent that this newly created system of government would micromanage the minutest aspect of the peoples lives.

Our system of government was created with the belief that men have certain inherent rights that no man, nor system of government could take away, that these rights were there’s from birth as a gift from their Creator.

In fact, Thomas Jefferson declared that belief when he drafted the Declaration of Independence. From that document I quote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Liberty seems to be one of those words which people claim to understand, yet in reality they have no idea what it truly means. Jefferson defined it as, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. ”

Hugo Adam Bedau went even further by saying, “Government should allow persons to engage in whatever conduct they want to, no matter how deviant or abnormal it may be, so long as (a) they know what they are doing, (b) they consent to it, and (c) no one– at least no one other than the participants–is harmed by it.”

That my friends is liberty, the ability to do whatever you want, so long as your actions do not harm others, or restrict them from enjoying the ability to do whatever they please as well.

Now, applying those definitions, and considering all the laws and regulations which our government has put into place to control your lives, can you still say that Americans enjoy the unalienable right of liberty?

Yet, continuing just a bit further in the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson states, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Our government seems to think that it is omnipotent, that it can do whatever it wishes as long as a majority of the people support its actions. That is not the case. The constitution clearly defines what powers the government has, and the government is bound by oath to restrict their actions within the confines of those powers.

In 1884, the Supreme Court, in the case of Julliard vs. Greenman, 110 U.S. 451, ruled that, “There is no such thing as power of inherent Sovereignty in the government of the United States. In this country sovereignty resides in the People, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it; All else is withheld.”

Over the course of time the courts have taken an activist role in interpreting the meaning of the constitution, most often to fit the times. Yet in 1905 the supreme court ruled that, “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.” South Carolina V. US, 199 U.S. 437, 448

Before I go any further, I suppose I should explain what exactly our constitution is. I have heard the terms, contract and charter tossed around when it comes to defining our constitution.

Black’s Dictionary of Law defines a constitution as, “The organic and fundamental law of a nation or state, which may be written or unwritten, establishing the character and conception of its government, laying the basic principles to which its internal life is to conformed, organizing the government, and regulating, distributing, and limiting the functions of its different departments, and prescribing the extent and manner of the exercise of sovereign powers. A charter of government deriving its whole authority from the governed. The written instrument agreed upon by the people of the Union or a particular states, as the absolute rule of action and decision for all departments and officers of the government in respect to all the points covered by it, which must control until it shall be changed by the authority which established it.”

From the same source a charter is defined as, “An instrument emanating from the sovereign power, in the nature of a grant, either to the whole nation, or to a class or portion of the people, to a corporation, or to a colony or dependency, assuring to them certain rights, liberties, or powers. Such was the “Great Charter” or “Magna Charta” and such also were the charters granted to certain of the English colonies in America.

A charter differs from a constitution, in that the former is granted by the sovereign, while the latter is established by the people themselves.”

While a contract is described as, “An agreement between two or more persons which creates an obligation to do or not to do a particular thing. Its essentials are competent parties, subject matter, a legal consideration, mutuality of agreement, and mutuality of obligation.”

Let’s begin by saying our constitution is by no means a contract. I never affixed my name to it, nor did I agree to grant anyone, especially some elected official, the right to pass laws which restrict my rights.

If it were a contract, it would be null and void, as our government has violated the terms of it by passing untold numbers of laws which they had no authority to pass.

The term charter also does not apply as it is something granted from the sovereign to the people, while a constitution is something established by the people themselves.

This principle was affirmed by the courts in the case of Yick Wo vs. Hopkins and Woo Lee vs. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 “…While sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the People, by who and for whom, all government exists and acts.”

The ultimate power, under our constitution, resides in the people. Our constitution grants government certain powers by which they can act on our behalf. Yet the moment they step outside those specifically enumerated powers, their acts become null and void, and not binding upon the people.

Much of what I speak about is from a legal perspective, as in reality things are not the way that they should be if the supreme law of the land were adhered to by our government.

When one speaks in legal terms there are things which are known as maxims. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition, a maxim is defined as, “An established principle of proposition. A principle of law universally admitted as being a correct statement of the law, or as agreeable to reason.” These maxims are commonly accepted as truths that are not questioned.

Therefore, I would like for you to read one of these maxims, taken from the legal encyclopedia American Jurisprudence, “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed … An unconstitutional law is void.” (16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178)

As of late there has been much fuss made by the patriot movement regarding certain states which are attempting to utilize the 10th Amendment to stave off any further federal encroachments of their rights.

