Neal's Soapbox

If one takes a knee during the playing of the National Anthem, or remains seated when the Pledge of Allegiance is being recited, they can be assured of getting a few nasty looks from those around them, if not a few snide comments as well. Some people, particularly those who call themselves conservatives, believe that by kneeling or not reciting the pledge a person is unpatriotic.

I’ve lost track of how many times someone has posted a picture of the Stars and Stripes on Facebook and asked that their friends share it far and wide as a sign of their patriotism. Then there have been those posts that proclaim that if you dishonor the flag then you dishonor the sacrifices made by so many of our fighting men and women in the defense of this country.

It is a sad truth that a majority of the people in this country, and this goes for both the political left and right, allow their emotions to cloud their thinking…that is if they do any thinking at all. Take for instance the phrase defense of the country; what exactly does that entail?

Defense, in the purest sense of the word, is the defending of one’s home or country against attack. Is it defending this country when our fighting men and women die in some far away land, fighting an enemy that has never launched an attack upon U.S. soil? Did Germany attack us in 1941? If not, then why did we send hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops to fight the Nazis? Did North Korea or the Vietnamese attack us? Did Iraq and Afghanistan?

The whole idea of a defensive war is to repel an invading army from the borders of your country. So if our troops are over in Afghanistan and Iraq, who is doing the invading and who is being invaded?

Listen, I was a serviceman for almost a decade and a half and I would have gone anywhere the government sent me. But that’s just it, the government should not be sending our fighting men and women off to die in some godforsaken shithole that has never sent troops to attack the United States.

You see, this whole War on Terror is a farce, an excuse for a constant state of war. Orwell would be proud, or shocked depending upon how one interprets his book Nineteen Eighty-Four. In that novel the fictional country of Oceanside was also in a perpetual state of war; with the declared enemy changing on an almost daily basis. Yesterday America was fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban, today it is ISIS and ISIL. Who will it be tomorrow, next week, next year; and more importantly, when can America declare victory and bring our troops home where they belong?

But to question these wars is akin to questioning the sacrifices our fighting men and women are being ordered to make in the defense of their country by a government that takes its orders from the military industrial complex. As long as we allow our foreign policy to be dictated by the profit and loss columns of the arms business, then this war on terror will go on, and on, and on; and American fighting men and women will pay the price with their lives. Smedley Butler said it best, “War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.”

So when you stand up and place your palm across your chest during the National Anthem, or you stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance, ask yourself what it is you are standing for; what is your definition of patriotism? Is it blind support for whatever your government tells you is the current enemy of the United States, or is if the defense of the principles that made America such a great country in the first place? And if it is the latter, then why don’t you do YOUR PART and defend those principles by not voting for candidates who violate the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Or is that asking too much of you, to exhibit real patriotism? A true patriot would not see the principles they believe in debauched and trampled upon by their government. A true patriot would not accept the lesser of two evils when it came to voting for candidates to defend their rights and liberty. A true patriot would not give their undying support to an entity such as government when that government has proven time and time again that it does not care about the constitutional limitations its creators imposed upon it.

It is much easier to support and defend an inanimate object than it is to defend the principles that object stands for; that is why so many object when someone kneels during the National Anthem but they don’t do a damned thing when their government violates their rights.

As Mark Twain 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.”

So, when you become offended by those who do not stand during the playing of the National Anthem, or do not recite the Pledge, ask yourself what principles the flag and this country are supposed to represent, and if they are not the same principles as the patriots of 1776 then why are you supporting whatever it is they represent today?

After all, what is of more importance to you, a piece of cloth or the principles that cloth is supposed to represent? How can you call yourself a patriot when you support, defend and honor the one while you ignore the other?

The American flag has not represented the principles this country was founded upon since it was carried by the armies of those who invaded the last vestige of truly constitutional government in America, the Confederacy. For that alone I won’t recite the Pledge or stand during the playing of the National Anthem.

If you want me to honor this flag….

…then the government it represents needs to formally apologize for invading and subjugating those who carried this one…

Until that happens don’t ask me to support and defend a piece of cloth that represents everything our Founders fought to free themselves from in 1776. Either that flag represents what they stood for, or it represents what they fought against. Either the American flag stands for our Republic and the principles it was founded upon, or it stands for tyranny. I think y’all know which one I believe it stands for today, and that’s why you won’t hear me recite the Pledge or stand during the National Anthem. I will honor the flag ONLY when it once again represents the principles America was founded upon; not a moment sooner!

In 2006 Hollywood director Mike Judge released a low budget science fiction comedy entitled, Idiocracy. The plot of the story is that the Army chooses a man of average intelligence and places him in suspended animation for a period of one year. However, something goes awry and he is forgotten about and ends up waking up 500 years in the future to find that America is populated by idiots.

There is another film, this one a rock documentary of sorts, entitled It Might Get Loud in which Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin, The Edge of U2 and Jack White of The White Stripes are brought together to discuss the electric guitar and the influences that led to their particular style of playing it. In one segment the Edge recalls how he wept when he watched Spinal Tap because it was so close to the truth about the music business.

Well, I might not break out into tears when I watch Idiocracy, but I certainly cringe; because with the lack of respect for knowledge and truth that I experience every day I can certainly see how America might very well end up being populated by absolute idiots. The sad thing about it is that I don’t think it is going to take 500 years for us to reach that stage either.

For close to two decades now I have been researching and writing about the things I have learned; only to find out that nobody, or very few people care about the things I write about. I don’t claim to know everything but I feel pretty comfortable in saying that I do know more about America’s history, how our system of government came into existence and how it was supposed to function than do 9 out of 10 others.

I hear people make all these claims about how patriotic they are, but they refuse to learn the truth about their country, its system of government, and if they do happen to stumble across the truth they are more likely to reject it than they are to change their beliefs to fit the facts. Then there are those who are not only ignorant as to the truth, they are apathetic as well; they don’t know, and they don’t care that they don’t know. If you ask me, that is the perfect description of idiocy; not caring about things that are of vital importance to the preservation of your liberty.

How many people do you know who can tell you what the Bill of Rights is, what rights it protects, and to whom it applies? But then ask these same people to tell you who won the last 5 Super Bowls and I’m betting that you’ll get more correct answers than you did when asking about the Bill of Rights. When sporting events, or any kind of entertainment for that matter, takes precedence over knowing about your rights, there is something very wrong with the people of a country. When comfort and security takes precedence over defending those rights, there is definitely something wrong with the people of a country.

Yet I am the lunatic, the nutcase, the radical; all because I have taken the time to free myself from the shackles of ignorance that were placed upon me by those claiming to be educators. I am the one to be feared and despised because I have discovered the truth that most people either fear or don’t care about.

For instance, most people believe that the Bill of Rights applies to both the federal and the State governments when it comes to protecting certain rights from infringement. WRONG!!!

What is the Bill of Rights; and by that I mean what purpose does it serve other than listing certain rights which are not to be violated? The Bill of Rights consists of 10 amendments to the Constitution; does it not? And what does the Constitution do if it does not create a federal system of government and list the powers that government is to exercise. The government created by this Constitution is supreme only in regards to the specific powers given it, with the remaining power to enact laws being retained by the States.

This premise was explained by Madison in Federalist 45 when he wrote, “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.”

However, the promises of Madison and all the other Federalists who supported the proposed Constitution weren’t enough for some; some demanded that a Bill of Rights be added to the Constitution, protecting certain rights from infringement by the federal government which was being proposed.

Therefore, upon ratification the various State Legislatures composed lists of certain rights that they wanted to ensure the newly created government could not violate. These lists were then submitted to the government and James Madison took it upon himself to decide which ones would then be submitted as proposed amendments for the States to consider. Some of the lists submitted by the States were rather lengthy, yet Madison only submitted 12 amendments for the States to consider; and only 10 of those made it through the amendment process.

On top of all that Madison chose the wording of those amendments very carefully, making them vague and equivocal. As an example allow me to share something my friend Michael Gaddy pointed out to me recently, “The 1st amendment forbids only “prohibiting” the free exercise of religion – not infringement. (Ask the polygamist Mormons.)”

Then there is the 10th Amendment, which many on the far right claim to be an all inclusive limit upon what powers are reserved to the federal government and those which are reserved to the States. Yet, again, Madison took the teeth out of the 10th Amendment’s limiting powers by excluding the word expressly; leaving it open to all manner of interpretation and construction.

Nonetheless, the 10th Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Now what is that if it is not a declaratory statement regarding the relationship between State and federal authority? The government created by the Constitution was to have certain powers, with all other powers being left to the States…that’s how our system was designed to work. But, is that how it works today with all the laws our federal government passes which tell us what we can and cannot do?

The Bill of Rights contains restrictions imposed upon our federal government, not the State governments. Yet there is a website for a legal group called NOLO which claims otherwise. On their website NOLO states, “The Bill of Rights comprises the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. It contains rights designed to guarantee individual freedom, several of which apply to criminal procedure. Many, but not all, of the criminal-law rights apply to the federal government and all state governments.”

