Public Enemy Number 1

I have never accused anyone of being stupid without first giving them the benefit of the doubt. I may call you ignorant, but ignorance is only a lack of knowledge regarding a subject. However, I will unequivocally call anyone stupid who ignores the truth just because it conflicts with currently held beliefs.
Government is either good or bad. It does not matter that the badness of it can be measured in degrees; the fact remains that it can either be considered good, or bad. Good government is one which serves the purpose for which it was established; bad government is any government which seeks to expand its power and authority beyond those for which it was established.

In 1775 Thomas Paine wrote his pamphlet entitled Common Sense, (something which is sorely lacking in people today by the way), in which he wrote, “Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.”

Why would Paine call government an evil; even in its best state? Well the answer, I suppose, is because government, even good government, restricts the freedom of those it governs. For government to be effective a certain amount of sovereignty must be surrendered to it so that the laws it passes with have force upon those it governs. But when government goes beyond the specific powers granted it and becomes arbitrary in the exercise of power, it becomes bad government.

Before our system of government was established our Founders fought a war to obtain their independence. But it wasn’t merely independence they fought for; it was liberty as well; the right to enjoy all the freedoms that comes with not being subject to the will of a tyrant or a monarch.

In writing the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson did not merely lay out the reasons why the Colonists rose up against their King, he also laid out certain undeniable principles which formed the foundation upon which any system of government should be built.

Jefferson declared, first and foremost, that our rights come not from government, but from our Creator; i.e. God. Secondly, those rights were Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Thirdly, that government derives is authority from the consent of the people it governs, and finally, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.

Therefore, good government would be government which sought to secure the rights outlined by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, and bad government would be that which, by its actions, restricted those rights.

When a people are given the chance to decide for themselves what shape their government might take, and what powers it will be given, it is important that we understand one basic principle. This principle is that any form of government created by the people is a grant of power by the people as a whole. It is not an assumption of unlimited power, it is a grant of specific powers; and when the government created by this grant of power oversteps the specific powers laid out in its charter, it becomes bad government.

Yet, although we may grant government certain powers, those powers cannot be any greater than those we had prior to the creation of government. This is a fundamental principle of Natural Law as spoken of by the men whose writings inspired many of our Founders. For instance, in John Locke’s Second Treatise we find where Locke declares, “This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power, is so necessary to, and closely joined with a man’s preservation, that he cannot part with it, but by what forfeits his preservation and life together: for a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot, by compact, or his own consent, enslave himself to any one, nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another, to take away his life, when he pleases. No body can give more power than he has himself; and he that cannot take away his own life, cannot give another power over it.” (My emphasis)

One hundred sixty years after Locke wrote that, another man, Frederic Bastiat, would write a book entitled The Law, wherein he states, “Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

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

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

These are natural rights, those which Jefferson would later say were given us by our Creator; they cannot be taken away, or restricted by any laws written by man; not without the grossest of violations against human rights being committed that is.

We have a right to live, and the right to defend our lives. Governments may be established to better secure that right; but government cannot deprive any individual from exercising that right on their own.

We also have a right to liberty, which is nothing more than the ability to fully exercise all our other rights without interference; as long as in doing so we do not restrict others from enjoying that same freedom. As Jefferson said, “…rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the 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 right of an individual.” (Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany, 4 April 1819) Therefore, if each of us has the right to liberty, then we also have the right to defend that liberty against any, including government, who would restrict it.

Finally, we have the right to property, along with the right to defend that property. But what is property? One might think that property is your possessions; such as your house, your car, and the things inside your house. But property is much more, as explained by James Madison in 1792, “This term in its particular application means “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

In this sense our rights are our property; as they belong to each of us. The same goes for our liberty; as it belongs to us and cannot be taken away by any form of government which we might establish.

Yet Madison said something else as well, “Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.”

When government exceeds the powers granted it and begins arbitrarily passing laws which violate our rights, our liberty, these possessions, our property, are not respected. When that happens our government becomes one which is destructive of the ends for which it was established; it becomes bad government.

When our Constitution was in the process of being ratified there were those who felt that it did not do enough to secure the blessings of liberty to future generations. They felt that a Bill of Rights was needed to protect certain unalienable rights from violation by government.

How many of those rights today are, in some manner, violated by the laws passed by our government, or the programs our government enacts? Hmmm, how many? Can’t answer that? Here, let me help you.

Among other things, the First Amendment protects our freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom to petition our government for a redress of grievances. How free are we to speak whatever we want, whether our speech be silenced by laws declaring certain speech to be hate speech, or by the politically correct crowd who silences opposition to certain principles? How free are we to obtain a redress for our government’s continued exercise of unconstitutional arbitrary power?

The Second Amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms. Yet our government is allowed to decide what constitutes a legal arm, all the while they allow themselves to carry arms which they prohibit the general public from owning or carrying.

The Fourth Amendment protects our right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and that no search shall take place without a warrant being issued by a judge declaring the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized.

Yet our government routinely monitors our electronic conversations, can search our banking transactions, our online purchases, our homes even; often without a warrant, all in the name of fighting terrorism. Yet were we to invade the privacy of our government to the extent which they invade our privacy we would be prosecuted for breaching national security.

These are just a few quick examples of how far our governments abuse of power has extended; yet you still think this is the land of the free? Freedom does not mean the freedom to choose whether to eat steak or chicken for dinner; drive a Ford or a Toyota; watch football or play video games; freedom means to be free from governmental control over our lives and having the fruits of our labor, (income), taken from us to fund programs which we disagree with, or which violate the limits imposed on government by the Constitution.

Where I to go to a rich person’s house and demand, or take, money from them to give to those in need I would be accused of theft. Yet our government routinely does that in the form of social service programs such as Welfare; not to mention all the foreign aid it takes from us and just gives to other countries without our consent.

And people still call this ‘GOOD’ government. People still foolishly believe that by changing out a few key players every couple of years that things are going to miraculously improve?

Government only gets away with the things it does because we allow it to. We may whine and complain about the things they do, but we fear taking a stand against them; they are too big, too powerful.

What was it that the old saying said, “When the people fear the government there is tyranny. When the government fears the people there is liberty.” On June 5, 1788 Patrick Henry said something that far too many of us have forgotten, “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.”

If our government does not provide us with, or secure our liberty, then it is bad, it is evil. Why is it that we continue to believe that government is fundamentally good, that it has our best interests in mind when it routinely violates the law which created it in the first place?

Government, if you want my honest opinion, is public enemy number 1, and we would do well to realize that it no longer seeks to serve those it represents. Rather it seeks to enslave us. The sooner people get that through their thick heads, the sooner we can restore America to the principles our Founders fought and died for.

Until then I will continue to consider most of my fellow Americans ignorant and stupid.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

What Do You Say We Start From Scratch?

Before I begin there are a few words that are essential you understand the meaning of it you are to understand the things I am about to say; a prerequisite of sorts. Therefore, as an introduction I would like to provide you with a short list of these words which are crucial that you understand.

Cede: (verb) To give control of (something) to another person, group, government, etc.

Infringe: (verb) To do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.): to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person’s rights)

Inherent: (adjective) Belonging to the basic nature of someone or something

Oppression: (noun) unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power: something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power.

Sovereignty: (noun) Supreme power especially over a body politic: freedom from external control.

Tyranny: (noun) Cruel and oppressive government rule: cruel, unreasonable or arbitrary use of power or control.

Unalienable: (adjective) Impossible to take away or give up.

Now that you have an understanding of these words, let’s begin at the beginning.

In the beginning there was man and man was free of any power and authority. Man could do whatever he wanted with the only limitation on his ability to do so being the ability of another man to use force to stop him. Man was also 100% responsible for his own survival. If he did not forage or hunt; he died. If he did not seek out, or build shelter, he suffered the severity of the weather.

Under these conditions man’s existence was unsure and unpredictable. That is why man entered into civil societies; with the first civil societies being simple tribes of men banded together. These men would hunt of forage together and would fight against those who sought to take from them the things they had which the others did not.

Although man now enjoyed the strength of numbers, his life was still uncertain. Eventually rudimentary governments came into existence; typically a tribal leader who settled disputes and established certain codes by which the tribe lived by.

Over the course of man’s existence government has taken many shapes and has undergone many changes. Then in the year 1776 something miraculous happened. A group of men decided to apply revolutionary new ideas towards their rights and the purposes for which governments should exist to their situation in life. These men, living under the rule of a monarch, decided to severe the ties which bound them to their system of government and become completely free and independent. Of course government was not so ready to let them go; especially considering it was profitable for government to keep them under its rule. So a war was fought to determine whether man had the right to decide for himself what form of government they would produce for themselves.

Upon obtaining their independence these men, these 13 Colonies, became, for all intents and purposes, free and independent nations. However, the absolute or sovereign power was where it rightfully belonged; with the people who inhabited these 13 nation/states. This was later reaffirmed in a Supreme Court ruling, “At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.” Chisholm v. Georgia (1793)

The first attempt at self-governance was a confederation; a loose band of sovereign states, joined together for their mutual benefit. A Congress was created to be the lawmaking body for all; but any and all laws passed by the Congress would also have to be agreed upon unanimously by all 13 States before it would go into effect.

There were some who felt that this form of government was weak and ineffective; that a stronger central government was needed to manage the affairs of a nation. Those who felt a stronger central government was needed called for a convention to amend the Articles of Confederation, but their real intent was to produce a completely new system of government.

Whether their intent was honorable and in the best interest of the nation is irrelevant; the fact is that they misled those who came to attend this convention, and they misled the States who selected the representatives to send to this convention. Also, in creating this new system of government, and the manner in which it was sent out to be approved or rejected by the States, they violated existing law found in Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation; wherein it states, “… nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”

When the Constitution was written, a preamble was included which begins with, “We the People…” It was felt that since this new Constitution was to be the act of a people constituting a system of government, that the acceptance or rejection of the proposed system should be made by the people. This violated existing law as mentioned above.

Also it brought another point to the limelight; that being was this new system of government a national, or a federal system? In both systems the sovereignty remained with the people, but in a federal form of government the people had ceded a certain portion of their sovereignty to State governments to manage the affairs of their State. Therefore, any action which altered the shape a central government would take, and affect the relationship between the States and that central government would have to be made by the representatives of the people.

In a national form, however, a consolidation of the parts into one single entity occurs, bypassing the State governments and going directly to the people for their authority. Patrick Henry, a staunch lover of liberty, argued this point until he was blue in the face; to no avail. Although those supporting this Constitution did have to agree to the inclusion of a Bill of Rights, the Constitution was finally adopted by the people of this country.

Regardless of whatever form this new system of government took; national or federal, it came into existence by the will of the people, and it derives its authority only because the people continue to consent to being governed by the entity the Constitution creates. At any time, should the people withdraw their consent, and by simply making a declaration stating their reasons, they could withdraw from the union established by the Constitution; as government still, according to the Declaration of Independence, derives its just authority from the consent of the people. If that consent is withdrawn, so is the authority granted government.

But the point of this article is not to discuss the right of a State, or a group of States, to withdraw from the Union; it is to discuss what this Constitution actually created; what form it took, what purpose it was created for, and the powers given it.

The purpose for which this new system of government was created is found in the Preamble, wherein it states, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” That’s all the Preamble is, a declaration of intent, or a statement declaring the purpose for which the document was written. It is not a grant of any power or authority and cannot be used to justify the exercise of any power or authority by the government the Constitution establishes.

The government created by this Constitution was both simple and complex. It was simple in that it created 3 distinct branches; the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial; each with their own specific reason for existing. Yet it was complex in the intricacies of the checks and balances put into place to prevent any single branch from becoming too powerful.

The Congress was to be the lawmaking body; those who wrote the laws which would apply to the nation. Yet it was divided into two houses; a Senate and a House of Representatives. The members of the Senate were to be chosen by the States and be their voice in the say of what laws would be passed by this central government. The members of the House were to be chosen by the people and be their voice in the say of what laws would be passed. No law could go into effect without being approved by both houses of Congress.

In creating a centralized form of government it was realized that the States would be required to cede a portion of their sovereignty to this central government; the question was how much was required to be surrendered for this new form of government to be effective.

It was feared by many within the various States that this new form of government might seek to usurp the sovereignty of the States, so in the creation of the Bill of Rights they insisted that an amendment be included which would further ensure that the central government not exceed its specifically listed powers. This amendment is what we now know as the 10th Amendment, which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Although this became part of the Constitution once ratified, it was altered by the omission of a single word by the man whose goal it was to create this new stronger central government; James Madison. The task of selecting from the various amendments which were submitted to Congress for consideration was undertaken by Madison. He also produced the final wording which was to be submitted to all the States for their approval. When the States submitted their suggestions, they almost unanimously declared “The powers not specifically 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.” By the omission of that one word, specifically, Madison created a loophole by which implied powers could be construed from the intent of the specific powers.

But the basic point I’m trying to get across is that Congress was to be the body which wrote the laws which governed this nation. It’s no surprise that since Congress was to be the lawmaking body that the Article of the Constitution which covers Congress is the longest and most complicated of the Constitution. The specific powers which were granted to government are found within this Article in Section 8; and you’d be quite surprised to see how limited they truly are in comparison to all the things our government does today; and which the people take for granted.