While this is a move in the right direction, I still see some problems with this approach. I wonder, how guilty are these states themselves of violating the rights of their citizens? As the safeguarding of our rights is the purpose for which governments were created, how guilty are the states themselves when it comes to infringing upon those rights?

The protection of our rights does not stop at the federal level, it applies equally to all government, all the way to the local level, and there have been numerous court cases which upheld this.

In the case of Miller vs. U.S. 307 U.S. 175, 178-79, the courts ruled that “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot . . . be converted into a crime.” In Hurtado vs. California, 110 U.S. 516, the court ruled that “The State cannot diminish the rights of the people.” And in Murdock vs. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, the court ruled, “A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution.”

I don’t know about everyone who reads my articles, but living in California I can say without a doubt that my state is guilty of violating my rights and liberty. The Declaration of Independence states that our rights are unalienable. If you look up unalienable you will find inalienable, which means, “impossible to take away: not able to be transferred or taken away, for example, because of being protected by law.”

The courts have also upheld this principle in numerous rulings. From the case of City of Dallas v Mitchell we read, “The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government.” I have never willfully given up any of my rights, yet I damn sure have had them infringed upon!

In Miranda vs. Arizona we find, “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Finally, from Westbrook v Mihaly I quote, “Constitutional rights may not be infringed simply because the majority of the people choose that they be.” That means that even if 99.9% of the people think a particular right is offensive, or bad for the public good, it still cannot be infringed upon by law or local ordinance.

The preservation of, what were considered natural rights, was of such great importance that enough states refused to ratify the constitution unless some provisions were made for preserving them. That is how we came to have the Bill of Rights.

Yet over time, government, both federal and local, has infringed upon these rights. Infringe is another of those words that I don’t think people truly understand. Let’s say you have a piece of property in which your front yard measures 65 feet wide by 35 feet deep. Now say your neighbor builds a fence and you discover that your front yard is now only 64 by 35. Your neighbor has infringed upon your property by one foot.

You see, infringement does not mean the sudden loss of something, it means the loss through small, incremental encroachments. And when it comes to rights, we have to remember that no matter how large a majority believe it Is in our bests interest to infringe upon certain rights, as proven in the case of Westbrook v Mihaly, they have no right to do so.

I could go on for days about all the various infringements of our rights, but instead I would like to spend just a few moments to talk about the right to keep and bear arms.

This right is one of those which are clearly defined by the Bill of Rights. As previously shown, numerous court cases prove that a right is something which cannot be legislated upon to infringe, restrict or do away with. Yet the Second Amendment has come under attack at both the federal and state levels.

This is what Blacks Law Dictionary has to say about the term bear arms, “
Bear Arms The Second Amendment, U.S. Constitution, provides that the “right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This right has been restricted however by state and federal laws regulating the transportation, sale, use, and possession of weapons.”

You see, from a legal perspective, the term arms, among other things, means weapons. If you were to look up the word arms in a legal dictionary you would not find any limitations as to type, caliber, or single shot or automatic fire. Arms are merely weapons. Therefore the Second Amendment was designed to protect our right to carry weapons, of any type. Common sense would dictate that people don’t drive through the streets in tanks or carry anti tank missiles or RPG’s, but the right to bear arms cannot be read to mean that a person, who is peaceable, form carrying the weapon of their choice.

In fact, from the Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, we read, “The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.”

Therefore, why do I, as a person who resides in the state of California, have to take a test to prove that I am responsible enough to purchase a firearm? Why do I need to obtain permission from my local government before I am allowed to obtain a concealed weapons permit? Why am I restricted from buying certain types of firearms when these same firearms are perfectly legal in other states? From a purely legal perspective, my right to keep and bear HAS been infringed, of that there can be no doubt.

One thing people need to understand, once government determines that it can impose restrictions, or fees for your ability to exercise a right, it has ceased to be a right and has become a privilege. Let that sink in for a moment. It is important because a privilege is something which those who grant it can, at any time, take away, while a right is something which legally cannot be taken away.

The question then remains, what can we, as individuals, do to protect and defend our rights? As the states are, more often than not, just as guilty of violating our rights in some form or another, are we to leave it up to them to safeguard these rights for us? Or are we as individuals going to stand up and say that, “No, you will not impose this unconstitutional violation of my rights upon me.”

If one values their rights, one must ponder this question with its implications and possible consequences with a great deal of seriousness. Let me explain why. Say I decide to make an addition to my home and I refuse to obtain a building permit. Or say I no longer wish to pay my property taxes. I own my home, having paid off the mortgage years ago, therefore it is mine and I should be allowed to do as I please to it.

Do you think Thomas Jefferson needed a building permit, or paid property taxes on Monticello? What about George Washington, did he need a permit to construct Mount Vernon?