How can they make that claim and then expect us to believe that they have any understanding of the law? If the Bill of Rights amends ONLY the federal Constitution, how can it also amend the State Constitutions? There premise goes against an early Supreme Court ruling which declared that the Bill of Rights was ratified, “…by the people of the United States” to apply only to the government that the Constitution had created — the federal government — and “not for the government of the individual states.” (Source: Barron v Baltimore, 1833)

Yet it was this same Supreme Court, under the leadership of Justice Hugo Black who began the process of incorporation by which certain aspects of the Bill of Rights can be applied towards the States. I wasn’t taught that in school, and for years I thought that the Bill of Rights was an ironclad restriction upon any government to enact laws that violated the rights it protects; including my State government. I had to learn this truth for myself; and I only did so because I cared enough to seek that truth out for myself.

Then, of course, there is the Civil War. I was taught that it was a war to end slavery, that the South was evil and sought to keep their slaves and that the North was fighting a righteous war to end that evil institution. What I learned is that what I had been taught was the North’s version of that war; written to justify an illegal invasion upon the South who had lawfully seceded from the Union…just as our Founders had done when they seceded from the British Empire in 1776.

But you try to teach people these facts today and they look at you as if they are saying, “Who cares” or they become offended because what you are saying conflicts with the lies they have been taught in school, and they are incapable of reconciling their beliefs with the truth.

Another perfect example is all the fuss about NFL players taking a knee during the playing of the National Anthem; saying it disrespects the flag and all those who have died defending what it represents. Well then, what does that flag represent? Since slavery was legal for more than 75 years in America, does that flag represent the legality of that practice? Does the flag represent whatever your government tells you is the definition for patriotism, or does it represent what those who fought and died on the battlefields of the American Revolution were fighting for? If that flag represents what our Founders fought and died for, how can you honor it today when, at the same time, you support a government that is diametrically opposed to the principles our Founders fought for?

No disrespect for the troops, for I was one of them for awhile, but they all take an oath by which they declare to support and defend the Constitution first, not the orders handed down to them by their superiors or the Commander in Chief. If they do not honor that oath, why do you honor them when they are fighting wars they shouldn’t be involved in, or when they are used to violate your rights?

The same principle applies to law enforcement. I’m all for law enforcement, but not when those charged with enforcing the law unquestioningly enforce laws which violate my basic rights. Sure, 9 times out of 10 cops may be doing good; but when they abuse their authority or violate a person’s rights they should not get a free pass for all the good things they do.

It doesn’t matter if you are a cop, a soldier, a sailor, a marine or an airmen, you are charged with supporting and defending the Constitution…NOT THE LAWS PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT IT ESTABLISHED!!! Thomas Jefferson once left us a vital message regarding the law, stating that it is often but the tyrants will; especially when it violates the right of the individual.

If you ask me, the degree to which a person truly understands their rights is directly proportional to the degree to which they defend the rights of those they disagree with. If you say you are all for free speech, then turn around and try to censor the speech of others because what is being said offends you, then you don’t truly understand what free speech is all about.

The fact is, I’m tired. I’m tired of trying to get people to care. I’m tired of trying to get people to change their beliefs to conform to the facts. I feel as if I am trying to break through their coconut skulls with a marshmallow and having little success. I’m tired of trying to get people to see that no matter who they vote for, the basic course our government is on is not going to change. The way I see it is that America is like a huge bus heading towards a cliff, and every 4 years people stop the bus and vote to change the bus driver. It won’t matter if there is a Republican or a Democrat in the driver seat when we get to the cliff, we are still going to plunge to our demise. If you can’t see that, well maybe America has already reached the stage of idiocy depicted in the film Idiocracy, and there is no hope for the future.

Regardless of all that, this will be the last article I openly publish or hand out. Oh, I won’t quit writing, but I intend to cut back drastically the number of articles I do write. I have decided to send out my articles only to those who ask me for them; sort of a subscription if you will. I will not be printing them out, or posting them to Facebook, so if you do wish to continue reading what I have to say you are going to have to send me an e-mail and request that I send them to you in that format. What you do when you get them is entirely up to you. If you wish to post them to Facebook, or redistribute them, that’s your call; I have just given up on trying to awaken a people to whom ignorance and apathy are more important than the future of their country or their liberty.

So if you wish to continue reading what I have to say, send me an e mail at: bonsai@syix.com and I will add you to my mailing list, otherwise, I bid you all a fond adieu…

Current U.S. Census data places the population of the United States at roughly 325 million people. While that is insignificant when compared to the 1.3 billion living in China it dwarfs the 56,000 living in Greenland. According to United Nations data the U.S. ranks 3rd in total population; surpassed only by China and India; both of whom have populations of more than a billion people.
Did you know that for every 100 people in this country there is one government employee; that’s taking into account both civilian and military employees. The civilian side of our federal government runs around roughly 2.7 million people while the military has roughly 1.2 million active duty service members.

While the military is pretty self explanatory as to how many people comprise it, the numbers on the civilian side are pretty mind boggling. For instance, the IRS employs roughly 89,000 people; the Dept. of Homeland Security employs more than twice that with 242,000; while NSA has a mere 21,000 employees to spy upon you.

Not only does the government employ a boatload of people, it takes a lot of money to keep these organizations running smoothly. For instance, the budget for the National Security Agency for fiscal year 2017 was $10.7 billion; that for the DHS was $47.5 billion, and the IRS was $11.5 billion.
Those are just the first 3 governmental agencies that came to mind as I was writing this article, there are many more. There is the CIA, the DEA, the BATF, the EPA, the FCC, the TSA, the Departments of Education, Interior, Energy, Transportation, so on and so forth.

In short, our government is huge, and it takes a boatload of money to keep it running. Where do you think all that money comes from; do you think it just grows on trees? While that may not be so far from the truth, the truth is that in reality it comes out of your paychecks in the form of federal income taxes withheld.

How much money do you think it takes every year to keep your government operating? Well, according to data the federal budget during the last year of Barack Obama’s presidency was $3.316 trillion…that’s TRILLION…with a dozen zeroes. If you were to win a million in the lottery it would pale in comparison to a trillion as a trillion is a thousand million…and our federal budget is 3 times that!

Did you know that for the past 12 years Congress has not passed an actual budget? Whether they have been unable to come to an agreement on how much money to spend or whether they are bickering over partisan issues, such as which departments get the most money, the fact is that since 2006 your government has not agreed to a budget which actually tells those they represent how much money they intend to spend for the next fiscal year.

What Congress has done is pass a series of spending resolutions which appropriate funds for the continuation of certain governmental programs and agencies; in short a series of stop gap measures to keep government operating. Every time you hear about a possible government shutdown it is due to arguing over the specifics of these spending resolutions, not due to the fact that they cannot agree upon a budget…because THEY DON’T HAVE A BUDGET!

It must be nice to be a government. After all, where else can you create an agency that is responsible for something like the sale and transport of alcohol, tobacco and firearms, and then force others to fund it by way of taking money out of their paychecks? Where else can you start a war and force others to pay the salaries of those fighting it while buying all the bombs and bullets that are used in whatever conflict they start?

It cracks me up every time I hear someone, especially those on the political right, talk about raising or lowering taxes. All my Republican friends were celebrating the announcement that President Trump was going to slash their taxes; that they were going to be allowed to keep more of their pay. Do they ever stop to ask themselves if the government is going to correspondingly slash how much it spends?

Did you know that the War on Terror is costing American taxpayers roughly $32 million…PER HOUR; 24 hours a day 7 days a week? (Source: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/) So far this whole War on Terror has cost the American people well in excess of $1 trillion, and there is no end in sight. As President Bush said, the War on Terror will be over when, “…every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.” I don’t know about you, but that sounds like the chance for a bunch of politicians to play war; giving them an open blank check for which the American people are accountable for.

So you think your taxes are enough to pay for all this? Think again. Your government is spending money faster than it takes it in. If we were to handle our personal finances the way government handles theirs we would be filing bankruptcy within a year; yet they are the government and the American people, (aside from their petty partisan differences) continue to place their trust and faith in them.

Did you know that the government is currently, and has been for quite some time, operating at a deficit; meaning that it spends more than it takes in via taxes? As of this very moment the deficit; that money that your government spends beyond that which it takes in from taxes is over $796 billion? Did you know that the debt your government has amassed, (which you are on the hook for) currently sits at $21.3 trillion?

Did you know that you could take the combined wealth of the 10 richest men in America and put it towards the National Debt and you would still be left with an outstanding balance of over $2.4 trillion?

I’ve said it before, but I’m going to say it again; if the American people were allowed to keep every penny of their pay for the entire year, then at the end of the year they were sent a bill for all the taxes they owed, they would revolt against their government. If they could see all the ways in which they are taxed; from the taxes withheld from their pay to the nickel and dime taxes they pay on everything from their cell phones to the food they eat, they would be both astonished and angered beyond words.