The Executive is the next branch the Constitution discusses, and it is the job of this branch to see that the laws be faithfully executed. However, the Executive has a check on the lawmaking body in the form of a veto. Should the Executive believe that a law sent to his desk by Congress exceeds the authority granted Congress by the Constitution, he can reject it and send it back to Congress with his reasons for doing so. However, should Congress feel strongly enough that the legislation become law, by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress, they can override a presidential veto.

Yet the primary job of the Executive, in times of peace, is to manage the affairs of the nation. Much like a CEO manages a company, the president manages the nation. It is the job of the Executive to utilize the tools, or agencies at his disposal, to see that the laws passed by government be enforced and upheld. He, or she should Hillary get elected, cannot pick and choose which laws they decide our government should enforce; as has many a president when it comes to our existing immigration law. If a law has been lawfully passed by a past session of Congress, and signed by a sitting president, it is binding upon all future presidents to enforce that law until a new law is written which supersedes or revokes it. To refuse to enforce an existing law simply because a sitting president disagrees with it is a violation of his duty to see that the law be faithfully upheld.

The president, in all honesty, is nothing more than a glorified manager. For the life of me I cannot understand why so many people argue so vehemently over the proposed plans for this country offered by candidates seeking the presidency when the president cannot do a damned thing without the Congress first taking action on it. If the people of this country, and those who sought the office of president, truly understood the structure and powers given our government, they would only seek a president who would declare something along the lines of, “I promise to keep Congress within the specific powers granted it, and I will seek to faithfully execute the laws of the land.” But no, the people do not understand the division of powers and therefore believe these promises made by those seeking the office of president of these States united.

Then there are the 9 black robed tyrants which form the Judicial Branch, or the Supreme Court. The Constitution says this about their function, “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution…” Their power is not to decide what the law says, but to apply it in all cases which they have jurisdiction.

However, it wasn’t long before the SCOTUS issued a single ruling which forever altered the powers held by them; that ruling being Marbury v Madison which created the concept of Judicial Review; the ability of the Court to determine whether or not a law is Constitutional.

This power already existed in the form of nullification by the States. If a State believed that a law passed by the central government exceeded the specific powers granted government, then they could simply choose to ignore it. This point was made clear when President John Adams passed the Alien and Sedition Acts and Vice President Thomas Jefferson wrote the Kentucky Resolutions, wherein he states, “Resolved, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government … and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force…”

You see, although the Senate may have been composed of members chosen by the States, there could conceivably come a time when a majority of States could obtain control of Congress, and therefore pass laws which were not in the best interests of the minority. The right of States to nullify laws passed by the central government was another form of a check upon the usurpation of tyrannical and oppressive powers.

The period leading up to our Second War of Independence, or the Civil War as you know it, is rife with times the States, primarily South Carolina, sought to nullify laws, or specifically taxes, levied against them. This back and forth fight over tariffs, and our governments continued efforts to block the expansion of slavery into newly admitted States, is what caused the South to secede, a principal which was universally accepted as a States right by a majority of the people of the country at the time.

The Civil War was more than just a war for independence by a portion of the country; it was more than the misguided belief that it was fought to free the slaves, and it was more than just the belief that it was fought to save the Union; the Civil War was a war fought to determine that same question Patrick Henry asked on June 5, 1788, “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.”

By the federal government, under the orders of the president, (and it doesn’t matter if it was Abraham Lincoln, or if it had been George Bush), telling the States that they must adhere to the will of the government, he was declaring that the government created by the Constitution was in fact a national form, and that the States, although component parts of the government, could not seek to free themselves from tyranny and that the government created by the Constitution had assumed all sovereignty.

The 17th Amendment which took away the States right to choose Senators and gave it to the people was just the final nail in the coffin as States rights died with the loss of the Confederacy in the Civil War. This forever altered the balance of power in our government and left it up to the people as a whole to remain informed and keep government within the specific powers granted it.

However, had the people been capable of exercising that kind of judgment the Northern States would have done just as Virginia did when Lincoln called for troops to invade the South; seceded from the Union and told Abraham Lincoln to take his precious Union, his government, and go to hell.

It’s all been downhill ever since. The federal government has grown by leaps and bounds and our rights have been infringed to the extent where they are basically nonexistent. Freedom of speech; Yeah right! The right to keep and bear arms; Only those arms the government decides you have a right to own. Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures and the right to be secure in our homes and with our possessions; tell the TSA, the NSA, or ask Edward Snowden. The list goes on and on; and people still say this is the land of the free. What a joke!

Our country has drifted so far from the principles upon which it was established that I barely recognize it any more. People today don’t understand the fact that government is limited as to what it can and cannot do. They do not realize that their rights are inherent and unalienable; and that no matter how big a majority call for them to be infringed upon for the public safety, government cannot do so without the grossest of violations upon the people they were elected to represent.

Although I am not as big a fan of Ronald Reagan since I began researching on my own, there is still something he said which bears consideration, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”

Freedom is ours and we the people, although we choose not to exercise it, remain the true sovereigns in this country. It is within our right to exercise that sovereignty by telling the federal government that its unconstitutional violations do not apply within our States. If we would just rise up and stop worrying about who we elect to a corrupted central government, and start electing honest virtuous members to our State governments, then the States could severely weaken the unconstitutional control and exercise of unjust power currently wielded by Washington D.C.

But nothing will change as long as the people continue to give their consent to both the existence of, and the exercise of unconstitutional powers by, the federal government. You give this consent by voting for those who will represent you within government. I know it is hard, sitting back knowing that if you don’t vote someone like Hillary could become our next president; but the truth is that by voting you accept that no matter who is elected you agree to the principle that government is government, and that you are required to obey the laws it passes.

I have gone on strike, I no longer grant my consent for government to make unlawful decisions, then tell me that they are upholding their oaths of office. I know I am among the few who feel that way, but I know that if more had the courage to stand up for government in this fashion, government would wither and die…and would that be a bad thing considering all the harm it has done?

In a way it is like the movie Clash of the Titans were the Gods Zeus, Apollo, Poseidon, and all the others draw their strength from the prayers of humanity. In a sense government derives all its power from our consenting to participate in choosing members to it. If we were to simply stop voting then who would be chosen to run government and what power would it have over our lives?

You say I have no right to bitch because I am not voting for someone to make it better. I could reverse that and say that you don’t have the right to bitch because it is the people you vote for who have caused all the problems in this country. Why should I vote for anyone when I know it won’t make a damned bit of difference; it’s only a matter of degrees as to how much worse it will get?

The problem in this country is not government; it is the people. People are born with all the inherent and unalienable rights as were the first men who walked the Earth. It is only by our ignorance of the principles upon which this great nation was founded; by our complacency when government oversteps the limits imposed upon their powers, and our cowardice to not stand up to these tyrannical abuses of power, that government draws is life sustaining sustenance. If we were to become informed, and stop taking these abuses of powers lying down, we could stop government and begin limiting the power it holds over our lives.

But that would mean that each of us must first accept complete responsibility for our own lives. No more asking government for benefits if we fall on hard times; no more federal aid to the States when Nature unleashes her fury upon us; no more asking the government to protect us from crime and at the same time denying us the right to do so.

If you want to be free you have to first start acting free; and I don’t see a whole lot of people who are willing to do that. It’s like Mark Twain once said, “In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”

How many of you reading this could repeat the immortal words of Patrick Henry with the same courage and conviction he held? How many of you could stand up and tell your government, “Give me liberty or give me death”?

That’s what I thought….

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Why Do People Fear The Truth?

Etched into the wall at the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency is a passage from the Bible, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:32) When a person is called upon to give testimony in court they must swear an oath to “Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Why do people consider honesty to be a valuable attribute, but when someone tells the truth people get all upset?

What is the truth? I suppose you could look it up in the dictionary, or I could provide you with my own definition for it. The way I see it the truth is simply things as they actually are, supported by facts and evidence.

The truth does not take sides, it is not biased, it is not prejudiced; it merely is an accurate rendering of things. The truth also does not care if it hurts feelings or offends. Whether you accept it or reject it, the truth does not care; it remains constant and unwavering.

What then is the opposite of truth? The opposite, or antonym if you prefer to use the grammatical term for it, is a falsehood or a lie. Therefore, if you choose not to hear the truth, to reject it, then you have chosen to believe a lie; there is no middle ground on this; either you accept the truth or you believe a lie.
No matter how many reassurances you tell yourself when you reject the truth; no matter how good it makes you feel about yourself inside; if you do not accept the truth you are making a willful choice to believe a lie.

It does not matter how long a lie has been told, how many people have fallen for it; the fact remains that it is still a lie. For how long did the people of this world believe that the Earth was flat, or that it was the center of the universe? It wasn’t until people accepted scientific evidence that their beliefs changed.

I simply can’t understand how people would allow themselves to come to conclusions, form opinions, or make decisions without knowing the whole truth about a subject. Why would they reject information which may alter the way they view a subject, or an event?

Whenever I think about this subject I think back to the first time I saw the movie The Matrix, and the scene where Morpheus takes Neo into the Construct for the first time and explains what the Matrix is. Neo screams, “I don’t believe it, get me out!” Yet eventually Neo comes to terms with the truth, asking, “I can’t go back, can I?”

I can understand how being exposed to the truth, after years of hearing lies, can be a shock to the mind; but it is pure cowardice to reject it because it contradicts currently held beliefs, or happens to offend.

My exposure to the truth was not as sudden as the fictional one in the Matrix; mine occurred over a lengthy period of years as I began studying the history of my country and its system of government. I have often been asked why I don’t write more about the shadow government and all these conspiracy theories; and the answer is quite simple actually. I don’t write about them because of two things. First, the people, for the most part, would treat what I wrote like they treat the stuff found in tabloid magazines like the National Enquirer; fictional bullshit that brings a smile to their face.

Secondly, it honestly doesn’t matter how deep the rabbit hole of conspiracies go; the simple fact is that our government no longer runs according to the basic outline contained within the Constitution. Had it kept itself to the basic structure; kept itself to the specific powers contained within the Constitution; and had the people been kept knowledgeable about the purpose for which their government was established; none of these conspiracies could have happened in the first place.

It is human nature to be greedy and self serving; it takes a certain character trait which most do not have, to be able to see through the lies and hold steadfastly to certain principles; even at the cost of derision and ridicule by friends, neighbors and co-workers. Loss of stature, threats of violence, and general derision and scorn are potent tools which can be used against anyone who comes to close to the truth. Many will back down and stop seeking the truth if the fire surrounding it gets too hot.

To me it’s just a matter of personal integrity; if someone provides me with information which proves to be true; how can I keep my integrity if I reject that information simply because it becomes too uncomfortable to accept it?

For the longest time I trusted in our government to do the right thing; and I also believed in the idea that voting for the next president was the patriotic thing to do; the thing which would best determine the course our nation took. It was only be reading our founding documents, and pondering what they said, that I came to the conclusion that our government is beyond salvage no matter how many times we replace the bad ones with fresh meat; so to speak.

Like it or not, presidential elections are an illusion in which we are led to believe that by choosing the next president that our voices make a difference; when in reality nothing really changes. Government, no matter who gets elected, continues to grow bigger, more intrusive, and deeper in debt. If only people could take a few steps back from their Democrat vs Republican viewpoint and see this simple fact then it would go a long way to opening their eyes to the rest of the truth.

Why do people focus so much attention on the election of a president? After all, it is Congress which is the lawmaking body in our government; at least according to the Constitution. Congress was designed to represent the people and the States so that both would have equal say in what laws were passed. This was a fundamental balance of power written into the Constitution by those who drafted it; and even then there were those who foresaw the inevitable rise of tyranny from the system that document outlined.

If you take the Founders at their word, they created a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. A Constitutional Republic is one in which we elect people to manage the affairs of government on our behalf, but at the same time they are limited by written law as to what they can and cannot do on our behalf.

We have not had a Constitutional Republic since 1861. If our Constitutional Republic were a train, the actions taken by Abraham Lincoln to instigate Civil War derailed the Constitutional Republic.

You have to remember, before 1789 the system of government that we take for granted today did not exist. Our fledgling young nation was a loose confederation of States; of sovereign and independent bodies in which the people were citizens of, and loyal to, the States wherein they resided.

It was only when the Constitution was presented to each State for its consideration that our federal government came into existence. By the States agreeing to the terms laid out in the Constitution, they agreed to accept that the federal government held certain specific powers which they must obey.

However, they also believed in the principles contained in the Declaration of Independence, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it was the right of the people to alter or abolish it.

Government was not to be their master; it was to be their servant. The laws government passed were to be supreme, but only when those laws were in accordance with the specific powers granted government by the Constitution.

When the States ratified the Constitution, many of them included statements which declared their right to resume their independence from the government established by the Constitution. Virginia, for instance, declared the following, “WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression…” (My emphasis)

When the Civil War broke out the income tax as we know it today was not in existence. The revenue taken in to run our government came from excises and tariffs. Most of those tariffs were imposed upon goods flowing into the South; yet the money collected by the government was being spent in the North.

Sure, the North’s interference in the institution of slavery may have been another reason which led the original 7 Southern States to secede, but it does not matter. You have to understand, that when our Founders wrote the Constitution they included wording which protected the right of people to own slaves; slavery was legal. Therefore neither Northern Abolitionists, nor the federal government, could prevent the spread of slavery into new States; something which they repeatedly attempted to do.

Combine these two things and the original 7 Southern States felt they had no other recourse other than to withdraw from the Union and establish a system of government that would best serve their needs. They did not declare war on the North; they simply left the Union in peace.