Yet if I refuse to obtain that permit, or pay my property tax I could be fined, jailed, and above all else, lose my home. If I refuse to leave my home peaceably I might even be killed in a standoff with the local authorities.

If I decide I wish to exercise my right to keep and bear arms, and purchase automatic weapons, the federal government, by way of their henchmen, the FBI or the ATF, may come after me in full military gear and kill me for violating what they claim to be law.

You see, standing up for your rights may come at a cost, and a dear one at that. Our founders knew that. When those 56 men affixed their names to the Declaration of Independence, they knew that they had just made themselves enemies of their existing government. Their lives were in peril, but they believed in the principles stated in that document, that our rights come from our Creator, and that they cannot be taken from us by a tyrannical government.

Many may read my writings and find them entertaining, or agree with me to a point. Yet how many of them would be willing to stand up for their rights when facing the local SWAT team, or an armed contingent of the FBI or ATF?

There is no hope in the ballot box as long as a majority of the people in this country think that by flipping back and forth between Republicans and Democrats we can restore our rights. It hasn’t worked in the past, what makes people think it will be different in the future?

Looking back to when I first started writing, I was just as naive and ignorant as the average person I complain about today, with one difference. I had this desire to learn the truth, no matter whether what I found conflicted with my beliefs at the time or not.

What I have learned has, quite literally, shaken me. I compare it to finding a chest in the attic, filled with journals written by your parents. Inside those journals are chronicled all kinds of evil things about them that you were previously never aware of.

If the Neal of today were to go back in time and come face to face with the Neal of 1980, the younger version would consider me certifiably insane because of the things I ramble on about.

I just would not be able to accept that what I was hearing was true. So, in that I can somewhat understand how people today are reluctant to accept the things I talk to them about. Yet the truth is out there, whether or not you choose to admit it or not.

I grew up in what I call the Cleaver era, as referenced to the late 50’s TV show, Leave It To Beaver. Times certainly have changed since then. Many people to whom I speak weren’t alive back then. In fact many of them weren’t even alive when Jimmy Carter was President. They don’t remember the assassination of JFK, the Viet Nam War, and the overall change that took place in our nation during the 60’s.

Having lived through all those things I can see with more clarity the changes that our country has undergone in the past 50 years. I can understand how hard it must be for some younger people to even picture a government which adhered, somewhat, to the Constitution, and the belief that our individual rights are unalienable.

Whether they can relate to it or not, the truth is that with each succeeding administration our government strays further, and further from the limited government established 220 years ago by our founders. As it does, the people of this country increasingly look to the government to take care of their every need, all of which comes at the cost of their rights and liberty.

At the rate things are going our government will soon control every aspect of our lives, and we will no longer have any rights whatsoever. The Senate has just passed their version of a health care bill, moving it one step closer to being signed into law by someone whom I consider ineligible to even hold the office of president.

Politics is a funny thing in that it is much like a sporting event. When two football teams face each other on the gridiron, if one team scores two touchdowns in a row, they are said to have the momentum. Politics is the same. When one party controls both houses of Congress, and the Presidency, when they pass a major piece of legislation they feel emboldened to continue on, pushing more and more bills through while they have the momentum.

Currently another of these bills, HR 4173 is working its way through the system. It has already passed the House by a vote of 223-202. Sponsored by Barney Frank, D-Mass, this bill would give government control over banks, credit unions and other financial institutions. Government would be able to control who gets credit, and how much.

This is not the government our founders envisioned when they wrote the Constitution. This is not the government that existed when I took my first breath in 1958. This is not the government that those of us who understand the Constitution want. Yet it is the government that is being forced upon us because people today are too damn lazy to turn off their TV’s and find out what the hell is going on while they watch sports and reality TV.

What can be done? I really don’t know. I do not claim to have all the answers, in fact I don’t know if there is an answer to the question of how do we fix America. We may be on a runaway train with no conductor, heading for a cliff.

Still, I get really upset when I get into discussions with people and all I hear is people repeating worn out partisan bullshit from both sides of the political spectrum. Instead of thinking for themselves, they sound like a broken tape recorder repeating the same old message over and over again.

America is a country divided, and in the middle are a few people who understand what is really wrong with this country. The two other sides are so ideologically opposed that they can only see their hatred for each other. They refuse to consider anything other than ways in which they can shortcut their enemies agendas.

I grow weary of discussing the issues with people, as I find that they just refuse to think. Instead they resort to knee jerk emotional responses when it comes to the issues. I know this is going to upset many who read it, but it seems to me that not only do most people have very short memories, they are just too damn lazy to do any research in search of the truth. They are far too involved in whatever it is that brings them enjoyment to try to educate themselves.