If you’re beginning to get mad, just think, I haven’t even discussed how much your State taxes you either. Are you aware that if you get a tax refund that the following year you are required to list that as ‘income’, even though it is a refund of money they took from last year’s pay…which was already taxed? They can tax things you have already paid taxes upon if you pass them on to your children when you die…the inheritance tax. They tax the food you eat, the airwaves you use when you talk on your phones, and the lines that carry your electricity and television programming to you. I’m sure that if they could find a way they would tax the air you breathe as well.

Think whatever you want about your government, but to them you are merely a taxpayer; a source of revenue to be kept ignorant and happy in their servitude. Did you know that your Social Security Number is not only a file number for the funds collected from your pay to be stored in a personalized account in your name, but it is also a taxpayer identification number? Why else would you be required to enter it upon your federal tax forms if it wasn’t used to identify you to the government as taxpayer number XXX-XX-XXXX?

In 1978 Bob Seger released his 10th Studio album entitled Stranger in Town, The fifth song on that album is entitled Feel Like A Number and talks about how we are losing our individual identities to the numbers used to identify us. Well, that’s all you are to the government, a number by which your income may be taxed to fund its operations.

The sad thing is, none of your taxes go towards the actual operation of your government, and haven’t done so in quite some time. Back in 1983 President Reagan assigned a commission to discover waste and abuse in government. Known as the Grace Commission this committee issued a report to President Reagan, stating, “…100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt and by federal government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services [that] taxpayers expect from their government.”

Yet that debt continues to climb, with no signs of slowing down. And we do what; expect our government to keep doing more and more for us? If there ever was an example of what insanity is, that would be it; asking someone to keep spending you further and further into debt. Put aside for a moment the fact that 99% of what your government does is simply unconstitutional; the fact is that it is insane to keep asking government to do more on your behalf when they simply do not have the money to fund these programs; and on top of that you ask government to REDUCE the amount of money it withholds from your pay to fund them.

Then there is the fact that there are things called unfunded liabilities; programs or benefits that will come due at a later date to which no funds have yet been put aside to pay for. Did you know that two of the unfunded liabilities our government is obligated to pay are Social Security and Medicare; totaling over $114 trillion?

When talking about federal spending there are two categories; there are mandatory and discretionary spending. Discretionary spending is that which is funded through an appropriations bill while mandatory spending is spending for programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

Are you aware that those two programs alone account for more than 50% of the federal spending every year, and are expected to increase as the Baby Boomers begin retiring? With the birth rate going down in America, who is going to pay for the retirement of your parents when they begin applying for Social Security and Medicare? You are, that’s who.

This whole thing is a house of cards, a Ponzi Scheme that has been passed on to us by those you put your faith and trust in. Did you know that one of the first reasons our Founders began to revolt against their government was due to the implementation of a tax upon the Stamps upon all printed goods.

It was not the tax itself that they protested, but the fact that their government was enacting this tax without them having any say in its enactment.

Today the average American, earning more than $37,951 falls into a 25% tax bracket? That is far more than the pittance that King George imposed upon the Colonists; yet they rebelled and we, (pardon the crude language) take it up the ass as if it was business as usual.

I am a staunch believer in the adage that there are no coincidences when talking about government. With that in mind, I find it highly suspect that your government created a bank that can lend it money, (at interest of course) while at the same time enacting a legal tax upon the income of the people in this country.

The year was 1913 and it saw our government turn us from citizens into debt slaves with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act and the ratification of the 16th Amendment. It was then that the limits upon where your government could derive its revenue were lifted; placing your income at their disposal to fund its operations…and the debt it creates I might add.

Our Founders must be sitting around in Heaven shaking their heads in disbelief; wondering what they hell we are thinking. I say that because I am asking myself the very same thing and I don’t have half the wisdom and knowledge that they did, and even I can see the final outcome of this shell game; a total collapse of our system of currency and debt.

I once heard something, and I can’t recall who said it, but this person said that wealth, true wealth, never vanishes; it simply transfers hands. When the Stock Market crashed in 1929 the American people lost millions of dollars and the money they retained was of little value. I recall my father telling me stories about the Great Depression; how loaves of bread cost $20…and that was before the dollar had lost most of its spending power due to inflation. While the American people suffered greatly during this time frame, it didn’t seem to affect the bankers so adversely, they still retained their wealth. So it will be when our system crashes in the future; the bankers will stay rich while we suffer.

You see true wealth is not measured in dollar signs, it is measured by what you own. If our system ever does crash, (and I fear that it is only a matter of time that it does) then the wealth that is this country will fall into the hands of those holding the debt. If we cannot pay them in currency that they accept, or in gold, then all that is left to give them is our property and our services as slaves.

You think you own the land you live on, that they can’t take it from you? Ever hear of eminent domain; when the government can take your land because it needs it for some project that serves the public good? What do you think would happen if you stopped paying your annual tribute, (Ooops, I mean property taxes) granting you permission to live on that land? You think they wouldn’t come and forcibly remove you from that land, even though you had paid if off in full?

That’s because that land isn’t yours, you are only living on it by the good graces of your god; government. You don’t own allodial titleship to that land; meaning complete and unrestricted ownership without any superior landlord; such as government. Your land, your labor is collateral on the debt your government incurs on your behalf and the sooner you realize that the sooner you can begin working to free yourselves.

Government is much like professional wrestling; the fans pay their admission to an event, and no matter who they root for the WWF as an organization continues to rake in the profits. The same goes for government; no matter if you vote Republican or Democrat, the debt keeps getting bigger and those collecting the interest off of that debt keep getting richer. They play us against each other; dividing us along party lines or the so-called issues so that we will not turn our attention to the fact that our government consists of men and women who have betrayed the American people and prostituted themselves to the bankers and special interests who tell them what to do.

I am not an extremely intelligent person; regardless of what you might think. I have, however, freed myself from the shackles of ignorance and apathy; something most of my fellow Americans refuse to do. This has allowed me to step back and see government from the perspective of an entity that only cares about its own survival. That is why I see the Civil War for what it truly was, a desperate act by Abraham Lincoln to keep the money flowing into the federal treasury at the expense of the Southern States.

Had he let the South go in peace his government would have crumbled; having no source of revenue to fund its operations. However, had the government kept itself to the actual purposes for which it was established there would have been no need for the South to seek its independence from it either.
Trying to get people to see these truths has been the most difficult task I have ever undertaken. Trying to get people to act upon that knowledge is next to impossible. As long as people think that their vote makes a difference, that by choosing from among pre-selected candidates they can affect the things their government does, there is no hope for our future.

Freedom from servitude will only come when the people see government for what it is, our enemy, and withdraw their support for it. But as long as people put their trust and faith in government; believing that it and it alone can provide the things they want in life, then not one single thing will change, and America will eventually fall…as did all the other great empires that have existed through the eons of history.

I just hope future historians record our fall with accuracy…

Sometimes I think that I’d have better luck trying to turn the Sun into a giant ice cube than I would in getting people to think about the things I write about. With increasing frequency I am coming to the conclusion that Thomas Edison was right, “Five percent of the people think; ten percent of the people think they think; and the other eighty-five would rather die than think.”

The problem is, thinking about something isn’t enough if it does not cause a change in behavior in the person doing the thinking. As von Goethe once said, “Knowing is not enough, we must apply.” What good does knowing that fire is hot do if you continue to put your hands into it? What good does knowing that your government is corrupt do if you keep voting for the same class of people to fill the seats of power within it?

I truly think that people are addicted to big government; much like they are addicted to their cell phones. I remember growing up; if I wanted to talk to someone I had to get on my bike and ride over to their house or wait until I saw them in school the next day. With the advent of mobile phones people became instantly connected to each other; and once that connection was made they became addicted to it.

Have you ever put down YOUR phone long enough to watch the people around you? Have you seen how upwards of 75% of them are staring at their phone; either playing some silly game or checking their Facebook account? If you were to tell them to turn off their phones, or simply leave them home, they would look at you as if you had lost all your marbles. That’s the same kind of response I get when I tell people that government does not need to pass new laws; it needs to start repealing the laws it has already passed; they look at me as if I had lost my marbles.

It is almost as if people think that they need to get their money’s worth out of government; that if it isn’t passing new laws all the time then it isn’t doing its job. The fact that well over 90% of the laws it passes are blatantly unconstitutional is irrelevant to most people; all that matters is that government is working hard to make their lives safer, more comfortable or more secure. But, are those truly the purposes for which our government was established; to make our lives easier and safer?

It doesn’t seem to matter that I can provide mountains of evidence to support my position that government was not created to make your life safer or more comfortable, people simply refuse to believe me. It’s almost as if their minds are impervious to the truth; or at least incapable of critical thought. Critical thought requires that one open their mind to all aspects of an issue and be willing to go wherever the facts take them. I simply don’t see enough of that happening in this country. What I do see is people aligning themselves along the left/right paradigm and examining the issues from that perspective only. When you allow anyone, be it a political party, the news media, or your schoolteachers to provide you with their version of the truth, then your thoughts and beliefs aren’t your own; they are those which are being shaped for you by others. That is why I have NEVER asked anyone to take my word for things; I have always hoped that people would question what I say and seek out the truth for themselves.