It was Abraham Lincoln who called for an army of 75,000 to invade these seceding Southern States who instigated the war. It was Abraham Lincoln’s call to the States of the North for volunteers to invade the South which led 4 more States to secede; Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, and North Carolina.

You may have been taught that it was the South’s firing upon Fort Sumter which initiated hostilities, but Lincoln was attempting to force their hand by resupplying both Fort Sumter, and Fort Pickens in Florida; violating agreements made by President Buchanan not to do so. By doing so Lincoln was committing acts of war against sovereign States and the States were only defending their territory against an invading force.

If a State held the right to withdraw from the Union at any time, and resume its independence, then does it not make sense that all the land within that State, even that land ceded to the federal government, would return to State control? Therefore, any act by the federal government to resupply, or station federal troops on State soil could be seen as an act of war, and defensive measures taken.

Lincoln ordered the resupply of both Fort Pickens and Fort Sumter, hoping to goad the South into attacking what many in the North believed to be federal land. By the South taking the first shot, they blame for the Civil War could be placed upon them; even though they were forced into it by actions taken by the president.

When Lincoln called for troops to force the Confederacy back into the Union, he took the first steps towards abolishing States Rights. His actions placed the will of the federal government, a creation of the people of the States, above the will of the States themselves.

By the loss of the Confederate Army to the Union the States, as independent bodies, suffered a fatal blow from which they have never recovered. The federal government, from that point forward, has grown in leaps and bounds in regards to the powers it holds and the influence exerted upon the internal affairs of the States.

Everything I’ve said is true; they are facts which can be backed up by doing some research into the true reasons why the Civil War was fought. But instead, people choose to continue believing the lies they have been told; that the North fought a righteous war to end slavery. The North did not fight to end slavery, they fought to end a States right to secede.

In doing so they obliterated the concept that our government represents the will and voice of the people and the States; making it above those it represented, not subservient to their will. In declaring war on the South Abraham Lincoln effectively put the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence into a lockbox; never to be exercised again.

I hear talk of how Texas is talking of seceding should Hillary Clinton get elected. I have to laugh at the irony of it. They will secede if Ms. Clinton is elected, but they will remain in a system that is beyond corrupt; beyond the limits imposed upon it by the document which created it, should Trump be elected.

If the people would only read the Constitution, then create a list of all the powers granted federal government, and then compare those powers to the laws the government enacts, they would see that almost nothing our government does these days is permitted by law. NOTHING!!!!

Yet people think by elected one person, no matter how good his rhetoric is, that things are miraculously going to get better? Sure, Trump may be a far cry less dangerous than Hillary; that does not make him one I could put my trust in. Would he veto any law which was sent to him by Congress which funds any unconstitutional exercise of power by Congress as Dr. Ron Paul did when he earned the nickname Dr. No?

It is because people do not understand how our system was to be run, how the powers were to be distributed between the States and the federal government, that we have come to where we are today. Electing a new president makes absolutely no difference when we ignore the fact that the federal government interferes in areas it was never intended it be allowed to touch upon. The power to regulate the lives of the people was to be left to the States, and the people simply don’t see that. They go looking for federal aid, federal programs to provide them with all these things which the Constitution does not allow it to do.

We get the government our ignorance deserves. Ben Franklin warned what would happen to America should the people become ignorant and corrupt. In a speech delivered on the final day of the convention which produced our Constitution, Franklin declared, “…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’s why I say the truth no longer matters to people. Should they be inclined they could easily verify everything I have just said. Instead, they choose to believe the lies they have been spoon fed from birth. Whether it is due to a fear of finding out everything they believe is based upon a lie, or simple laziness on their parts, I cannot say. All I know is that whenever I try to open their eyes to it, I am met with resistance and scorn. The truth has become a four letter word more offensive than any profanity I could possibly utter, and the people shy away from it like it was the plague.

Franklin was right, we have become incapable of anything other than despotic government; simply because we choose to ignore the truth which is right in front of our very eyes. Yet we have the audacity to say we are making informed decisions. Were that true, the people, to a one, would stay home on election-day and withdraw their consent for any law passed by our government which violates our rights or oversteps the limits placed upon them.

But that would take courage, and if people don’t have the courage to face the truth, they certainly don’t have the courage to stand up to their Uncle Sam.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Put Your Heads Back In The Sand (There’s Nothing To Learn Here)

People don’t
want to hear the
truth because they
don’t want their
illusions destroyed.

~Friedrich Nietzche~

Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what every man
wishes, that he also believes to be true.


They say that if a lie is repeated enough times it becomes everyone’s truth. That may very well be true, but no matter how many times a lie is repeated it does not alter the fundamental fact that it is, in fact, a lie. The truth is the truth; whether people choose to accept or to reject it.

What I’m more interested in is what transpires when an individual who has lived their entire life believing a lie suddenly comes face to face with the truth. If a person’s entire belief system was based upon that lie, there is a good chance that encountering the truth would cause a great deal of stress. This stress has a name; cognitive dissonance.

When people experience cognitive dissonance after having been exposed to the truth, they can do but one of two things. Either they can accept the truth, and alter their belief system, or they can choose to reject or ignore the truth. It has been my experience that most people, when confronted with facts which contradict existing beliefs, will choose to reject the new facts, even when they are proven to be unequivocally true.

If you want my honest opinion on the matter it is morally reprehensible; denying the truth because it conflicts with previous lies you have been told. It shows a severe lack of integrity on the part of an individual to reject the truth simply because it conflicts with currently held beliefs. In fact, one could almost call it cowardice.

After having said all that, there is one thing I have yet to speak of; the fact that a great deal of people don’t care one way or the other about the truth; they are apathetic when it comes to certain things which they consider to be of little importance to their lives.

Apathy is defined as a lack of concern, or indifference towards something: or a general lack of enthusiasm. Everyone, including me, is apathetic; the important question is ‘What are people apathetic about?’

I could care less who wins the Super Bowl; what dress some actress wears to the Oscars; or the newest app to be released for your iPhone; these things simply don’t matter to me. The problem as I see it is that too many people’s priorities are all mixed up. Instead of caring about things that really matter, trivial pursuits have taken the top spot on their list of things that matter to them.

The history of this country and understanding how our system of government was supposed to function are way down on most people’s list of priorities; if they are even on the list in the first place. You can tell a lot about a person’s priorities when they can name the last 10 winners of the Super Bowl; every quarterback in the NFL; or the entire offensive and defensive roster of their favorite football team, but not who is the current Secretary of State, or where in the Constitution it describes the powers granted our government.

Yet these same people would blow a gasket were one to suggest that they be denied the right of suffrage, [voting]. Many believe that the only requirement which determines whether a person should be allowed to vote is whether or not they have a pulse; having a basic understanding of our system of government is simply too much to ask of them.

I have mentioned many times that we are not a democracy, we are a Republic; or at least we were supposed to be a Republic. Yet the only real difference between the two systems is how much people know about the law which controls the actions of government, and how well they adhere to it. When a majority of the people don’t care what the law says government can and cannot do, we have essentially become a democracy where the majority gets whatever it wants.

Author Robert Heinlein said the following regarding his thoughts on democracies, “The America of my time line is a laboratory example of what can happen to democracies, what has eventually happened to all perfect democracies throughout all histories. A perfect democracy, a ‘warm body’ democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens… which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it… which for the majority translates as ‘Bread and Circuses.

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

But you see, that’s my entire point; the truth doesn’t matter. People do not want to admit that it is not government that lies at the root of all the problems in America today; it is mankind. If we do, in fact, have a representative republic, then government is a snapshot of the public which elects these people to office.

That’s why I really like the following quote from former president James Garfield, “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.”

I have spent the last 15 some odd years of my life studying the founding of this country and the establishment of its system of government; how much time have you devoted to it? I’d be willing to bet that most people haven’t spent 15 minutes.

Isaac Asimov once said, “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.” How can we have an honest discussion of the issues that concern us as a nation when facts do not matter? If facts do not matter in forming opinions, or settling disputes, we may as well just don boxing gloves and settle all disputes in the ring; as we are nothing better than brutes without reason and logic.

I simply don’t understand it, God gave us this miraculous brain and nobody seems to want to use it for anything other than storing mindless trivia. Yet people have the sheer audacity to expect me to give their opinions any weight when they do not have any facts or evidence to support them.

It has gotten so bad in this country that one who takes pride in being accurate and truthful finds themselves the object of scorn and derision. Or worse, they find themselves persecuted for simply telling the truth.

That’s how I see political correctness; a shield worn by those whose minds are too weak to confront facts and face the truth. They pull it out whenever someone comes too close to exposing the lies they believe in; effectively silencing the truth.

I can’t count the times I’ve been told to tone down my rhetoric because someone found it offensive. What about me; don’t my feelings count? I find stupidity, ignorance and apathy offensive; but I guess that doesn’t count because that’s exactly what those in control want; a mindless citizenry who are content to follow orders without questioning them.

As George Carlin so eloquently put it, “They don’t want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly they’re getting FUCKED by a system that threw them overboard 30 FUCKING years ago. … … They don’t want that! You know what they want? They want obedient workers . . . Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork.” Well they certainly got what they wanted, as most people don’t know the first damned thing about the history of this country or how its system of government is supposed to function.

It is these people who are going to go to the polls in November and vote for the next president; and they say I have no right to complain because I do not participate in choosing who will lead this country.

Let me ask you a question; would you willingly get on a bus when you knew the path that bus was on would take it over a cliff? Or would the only thing you cared about was whether Republican or a Democrat was driving the bus?

Voting for the lesser of two evils, or even a halfway decent candidate is not going to alter the course our nation is currently upon. There is simply too much momentum behind the path we find ourselves on for the election of one or two good candidates at the federal level to make any difference.

Don’t get me wrong, I am no fool; I understand that were someone like Hillary to be elected our country would suffer far worse than it might under a Trump presidency. That doesn’t take away from the fact that should Trump be elected he will become part of the machine that is government, and I have yet to see government voluntarily reduce itself in size, or cut back on its violations of our fundamental rights.

I have simply refused to continue participating in a process that will not produce any real change for the better. Trump might not be as bad as Hillary; he might build his wall, bring back jobs to America; but is he going to dismantle the Dept of Homeland Security, shutdown the NSA, and revoke every unconstitutional gun law that has ever been passed? If not, then why should I bother voting for him when all he will be doing is violating the Constitution for things these so-called conservatives support?

If these people cannot find it within themselves to support the Constitution, then I cannot find it within myself to support the candidate they have chosen to run against Hillary. I am tired of accepting the lesser of two evils; my moral bullshit meter has reached its limit and I cannot tolerate any more of it.

So I’m opting out. Do not ask me to support any candidate for president when you refuse to demand that the candidate you have thrown your support behind will not support the Constitution; it’s that simple!

It’s all moot anyways; you’re going to vote for whomever you are going to vote for. Then you’re going to go back to your lives, ignoring the actions of your government until it gets close to the next election cycle; when you will display the proper amount of outrage, and then you will elect someone else to man the rudder.

It doesn’t matter how many times you change who pilots the good ship America, if you don’t change the course America is on eventually it will run aground or dash itself against the rocks of tyranny and oppression.

Oh, but silly me; that’s the truth and people don’t want to hear the truth any more.

Posted in General | 1 Comment

We Interrupt Your Regularly Scheduled Programming (For A Few Moments of Enlightenment)

Note: This very well may be my last article for about a month or so. The time draws nigh that I am leaving on vacation and I have much to do in preparation for a much needed break from work. So if it is, enjoy this one as I put my heart and soul into it.

In 1822 James Madison wrote a letter in which he said, “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance.” Ignorance is not stupidity, it is defined as a lack of knowledge or information. Yesterday I printed out a very simple civics test; 10 questions everyone should be able to answer without giving them any thought; that is if they knew this country’s history and its Constitution. I left the test lying on tables in the cafeteria and sat back and observed as people picked them up and read them. The results were telling; there are a LOT of ignorant people living in this country in this day and age. Maybe my friend Mike is correct in renaming our species as Americanus Ignoramous.

I can’t recall who said it, but as I was growing up someone once said that a good day is one in which you learn something new. The problem with learning new things is that they need to be of use; otherwise they are simply trivia that serves no useful purpose. For instance, what good would it do me to learn how many perforations are on a check which allow you to tear it from the checkbook without ripping it in two; or how many coils there are in a standard phone cord?

As another example, football season is once again upon us and as I walk around at work I hear nonstop talk of the possibility of this team or that team making it to the Super Bowl; the attributes of this quarterback in comparison to that quarterback. Some of these people are walking, talking encyclopedias of football; but if you were to ask them to explain the difference between a democracy and a republic they would get, what I like to call, that stupid cow look on their face.

I’m not saying, nor have I ever said, that people should not be allowed to sit down and watch a good football game, or enjoy any other form of entertainment as far as that goes. When I am saying is that when people allow their quest for entertainment to overshadow their quest for new knowledge or information, we have a serious problem with our priorities; especially considering the following. You see, there is a second part to that quote by Madison, which states, “…and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”

George Washington explained it thusly in an address to the American people, “The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government, are justly considered deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.” For our system to work as designed it requires that the public at least have a rudimentary understanding of its structure, its purpose, and the powers granted it.