I do not deny anyone the right to seek enjoyment, we all need it at some point in time to get away from all the stress that life brings us. But when we let the quest for enjoyment come at the cost of neglecting our responsibilities as citizens, that is when I begin to lose my patience and understanding.

I was asked what I would do if I were president. If I were president I wouldn’t live long enough to do anything to make a difference. I would end up just like JFK, an assassins bullet through the head.

I often read the suggestions others offer for what we can do to fix America. I hear things running from something as simple as voting the bums out, all the way to open revolution.

Throwing the bums out and replacing them is futile. Those who replace them will soon become as corrupt as the ones given the boot. You see, not only do the people expect these things of their government, we also have to realize that those who control the government will not allow things to go back to the way they were.

As to the talk of open rebellion, even if a revolt was successful they would still have the problem of millions of Americans who would quickly demand all their government entitlements. If they don’t get them, I foresee endless waves of riots and chaos in the cities.

Probably the best way I have heard is by getting the states to nullify government programs by asserting their 10th Amendment right. If enough of the states had the courage to stand up to the federal government, we could stop them in their tracks. That is a big if, especially for me.

I don’t see that happening in California, land of Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, and Barbara Boxer, the trifecta of socialism. To be truthful, California is a lost cause. We may as well just build a fence along California’s border with the rest of the U.S. and give it back to Mexico.

They can have the Terminator, Hollywood, and the cesspool of sin, San Francisco. Just give me time to make it to the Nevada border first. However, all border crossers would be required to provide proof of citizenship, and sign an oath of loyalty to the constitution first. Let them see how well they handle things when everyone who remains demands that someone else provide for their sustenance, when there is no one left working to pay for it.

I don’t know. I don’t really see things getting any better, hence the title for this article, Why So Serious. All I know is that things are going to get ugly in this country. Eventually the government will push people into a corner. Those who value their liberty will fight back. Who will win, that is up for grabs. All I can do is keep my faith in my Savior Jesus Christ, to give me the strength and courage for the tough times ahead.

Neal

In the early hours of the morning, as most of the nation slept, the United States Senate gathered together to cast their vote on cloture, (the ending of all debate) on their version of the health care reform bill.

After a touching speech by Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, in which he read of the plight of his constituents, the motion went to a vote. Shortly thereafter, at 1:17 a.m. the motion was passed and, like thieves in the night, the Senate has moved one step closer to passing this bill.

Senator Mitch McConnell stated, “If they were proud of the bill they wouldn’t be doing it this way.” He continued by saying, “They wouldn’t be jamming it through in the middle of the night on the last weekend before Christmas.”

In the end the votes went along party lines, with 60 votes in favor and 40 votes opposed. While it may sound like the Republicans did their best to stop this bill, I have to ask myself, did they really?

Senator Reid has used all kinds of procedural shortcuts to get to where they are now. He has not allowed the bill, or any of its amendments be read on the floor. All it would take is for one Senator to demand that procedure be adhered to for that to come to an end. Yet not one Republican spoke up and demanded that rules be adhered to.

Not one Republican asked to see where in the Constitution is it even authorized for the United States Senate to discuss health care reform.

Not one Republican mentioned the case of Lambert v. Yellowly, 272 U.S. 581, 589, 47 S.Ct. 210 (1926), which states, “It is important also to bear in mind that ‘direct control of medical practice in the States is beyond the power of the Federal Government.’ Linder v. United States 268 U.S. 5, 18. Congress, therefore, cannot directly restrict the professional judgment of the physician or interfere with its free exercise in the treatment of disease. Whatever power exists in that respect belongs to the states exclusively.”

These Senators all took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and no matter whether they voted no on the measure for cloture or not, they all have violated their oaths by even participating in this illegal act.

Those of us who are demanding the our elected representatives uphold the law, and adhere to their oaths of office have been targeted by those whose goal it is to see this bill passed, no matter what.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, in a speech on the Senate floor, called opponents of this bill, birhters, and fanatics in right-wing militia and Aryan support groups.

I take great offense at those comments. We are constantly told to obey the law or face the consequences. Yet why won’t our elected officials uphold the law? Is it because we want these things no matter whether they be legal for our government to provide them for us?

There are a lot of things I would like. I would like a faster internet connection. I would like for everyone else at work to do their job, so that I don’t have to pick up their slack. I would like to be able to shoot at those cars that drive by my house at 2 a.m. with their music blaring.

But you know what, you don’t see me writing my Senator, or Congressman, asking for those things. You know why, because I know it is not within their authority to give them to me. And dammit, neither is affordable health care!