However, since most people are too lazy to seek out the truth; or if they fear where the facts will take them, where does that leave the 5% who actually think for themselves? How can our rights be secure when a majority of the people in this country don’t care whether government violates them; they only care when it is the ‘other party’ that is doing the violating?

Even worse than those who refuse to accept the truth are those who don’t care about the truth. This can be exhibited by those whose allegiance is to party no matter what, or it can be exhibited by those who care more about sports or entertainment than they do the pursuit of knowledge. I’d be willing to bet that if you offered people the choice to either sit back and watch a movie on TV or pick up a book on American History, most would choose the movie. There is something wrong with people when entertainment is much higher on their list of priorities than knowledge.

Regardless of how it might sound, I have no problem with people watching a football game, or seeking entertainment elsewhere. What I have a problem with is when they do so at the cost of their pursuit for knowledge and the truth. I watch a lot of movies myself, and I read a lot of fiction books; but I have achieved a certain amount of balance in that I also spend a great deal of time studying the founding and the history of this country. You can do both, if the search for the truth is important enough.

Before our government ever went into effect James Madison wrote that government is the greatest reflection of human nature. If our government is corrupt, if it violates our rights, then who do we have to blame for that? Sure, those who seek power will often abuse it once they obtain it, but isn’t it our duty to restrain them; not ask them to do things that the Supreme Law of the Land does not authorize them to do?

Former President James Garfield explained that principle best when he said, “Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature…. If the next centennial does not find us a great nation … it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.”

If you do not know what things the Constitution permits your government to do on your behalf, if you do not care about the limitations imposed upon your government, then you and you alone are responsible for the character of your government; and this is true whether you are a Republican or a Democrat. That is why I get so frustrated with people; they keep flip flopping back and forth between a Republican controlled government and a Democratic controlled government; without any regard for a constitutionally limited government.

Right now Donald Trump, whether you like him or not, is President. Many of his supporters are wondering when he is going to put Hillary, or Barack Obama in prison for their crimes. Yet I don’t hear a peep from these so-called conservatives about putting George W. Bush or Dick Cheney in prison for their crimes. People in this country turn a blind eye to the crimes of those belonging to their political party; only becoming outraged when the ‘other side’ commits the very same crimes.

The Patriot Act violates many of our constitutionally protected rights, yet it was enacted by a Republican, it was upheld by a Democrat, and I don’t see any indication that it is going to be repealed by the current occupant of the Oval Office. The same goes for the widespread surveillance of the American people by the NSA and the CIA; it continues unabated just as it did under Bush and Obama.

Yet there are those who won’t let go of this whole Trump/Russia collusion story; how supposedly Russia somehow interfered in our democratic election; tilting the results in favor of Trump. So what if they did! That’s right, you heard me, SO WHAT!!! It’s not like we have the moral high ground when it comes to staying out of the internal politics of other countries. How many dictators has the U.S. government toppled; how many coups have we orchestrated or participated in? Yet we have the gall to complain when it happens to us? The Bible tells us, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” I think we should get our house in order before we start leveling charges against another country for interfering in the internal politics of our country.

I can recall countless times when I have opposed a candidate for constitutional reasons and have had those from the ‘other side’ clap me on the back and say “Good job.” But then when I oppose a candidate they support for the same exact reasons they become upset. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not take sides, they weren’t written from a Republican or a Democratic perspective; they simply are the Supreme Law of the Land, and if they are being violated partisan politics should not matter; those doing the violating should be opposed by each and every one of us to whom the Law matters.

Those we call our Founding Fathers rose up against their government because it levied a few small taxes upon them, but claimed it had the authority to bind them in all cases whatsoever. Today we sit back and watch our TV and vote for candidates based upon promises which bind us to governmental authority; and when some of us question the authority of our government to do these things we are told we are the bad guys; the enemy.

To paraphrase something my friend Mike Gaddy said, “When questioning the crimes committed by your government becomes a crime, then maybe it’s time to get a new government.” Those of us who question government, not from the left/right perspective, but upon whether or not what it is doing conforms to the Constitution, see that voting is only the process by which we choose who will be our master, and we have decided not to participate in choosing a master. We see and understand the futility of voting for candidates who show no loyalty to the Constitution, or any inclination to restore the liberty we have lost. Voting without principle is only a perpetuation of the status quo; and we do not acknowledge are consent to the status quo.

Freedom makes an awful demand of those who seek it; and those who are unwilling to pay the price are undeserving of it. Freedom requires that you, first, understand what your rights are. Then, secondly, it demands that you choose for leaders only those who promise to protect those rights. Finally, freedom requires that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive to the liberty it was created to preserve, that those who love freedom and liberty oppose that government with all their being.

Freedom requires that you care more about its preservation than you do anything else in life except possibly your relationship with your God. Freedom requires that you be willing to risk all that you are in its defense. As Thomas Paine said, “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”

We used to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. What I want you to ask yourselves is: What the hell happened to you America?

“To enslave a man you need not bind them with shackles or place
them behind bars; all one needs is to teach them that they need not
think and they will enslave themselves for you.”
~Neal Ross~
(August 7, 2018)

“If voting made any difference they wouldn’t let us do it.”
~Mark Twain~

I would love to gather 1,000 people into a room and hand each of them a pen and a sheet of paper and ask them to write down the single most important purpose their government was established to serve. Then, in an effort to make it more interesting, I would repeat the process; only this time I would ask that they provide some sort of evidence to support their answer; possibly a quote or a literary source to justify their answer. Then, to make matters even more interesting, I would repeat the process one more time; only this time I would require that the supporting evidence they provided come from someone who actually participated in establishing this system of government we have.

I’m guessing that out of 1,000 people I’d be lucky to get 1 or 2 who could complete the task as assigned. I would also be willing to bet that if I were to read aloud some of the answers, and then refute them with the words of those who actually wrote, ratified, or argued against ratifying our constitution, I wouldn’t change a single person’s mind as to what purpose our system of government was supposed to serve.

Why is that? What does it say about the people of a country when the words of those who actually created their system of government no longer matter in regards to what powers that system of government exercises? What does it say about YOU when facts no longer matter; when the TRUTH no longer matters in your decision making process?

I’m almost certain that there are many among those reading this who have watched at least one of the Marvel Universe films; including Iron Man, Captain America, or the Avengers. That being the case, I’m sure that some of you have seen the Marvel film, Captain America: The Winter Soldier. That film provides one of the most truthful quotes I have ever seen in a Hollywood film regarding how to enslave a people. The quote comes when Captain Steve Rogers and Natasha Romanoff enter the old SHEILD bunker and find the computerized mind of the HYRDA scientist Dr. Arnim Zola. Zola tells them, “What we did not realize was that if you tried to take that freedom, they resist. …Humanity needed to surrender its freedom willingly.”

If you want my honest opinion I find it to be the pinnacle of hypocrisy that the people of this country celebrate Independence Day every July 4th, yet they have forsaken the very thing those we honor on that day fought for…liberty. Liberty, the ability to live one’s life without outside interference, is what our Founders sought when they risked all they had by rising up against their system of government.

In 1785 James Madison would write about the spirit that drove our Founders to oppose the actions of their government, saying, “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, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle.”

Today, not only do we NOT take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties, we openly call for government to limit them; all in the name of keeping us safe, secure and comfortable. How have we gone from a people who once cherished liberty above all else to a people who call for limitations upon our fundamental rights?

Today we have a president who promises to make America great again, yet it was an abundance of liberty that made America great to begin with; and I don’t hear President Trump calling for the repealing of programs and governmental agencies that restrict that liberty…do you? The only candidate for president I can recall who called for such things was Ron Paul; and he was almost universally shunned by mainstream Republicans and Democrats; with only those who truly understood what liberty and limited government meant supporting him.

Again, what does that say about YOU and your beliefs about government when the closest thing to a Thomas Jefferson this country has seen in over a century is rejected by the voting public?

The thing about liberty is that, first of all it takes a great deal of commitment and personal sacrifice to defend. Secondly, it places a huge responsibility upon the shoulders of those who seek it. People today would much rather vote for a candidate who makes good sounding promises, then go back to their lives and let that candidate handle things for them. It’s bad enough that people do that; it is compounded by the fact that most of the issues these candidates campaign upon are NOT among the powers given our system of government by those who created it in 1787.

The extent to which a person truly understands liberty can be defined by the extent to which they place the burden of providing them with things that are, ultimately, their responsibility. If I were to ask you whose responsibility it is to keep you safe, how many of you would say the police? If I were to ask you whose responsibility is it to provide you with sustenance if you were to lose your job, how many of you would say the government or society? All that does is show me that you don’t truly understand what liberty is.

If I were to ask you whose car you drive, whose house you live in, how would you answer? Most likely you would say those things belong to you. Then why shouldn’t it be YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to provide them and defend them against those who would take them from you? Why should it be some police officers job to protect you, your family and your property? Do those things belong to the police department or do they belong to you? Why should it be society’s job to work and provide you with the things that are ultimately your responsibility to provide for yourself?