When someone who believes they have the right to vote, yet can’t name the chain of succession for president, or how many current Supreme Court Justices there are, we have a problem Houston. Our system cannot function as designed when those responsible for keeping it within its legal boundaries are ignorant as to what those boundaries are.

Unlike most living in America today, I have made it my personal goal to try to make that saying I once heard my life’s motto; to learn something new every day. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I don’t; but the other day was such a day for me. I was listening to a podcast of the Roger Sayles radio show and one of the people who called in did so to discuss the origin of the word ‘nation’.

I had never given that much thought; I believed I knew what the word meant and how it was used in our modern vernacular, but when I heard this caller speak on the origin and meaning of the word it was as if a light bulb had been turned on inside my head and everything became clear. That’s what I call, not a good, but a GREAT day.

After hearing that I began thinking of how many words people use in their day to day discussions without ever really knowing the origin or meaning of the words they are using. Take for instance the word democracy; I hear people use it in reference to our system of government, but I’d be more than willing to bet that were I to ask them to describe what a democracy is, they would not be able to do so.

The word democracy has its origins back in 5th century Greece with the Athenian city-states being the first recorded examples of democracies in the world. The very first democracies, or direct democracies as they were called, were ones in which the people all gathered together to argue and decide which laws would apply to them all; a simple majority was all that was required to make something law.

Later a representative form of democracy developed; not one in which the representatives were elected, but rather one were lots were drawn to choose the representatives from among the people. Think of it like a raffle where the winners got to run government. Rich or poor, it did not matter; if your name was drawn you got to serve as a representative. But still, a simple majority was all it took for any measure to become law.

Using that as a definition, can you honestly say that what we have in America is a democracy? If not, then why do you insist on continuing to call our system of government a democracy? Our Founders, (even those who sought an extremely powerful central government), despised democracies, calling them things like evil and vile. Our Founders understood that for the liberty of the people a system of government was to represent to be secure there must be some limits as to what the government can, and cannot do.

What they established was a republic in which, through a democratic process, representatives would be chosen to administer government, but based strictly upon a set of laws governing what they could and could not do. The word republic comes from the Latin res publica which means ‘public affair’. A synonym would be the word commonwealth; as in The Commonwealth of Virginia.

That is why it is so imperative in this country that the people be knowledgeable regarding this country’s system of government. For them to be their own governors, as Madison put it, they must know what laws their government can, and cannot enact to remain within the limits of the law which established government. For, as Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, government derives its just powers from the consent of the people. When the powers exercised by government exceed those granted them, the power acquired by government becomes unjust; or tyrannical if you will.

Another concept which is not commonly discussed is that, if we created government, we can dismantle it; or tear it down, and there is not a damned thing government can do about it. Yet today when one talks like that they are thought of as subversive, or a danger to society. Why? If you got together with a group of friends and started a business, then hired people to run your business; what right would the people you hired have to deny you the ability to close your business down if it was, say, unprofitable? The same concept applies to government; we brought it to life, and we can kill, if you don’t mind my using that word, it.

Today people speak of government in terms that give me the distinct impression that they believe government to be this almighty entity; bestowed with great powers to be spoken of in hushed and reverent terms. Yet former Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas once posed the following question that is worth considering, “Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverance to those who represent us?”

Our Government, or at least those who work in our government, are merely employees of the people, hired to do a specific job on our behalf. If they screw up, or begin doing things they were not hired for; we have all the right in the world to get rid of them. We are the masters over them, not the other way around; after all, that’s why they are called representatives.

Back in 1787 when the Constitution was presented to the States for their consideration, one of the biggest concerns was that it created a system of government which would swallow up, or consolidate, all the States into a single entity. As each State was a sovereign and independent entity of their own, the sovereignty held by the States was something they jealously guarded.

What many feared is that the proposed Constitution would create a single nation; a consolidation of the 13 individual nations that existed at the time under the Articles of Confederation. This is where an understanding of the meaning of the words national and federal comes into play. Today those words are used interchangeably to describe our system of government; but back in 1787 they meant entirely different things.

In a federal system there may be a central government, but its powers are not typically used to enact laws which directly affected the lives of the people who live within the various member states of the confederation. The powers granted a federal form of government were directed mainly towards interaction between the states and for the protection of the whole from attack from outsiders.

In Federalist 45, Madison not only calls it a federal form of government, but he describes the relationship between the powers it would hold and those held by the States, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

Those are the words used by Madison to reassure the people of New York that this new system of government would be federal, not national in form. A national government is one over an entire nation, without concern or regards for the sovereignty of the components that make up the nation; i.e. the States. In a national form of government the laws enacted by the government directly affect the lives of the people throughout the nation, as opposed to in a federal form of government where the laws apply only to the States as sovereign entities.

Patrick Henry stated it thusly in his argument in opposition to the proposed Constitution, “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.”

The real question then is, did our Constitution establish a single nation; these United States of America, or did it create a system of government designed to pass laws to which 13, now increased to 50 independent sovereign nations were to obey? Did it consolidate the parts into one nation, or did it leave them as being free and independent States; the status they found themselves in upon the signing of the Treaty of Paris, 1783?

All that now leads us to a discussion of the word nation.

Is it just me, or does anyone else see the obvious similarity between the word nation and the word national? If we are a nation, with a national form of government, then the component parts are but mere delineations on a map but having no significance when it comes to deciding who, or what, has absolute sovereignty.

To make that point clearer, I live in Yuba County in the State of California. Am I a Yubian; does Yuba Country retain sovereignty over the State government? In answer to both, no. I am a citizen of the State of California with the government in Sacramento having the authority to enact laws which I must obey; that is if the laws are in accordance with the powers granted the State government by our State Constitution.

If you think of it in those terms, then in a national form of government we have but one nation, with each State being nothing but a large county with all power and authority wielded by the central government in Washington D.C.

But what is a nation?

Nation comes from the old French word nacion, which means birth, rank; descendants, relatives; country, homeland. However it implies much more. A nation traditionally was thought of as people of the same bloodline, heritage and race; or a people with common ancestry.

Using that definition as a guideline we could be either a single nation under one system of government, or we could be 50 independent, sovereign nations joined in a Confederation with a system of government to manage the interaction between the component parts and provide for the common defense of all; in short, either a national or a federal system.

As our system of government is only held in check by how well the people demand that those who represent them adhere to the limits upon the power granted government by the Constitution, whether we have a national or federal form of government is entirely up to us.

But I would like to touch on the definition of the word nation a bit more. Using the definition provided, in Federalist 2, John Jay describes a nation when he says, “With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.” (My emphasis)

Is that America today, a nation comprised of people all with a common language, customs, and background? Or have we, due to the politically correct concept of multiculturalism, become a fragmented society with these little conclaves of people who are, in reality, satellites of their native lands; each with their own customs and languages? How can we call ourselves the United States of America when we allow ourselves to be so fragmented without any commonalities binding us together?

Yet to speak of such things causes one to be labeled racist or xenophobic. Is it racist or xenophobic to ask that those who come to this country obey the laws of this country, or place its welfare above that of their native land? If you ask me, that is the definition for patriotism, and anyone who argues against it is, in fact, the one who is unpatriotic.

I do not want to make this about immigration, but it is important to realize that it is quite possible that our Founders wanted this country to be comprised of people who shared the same beliefs and views on life, and that to allow too many others from lands who shared different beliefs would lead to the undermining of the values they sought to preserve.

For instance, why would the government, in 1790, pass a naturalization law allowing only free white men of good character who had lived within the United States could become citizens? By 1798 that two year period had gone up to 14 years.

Over the course of our countries history many laws have been passed amending the naturalization process. Chinese were, at one time, banned from entering the U.S. when, after the completion of the transcontinental railway there was an increase in unemployed Chinese laborers. At one point in 1907 if a female U.S. citizen married a foreigner she lost her citizenship and assumed the citizenship of her husband.

Another thing, did you know that prior to 1868 there was no such thing as a citizen of the United States? Up until then the people living here were considered as citizens of the State they resided in, and nothing else. U.S. citizenship was a creation of the illegally ratified 14th Amendment; granting citizenship to the recently freed slaves citizenship: along with equal protection under the law. It did not apply to whites already living here in the United States.

In Black’s Legal Dictionary (6th Edition), it says the following regarding the 14th Amendment, “The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the States…”

In Van Valkenburg v. Brown, the Court ruled, “No white person born within the limits of the United States and subject to their jurisdiction…owes his status of Citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution…”

In the 1875 case of United Stats v. Cruikshank, the Court ruled, “We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own.”

The misguided belief that each of us is a U.S. citizen, and not a citizen of the State wherein we live, is just another in a long list of actions that have taken us from a federal form of government in which the States retained their sovereignty, to a national form of government where the States, and the people living within them, have all but been swallowed up into a national form of government; “…one nation under God.”

That is one of the reasons I refuse to recite the Pledge of Allegiance any more, as I refuse to pledge allegiance to the idea that we are a single nation rather than 50 independent nations; each with citizens and systems of government of their own.

In either case, the interest of the whole should be towards the best interest of the whole. How can that be when, due to our immigration policy and our belief in multiculturalism, we have fragmented society into distinct subcultures; each with customs, languages and beliefs of their own?

In 1917 Theodore Roosevelt said, “From the melting pot of life in this free land all men and woman of all nations who come hither emerge as Americans and nothing else. They must have renounced completely and without reserve all allegiance to the land from which they or their forefathers came. And it is a binding duty on every citizen of this country in every important crisis to act solidly with all his fellow Americans, having regard only to the honor and interest of America, treating every other nation purely on its conduct in that crisis, without reference to his ancestral predilections or antipathies. If he does not act, he is false to the teachings and lives of Washington and Lincoln; he is not entitled to any part or lot in our country and he should be sent out of it.”

Seeing the way people reacted to the things Trump has said regarding the emigration of Muslims into America, I can only imagine how people would react would a sitting, or former president make a statement like the one Roosevelt did.

Our first system of government was a confederation, in which the States pledged to “…enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.”

From the moment James Madison broached his idea of tossing the Articles of Confederation by the wayside, and creating an entirely new system of government, our country has been on a slow, but steady course; changing us from a federal form of government into a national form.

The Civil War, or the Second War for Independence, was the last gasp of State’s rights and State sovereignty. With the loss of that war by the Confederacy it has been a rapid descent into nationalism and the corresponding loss of liberty for all.

One may think that a national form of government is not bad; especially when it provides all these wonderful benefits for us. But then one has to consider that National Socialism was also a national form of government; and look what happened to the people living in Nazi Germany; they lost all their freedom and were subject to the will of a tyrant.

We are on that path right now, and it seems that just a handful out of the 300+ million people living in this country can see it. That is because we are not, as Madison said, armed with the power that knowledge gives.

One other point and I’ll wrap this all up. Have you ever stopped to consider that the Constitution itself could be illegal? Bet that opened your eyes a bit! But the truth of the matter is that it was created and ratified illegally.

At the time it was written the Articles of Confederation were the existing law which governed government in America. Article 13 of these Articles of Confederation states, “And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”

When the delegates assembled in Philadelphia in 1787 many were under the belief that they had come to produce amendments to the Articles of Confederation which the States would then vote upon. Madison had, before the convention even met, sent letters saying he proposed to create a radically different system of government; one with much greater powers.

The moment Madison broached the subject in the Philadelphia convention he overstepped the authority granted him by the Commonwealth of Virginia. By continuing to listen, participate even, in drafting a Constitution, the delegates all overstepped the authority granted them by their respective States. Only John Lansing and Robert Yates of New York spoke out against what was going on in Philadelphia; leaving the convention in protest of the activities taking place within.

Madison did what he did because of Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation and its requirement that EVERY State accept a law passed by Congress before it went into effect. The rejection by one State meant that laws passed by Congress would not go into effect. How many laws can you think of that would not have gone into effect had that still been in effect? Obamacare for instance, if just one State had voted against it; it would not have gone into effect. The Patriot Act, comprehensive immigration reform; any of these laws would have to be accepted by all 50 States before they could go into effect. That was a MAJOR stumbling block for Madison’s grand design for a strong central government.

This brings us back almost full circle to the question of whether we have a national or federal system of government. When Patrick Henry argued against the proposed Constitution he asked the Virginia Assembly to consider the following, “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.”

In either case government derives its authority because the people consent to its existence. It is not perpetual and the consent can be, unanimously, or individually withdrawn at any time by either a single state, or a group of them. The government created by this consent does not have a say in this any less that the light bulb has a say when you flip the switch to turn it off. If the people withdraw their consent for government’s existence, then government simply vanishes; unless of course it is tyrannical; then it will fight to ensure its survival.

It happened once before; the only problem is that the wrong side won the war that came about, (not because the government wanted to free the slaves), but when the government created by the constitution demanded that a portion of the country which wanted to withdraw from the union, stay in that union. It not only demanded, it invaded them with an army to force obedience. We call it the Civil War, but I call it the Second War for Independence. But that’s another area of our history where the people are pitifully ignorant.

Anyway, that about wraps things up. I know I have given you a lot of information to digest, and many of you may not care. My job here is not to convince you one way or the other, only to share the knowledge that I come across on my journey to find the truth. It’s up to you to read what I write, to verify what I have said, and then form your own conclusions. Or, of course, you can toss it in the trash and go back to your TV’s and iPhones. I’ve gotten to the point that I don’t care either way; it is the process of writing that I care about; just crafting the most readable and information filled articles I can. Whether or not you read and learn from them is your decision, your problem.