When have you ever known the government to run anything more effectively than the private sector? All of you who stood by and did nothing to stop this bill, all of you who sent your elected officials letters asking them to vote in favor of this bill, you are going to live to regret this day.
******************************************
Now, my letter to the wicked witch of the west.

Senator Feinstein,

Last night I watched with a sense of deepening sadness as you and fifty nine other United States Senators, cast their vote in favor of cloture on the Reid amendments and the health care bill in general.

There was an internet based push to flood the Congressional switchboard at 1 a.m. while you were in the midst of committing this unconstitutional act, but I felt it would be a waste of my time to participate. I know you are a tried and true Democrat who would never break from party lines. I felt that any attempt on my part to convince you to vote no would have proven futile.

I say your act was unconstitutional because nowhere is the power to regulate, manage, or assume control of health care found within the specified powers contained in Article 1, Section 8. However, this technical discretion no longer seems to weigh upon your minds, does it?

Wasn’t Speaker Pelosi asked about the Constitutionality of this bill, to which she responded with the flippant comment, “Are you serious?” Other Democrats were overheard saying, “Half of the stuff we do is not constitutional.”

I do not blame you, not entirely. The Republicans are as much to blame for allowing Majority Leader Reid to run roughshod over protocol to ram this bill through with limited debate. Not one U.S. Senator mentioned that previous court rulings had already stated that our government has no authority to control any aspect of the health care industry. I refer specifically to the case of Lambert v. Yellowly, 272 U.S. 581, 589, 47 S.Ct. 210 (1926), wherein we read, “It is important also to bear in mind that ‘direct control of medical practice in the States is beyond the power of the Federal Government.’ Linder v. United States 268 U.S. 5, 18. Congress, therefore, cannot directly restrict the professional judgment of the physician or interfere with its free exercise in the treatment of disease. Whatever power exists in that respect belongs to the states exclusively.”

But, like I said, mere trivialities such as the Constitutionality of your actions no longer mean much to you, do they? It appears to me that Washington D.C., and all the occupants therein suffer from Omphalos Syndrome, the belief that the world revolves around them. The legality, and consequences of your actions are inconsequential so long as you are doing what you think is best for the country.

However, did not Senator McConnell state, “If they were proud of the bill they wouldn’t be doing it this way?” He believed, as do I, that, “They wouldn’t be jamming it through in the middle of the night on the last weekend before Christmas.”

I find an interesting parallel between your thief in the night actions, and the Bible, which states, “This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.” John 3:19

I know my words are of little importance to you, to Senator Boxer, and to Speaker Pelosi, all of whom in some manner represent me as someone who lives in the state of California. Yet I cannot help but continue to stand up for what I believe to be right, and what you are doing is not right!

I just hope that you are enjoying yourself on this earthly plane. One day, you will stand before the Lord and be judged. You placed your hand upon that Bible and swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Your oath was as much to God, as it was to the constituents your represent. When that day comes, you will be held accountable for your actions. In the meantime, you will continue to have to answer to me.

As I would read through the various blogs and articles the general consensus was that all our nation’s problems can be attributed to our elected officials in Washington D.C.

I got the impression that people felt that if we could just get those crooks out of office, that things would be just fine in America again. It’s a nice dream, but that’s all it is, a dream.

You see, the problem is that we put these crooks there to begin with. We sat back and did nothing when they passed all these unconstitutional laws. And we sat back while they took aim upon our individual rights.

So, whenever I heard people say that, there was this little voice in the back of my head which would ask, “What good is that going to do, seriously? There are over 300 million people living in this country. Say ten percent of them have actually read and understand the Constitution. That leaves roughly 270 million people who don’t.

These are the people who continually believe the promises, fall for the lies, or stand behind their political party, no matter what. Even if we did manage to get rid of every single incumbent, the people would soon be crying for their government subsidies and entitlements.

Far too many people have come to rely upon government programs because they are incapable, or unwilling to fend for themselves. They would soon be asking the government to regulate their lives because they do not want to accept the consequences that come when people are held responsible for their own actions.

So, once the government gave them what they wanted, they would be fat, dumb, happy, and apathetic again, and government would quickly be back to where it is now.”

Americans are like cattle on a large ranch, free to roam about, within limits, but still fenced in. Have you heard about what happens when a caged animal is released in the wild? They usually do not survive. That is America, we would not know how to act without our governments guidance and assistance. Most people living in America today would not recognize freedom if it came up and introduced itself to them.