Isn’t it a form of slavery for you to ask others to do things which are ultimately your responsibility as an individual to do; even if they are getting paid for it? After all, where does the money for their pay come from if not from the taxes taken from others?

Yet we have laws that limit when, and under what circumstances we can defend ourselves, our families and our property. We are required to participate in programs, (such as Social Security and Medicare) which cause us to rely upon government to provide us with things which are the responsibility of every freedom loving individual to provide for themselves.

How can you say you love freedom when you bind yourselves to a system of government that is incrementally taking that freedom from you by making you dependent upon the services and benefits it provides? Thomas Jefferson once warned of this fatal tendency, “Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.” (Source: Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XIX)

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

If our government is corrupt, if it oversteps it’s just authority, if it seeks to limit the very liberty it was established to protect, it is only because we allow it to. After all, doesn’t government derive it’s just authority from the consent of the people? Therefore, if government is all those things, it is only because we have become ignorant, apathetic, and complacent; meaning we consent to a system of government that no longer serves the purpose for which it was established.

If you support our government, in its current state, regardless of whether the Democrats or the Republicans are in control, then you are supporting a government that no longer serves the purpose for which it was established back in 1789. If you support a government that denies you your basic freedoms, then you are, in effect, consenting to your own enslavement.

If you cannot see that one simple fact, then there is no hope for you, or for the future. If your comfort, your security, your entertainment mean more to you than does the preservation of your liberty, then you are already a slave.

I think a great many Americans are under the delusion that this country can, somehow, be saved, that it can once again be great. Greatness does not come from government, it comes from the people, and as long as they seek answers for all our nation’s problems from the very entity that is responsible for creating many of them, not a damned thing is going to change.

If you ask me, America has already fallen; if you take it to mean by fallen that America no longer stands for what it once stood. Jefferson explained how this might occur, but we didn’t pay heed to his warning, “Time indeed changes manners and notions, and so far we must expect institutions to bend to them. But time produces also corruption of principles, and against this it is the duty of good citizens to be ever on the watch, and if the gangrene is to prevail at last, let the day be kept off as long as possible.”

As my friend Jeff Bennett posted in a sidebar on his website The Federal Observer, “The phrase “the Fall of America” suggests some cataclysmic event ended the American Empire which had stretched from Maine to California and Florida to Washington. But at the end, there was no straining at the gates, no barbarian horde that dispatched the Empire in one fell swoop. Rather, the Empire fell slowly, as a result of challenges from within and without, and changing over the course of hundreds of years until its form was unrecognizable.”

This land may go on being called America, there may still be people living here in ten, twenty, one hundred years who call themselves Americans; but the vital principle that it was founded upon, that all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights, died a long time ago.

All you are doing by voting is electing people to fill the seats of an entity that no longer serves the purpose for which it was established. Because you choose to look beyond your party loyalty, or the issues which you care about, you are giving your consent to a government that no longer serves to secure your liberty; making you a willing participant in your own enslavement.

I’m tired of arguing with people about this; I’m tired of arguing when all they can do is talk about the ‘issues.’ The ONLY issue should be, is your government securing your liberty or is it limiting it? Anything else is a distraction; and until people see that simple truth then America will never be great again.

In closing I’d like to leave you with two quotes from Lysander Spooner. Ponder them and maybe I’ll get back to you…

“A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.”

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

And, if our Constitution is unfit to exist, then so is the government it created…ponder that as well…

“Can it be believed that a grateful people will suffer [individuals] to be consigned to execution, whose sole crime has been the developing and asserting their rights?”
(Thomas Jefferson to William Small, 1775)

I would like to lay the groundwork for what I want to say by asking y’all a series of questions; hopefully to get you thinking in the same mindset that I think. While I can’t guarantee my success, I can always cross my fingers and hope; so let’s begin, shall we?

The first question is: Do you believe the Constitution is a law which governs what our government can and cannot do?

Now these will be simple yes or no questions; either you believe what I ask or you don’t. So with that in mind, let’s see what the facts say about my questions.

Those who wrote the Constitution felt it was a law, and they said so in Article 6, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” (My emphasis)

In 1866 the Supreme Court reaffirmed that belief in the case of Ex parte Milligan, where it was held, “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances.” (My emphasis again)

Call my stupid if you will, but my understanding of that ruling is that the Constitution not only limits what our government can do, but what we as voters can ask it to do for us. In any case, I think I have established that the answer to my first question is yes, the Constitution is a law; and if it is a law, then it follows that those who violate it are criminals.

My next question is: Do you believe that, once ratified, amendments to the Constitution also become law?

What is a constitutional amendment? It is an amendment which does one of two things; it either adds something to or takes something out of the Constitution; does it not? Therefore, if the Constitution is the law, then the changes made to it become law as well; do they not? If you have a will, leaving your estate to a family member, then you amend that will, once completed the changes you have made become legally binding. Why should an amendment to the Constitution be any different?

But, if you still have your doubts, let’s revert for a moment back to the answer to the first question; if the Constitution is the law, then what status do changes made to it have? Well, to answer let’s look at what the Constitution itself has to say about changes made to it.

Article 5 is where the Constitution outlines the method by which it can be modified, altered, or amended, and it states, “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof…” (My emphasis)

Therefore, once ratified by the required number of States a constitutional amendment becomes a part of the Supreme Law of the Land. Is that not a logical conclusion based upon the facts I have provided so far? If it isn’t, then maybe you need to readjust your thinking caps.

My final question for you is: Do you think the Bill of Rights is absolute when it comes to the restrictions it imposes upon our government’s ability to pass laws which touch upon the rights listed in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution?

When God gave Moses the Ten Commandments He did not inscribe any clarifying clauses in them; they were absolute. Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not steal were not qualified by extenuating circumstances; they were absolute restrictions placed upon the actions of the people in the form of laws handed down to the people directly from the hand of God Himself.

While the Bill of Rights was not handed down to us from God, the Bill of Rights is a list of certain rights that those who created government sought to impose restrictions upon the government’s ability to restrict or limit. This is supported by the preamble to the Bill of Rights, which states, “THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.” (My emphasis)

If the Bill of Rights was written so that it placed restrictions upon government to ensure that it served the beneficent ends for which it was instituted, then doesn’t it make sense that the preservation of our rights is one of the primary reasons our government was created? Does that not hold a glimmer of truth to you, or is it too much a stretch of the imagination for you to consider? Patrick Henry once said that we were not to ask how our trade could be increased, or how we could become a great and mighty empire; rather he said that liberty was the purpose for which government should serve. (Source: Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Assembly, June 5, 1788)

In 1960 Justice Hugo Black delivered a lecture at the New York University of Law where he stated, “It is my belief that there are ‘absolutes’ in our Bill of Rights, and that they were put there on purpose by men who knew what the words meant and meant their prohibitions to be ‘absolutes.”

Now if you follow my line of thinking, God created man, so He had the authority to impose laws upon them. Man created government, or at least we did under our system, therefore we have the authority to impose restrictions upon the extent to which our government violates the rights given to us from God Himself. After all, didn’t our Founders believe that our rights are gifts given us by our Creator; God? That simple fact was affirmed by Jefferson in both the Declaration of Independence and his Summary View of the Rights of British America, wherein he states, “God who gave us life gave us liberty.”

If liberty is the freedom to live your live according to your own dictates, free from restrictions so long as you do not deprive others of the same right, then isn’t any law that violates any of our rights to the smallest degree, a violation of our liberty and in opposition to the very purpose for which our government was established?

Now when I say your government I am not merely talking about the Congress or the President, I am using the term to define the entire entity that has the authority to enact and enforce laws upon you. By using the term government I am including the Supreme Court and all the various agencies established under Executive authority; such as the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Security Agency, and so on and so forth. Each and every one of them are bound by the limitations imposed upon them by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; as those apply to anything calling itself part of the federal government.

If you truly believe that our government was created by an act of the people, and that it derives its authority from the consent of the people, how is it that you support measures that go against the very reason for which government was established; the preservation of your liberty?

How can you allow an entity created by the people; given its authority by the people, be the determining voice in deciding what powers it will exercise and the extent to which it will violate your rights? Is it so hard to see that when you allow that to happen, government ceases to be your servant and becomes your master?

When you allow government to define what is meant by words such as ‘arms’ then you are giving government the authority to decide the extent to which you can exercise the right to keep and bear them. Does it not strike you as odd that an entity created by the people can tell the people what kinds of guns they can own, but at the same time the people cannot tell the government what types of guns it may own?

If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is so that the people might always be ready to raise a well equipped and trained militia to oppose tyranny in government, doesn’t it seem logical that you would want that militia to be as well equipped as any forces the government might bring to bear against it? Doesn’t it seem like any act to limit the guns the people can own is an act to shift any possible confrontation between the people and their government in favor of the government? Or is that too complex a thought for feeble minds?