Just realize this, if you do not learn from the things I write, then you certainly are not an informed citizenry. Therefore you are easy targets for the aspirations of evil men and tyrants. As long as you keep voting for the lesser of two evils because a little evil is preferable to a bigger one, then nothing will change; it will only continue to get worse; it’s just a matter of how much worse, and how fast it happens.

That’s about all I have to say for no so I’ll return you to your regularly scheduled program

Posted in General | 1 Comment

Friend, Foe, or Jack-Booted Thugs?

What is a crime? According to the dictionary a crime is: an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government. I suppose the next logical question then is; what makes an act illegal? Again, returning to the dictionary, illegal is defined as; not allowed by the law: not legal. Who then, and using what criterion, make an act illegal?

The simple answer, in our case, is that government makes laws which make the doing of certain things illegal. The criterion which government uses could be almost anything from a majority of the public clamoring for certain acts to be made illegal, to its own arbitrary will to make certain acts, or activities, illegal. The real question then, for any critical thinking individual, should be; What is the purpose for which laws should be written?

Before you go blurting out; to keep us safe, I want you to think about the purpose for which governments are created; after all it is government who enacts these laws which we must all obey, and therefore the laws they pass must serve the purpose for which government was created to be valid.

The Preamble to our Constitution is not a grant of any powers, it is a declaration of intent; the reasons for which our government was established. Therefore we should look to it to find out why our government was established in the first place.

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

The Preamble is divided into three sections. First it declares who is performing the act. Secondly it declares why the act is being performed. And finally it declares what the act is. Therefore, the people of the United States ordained and established a constitution for the purpose of forming a more perfect Union, establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense,, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity.

According to Merriam Webster one of the definitions for justice is; the administration of law; especially: the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity. The Preamble also declares one of the reasons this form of government was created was to ensure the blessings of liberty to the people and their posterity. Liberty is defined as; the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely: the power to do or choose what you want to.

Couldn’t it therefore be concluded that one of the reasons for which government was established was to secure the ability of the people to speak and act freely; do whatever they wanted as long as in so doing they harmed no one else, or infringed upon that person’s rights?

Therefore, going back a bit, couldn’t it also be concluded that any law which does not serve that purpose is an unjust law; one which goes against the very reasons for which government was established?

Prior to our Constitution being written our Founders also produced another document; the Declaration of Independence, which contained a few important principles of its own. First it declares, “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.” Next it declares, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” Finally, it declares, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”

It does not say that the people have to ask government’s permission to abolish government, or that government has any say in the matter whether or not it continues to exist; only that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish government should it cease to perform the functions for which it was established.
While the dictionary may have its own definition for the word tyranny, I have my own thoughts on the subject. Tyranny, at least according to my definition of the word, is whenever government enacts laws which run counter to the purpose for which government was established, and seeks to use force or coercion to enforce those laws.

Five years before Jefferson put quill to parchment and wrote our Declaration of Independence, Samuel Adams wrote something called The Liberty Letters, wherein he states, “Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can–Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature.”

These are Natural Rights, or to put it another way, rights that do not depend upon the existence of government or not for their existence; they are part of man’s nature as a human being. Government cannot violate these Natural Rights without the most gravest of injustices being committed.

Note the order in which Adams places these Natural Rights. First comes life, then liberty, then property. He then states it is our right to support AND DEFEND all three in the best manner we can.

Therefore, if governments are established to ensure justice and secure liberty, then the very purpose for which the laws government enacts must coincide with the purpose for which governments exist; otherwise the laws become tyranny. Or to quote Bastiat, “If every person has the right to defend—even by force—his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right—its reason for existing, its lawfulness—is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute.”

What is government; I mean what does it consist of? Well let’s see; there is a President, a Vice-President; 100 United States Senators and 435 members of the House of Representatives; and 9 Supreme Court Justices. That makes our government a total of 546 people.

How therefore can 546 people cause over 300 million to abide by the laws they enact? They certainly do not say, “Okay now people; we’ve enacted this law and we expect you to obey it.” No, they must have the means of enforcing it. As Alexander Hamilton writes in Federalist 15, “Government implies the power of making laws. It is essential to the idea of a law, that it be attended with a sanction; or, in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience. If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation. This penalty, whatever it may be, can only be inflicted in two ways: by the agency of the courts and ministers of justice, or by military force; by the COERCION of the magistracy, or by the COERCION of arms.”

And here we get to the crux of the issue; who is it that enforces the laws our government passes? Whenever our government enacts a law it isn’t Barack Obama, or any of the members of Congress who come to your home to enforce it; it is law enforcement.

Again, I beg you to ask yourself, who is to be considered guiltier of committing a crime; the person, or persons, who enact unjust laws, or those who enforce those laws? Does it make it any less of a crime against us and our Natural Rights that law enforcement claims it was only upholding the law, or following orders?

At the time our Constitution was written there was no police force other than local sheriffs. The coercion of arms, more often than not, came not from these sheriffs, but from standing armies. When King George III sought to impose his tyrannical laws upon the Colonists he did not hire more sheriffs loyal to him; he sent an army to impose his will.

That is one of the reasons why our Founders were so against a perpetual, or standing army. I’ll bet you didn’t know the clause in the Constitution which allows for the funding of an army only allows it for a period of two years; after which Congress must again vote to either continue or dismantle; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years. (Article 1, Section ’8′) To this day that clause has not been amended; yet our nation continues to have a standing army.

Although the Posse Comitatus Act specifically prohibits the use of the Army for domestic law enforcement purposes, it does allow for the use of National Guard troops if called upon by State Governors. And what are National Guard troops if they are not just part time members of a standing army?

Therefore, if either local law enforcement, or members of the military serving as National Guardsmen, enforce unjust laws upon the people, who is to blame; those who gave the orders, or those who followed them?

Those who serve in the military, be they regular active duty personnel, or reservists, all take an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If our government enacts laws which go against the tenor and spirit of the Constitution, wouldn’t you consider them to be enemies of the Constitution, and therefore those in the military should place their allegiance to the Constitution above their allegiance to the orders given by the government created by the Constitution? But how much are you willing to bet that, should unjust laws be passed, and unjust orders given, that a majority of those serving will simply follow orders without giving any thought to whether or not in obeying them they are violating their oaths of enlistment?

As for law enforcement, their motto is to protect and serve. One has to ask, whom are they protecting, and whom are they serving? Of course they serve the function of maintaining peace and order in society, but that is essential if government wants to maintain order and keep things running in this country. Without law and order there would be chaos and anarchy. But is law enforcement serving us, or serving government?

One has to but look at what laws they enforce to answer that question. Certainly laws which prohibit murder, rape, assault, and theft are protecting us as individuals as well as society as a whole, but remember, government only acts as a substitute for what are originally our powers as citizens under Natural Law. If, as Adams said, we have the right to defend our lives, or liberty, and our property in the best manner we can, and then government makes it a crime to do so; who is in the wrong? If I shoot someone in my driveway attempting to steal my truck, according to California law I will go to prison because the person was not in my home and I did not fear for my life. Yet am I not merely defending my property?

If I drive down the road without a seat belt and am pulled over I can be fined by local law enforcement, and jailed should I refuse to pay the fine. Who am I hurting for not wearing a seat belt?

If the purpose for which laws are written is to allow people the ability to do and say what they please, as long as their actions do not harm another, then how can it be a crime for a person to drive without a seat belt? Or is the law merely a means of deriving income, or revenue, for local government?

When one asserts their rights today they are considered a danger to society, or anti-government radicals. I have been told time and time again that if I have nothing to hide I should cooperate with law enforcement and let the justice system clear me of any wrongdoing.

Using that logic, Samuel Adams and John Hancock should have surrendered to the Kings authorities, and the people of Lexington and Concord should have given up their arms to the Kings men, and hoped the justice system would have returned both the men, and their arms to their rightful status and owners.
For the most part, law enforcement, or cops and sheriffs, serve a much needed function. But make no mistake about where their loyalty lies; and it certainly isn’t to the public. With increasing frequency law enforcement is coming to view each and every one of us as suspects and they treat us as though they are always right and we are always in the wrong.

What happens when the law is in the wrong and they enforce that law upon us? Does that make them public servants, or servants to the government which enacts these unconstitutional and unjust laws?

One has to but look at what happened after Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans when law enforcement, in conjunction with the National Guard, went house to house seizing the arms lawfully owned by the people of New Orleans. That is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment, yet they followed orders without question, and those who resisted were treated like common thugs. Yet, in truth, who were the thugs?

Although there may be some in the law enforcement profession who are honest and loyal to the principles contained in our Founding documents; they are few and far between. If it ever comes to us against government, you can bet your ass which side most will take.

I’m awful tired of all this support law enforcement nonsense when law enforcement itself does not support our rights; both under Natural Law and those rights protected by the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

If law enforcement wants our support, then maybe they ought to start respecting our rights first and stop treating us as if we were inmates in a huge prison and they are the prison guards.

Our Founders warned us of the dangers of standing armies, and if they were alive today they would see all these government agencies such as the ATF, DEA and Homeland Security as part of that standing army. They would also see the militarized police forces which roam our streets, enforcing unjust laws upon the people, as a standing army as well.

The problem lies in the fact that the laws being written do not serve the purpose for which government was established; to secure justice and the blessings of liberty to the people of this country. Those in the military and the law enforcement career field must ask themselves to whom, and to what they serve; the people or the government.

In 1816 Thomas Jefferson wrote, “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.”

Prior to that Patrick Henry warned, “A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders?”

I am all for law enforcement, but you have to realize that our Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, is the Supreme Law of the Land. If those in the military and law enforcement career do not abide by what the Supreme Law of the Land says, then in my opinion they are the lawbreakers, not those who are only attempting to assert their God-given rights. Therefore, they may be opposed as would any tyrant when one feels that their life, their liberty, or their property is threatened by their actions.

I know this may have offended some who blindly support law enforcement. It was not my intent to do so. I only ask that you ask yourself whose laws are they enforcing, and do they serve justice or secure your liberty?

If you cannot answer that question in the affirmative maybe it is you who should reconsider your stance on the issue. And keep one other thing in mind…

Posted in General | 1 Comment

Are We On A Runaway Train?

When I was a kid trains used to fascinate me. I had a model railroad set, I road on them to visit my grandmother in San Francisco, I lived right next to the tracks in San Jose and would climb the fence and watch them go by; carrying either passengers or cargo, and as a teenager I even hopped a few for the thrill of it. To this day I still can’t help but gaze as they pass by; the powerful locomotives pulling whatever it is they are hauling that day.

How much have trains played a role in American Culture? They joined the two halves of our country with the driving of the final stake at Promontory Point in Utah, they’ve played roles in our films; beginning with the old Westerns when the bandits robbed them, to the newer movies such as Batman Begins were the League Of Shadows used one to release their toxic gas into the air. Even Ayn Rand, in her classic novel Atlas Shrugged used Taggart Transcontinental as the last holdout of a dying society beset by governmental control over industry and private lives.

Therefore, it should come as no surprise that I would hop on the band wagon and use a train analogy sooner or later. Let’s for a moment pretend that America is a big train, named Liberty Lines. As long as the conductors of the train keep a steady course the Liberty Line will arrive safely at its destination. But the conductors, (government), of the Liberty Line are out of control, and it is threatening all those aboard. Either we will go off the cliff into tyranny, or we will hit an immovable object; but the end result will remain the same, the destruction of the Liberty Line.

Every 4 years, every 2 if you count mid-term elections, we elect new conductors to drive this train, but it makes no difference because the train keeps hurtling down the tracks, heading in the same direction. It matters little the speed at which the train is running; it’s the course it is upon that is important.

You see, the rails upon which trains travel are interconnected with many other routes, each controlled by a switch which can either allow the train to proceed on its current path, or divert it onto another track; leading in an entirely new direction. Our country has made so many course changes over the course of its 200+ years of existence that the people on board the train no longer even know the purpose for which they boarded the train in the first place; the preservation of their liberty.

Patrick Henry, that fiery orator who told King George III, “Give me liberty or give me death.” also told the Virginia ratification assembly, “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 may be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.”

The Virginia assembly, motivated by whatever it was that motivated them, chose to ignore Henry’s dire warnings that this new system of government would erode the rights of both the people and the States.

They say hindsight is 20/20, and looking back it appears that Patrick Henry, as well as all the other anti-Federalists, were right in their predictions of what would occur should the States ratify the proposed constitution.

As I sit here in front of my computer monitor, I am struggling to comprehend how people cannot see what I see so clearly. I just don’t get it; our Constitution is not that hard to understand; so why is it that so few know what it says and how far we have drifted from the principles contained within it?

Government in our country, be it federal, state, or local is given its power by consent of the people. Should the people decide that government no longer serves the purpose for which it was established, or if the people simply get tired of having government for that matter, they have the right to withdraw their consent of power and the actions of government become nullities and void. It’s that simple. Government derives its just powers from the consent of the people; go read the Declaration of Independence if you don’t believe me.

However, while government exists, it must confine itself to the powers given it by those who created it; if it does not its acts become tyrannical, or at least illegal. After all, the Constitution does say that it is the Supreme Law of the Land. Then why is it that those who serve us in government are not behind bars for violating the laws which govern their actions; yet we as the masters over government find ourselves threatened by all manner of punishment for violating the laws it enacts? Doesn’t that strike you as the least bit odd?