It was these thoughts that kept nagging at me. I admit, I was just as guilty as the rest in believing that if I could just educate enough people about the Constitution, that maybe we could turn things around. I no longer feel that way. Not that I would not fight to preserve what few rights I still have, but I do not think that anything I, or anyone else does, will make a bit of difference until the people in this country understand where all our rights come from.

America is no longer the republic which Ben Franklin spoke of as he left the Philadelphia Convention. I find it fitting that the Constitution is currently housed in the National Archives, like some sort of historical relic. Because actually, that’s all the Constitution is, a relic. It has been a very long time since it has been upheld by anyone who has sworn an oath to support and defend it.

One has only to read the preamble to the Constitution to understand its intent, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The founders knew that rights were not something that were granted us by any form of government, they were something that were ours from birth. They held to the principles espoused by John Locke concerning natural law.

The theory of natural law declares that rights, and any laws concerning them, are set by nature, and therefore trump any man made, (positive law) put into effect by society, particularly governments.

From Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 4 we read, “THE natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule.”

He continues by saying, “Freedom then is not what Sir Robert Filmer tells us, Observations, A. 55. a liberty for every one to do what he lists, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws: but freedom of men under government is, to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it; a liberty to follow my own will in all things, where the rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man: as freedom of nature is, to be under no other restraint but the law of nature.”

Now, if you consider yourself a religious person, allow me to ask of you a simple question. Who created nature? Does not the Bible say that God created the heavens and the earth, and all things in them?

Our founders believed that. Prior to any talk of drafting a Constitution, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson states, “When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them...”

Jefferson continued by saying, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men…”

Notice Jefferson did not use the word grant these rights, he said secure. It is the purpose of government to ensure that no one infringed upon our rights. Yet that is exactly what they have been doing, and we have allowed the to do it without hardly a whimper.

Yet did not Jefferson also say, “That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

He tells us that “…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

Upon leaving his second term as President, George Washington delivered a farewell address that should be required reading for all Americans. To quote a portion of that address, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.”

For our country to continue to exist as was envisioned by our founders the people would have to hold true to the principles upon which it was founded, which included the belief that was shared by Jefferson, who said, “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

Just as we claim to be citizens of this great nation without knowing the principles upon which it was founded, many claim to be Christian without knowing what it is that God asks of them.

There are those who have never cracked open a Bible, yet claim to be Christian. We have TV Idols, like Oprah Winfrey, who when asked by someone in her audience about Jesus, and a person being able to enter into heaven, “What about Jesus? There couldn’t possibly be one way.” However John 14:6 says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

Then we have the mega-Churches whose sole purpose, it seems, is to draw in the gullible to fill their coffers with donations. I had always had doubts about these mega-Churches, and televangelists, going back to the PTL Club with Jim and Tammy Bakker.

Now we have the likes of Rick Warren and Joel Osteens. Their feel good, do as you wish Churches pervert the Scriptures, and millions flock to hear them because they feel they are absolved of all responsibility for their actions. Yet how many of these organizations have been rocked by scandals that exposed their fraud?

Also, ever since I was a kid I have always had my questions about organized religion but I could never pinpoint why. Now that I am older I understand why. I am of the belief that Thomas Jefferson was right when he said, “Nothing can be more exactly and seriously true than what is there [the very words only of Jesus] stated; that but a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind .”

America is a completely different country than the one that existed at the time of our founders. Over time, people have come to take for granted the things that make this land so special. They have also neglected their duties as citizens of this great land to hold to the principles that made it great in the first place.

Getting back to his farewell address, Washington said, “With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.”

That is no longer the case. Our nation is divided, no more noticeably than along the lines of race. We have cultures existing within this land whose beliefs are far different than those upon which our nation was founded.

In that case we are very similar to Rome at the end of their existence as an empire. Historian Victor Hanson wrote the following, “The difference over six centuries, the dissimilarity that led to the end, was a result not of imperial overstretch on the outside but something happening within that was not unlike what we ourselves are now witnessing. Earlier Romans knew what it was to be Roman, why it was at least better than the alternative, and why their culture had to be defended. Later in ignorance they forgot what they knew, in pride mocked who they were, and in consequence disappeared.”

Americans today seek all their answers to their countries problems from the very people who created them, their government. However, Scripture tells us what we should be doing in 2 Chronicles, 7, “If my people, which are called by my name shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”

However, that idea does not seem to go over too well, as stated by a reader of my last article, who said, “Good lord. you’re about as stupid and narrow minded as all those bigots that wrote their word and called it Gods way back when. While I don’t doubt we’re in a battle for the soul of the nation — it’s a battle to take it way from the arrogant, deluded, shit-for-brains people, like you, who take some hand me down religion as their truth and use it to kill or condem those that don’t fit their idea God’s choosen.”