But I don’t want to make this about the 2nd Amendment and our right to be armed; I want to talk a few moments about what happens when people chose to exercise their rights, or inform others about the abuses of power your government is guilty of.

If our right to keep and bear arms is absolute, then why is it that we require a permit to exercise it, and that this right is limited only to the guns our government so graciously allows us to own? What do you think would happen to you if you were to walk down the street with an AR-15 slung over your shoulder? First off, with the climate of fear towards guns exhibited by most Americans, people would turn around and run for their lives. Secondly, you would probably be accosted by some ‘law enforcer’ who would demand to see your permit; or more likely, force you to the ground and arrest you for violating the law.

Whose law; theirs or ours? If our right to keep and bear arms is absolute, then how can they enforce any law that restricts it without they themselves becoming criminal for violating the Supreme Law of the Land? I don’t care if the Supreme Court has ‘interpreted’ the 2nd Amendment to mean one thing or another, it does not specify what is meant by the word arms. Now it would be idiotic to walk down the street with an AR-15 slung over your shoulder, but it is STILL a right to do so. If idiocy were a crime then I know a lot of voters who would be in prison as well.

Just to prove that this rant is not all about guns, what about prayer? Is not prayer a form of speech? Is not our freedom of speech absolute? Then how can the Supreme Court uphold restrictions on that particular form of speech; simply because it might be offensive to others? I hear a lot of things coming from the mouths of people that I find offensive, but I have no right to demand that a law be passed forcing them to remain silent simply because I am offended by their speech.

If you are offended by something as simple as prayer, I suggest you grow a thicker skin and get on with your life. If you are frightened by the idea of someone carrying a gun on their person for their own personal protection, I suggest you do not call the police to come to your assistance…because they carry guns too!

We keep telling ourselves that this is the land of the free, or that we are the ‘Sweet Land of Liberty’; yeah right! What has happened when people in this country have sought to exercise that liberty to the fullest extent, or expose the instance where our government has violated our rights? The government has come down upon them like a ton of bricks; that’s what has happened.

Just look at Waco if you don’t believe me. The media would have you believe that the Branch Davidians were a cult and that the government was within its authority to go after them. But isn’t liberty the right to live your life according to your own dictates? Then if the Branch Davidians chose that lifestyle for themselves, by what authority did the government go after them; ultimately murdering them?

What about Ruby Ridge, where a government employee, Ron Horiuchi, shot and killed an unarmed woman while holding her infant child in her arms; where was the justification for that? Where was her liberty when that FBI sniper took her life from her?

What about LaVoy Finicum; who was shot down in cold blood by agents of the government and local Law Enforcement because he attempted to exert his liberty and oppose the government’s management of lands the Constitution does not authorize it to own or manage?

What about Edward Snowden, who is living in exile because he dared to expose the extent to which your government is violating the right to privacy which is protected by the 4th Amendment; where is HIS liberty? Instead of being heralded as a patriot who exposed corruption in your government he is living the life of a criminal in exile; all because he tried to tell you the truth regarding the extent to which YOUR GOVERNMENT is violating the law.

That is just one of the reasons I cannot, in good conscience, support Donald Trump as President; for he has called for, numerous times I might add, for Snowden to be executed as a traitor. If exposing government corruption or your government’s continued violation of the Supreme Law of the Land makes one a traitor, then I would hate to see what people use to define the word patriot.

Today the political discourse is limited to the left right paradigm, and any attempts to move the discussion beyond that to what is actually permissible under the Constitution is considered dangerous and subversive. What does that say about us as a people; that the discussion of what powers we have given our government is no longer permissible; that the only thing that matters is whether those powers be exercised by Republicans or Democrats?

As Judge Learned Hand said, “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it.” Well liberty, at least from my perspective, has died in the hearts of the men and women who populate this country; all they care about is what government can do to make their lives safer and more comfortable.

And finally, if our Constitution truly was written to secure liberty for those who wrote it, and their posterity, (us), then it has failed to serve its intended purpose, and as Lysander Spooner so eloquently said, “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

But according to the mindset of most these days, that kind of talk is treasonous. Well if that’s the case, let me repeat the words of Patrick Henry, “If that be treason…then make the most of it.”

Okay, I have a question for you: Where do laws come from? Ah, government you say. Okay, another question: Where do governments come from? You say we elect them, but what principle does the electing of those to fill the seats of power within government fulfill? Stumped yet? Here, let me help you: “… deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” with emphasis being on the last three words, “CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.”

That’s right, we created government; or at least our distant ancestors did. Therefore government only exists to serve us; not be our masters. This begs the question; what purpose should government serve? To answer that all one has to do is read what Jefferson said was the purpose of government by consent of the governed, “That to secure these rights…” And what rights might those be? Well, going back to the Declaration of Independence we see that they are: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That concept was reaffirmed when the Preamble to the Constitution was written, stating the intent of those who drafted that document, “We the people of the United States, in order to … establish justice … and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” (My emphasis)

What is justice? First of all let’s look at the origin of the word justice; which comes from the word just. Just is defined as: An epithet which is applied to that which agrees with a given law which is the test of right and wrong; that which accords with the perfect rights of others.

Following that train of thought, justice is defined as: The constant and perpetual disposition to render every man his due. Therefore if we, as human beings, have certain rights, given us by our Creator, then justice is when our rights are most effectively served and protected by the institution of government.

It takes all my willpower to not burst out into fits of laughter when I hear people use the term criminal justice system in regards to our nation’s justice system. I say that because 9 times out of 10 the only people it provides justice for are the criminals who call themselves government.

I know I have used this quote many times before, but Patrick Henry told us what the function of government should and shouldn’t be when he said, “You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.”

Therefore, is it justice when the system designed to secure liberty and protect our rights goes about destroying liberty and restricting our rights? Is the system implemented for securing justice just when it upholds, not the reason why government was instituted to serve, but to ensure that whatever laws that government enacts are enforced? Need I remind you that Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “…law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” (Source: Letter to Francis Gilmer, 1816)

Is it that difficult for you to understand that we created government; we wrote a law which both defines and limits the power of that government? We also added certain amendments to that law which placed FURTHER restrictions upon that government as it pertains to certain unalienable rights which belong to us. Therefore, if government passes a law which violates, even to the remotest degree, any of our rights, then who are the criminals when someone violates those laws; the person who violates the law or the government for enacting a law they have no authority to enact?

Taking that one step further, what do you call those whose job it is to enforce these laws which violate our most basic rights? What do you call the system that ensures that those who violate these laws are tried; and either found guilty or innocent based on evidence presented against them? What do you call a system, in its entirety, whose sole purpose is to enforce laws that should never have been written in the first place?
I certainly wouldn’t call it a system of JUSTICE, that’s for sure.

While I have never been inside a courtroom during a trial, I know people who have; while I know others who have worked with lawyers on case briefs. I have been told that our justice system does not server Common Law, or Constitutional Law for that matter; it serves Case Law.

What that means is that, instead of upholding the law in regards to whether it conforms to the powers given government by our Constitution, it upholds the law based upon how other courts; including appellate courts and the Supreme Court have interpreted the Constitution.

Let me ask you something about the Supreme Court. Why is it of such concern to you, (and this applies to both Democrats and Republicans), when it comes to your party’s candidate getting to choose a Supreme Court Justice? What I mean by that is, if the Constitution is the sole determining factor in how the SCOTUS rules, then why should party affiliation make any difference?

Here’s something else for you to think about. How is it that the court may rule one way, then years later reverse their decision after a few years have passed? I’m not talking about abrogation; when an amendment is passed which overturns a previous court’s decision, I’m talking about the SCOTUS simply changing its mind on how it interprets the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson warned about this aspect of the federal judiciary when he said, “The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please.”

And that is the system we have in existence today; not one which serves justice and to ensure that our rights and liberty are protected, but one which seeks only to enforce the court’s interpretation of the constitution and what laws are passed by our government. To hell with your rights and liberty, the law must be upheld no matter how blatantly it violates your rights!

How many of you would do anything to avoid having to serve on a jury? Awhile back someone I know asked me how he could get out of jury duty. I had no answer, but I thought to myself; this guy wants to get out of jury duty and I couldn’t get picked to serve on one if my life depended on it.

Now why would I want to serve on a jury? Well it’s simple, a jury of our peers is the last thing that stands between tyrants and the rights of the people; besides open rebellion against tyrants that is. Even if our government enacts laws that violate our rights; even if the judges tell you that you MUST abide by the law in your deliberations as a juror, you have the right to question the legality of the law itself if you think it violates a person’s rights. You can, as a juror, find a person innocent of a crime if the law itself is unjust.

Judges don’t want you to know this, and neither do prosecuting attorneys, but it is your right as a juror to nullify the effects of an unconstitutional law by rendering an innocent verdict. This is called jury nullification, and, although it should not be exercised for trivial reasons, it remains the right of any jury to find a person innocent if they believe the law itself is unjust.

Jury nullification, in this regard, is the ultimate expression of the principle of consent of the governed. If a jury does not consent to the legality of the law itself they can render it null and void by delivering an innocent verdict…and there is not a damned thing the judge or the prosecutor can do about it!