Before our government came into existence there were 13 independent and sovereign nations which comprised the United States of America. Each had citizens which recognized their state as their country, with its own system of government to manage the affairs of the State.

When our federal government was created the Congress was established to represent both bodies; the States and the people. The powers given government by the Constitution were, as James Madison declared, ‘few and defined.’

In Federalist 45 James Madison promised the following regarding this new system of government, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

What has happened, particularly after the loss of the Confederacy in the Civil War, is that the States have lost their sovereignty and the people living within the States no longer see themselves as citizens of the State wherein they reside, but as citizens of the United States with the federal government the provider of all their needs.

Look at what happens every time there is a natural disaster of some sort; the States look to the federal government for disaster relief funds to help aid in the recovery from whatever it was that Mother Nature unleashed upon their State.

Today our government appropriates money for purposes it was never intended our government have any authority to fund. If you take Madison at his word, that the powers granted government are few and defined, where within the Constitution does it authorize government to require every citizen to participate in Social Security, or provide funds for Medicare? I’ll wait while you check on that, but I can guarantee that you won’t find it. I’ll even give you a hint; the specific powers granted government are found in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Go look, then get back to me.

Our government is more than willing to provide all these funds to the individual States, either for pork projects inserted into Congressional legislation by Congressmen to appease their constituents, or to keep the States dependent upon federal funds for their survival.

My home State of California gets 25% of all the money it spends on internal projects from Uncle Sam; and that’s on the lower end of the scale. Mississippi tops the list with 42.9% of all the money it spends on internal projects coming from the federal government. All the other states fall somewhere in between.
How does that fit in with what Madison said, “The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.”? It doesn’t, that’s how. But nobody seems to care. Everyone gets all exited over the election of a new president when in truth his job is only to enforce the laws Congress enacts. Sure he has veto power, and the authority to select new Justices to the Supreme Court; but it is Congress which makes our laws; it is Congress which is driving the Liberty Line; and Congress is out of control. Yet nobody, at least hardly anybody, pays that much attention to what Congress is doing.

If Congress, particularly those claiming to be conservatives, had the spine to stand for what the Constitution says, they could defund every unconstitutional project, agency, and waste of tax dollars. But they don’t have the spine because the people and the States depend upon those precious tax dollars; given to them for things the government was never authorized to do in the first place.

Read the following quotes from former presidents and ask yourself if you can imagine anyone in government today saying the same thing.

In 1813 James Madison vetoed a bill for internal improvements in the U.S., stating, “Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled “An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements,” and which sets apart and pledges funds “for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense,” I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.

The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation within the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.”

In 1854 president Franklin Pierce vetoed a measure to provide funding to help the mentally ill, stating, “I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”

In 1875 president Grover Cleveland vetoed a bill to provide Charity Relief funds, stating, “I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit.”

Yet that is why most people vote for a particular candidate today; based upon the promise to do things which they feel are best for them, or the country. Me; I only want government off my back and out of my life. After all, isn’t that what liberty is all about?

In 1964, when Barry Goldwater was running for president, he said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.” That quote is often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, when in truth it is not found amongst the writings of Jefferson anywhere. Yet just because Jefferson didn’t say it doesn’t make it any less true.

Do you think drug dealers want addicts to get clean, get sober? No, their existence depends upon people remaining addicted to the poisons they sell. The same goes for government; it does not want a free and independent people, because if the people ever become self-reliant and independent they will no longer need government, and may come to see it as the evil that it is.

After all, Thomas Paine, in his pamphlet which stirred the hearts and minds of many a Colonist toward independence, once said, “Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.”

Therefore, if evil is to exist in the form of government, wouldn’t it be best if that evil was as unobtrusive as possible? Instead, today we not only tolerate governmental interference and control over our lives, we clamor for it to keep us safe from all manner of threats. Terror, crime, gun violence, you name it; Big Brother government is there to provide an answer.

Really, is that the nature of free men; looking to government for all their answers. Or does freedom today only mean the choice of what clothes to wear, what food to eat, and what to watch on TV?

Sorry folks, the Liberty Line is a runaway train; and the sad thing is that everyone is so ignorant about it that when the end comes, when liberty has been completely eradicated, only then will the people look up from their iPhones and ask, “What the hell happened?”

I feel like some guy standing by the tracks screaming at the passengers aboard the train to wake up, only to watch as the train speeds by, the people aboard oblivious to my warnings. It’s both frustrating and heartbreaking, but such is the story of my life these days.

Posted in General | 1 Comment

Covering All The Bases

Authors Note: Thanks to Mike Gaddy for data included in this commentary. While I could have written it without that data, it wouldn’t have been as effective without it. Thanks Mike….

Lately I’ve been harping on the fact that the truth doesn’t matter anymore; that people are content to live their lives believing comfortable lies. Occasionally on this journey of mine, I’ve stumbled across people whose eyes have already been opened and can differentiate between the truth and the lie most others believe. However the rest of those I encounter, not only reject any efforts to learn the truth; they shun it like the plague. I guess ole Van Loon was right when he said, “Any formal attack on ignorance is bound to fail because the masses are always ready to defend their most precious possession – their ignorance.”

Not only are most willing to defend their ignorance, they often go on the offense when someone approaches them bearing the truth. This whole political correctness nonsense is a perfect example; silencing open debate of the truth in favor of keeping everyone’s feelings protected against things which might upset them.

I’m here to tell you; that shit doesn’t work with me. For political correctness to have any power over a person, that person has to care whether or not the things they do or say will hurt someone’s feelings, or offend them. I care about neither; I only care about the truth. I do not intentionally set out to hurt people’s feelings, offend them, or piss them off; but I don’t back down if those things happen to occur while I’m attempting to disseminate the truth.

I see it this way, the spreading of the truth is a righteous cause and one which I take seriously. I compare it to the life of John the Baptist; who paved the way for those who would accept the coming of Christ. There were those that listened to John’s message and repented and were baptized in the River Jordan. Then there were those who ignored his message of their sin and need for repentance. There were also those who were so heavily invested in the lie that they openly condemned John; eventually leading to his death at the hands of King Herod.

People today have been taught, (indoctrinated is a better word), to react emotionally to any discussion of the facts in regards to certain issues. When the truth threatens to burst their bubble of comfort they go on the offensive; attacking the bearer of these unpleasant FACTS. Often names are hurled at the bearer of truth in an attempt to dissuade anyone from listening to them which would then cause them to be labeled as insensitive, racist, sexist, homophobic, or any of the other names assigned to those who speak the truth against popularly held beliefs.

Like I said, for these tactics to work on me, I have to care about what you think of me. Since I don’t care one way or the other whether anyone, (aside from my immediate family), likes me, your insults are futile and do nothing but possibly make you feel good about yourself.

The problem with many of those who live in this bubble of political correctness is that they are not content to live their lives believing a lie; they believe they won’t be happy until they have forced everyone else to believe the lie too.

This force or coercion goes against the principle of live and let live; and it is found in regards to all manner of subjects; most of which set off politically incorrect alarm bells the moment someone begins introducing facts into the equation. I have never demanded that you see things my way; I only ask that you open your mind to the possibility that the facts you base your opinions on may be untrue. I only ask for my day in court, so to speak, when the truths I present will be given fair weight and consideration without your emotional knee jerk reactions and the inevitable insults which follow.

Unfortunately, what I hope for requires that people actually think about what I have to say. Most people are loathe to think; either that or it has become a lost art; something which they have not been taught to do properly. I’m reminded of the quote by Thomas Edison where he states, “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.”

Which leads us to another quote; this one from Leo Tolstoy, author of War and Peace, “Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking.”

Tolstoy’s quote ties directly into Edison’s in that those who think they are thinking have not put aside their personal prejudices and biases and are coming to conclusions about facts and events based upon emotional responses, rather than the process of critical thinking. It is also why, in a society of zombies, the truth doesn’t stand a chance.

There are certain issues where both sides of the issue are so emotionally involved in their side that they cannot see the truth that is in the middle ground. These zealots, as I like to call them, will not tolerate anyone who disagrees with their beliefs; their goal is to force their views upon everyone else.

In a land that has the audacity to proclaim itself the land of the free, forcing your beliefs upon anyone runs contrary to the very idea of freedom itself. But freedom is like a two sided coin; on the one hand you are free to speak your beliefs on the issues at hand, but at the same time you cannot cry foul when someone else speaks up with facts that shoot your belief down in flames. To do so violates the rights of those who disagree with you.

Let’s take a look at the subject of homosexuality as an example.

Let me say this right at the beginning; I believe homosexuality to be a sin; not a crime, but a sin. I am not a church going man, (I believe organized religion is a scam and refuse to participate in it; much like I refuse to participate in the scam of voting for who will be my slave master). That being said, I do believe in God and His Son, Jesus Christ; and that the Bible contains the Word of God.

In both the Old Testament book of Leviticus and the New Testament book of Romans it declares that homosexuality is a sin. If one believes that the Bible is, in fact, the Word of God, then one must accept that homosexuality is a sin before God’s eyes.

However, the Bible also says, “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

There is not a person living today who is perfect, without sin; and as Christ said let he who is without sin cast the first stone. It is not my place to judge homosexuals for their sins; that judgment is reserved to God.

Those who fight so hard against gay rights, basing their stand on the issue upon their religious beliefs, forget that fact, that we are all sinners and should not worry so much about what others are doing, but with what we ourselves are doing which violates Gods Law; live and let live.

On the other hand, there are those in the LBGT community who won’t be happy until they have forced everyone else to accept that their position on the issue is the right one. Both sides are guilty of a great deal of intolerance towards anyone who disagrees with their beliefs.

I’d rather base my opinions of a person on how they treat me as an individual, or how well they do their job; not based upon who they choose to sleep with. As long as you don’t attempt to force feed your beliefs to me I could care less if you are gay or straight; it really doesn’t even come into consideration when it comes to deciding who I chose to be friends with.

The same goes for the Pro Life/Pro Choice movements. I believe abortion is murder, plain and simple. I believe that the willful terminating of a pregnancy before the child is born is no less a crime than putting a bullet in its head the moment it leaves the womb and begins breathing air. But are those who bomb abortion clinics any better than those who utilize them to get abortions? Believe me when I say, I believe God has a special place in hell reserved for those who perform abortions, and those who utilize abortion as an answer to an unwanted pregnancy.

But again, it is not my place to judge these people; that’s up to God and the time will come when we all face the consequences of the choices we’ve made in our lives.

Those are just two of the hot button subjects where when one introduces facts into the discussion the fireworks begin; there are many others.

Race relations are another of these hot button issues. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but it seems like those in power and in the media have used every opportunity at their disposal to keep the fires of racial division burning. It’s much easier to control a people when they are too busy fighting amongst themselves to notice the crimes being committed against the whole of the nation.

There are those in the black community who blame all their problems on the white’s in America today, and trace all their problems back to the evil of slavery. Although there has been residual prejudice and animosity between the races; slavery hasn’t existed as a practice in America for over 150 yrs; GET OVER IT! I’ve never owned a slave, my parents never owned slaves, and most likely their parents never did either. At the same time, you are not a slave, nor were your parents, or their parents. Like I said; get over it and stop blaming your current predicament on slavery.

I do not judge anyone based upon their skin pigmentation; and that goes for all races. Yet the same cannot be said for everyone; and this goes for both sides of the issue. There are those who judge all blacks; believing them to be all be criminals and miscreants, and there are those in the black community who blame all whites for their problem while ignoring the problems that do exist within their communities.

Look at this whole Black Lives Matter movement, and men like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton; what have they done to raise up the black people in this country? Not a damned thing, that’s what! They exist solely to raise up those who profit, get their names in the paper, and make others feel for their plight. But they have achieved nothing in obtaining equality or justice for those they profess to represent.

Statistically, at least in the larger cities of America, blacks are more likely to commit crimes than those of other skin pigmentation. It’s a fact; the FBI, the CDC, and a slew of law enforcement agencies back this up with all kinds of data.

Yet when a white cop kills a black man the Black Lives Matter movement, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and their sidekicks in the media, goes to work making it out like it was a case of unnecessary violence against the Christ child himself.

What about the fact that in Chicago alone 434 blacks have been killed by other blacks in this year to date? In Baltimore, Cleveland, Atlanta, Oakland, Detroit, and almost all the major cities across the country, black on black crime, particularly violent crime, leads all others; often ending in the death of blacks by other blacks. Where was Black Lives Matter all this time, or Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, or the media as far as that goes? Do not THOSE black lives matter?

What about all those of other skin pigmentation killed by blacks; often in the most violent and gruesome of methods; do their lives not matter?

You could Google Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom who were tortured and killed by black men. According to the coroner’s report, Channon suffered injuries to her vagina, anus, and mouth after repeated rapes. Bleach was then poured down her throat while she was still alive to remove DNA evidence. She was tied with curtains and strips of bed sheets, her face covered with a plastic bag, then left to suffocate.

Her boyfriend had also been raped, shot twice in the back, a bag put over his head, and then shot in the head, and his body set afire to dispose of the evidence. Yet not a peep from the media, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton. (This was before the advent of the Black Lives Matter movement)

Why don’t you Google the name Antonio West and read about this young boy who holds the record for being one of the youngest murder victims in our nation’s history. Why don’t you read about how two young black men shot him in the face while they attempted to rob his mother?