I had heard about the Nobel Prize before, but wasn’t that familiar with how the whole deal came into existence, the nomination process, or how they go about choosing the winners.

Alfred Nobel was a Swedish chemist and industrialist and inventor. When he died, he left a rather sizeable estate. As with most men of wealth, Nobel left a detailed will describing what he wished done with his money.

This is what Nobel said in his will, “The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: The capital shall be invested by my executors in safe securities and shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind.”

Now you know the origin of the Nobel Prizes. Originally, the prizes were to be awarded for four categories; physics, chemistry, literature, and physiology or medicine. The first Peace Prize was awarded in 1901.

The Nobel prize was considered the most prestigious award a person could get in their respective field of expertise. However, out of all the categories, the prize for peace is the one with the least tangible qualifications.

Nevertheless, Nobel’s will said to be eligible for the peace prize, the nominee “shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

The process leading up to the actual award is rather long and tedious. To begin with, several thousand people are asked to nominate candidates from each of the respective categories.

For the Peace Prize, those who are eligible to submit proposals is enjoyed by 1) members of national assemblies and governments of states; 2) members of international courts; 3) University rectors; professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology; directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes; 4) Persons who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize; 5) Board members of organizations who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize; 6) Active and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; (proposals by members of the Committee to be submitted no later than at the first meeting of the Committee after February 1) and Former advisers appointed by the Norwegian Nobel Institute.

Then, according to statute § 6 of Nobel’s will, “For each prize awarded by a Swedish prize-awarding body, the latter shall appoint a Nobel Committee consisting of three, four or five persons, to give their opinion on the matter of the award of the prize. The adjudication needed for the award of the Peace Prize shall be carried out by the committee of the Norwegian Storting referred to in the will, known as the Norwegian Nobel Committee.”

As you can see, a nominee undergoes much scrutiny before they are ever awarded a Nobel Prize. All this information was educational, but there is one thing I could not find out in all my research, who, as an individual, or what body of people nominated Barack Obama for this prestigious award?

There was also something else I discovered that left me with a few unanswered questions. According to statute 7 of Nobel’s will, “Each year the prize adjudication shall embrace such nominations as have been submitted during the preceding twelve months up to February 1.”

So, if Barack Obama received his Nobel Peace Prize yesterday, that means his name had been in the running for a year already. Excuse me, but Obama hadn’t even been sworn in to office a year ago. Prior to that he was just a rookie Senator from Chicago. What the hell did he do in his short political lifetime that made him eligible for this type award?

Now people may say I am biased about all this because I despise Barack Obama. But the facts are there for anyone who wants to examine them. I got my data directly from the Nobel Institute’s webpage. You can examine the statutes from Nobel’s will at
(http://nobelprize.org/nobelfoundation/statutes.html) and the information regarding the nomination of people for the peace prize at (http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/nominators.html)

Like I said, something seems awfully fishy about this. How can a man who wasn’t even President when the nomination process began, be considered for a Nobel Peace Prize?

Even if he had been sworn in, it would be like someone enlisting in the Marines, and once they completed basic training they were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. They wouldn’t have done anything to deserve that highest of all military awards, and neither has Obama done anything to be worthy of a Nobel Prize. So, if you are willing to think about things with an open mind, I would like for you to ask yourselves, why did Barack Obama get the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize?

Anyone who has been reading my ramblings for any length of time has by now noticed that I continuously hammer away at the point that people are woefully ignorant, and apathetic, when it comes to what the Constitution says regarding the legitimate functions of our government.

All this time I have been providing people with quotes from our founding fathers, and legal data to support my views, and I have finally come to realize that it all has been a complete waste of my time.

My good friend, the Grassroots Granny, has been saying all along that we are in a spiritual battle for the soul of our nation, and I have been too obtuse to understand what she has been trying to say. I have been too focused on my own little battle to see the bigger picture.

I think I may have subconsciously known what Granny was trying to say, but it wasn’t until the past few days that I really began to get it. Two articles were recently published online that I attribute to my sudden insight. The first was The Devils Circus by my good friend Jim Schwiesow, and the second is An Open Letter to America’s Christians by Pastor Chuck Baldwin.

In Pastor Baldwin’s article, he states, “America’s current generation of Christians has allowed itself to become pathetically ignorant as to the Biblical, Natural Law principles of liberty and government. And when it comes to America’s historical principles of self-government and federalism, the ignorance quotient goes up even further.”

That is pretty much the point I have been trying to get across all this time, that people have become ignorant regarding the principles upon which this country was founded. While Pastor Baldwin focuses on the Christians who are guilty of being ignorant, I spoke in more general terms.