Now you might think I’m joking about all this, but let me provide you with a few quotes to support what I have just said. The first quote is found in the 16th American Jurisprudence, and 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 it’s unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.”

We the people, as the source from which all legislative authority flows, are the ultimate deciders of what laws are just and which are not. We do not need a panel of judges to tell us which laws we must enforce, and obey for that matter; that is if we are knowledgeable about the origin and purpose of all law.

To keep things short, the remaining quotes I will simply provide, along with the name of the person who said it.

-Therefore, the jury have the power of deciding an issue upon a general verdict. And, if they have, is it not an absurdity to suppose that the law would oblige them to find a verdict according to the direction of the court, against their own opinion, judgment, and conscience?

… [I]s a juror to give his verdict generally, according to [the judge’s] direction, or even to find the fact specially, and submit the law to the court? Every man, of any feeling or conscience, will answer, no. It is not only his right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court. -John Adams

-The Jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy. -John Jay, First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

-My own view rests on the premise that nullification can and should serve an important function in the criminal process … The doctrine permits the jury to bear on the criminal process a sense of fairness and particularized justice … The drafters of legal rules cannot anticipate and take account of every case where a defendant’s conduct is “unlawful” but not blameworthy, any more than they can draw a bold line to mark the boundary between an accident and negligence. It is the jury — as spokesmen for the community’s sense of values — that must explore that subtle and elusive boundary. … I do not see any reason to assume that jurors will make rampantly abusive use of their power. Trust in the jury is, after all, one of the cornerstones of our entire criminal jurisprudence, and if that trust is without foundation we must reexamine a great deal more than just the nullification doctrine.-Judge David L. Bazelon

-The jury has an “unreviewable and irreversible power… to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge… The pages of history shine on instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the judge. -U.S. v. Dougherty, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (Although the court also ruled that people not be told about this power they hold in their hands as jurors)

-Lysander Spooner spoke of jury nullification thusly, “It is manifest, therefore, that the jury must judge of and try the whole case, and every part and parcel of the case, free of any dictation or authority on the part of the government. They must judge of the existence of the law; of the true exposition of the law; of the justice of the law; and of the admissibility and weight of all the evidence offered; otherwise the government will have everything its own way; the jury will be mere puppets in the hands of the government; and the trial will be, in reality, a trial by the government, and not a “trial by the country.”

-Finally, Thomas Jefferson explained it best when he wrote, “Trial by jury is another constitutional protection for the rights of the people. By assuring that the people themselves participate in the judicial process, governing authorities are prevented from unjustly prosecuting individuals. Trial by jury assumes that the people themselves are the best guardians of their own rights, and that they will release from custody any person unjustly charged.”

If the purpose of the law is to secure our liberty, and if the government turns from its intended purposes and begins passing laws which restrict our liberty, then it is our right to oppose them by whatever means possible; and jury nullification is one of them. But jury nullification is only effective when a majority of the people have an understanding of the powers originally granted their government; the nature of their rights; and what recourse they have when the government oversteps its authority and restricts those rights.

However, when a majority of the people become ignorant and complacent; when they care more about party loyalty than they do the preservation of their most sacred rights, then I’d like to quote something John F. Kennedy once said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

If you cannot take the time, or will not take the time to stand up and defend your liberty now, simply because it is inconvenient, then there will come a time when you are left with no choice other than to submit unquestioningly to an overbearing and all powerful government, or fight to restore your lost freedom. Because, as Winston Churchill once said, “If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

Choose now, before events make the choice for you and you are left with nothing but the final option…

Let’s for a moment imagine that you are the proud new owners of a new house in a recently constructed housing development. You, and your neighbors, decide to establish a neighborhood watch to ensure that no crimes are committed on your block and to help each other out if need be. Your neighborhood watch group establishes a committee to act on behalf of all those living on your street. Soon this committee begins assessing monthly dues for the tasks they are doing on your behalf, but you don’t complain because it serves the overall good of the neighborhood.

Then, as time goes by, you begin noticing substantial improvements to the homes and properties on the other side of the street. You find out that your dues are being used to subsidize these improvements. You petition the committee to spread the wealth; so to speak, or to cease and desist using your due money for purposes other than the overall protection of the entire block. The committee refuses your requests and goes so far as to raise your dues.

Now my question is; what binds you to that neighborhood watch group? Would it not be your right to tell the committee that you are withdrawing from the neighborhood watch group; that you could do a better job of managing and protecting your property than they could? What if, after leaving the neighborhood watch group, those on the other side of the street ganged up on you and attacked you; demanding that you rejoin it? Wouldn’t you feel that your rights were being violated?

What if, after you were forced to rejoin the neighborhood watch you were told that before you could reassume your full status as a member of the group you must accept certain NEW rules regarding how you managed your home; wouldn’t you feel a bit of animosity towards those who were forcing you to accept these rules under duress?

I wonder, would that piss you off if it happened to you? Well that, my friends, is what basically happened during that era of American history known as the Civil War and Reconstruction. In 1789 the States, as independent political entities, by the voice of those living within them, chose to form a more perfect Union and be governed by a ‘committee’, if you will called a government, for certain specific purposes.

Over time that committee called government began imposing extremely high tariffs that mainly affected the Southern economy, as well as attempting to interfere in the internal affairs of the States; particularly in regards to the institution of slavery. Now slavery is a crime against humanity; of that I have no doubt. But, for 75 years it had been perfectly legal under the Constitution to own slaves, and it was NOT within the authority given the government to interfere with the ownership of them; unless a Constitutional Amendment were first ratified banning slavery altogether.

I know slavery is one of those hot topic issues that causes tempers to flare, but the fact is that it WAS LEGAL in 1860 to own slaves; and many Northerners owned them as well; not to mention the fact that many a Northern family, particularly along the New England Seaboard, had made fortunes in the slave trade. So the North did not have the moral high ground when it came to attempting to put an end to the institution of slavery.

So what did the South do? They simply issued statements, or resolutions, that basically said, “It’s been nice being part of your little group, but we’re going to have to leave and resume our status as independent States so that we can form our own group that serves our needs better than yours does.” And what did Abraham Lincoln do? He sent a ship to Fort Sumter, (which was on Southern soil) to resupply it; thereby provoking South Carolina into attacking it. He also raised an army of 75,000 soldiers to invade the South to coerce them into rejoining the Union.

Now whether Lincoln was pro or anti slavery in his personal views is beside the point. What is germane to the discussion is that, as President, he had no lawful authority to interfere with it as an institution. Even he understood that, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” (Source: Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address)

Therefore, if Lincoln did not amass an army of 75,000 to end slavery, what did he do it for? Well the answer is twofold; and both parts are intertwined with each other as to make them almost inseparable. First of all he wanted to maintain the Union as it was before the South chose to secede and form their own system of government. I’ll bet that your history books did not teach you that there was substantial support for the South leaving the Union in peace among those living in the North; did they? I’ll bet they also didn’t teach you that those who spoke the loudest against Lincoln’s war against the South had their voices silenced and were often imprisoned for doing questioning his policies.

One of them, Horace Greeley, a prominent Northern journalist, published the following in his newspaper, “If the Cotton States decide that they can do better out of the Union than in it, we insist on letting them go in peace.” In fact, Greeley went on to say, “The South has as good a right to secede from the Union as the colonies had to secede from Great Britain. I will never stand for coercion for subjugation. It would not be just.”

Even the Brits saw the Civil War in the same light, saying, ” [T]he contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces. These opinions…are the general opinions of the English nation.” (Source: London Times, November 7, 1861)

There is a key distinction that most people do not consider; the South did not revolt against the North, they simply withdrew their consent to be governed by the entity established by the Constitution in 1789. If anything, the North, led by Abraham Lincoln, attacked the authority of the States to withdraw from the Union anytime they felt adhering to it was harmful to their internal affairs, sovereignty and general welfare.

So why did Lincoln instigate war rather than let the South leave in peace? Well, the answer is simple; he knew his government could not continue to subsidize Northern business interests if the tariffs derived from duties imposed at Southern ports were to up and vanish. Yes, the basis for the entire war was founded upon the fact that Lincoln sought to maintain control over the South just so the money could keep flowing into the coffers of the federal treasury.

This was the stated reason for the entire war from the perspective of the South; to keep the money flowing into Washington D.C., and was stated thusly in the New Orleans Daily Crescent on January 21, 1861, “They (the South) know that it is their import trade that draws from the peoples pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interest. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the union.” And just in case you’re questioning Louisiana’s loyalty, that was published BEFORE Louisiana seceded; meaning they were still part of the Union at the time.

There were also those in the Northern Press who saw that without the money from the tariffs imposed upon the South that the government, and the North itself, would suffer greatly. On February 19, 1861 the Union Democrat Manchester, of New Hampshire, published the following, “The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing… it is very clear that the South gains by this process and we lose. No…we must not let the South go”.”