You didn’t hear Obama say that Antonio could have been like him, like young Trayvon Martin was. You didn’t hear Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton cry out for poor young Antonio; savagely murdered by two young black thugs who also shot and killed his mother after a failed robbery attempt.

There are no T shirts with Antonio’s face on them, there is no White Lives Matter movement rushing to Georgia to protest his death, and there is no White Panther Party placing bounties on the heads of those guilty of committing this horrific crime.

These are not isolated instances, they are an everyday occurrence; yet we do not hear about them because the reporting of them do not serve the medias agenda; whatever it may be. Why is it that we have not seen nationwide coverage, 24/7, of the following deaths; all of which occurred over a period of less than 60 days:

Jimmie Norman, white male murdered by black male. No national news. 7/18- Terry Taylor, white male murdered by black male. No national news. 7/17- Cindy Raygoza, white female murdered by black male. No national news. 7/11- Luis Aguilar, 91 year old hispanic male murdered by black male. No national news. 7/10- Brittany Simpson, white female murdered by black male. No national news. 7/6- Sarah Goode, white female murdered by black male. No national news. 7/6- Jeffrey Westerfield, white male murdered by black male. No national news. 7/5- Perry Renn, white male murdered by black male. No national news. 7/3- Laurey Kennedy, white female still in coma from beating by black male. No national news. 7/3 Eric Mollet, white male murdered by black male. No national news. 7/2 Rupert Anderson, white male murdered by black male. No national news. 7/2 Jennifer Kingeter, white female murdered by black male. No national news. 6/30 Jim Brennan, white male, murdered by black male. No national news. 6/29 Paul Shephard, white male, murdered by black male. No national news. 6/27 Shirley Barone, white female, murdered by black male. No national news. 6/27 Penelope Spencer, white female, murdered by black male. No national news. 6/27 Inga Evans, white female, murdered by black male. No national news. 6/26 Jake Rameau, white male, murdered by black male. No national news. 6/25 Gina Burger, white female, murdered by black male. No national news. 6/24 Nathan Dasher, white male, murdered by black male. No national news. 6/22 Jonathan Price, white male, murdered by black male. No national news. 6/20 John Whitmore, white male, murdered by black male. No national news. 6/18 John Yingling, white male, murdered by black male. No national news. 6/17 Allyn Reeves, white male, murdered by black male. No national news. 6/15 Michael Beaver, white male, murdered by black male. No national news. 6/11 Angela Cook, white female, murdered by black male. No national news. 6/11 Nathan Hall, white male, murdered by black male. No national news. 6/7 Harry Briggs, white male, murdered by black male. No national news. 6/5 Laura Bachman, white female, murdered by black male. No national news. 6/2 Robert Mohler, white male, murdered by black male. No national news. 6/1 William Headley, white male, murdered by black male. No national news.

Why is that; do white lives not matter?

I’m not trying to stir the fires of racial division in America; believe me they are hot enough without my help. What I am trying to do is get you to see that there are two sides to every story and that while the Black Lives Matter movement has the public’s attention and sympathy, when someone begins crying that White Lives Matter too, they are labeled a racist.

All I’m trying to do is get you to see the truth; the WHOLE TRUTH, not just the truth the news media and select public personalities want you to hear. Yet for the most part my attempts have been utter failures; people do not want to hear the truth. It matters not whether it is in regards to the truth regarding the Civil War, or the corruption in government; people are more comfortable believing lies than they are accepting the truth.

I could go on and on and on with this. Pick a subject, almost any subject which is of current interest, and I can show you how you’re thoughts and beliefs have been manipulated, while you ignore the truth whenever it comes close to disrupting your belief that all is well in America.

Pick a subject, be it illegal immigration, the War on Terror, the welfare state, the militarization of our police forces and the rising police state; I can provide facts that most of you have never heard, nor would you believe them were I to present them to you; as they would shatter your illusions and burst your bubble of comfort which has sheltered you from the truth all the years of your lives.

When I was a kid growing up, telling a lie was thought to be a sign of poor character, and believing a lie made you a fool. Look at this country today, with a large portion of the people supporting a person for president who has a proven track record of lying; Hillary Clinton. What does that say about her supporters that they do not care about the fact that the woman is almost incapable of telling, or recognizing the truth?

Seeing as how I’ve been at this for a decade and a half, I have found it a rare instance where the truths I present have been accepted with an open mind and then acted upon. Sure, I’ve heard people say that I’m smart, or that the things I’ve written were interesting; but I’ve yet to hear the one thing that would make me fall to my knees and scream Hallelujah; “What you wrote made me change my views on the subject.”

If any of you have seen the film The Matrix, I often feel like Neo, the moment he awakens in the Matrix and looks around at all those bodies still plugged in; oblivious to the truth that they are slaves to the machine world.

I have all this information inside my head; information that I’ve acquired because I chose not to believe the lies I was being told. But what good is all this information when no one else cares to learn it? What good is information when people place their feelings above the truth?

All I’ve succeeded in doing is pissing people off. But hey, at least I’m accomplishing something! It’s funny though, people demand respect; both for themselves and their opinions, but when it comes to reciprocating and showing respect for the opinions of those they disagree with; well that’s another story altogether.

But you see, I have the advantage over you in this. You may cry foul, that I’ve hurt your feelings or offended you. You can hurl insults at me all day long if you want, but it won’t matter because I’m comfortable in the things I believe in, and more importantly I don’t require your approval to make my life happy. I short, I don’t give a damn what you think of me: the truth is my companion, and if you can’t handle it, that’s your problem, not mine.

Posted in General | 1 Comment

It’s High Time We Put The Real Criminals Were They Belong

Have you broken the law lately? Think before you answer as if you answer no you may be wrong. In the book Three Felonies a Day, lawyer Harvey Silvergate estimates that the average person unknowingly commits at least three federal crimes a day.

On February 27, 1788 Federalist 62 was first published. Written by James Madison it states, “It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what is will be tomorrow.”

When someone says that another has broken the law most never stop to ask what kind of law the accused has broken; there is more than one kind of law you know. There is criminal law, civil law, maritime law, international law, natural law, and a whole host of others which makes it believable that a person could, conceivably, go through the day committing a multitude of crimes without even realizing they had done so.

Congress is the lawmaking body of our government; that is something I think we can all agree upon. Have you ever attempted to read a piece of legislation they have written? I have and often it fits Madison’s description of being so incoherent it cannot be understood. Often they say something along the lines of: subsection such and such of Title such and such of the United States Code is amended to read as __________. Instead of saying what the new law states one then has to dig up a copy of the amended title of the United States Code, see what the old law says, then make the changes to see how the new law alters the old law. It’s time consuming; especially if a piece of legislation written by Congress is hundreds of pages long.

I once read it takes a team of lawyers days to go through a piece of legislation to garner the meaning of a Congressional bill. That’s simply insane! Then of course there were the cases of the passage of the original Patriot Act; pushed through Congress without their having the time to study and debate the law fully, or Pelosi’s ridiculous comment that we have to pass the law to see what it says.

One has to ask, if the legislation being passed by Congress is that complicated and incoherent, who is actually writing it? I’m pretty sure that those in Congress have not memorized the entire United States Code and could, from memory, recite it word for word. Hell, Title 26 of the United States Code which deals with our nation’s tax laws has over 9,000 sections in it; it would be impossible for a Congressman/woman to memorize them all; yet the tax laws are revised every year. Somebody is writing these new laws; inserting the changes to the specific sections and subsections.

If Congress is the lawmaking body of our government, then where does it derive its authority to write laws which we, the public, are required to obey? The answer is quite simple really; the Constitution is the origin of all lawmaking power granted Congress. Yet that power is not without limits; in fact the things upon which Congress can legislate are clearly defined. Where you to take those specific powers granted Congress, then use them as a guide to determine whether the laws currently being passed by Congress were within their just authority, you would be forced to admit that your government is acting lawlessly.

Therefore, when your government enacts a law which it has no authority to enact, then uses coercion; fines, threat of imprisonment, or even death, to enforce those laws, it meets the criterion as a tyrannical government; one which enforces unjust laws upon the people it governs. The fact that so many people in this country go about their lives accepting these unconstitutional laws without protest is the definition for complacency.

In 1785 James Madison wrote, “It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties–we hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens…” Therefore, when Congress enacts a law which violates your liberty it is not only your right, but your duty, to protest that law.

Not only that, but when your government has a proven track record of enacting laws which violate your liberty it is your duty to act, “…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.” (Declaration of Independence my emphasis)

Our government, the one in Washington D.C., was never established to enact laws which directly affected the lives of the people, or aided or assisted them in any fashion. The laws our government was to pass were for the general welfare of the nation; confined to the specific powers granted them by the Constitution. They could not force us to purchase health insurance or participate in a retirement plan, (Social Security), no more than they could force us to eat steak on Tuesdays.

Furthermore, the government could not, under any circumstances, enact laws which violated any of the rights protected by the first ten amendments to the Constitution. This Bill of Rights was written as a clear restriction upon the legislative authority given Congress. It is not now, nor has it ever been, up to government to decide how far they can go in restricting a right before their actions become unconstitutional.

In 1798 Thomas Jefferson wrote the Kentucky Resolutions after President John Adams enacted laws which Jefferson felt violated the boundaries between the power given the federal government and the powers reserved to the states. In this resolution Jefferson states, “…that the government created by this compact [the Constitution for the United States] was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers…”

This principle applies equally to the rights protected by the Bill of Rights; the government cannot decide for itself how far it can go in violating those rights before its acts become unconstitutional. It cannot decide what constitutes arms and then pass laws restricting firearms which do not meet its definition. It cannot decide what is meant by free speech then pass laws which make the speaking of things hate speech. It cannot pass laws which violate your privacy or freedom from search and seizure in an effort to prevent terrorism. Again, the acceptance of these violations of your rights without a single squeak of protest is the exact definition of complacency; the precursor to a complete loss of freedom.

For a law to have any validity it must, above all things, be just; i.e. provide justice. One must then ask themselves what are the purpose for which laws are written. Laws, although it may be a side benefit, are not written to protect your, or to make you feel more comfortable or secure, but to better secure your rights as an individual. If any law serves not to better secure your rights, but to restrict them in any fashion, then that law becomes unjust and it is your duty to resist it.

To prove that, allow me to offer the following.

Our Founders believed strongly in the concept of Natural Law; that all men are born with certain inherent and unalienable rights. The Declaration of Independence defines them simply as Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Yet John Locke, in his Second Treatise, goes further in defining what state man is when in a State of Nature; “…a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.”

That is the state of nature; of pure unadulterated freedom. Yet when one enters into a civil society, or a political society, one chooses to accept, and live by, the laws created by these societies. Yet, the laws passed by these societies cannot I repeat, CANNOT violate the natural rights of those in society without causing the utmost of injustices.

As Locke goes on to say in a later chapter, “Though the legislative, whether placed in one or more, whether it be always in being, or only by intervals, though it be the supreme power in every common-wealth; yet,

First, 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; and no body has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life or property of another.”

This is stated similarly in Frederic Bastiat’s book The Law, wherein it is written, “Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

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

In January of 1788 Federalist 45 was published in which Madison attempts to calm any fears held by the people of New York that the government created by the proposed Constitution would assume powers reserved to the States which concerned the lives and liberty of the people within the various States. Madison writes, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

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

There you have it, the description of the boundaries between the power granted government over the lives of the people, and the power reserved to the States regarding the same. How many laws do you think you could name which have breached this separation between federal and State authority? I can think of quite a few right off the top of my head, Obamacare, laws criminalizing the use of marijuana, laws restricting freedom of speech, laws restricting what size, caliber, or magazine capacity of the arms people can purchase; and those are just a few; there are literally thousands of them.

So, when Harvey Silvergate says that the average American commits an average of 3 felonies a day, does that mean that we are all criminals? No, absolutely not. What it means is that our government has become a criminal enterprise; passing laws which violate the specific grant of power given it by the Constitution; which just happens to be a law as well. Article 6 of the Constitution states that, it and all laws passed in the pursuance thereof, are the supreme law of the land. However, for all laws passed by government to be supreme, or hold any validity for that matter, they must be passed in pursuance of the specific powers granted government, and the moment the government oversteps those specific powers its acts become null and void.

As the 16th American Jurisprudence states, “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it.”

So don’t worry, you are probably not criminal in your actions; however your government is. The problem is that unless the people of this country start holding government to the laws which dictate what it can and cannot do, it will continue to enact unjust laws; making you the criminal and subject to the enforcement of unjust and unconstitutional laws.

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

It is only because the people are ignorant, (don’t know the law), apathetic, (don’t care about the law), and complacent, (willing to accept the violations of the law), that this state of affairs continues, and will increasingly make our actions criminal in nature. It is only when the people become informed and begin to resist any further violations of the law that things will change.

Our Founders did not wait until the laws had become so voluminous, making every act they performed a crime; they resisted each violation of their rights, even to the point of going to war against their government.

Until the fire of liberty is rekindled in the hearts of a great many more Americans, nothing is going to change; no matter who you vote for this coming November. As Learned Hand so perfectly said, “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it.”

And from what I’ve been seeing, that spirit of Liberty is dead in the hearts of most Americans. How else can you explain their compliance with laws which violate their most basic rights?