However, the point that seemed to elude me was that our nation suffers from all the woes it does not because we are ignorant about the content of the Constitution, but because we are just as ignorant when it comes to the word of God.

While demographics may be changing due to the influx of immigrants from non-Christian nations, America still remains a nation founded, and populated, by Christians. Patrick Henry clearly stated, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” Henry is also quoted as saying, “It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains.”

Now I may offend some with what I am about to say, but I believe it lies at the crux of what is wrong with this country. Although the majority of us may profess to be Christians, but we are in reality closer to those to whom Christ uttered the following, “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.” Matthew 15:8

As Americans we have the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and volumes of reference material written by the founders to understand the purpose of our government.

As Christians we have the Scriptures to guide us as well, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” 2 Timothy 3:16

In the Book of Matthew we read, “Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” Matthew 5:13-16

Scripture is full of examples of when the people strayed from God’s ordinances, and what happened to them when they did. In the Book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 28, we are told what will happen when a nation obeys God’s Laws, “And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth:”

However, just a few verses later we are told, “But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:” The Lord then provides a long list of curses that will befall those who do not observe His will.

As I drive through town, I often see bumper stickers affixed to cars which say, “God Bless America.” I have to laugh, why should God bless our country when it has forsaken Him?

The only way that our country can once again return to its previous glory is to return unto the Lord. He states just that in the Book of Malachi, Chapter 3, “Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the LORD of hosts.”

How does this all tie in to politics and our government? Our founders knew that our system would only work if we adhered to the same principles upon which that system was founded.

George Washington, in his first Inaugural Address stated, “(T)he foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; …the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained...”

Noah Webster attributes all the evils men suffer from, “…vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.”

Under our system of government, we were to be free to live under what is known as natural law. Samuel Adams stated that, “The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.”

Our founders were educated and well read. They were influenced by men such as John Locke, who espoused the concept of natural law. They were of the belief that a ruler, or a government, that violates natural law is illegitimate, and that it need not be obeyed. In fact, our founders felt that we had the right to kill such tyrants when they violated our rights. In fact, our second President, John Adams once said, “The right of a nation to kill a tyrant in case of necessity can no more be doubted than to hang a robber, or kill a flea.”

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

I always knew that this country was in trouble. It wasn’t until I read the two articles I mentioned that I realized the reason, our nation suffers because we have forgotten God’s will and our living our lives in search of earthly pleasures. Instead of seeking answers to our problems in Scripture, we seek them from government.

The answers have always been there, right in front of me, but my eyes had been closed to the truth. In today’s politically correct society today we are told to be told to be tolerant of things that go against God’s law.

Just as our Constitution is no longer deemed relevant, the Laws handed down to us from God are also deemed antiquated and irrelevant. However, in Isaiah 40 we read, “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever.”

In Deuteronomy 4, we read, “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.”

God is unchanging, and therefore His desires for us remain unchanged. Yet we seek leaders in this earthly existence who will rule over us according to our earthly desires. Therefore, our leaders are but mirrors of society in general. As long as society is corrupt, our leaders will be corrupt as well.

However, in the Book of Romans, Chapter 13, we read, “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.”

That is the point that I was missing in all my searches for knowledge and answers. It wasn’t until I read The Devils Circus, by my friend Jim Schwiesow, that things came into focus, “The Bible emphasizes that God impresses the hearts of men to do His bidding. We think that we elect our leaders, but in truth God’s Word tells us that it is He who selects the kings who rule over us. He puts them into office and He takes them out of office, and while they are in office He determines their actions, be they good or bad. If their works are good they are good for a reason and if their works are bad they are bad for a reason. We need to stop and think about that and then ask why we are subject to the foolish inexpedient and unwise actions of our government and of the internationalists and multi culturalists that inveigh against our freedom of choice and attempt to coerce our inclusion into a satanic one-world system?

Ours is an omniscient God who not only knows the future, but also predetermines the future. He is fully in charge and nothing transpires, but what He allows to transpire.”

Our nation is in serious trouble, of that fact I am certain. I have been of the believe that if I could just convince people that our problem lies with a government that violates the Constitution with almost every law it enacts, that things would begin to get better.

I was wrong! Our problem lies with the fact that we are placing our faith in a man made system. Instead we should be seeking answers to all our nations problems in the Bible.

In 1 Timothy, Chapter 4 we read, “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;” I believe that is exactly what we are witnessing right now in this country.

Instead of following feel good preachers like Joel Osteen and Rick Warren, we need to live our lives according to God’s will. If we do, Scripture tells us that we will be blessed.