In closing I’d like to leave you with two quotes from Samuel Adams, both of which you should take to heart:

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

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

Posted in General | 1 Comment

Tytler’s Timeline

Inspired by something written by my friend, and mentor (?) Mike Gaddy

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth,
to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from
abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency
to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.

~Alexander Fraser Tytler~

The history of America, as far as it relates to our occupation of this land, is relatively brief in comparison to other parts of the world. The first settlers who came here did so in 1607, founding the earliest American colony at Jamestown, Virginia. Compare that to the rise of the Roman Empire which began with the Roman conquest of what we now call Italy in the 3rd century B.C.; 5,000 years ago. So relatively speaking we are still in our infancy compared to many nations.

After Jamestown, the next group to hazard the crossing of the Atlantic to establish a colony here in America was the settlers known today as the Pilgrims; landing at Plymouth Massachusetts in 1620. However, unlike their entrepreneurial predecessors, the Pilgrims came here for freedom; religious freedom to be exact.

Having faced persecution for their beliefs they petitioned the King to grant them a charter to establish a colony in America where they would be free to worship God as they saw fit. One of the first acts they performed as a body politic upon landing was to write the Mayflower Compact; which states:

In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are under-written, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the eleventh of November [New Style, November 21], in the year of the reign of our sovereign lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Dom. 1620.

So if you consider the Pilgrims to be the true first settlers upon which this nation saw its beginning, then America has only been in existence for a mere 396 years. Yet what we have accomplished; and what we have forsaken in those few short centuries.

Shortly after other Colonies began springing up in America a group of Europeans set the stage for what would become the Age of Enlightenment. The writings of men like Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes, John Locke and Baruch Spinoza set in motion a train of thought which would alter how, not only Europeans, but Americans as well would view political societies and their reasons for existing.

In 1689 John Locke would write his Two Treatises of Government; with the Second Treatise being written in regards to Civil Government. Locke explains the nature and origin of political power, the nature of all men’s rights, and how they exist side by side in social and political societies. Of all the books I’ve read in my studies, Locke’s Second Treatise is the most enlightening when it comes to understanding the thinking of the men who sought to free themselves from the tyranny of England and establish America as a free and independent nation. But I jump ahead of myself here; time to regress a bit.

You have to understand that the colonies that sprung up, and flourished, here in America were considered British territory, and therefore subject to the will of the King and Parliament. For almost one third of our nation’s lifespan the Colonies and England existed in a relative state of peace; with the Crown offering protection for its subjects from their enemies the French; who also held territories in the land we now call the United States.

In 1754 a war erupted between all the major powers of the world. It could be said that the Seven Years War was in reality the first true World War. The conflict also was felt here in America with the French and Indian War being fought here on American soil between the years 1754-1763.

War is not without cost; especially when you had to ship your soldiers 4,000 miles away to fight it. Therefore the King felt it was only right that the Colonists shoulder a portion of the burden for paying for the cost of their protection. In 1765 Parliament passed the Stamp Act; a tax upon all printed goods used by the Colonists.

However, although the Colonists still considered themselves to be British subjects, they also felt that they had built this country into what it had become without the help of England. It was their labor that built up the towns which dotted the landside, and it was their industry which had built up the economies which also benefitted England in the form of trade. They also felt that because they had no direct representation in Parliament that this tax was not only unfair, it was a violation of their rights.

The Stamp Act could be said to have been the match that started the fire which resulted in the eventual separation between America and England. For a decade after the passage of the Stamp Act the Colonists resisted new laws, new taxes, and the King, enraged by the attitude of the Colonists, particularly those in Boston, passed increasingly restrictive laws upon them. It all came to a head on April 19, 1175 when the King’s men marched upon the towns of Lexington and Concord to both arrest Samuel Adams and John Hancock, and seize the arms of the local militias stored nearby.

Shots were fired and the rest, as the saying goes, is history. Yet still, there were many in the Colonies who sought a peaceful resolution to the increasing tensions between America and England. Even as they awaited their most recent petition to the King for a redress of grievances, a committee had been formed to draft a declaration of independency. Consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert Livingston, this Committee of Five selected Jefferson to be the primary author of the declaration at the recommendation of John Adams.

Although edited by this committee of five to remove certain passages; including one which laid the evils of slavery at the feet of the King himself, the resulting text is what we now call our Declaration of Independence.

Although formally written and edited, the declaration still needed to be voted upon by representatives from all the Colonies; no sure thing. Then on July 1, 1776 John Adams delivered a memorable speech in which he said, “If it be the pleasure of Heaven that my country shall require the poor offering of my life, the victim shall be ready at the appointed hour of sacrifice, come when that hour may. But while I do live, let me have a country, or at least the hope of a country, and that a free country.”

Just as Patrick Henry’s speech at St. Johns Church, and Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, John Adam’s speech swayed enough support for the Declaration of Independence to be passed. America was to be free; at least on paper it was. It would take 8 years of war to secure that independence though.

Thirty years later Benjamin Rush would write the following to John Adams regarding those eventful days in 1776, “Do you recollect your memorable speech upon the Day on which the Vote was taken? Do you recollect the pensive and awful silence which pervaded the house when we were called up, one after another, to the table of the President of Congress, to subscribe what was believed by many at that time to be our own death warrants?”

At the same time the Declaration of Independence was being voted upon another document had been written, and submitted to the various States for their approval. This document would establish our nation’s first system of governance to govern the affairs of the nation as a whole. This document we now know as the Articles of Confederation.

You have to realize how the States, or Colonies viewed themselves to understand the importance of the system of government produced by the Articles of Confederation. Each State believed itself to be a free and sovereign entity, with no one but the duly elected legislature of each State to govern the people who lived within the State.

This is a fact which was later proven and asserted in the Treaty of Paris when the King, in recognizing America’s independence, also recognized each State to be free sovereign and independent states. (Treaty of Paris, 1783)

Much as Europe consisted of independent sovereign nations, America was now a group of 13 independent and sovereign nations. Therefore any form of government which was to have authority over these independent sovereign nations must either be a confederation or a consolidation of them into a single entity.

A confederation is defined as an alliance of groups for their mutual benefit and protection. By no means did the Articles of Confederation diminish the authority of the State governments; all of whom by now had written constitutions of their own describing the form these State governments should take and the powers they should wield.

This is where the writings of Locke are of such importance for us if we want to understand the nature and origin of political power. Locke believed, as did the Founders who adhered to his writings, that all political power is derived by consent of the people. This is nowhere more clearly stated than in our Declaration of Independence, wherein it says that governments are established, “…deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

During the period which saw America governed under the Articles of Confederation, 1781-1789, Americans viewed themselves as citizens of the States in which they lived, with their allegiance to the State, and not the union of all the States. They, for the most part, jealously protected the sovereignty and independence of their home state.

When James Madison proposed a convention to amend the Articles of Confederation, Patrick Henry refused to have any part of it, saying he smelled a rat in Philadelphia. What he meant was he feared the proceedings would seek to deprive the States, particularly his home state of Virginia, of their sovereignty, while at the same time pose a threat to the liberty he so fervently declared he was willing to die for in his speech of March of 1775.

When a finalized document was released to the States for their consideration there was much concern that it gave this new form of government too much power at the cost of the States authority. The ensuing battle of words between the Federalists and anti-Federalists is a great study of the opposing views regarding the benefits, and problems with the proposed Constitution.

One of the biggest concerns was whether the proposed Constitution established a National or a Federal form of government. A National form is one in which a consolidation of all the parts into one single entity occurs; depriving the individual parts of their ability to exercise sovereignty in regards to the laws which the citizens of their States would be required to obey.

A Federal, on the other hand, left a good deal of power to the States; giving the central government only limited authority over the lives and affairs of the people within the individual States. Although the terms national government and federal government are used interchangeably today, in reality they mean entirely different things.

In arguing against the proposed Constitution, Patrick Henry declared the following, “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.”

Madison, Hamilton, John Jay, and all the other Federalist writers promised that the proposed Constitution left the States much of their original authority and sovereignty. However no mention was made within the Constitution itself of what rights the States held should the government created by this document prove to be tyrannical and oppressive; a fact also spoken of by Patrick Henry in his speech of June 5, 1788, “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…”

Our Declaration of Independence, if it is anything, is a declaration of secession. The Colonies, or States if you will, declared that governments exist by the consent of the governed, and that anytime a government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.

What if, however, that system of government becomes destructive to the ends for which it was established for a part of a nation, while being beneficial to the rest of the nation? Does that mean that those who suffer under unjust laws and oppression must sit back and do nothing; or are they entitled to exercise the right to withdraw from the union which bound them to the other States and form their own system of governance?

This is the question which began to become a problem for the Union just 40 short years after the ratification of our Constitution, and the implementation of our central government. Just as prior to the American Revolution when England began imposing laws the Colonists felt violated their rights, in the 1830′s Congress began enacting laws, imposing tariffs, and interfering with the institution of slavery, (which whether you agree to or not was permitted by all those who agreed to the Constitution, and therefore a legal institution).

The time came when certain States in the South could no longer take the oppression forced upon them by the government, which happened to be to the North across the Potomac. They exerted their original right of peacefully withdrawing from the Union to form their own nation in which a system of government could be established that would best provide new guards for their future security. (Declaration of Independence)

Unfortunately, this government, a creature created by an act of the true sovereigns, (the people), told the seceding Southern States that they had no right to leave the Union. The leader of this government, one Abraham Lincoln, raised an army of 75,000 to force the South into remaining a part of the Union. The ensuing Civil War was not fought over slavery; it was fought over a State’s right to secede from the Union.

By raising an army to compel obedience to government, Abraham Lincoln proved Patrick Henry’s greatest fear to be correct; that the government created by the Constitution was in fact a consolidation with all the power being held over the States by the central government.

The South’s loss of the Civil War to Union Forces was the final nail in the belief that State’s were co-equal partners in the government and that they retained sovereignty in regards to the affairs of the people of the respective States. In the years following the end of the Civil War, with the puppet governments installed in the South, beholden to Northern interests, and the blackmailing of the South into accepting amendments to the Constitution prior to their being allowed to regain representation in Congress, it becomes clear that the federal government was asserting itself to be above and over all the nation; not representative of it and limited in its actions by the specific powers granted it by the Constitution.

It has all been downhill ever since…

Yet although the South lost the Civil War, the principle that government was created by an act of the people, and that whenever government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established that the people have a right to alter and abolish it, remains as fundamental principles upon which our system of government rests.

One of the earliest acts of our government which saw tensions arise between it and the States was the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts, and the signing of them by President John Adams. In opposition to them Thomas Jefferson, then acting Vice President, wrote the Kentucky Resolutions, stating, “Resolved, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government . . . . and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force. . . . that the government created by this compact [the Constitution for the United States] was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; . . . . ”

This principle is known as nullification, wherein a State declares that the laws passed by the government are null and void within their borders. It takes a State whose governing body has the courage to stand up to federal authority for nullification to have any force and validity; but the principle remains true to this day. This is one way in which we can fight the federal government in its expansion of power and authority.

Another is by jury nullification, in which jurors refuse to convict defendants who are accused of violating laws which are unconstitutional or violate the rights of the individual. Jury nullification was seen as a legitimate exercise of a juror’s prerogative dating as recently as 1969.

In the case of United States v. Moylan, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, “If the jury feels the law is unjust, we must recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence…If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.”

Another way in which we can fight back against the government’s expansion of powers and violation of our rights is to cut off its lifeblood; tax revenue. Do you pay your taxes in person or at the end of the year write them a check for all taxes owed? Most, if not all, have their taxes withheld from their pay by their employer. If employers all across a State suddenly decided to stop withholding taxes it would put a huge hurting on the government’s ability to fund its operations, and if enough states did this then they could bring the government to heel.

The final, and most drastic of measures we can take, is the route chosen by the South in 1860; secession. The government proved once before that it would not tolerate a State, or group of States, leaving the Union; but the option still remains.

The thing is, all these means of fighting back against Uncle Sam require two things; first they require that the public be educated and informed as to their rights as citizens and the specific powers granted government. Secondly they require that the people have the courage to stand up to Uncle Sam and his exercise of unjust authority.

In Locke’s Second Treatise he states, “There is therefore, secondly, another way whereby governments are dissolved, and that is, when the legislative, or the prince, either of them, act contrary to their trust.” Think about that, a government is dissolved when it exercises powers contrary to those entrusted to it. Does that not therefore make any government which exercises unjust authority over the people it governs tyrannical by definition?

The level of tyranny we live under is directly proportional to how much tyranny we are willing to submit to. If we value our rights, if we demand that our legislators adhere to the specific powers granted them, then we have freedom; or at least the chance to obtain it. If, on the other hand, we are ignorant as to what our rights are, or the powers granted government, then our government can enact whatever laws it wants which further oppress our freedom.

Which leads me full circle to Alexander Fraser Tytler. I began this with a quote by Tytler at the top, which I’d like to repeat now, “Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.”

My question to you is, given all that I have provided for your edification, how far along that timeline provided by Tytler do you think we are as a nation today? If you want my honest opinion we are in the final stages. From the general apathy and complacency I witness daily and the level of dependence upon some form of government service for our survival, I see us in the final stages of losing all that our Founders fought so hard to secure for us; Liberty.

And, as John Adams once wrote in a letter to his wife, and a sentiment which I share, “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.”

Posted in General | 1 Comment