That sentiment was not limited to New Hampshire, in the Chicago Daily Times, dated December 10, 1860 we read, “In one single blow our foreign commerce may be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruin. Let the South adopt the free trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow.”

So you see, Lincoln initiated a war over what; to free the slaves or to keep the money taken from the South flowing into the North? But it was more than that really. Lincoln wanted to ensure that the federal authority could not be questioned by entities as insignificant as the States…those who just happened to have created the federal authority in the first place. What Lincoln sought to do; and that which is his legacy is to establish the federal government as superior to the will of those who created it; thereby fulfilling Alexander Hamilton’s vision regarding the relationship between the States and the federal government.

At what cost? How many Northern cities and how much Northern countryside suffered the devastation that the armies under Lincoln’s command inflicted upon the South? How many Northern cities were burnt to the ground by Confederate troops? How much raping and pillaging was committed by those under the command of Robert E. Lee in comparison to those under the command of Ulysses S. Grant? How many died because Lincoln simply would not let, as Jefferson Davis wished, for the South to part ways amicably? All the horrors of war; all the lives lost; all the devastation wrought could have been avoided had Lincoln respected a State’s right to withdraw from the Union. And then, of course, there was the aftermath of the Civil War; which affects us to this day.

There are still probably those who think the Civil War was fought to free the slaves, and this is primarily due to two things; Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment; which was ratified after the end of the conflict between the North and South. Let us now take a look at these two events from a historical viewpoint.

First of all, how many of you have ever read Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation? Did you know that it DID NOT free a single slave held in bondage in Northern States? If you don’t believe me, read Lincoln’s words for yourself, “That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.” Only those held in bondage in States Lincoln declared to be in rebellion against the United States were declared free by this document. So, if Lincoln truly wanted to end slavery, why did he limit his Proclamation to the areas he considered to be in rebellion and not the entire country?

Now let’s look at the 13th Amendment; which ended slavery as an institution in America. Now Lincoln may, or may not have wanted to end slavery in America; but as President he only sought to do that which maintained the federal government’s authority and control over all the component parts of the Union. Are you aware that before the war Lincoln supported a proposed amendment to the Constitution which would have made slavery permanent and irrevocable? That’s right, Lincoln supported an amendment making slavery permanent in the United States and untouchable by Congress or by Constitutional Amendment.

This amendment, known as the Corwin Amendment, states, “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.” It was approved by BOTH houses of Congress as a last ditch effort to prevent the Southern States from seceding; an olive branch so to speak.

In his Inaugural Address Lincoln said the following in regards to the Corwin Amendment, “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution–which amendment, however, I have not seen–has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.” Those do not sound like the words of a man whose primary goal is ending slavery; at least not to me they don’t.

But the war came and the Corwin Amendment was tabled; relegated to dust heap of history where nobody mentions it in their recollection of the events leading up to the Civil War because it might tarnish Lincoln’s reputation as the Great Emancipator.

Instead the 13th Amendment that people praise today as the highlight of Lincoln’s war of aggression is what we all know. But, was it ratified legally? I say it wasn’t; and I will explain why.

Since most of you probably haven’t read the Constitution in its entirety, I’m willing to bet that you weren’t aware of a little know clause in Article 4 that states, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…” What does that mean, a Republican Form of Government? Well what it means is that those living in the States would be free to elect those they felt would best represent them in their State governments.

Did you know, that after the Civil War the South was denied a Republican form of government? Did you know that, instead of being free to decide who would govern them, former Union Generals were chosen by the federal government to rule over districts, and that anyone who had shown loyalty to the Confederacy was prohibited from holding public office? In short, the South was treated not as prodigal son’s returned home, but as conquered territories.

That’s exactly what Thaddeus Stevens, a Republican from Pennsylvania wanted. Stevens is quoted as saying, “This talk of restoring the Union as it was, under the Constitution as it is, is one of the absurdities I have heard repeated until I have become sick of it. The Union can never be restored as it was.” (Source: The Legislative Record for the State of Pennsylvania, 1864)

Stevens went on to say, “The Union never shall, with my consent, be restored under the Constitution as it is, with slavery to be protected by it.” That sounds to me like the words of a man who would use coercion, or any other means possible to eradicate slavery in America. While that, in and of itself isn’t a bad thing, what about the violation of a States right to self-government as protected by Article 4 of the Constitution?

The 13th Amendment was not ratified in the South by governments of the people’s choosing, it was ratified by Reconstruction Governments; meaning those who flocked to the South after the war; Carpetbaggers and others, to fill the vacancies the Confederate loyal were prohibited from holding. Now I have nothing against the fact that slavery was finally ended in America; only the manner in which it was accomplished. If the Constitution was ratified by the voice of the people living in each State, then any amendment to it should be ratified in the same manner. But that did not happen, those Southern States that voted to ratify the 13th Amendment did so under governments not of their own choosing; thereby nullifying, at least from a purely constitutional viewpoint, the 13th Amendment.

And if that even causes you any amount of concern, you’re going to love knowing what happened next. Once the slaves were freed the Radical Republicans in Congress quickly moved to grant the former slaves all the rights and privileges held by the white man…at least that’s what you have been taught to believe. What actually happened is that Congress quickly moved to make federal debt slaves of every man, woman and child in this country by creating a new status of citizenship; United States Citizen.

First of all, let’s talk about how the 14th Amendment was ratified. Basically, what happened was this. After the war the South sent representatives to Washington D.C. to represent them in the Senate and in the House. But, when they got there Congress told them, “Uh, uh, you can’t come in until your State ratifies the 14th Amendment.” So the federal government was telling them that they could not leave the Union, but at the same time they could not participate in making the laws of the Union until they accepted an amendment they had no part in writing. I don’t know if you are aware of it but there is a word for that; it’s called blackmail. Anyway, that is, in a nutshell, how the 14th Amendment was ratified; so let’s see what it actually did.

The 14th Amendment was disguised as a move to grant rights and privileges to the former slaves. The pertinent clause states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

That’s important because prior to the 14th Amendment there was no such thing as a United States citizen; each person was a citizen of the State they resided in. They all lumped themselves into the same category of Americans, but their citizenship was to their State. In fact, many of the former Confederate soldiers and officers believed their State to be their country, and that their loyalty was first and foremost to their State, and secondly to the federal union.

But if you read that clause of the 14th Amendment carefully you will see that all people born, or naturalized in the United States, held dual citizenship; both State and United States, and were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. But what is, or what was the United States back then? Was it the States that had joined together as a confederation, or union of independent sovereignties, or was it the entity created in 1789 when the States voted to ratify the Constitution?

It’s important to ask yourself that question because it determines under whose jurisdiction you fall. If you are a State citizen then the State Legislature has jurisdiction over you by the laws they pass. On the other hand, if you are a citizen under the jurisdiction of the federal government, (a UNITED STATES CITIZEN) you fall under the jurisdiction of Washington, D. C. and are subject to whatever laws it enacts.

The question is, does that entity in Washington D.C. have any valid authority over you? By that I mean is the government you currently vote people in to office for, a constitutionally legal entity, or is it a new entity with absolute authority over both the States and the people of America; and was this all due to the Civil War and the unlawful ratification of the 14th Amendment?

If I were to ask you what country you were a citizen of, how would you respond? I’m guessing most of you would say United States Citizen. If you have a passport, then you probably checked the box saying you were a U.S. Citizen. That is a lawful declaration of your citizenship status, made by you, and legally binding. Essentially you have revoked your dual citizenship and have claimed UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP. In doing so you voluntarily agreed to become a subject of the United States government, and accept that you are under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

This goes against all that Madison said about the relationship of federal power over the lives and liberty of the people in Federalist 45, “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…” (My emphasis)

The purpose of the 14th Amendment was made clear in the case of Van Valkenburg v Brown in the California Court of Appeals in 1872, “No white person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, or born without those limits, and subsequently naturalized under their laws, owes the status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution. “The history and aim of the Fourteenth Amendment is well known, and the purpose had in view in its adoption well understood. That purpose was to confer the status of citizenship upon a numerous class of persons domiciled within the limits of the United States, who could not be brought within the operation of the naturalization laws because native born, and whose birth, though native, had at the same time left them without the status of citizenship.”

So I have a two part question for you. First, why do you claim US citizenship when that status does not apply to you according to that ruling?

Secondly, if you are a US Citizen, how did you become one? The ruling said no white person born in the US owes their citizenship to the 14th Amendment. So if the 14th Amendment created the status of US CITIZEN, what status did you hold at birth? You were a State Citizen, and the only way you became a US CITIZEN is by you, or your parents upon your birth, declaring you to be a US CITIZEN.

There is something else you should know. Nowadays one of the first things that happens once a child is born is that they are issued a Social Security Number. Do you know what the government calls your Social Security Number? They call it a taxpayer identification number; a number that identifies you for tax collecting purposes.

By issuing you that card, that number, you are bound in perpetuity to the debt created by the government; which leads me to the true evil within the 14th Amendment. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, (and I bet you didn’t know there was a Section 4, did you?) states, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

There are two keywords, or phrases in that. First is the term public debt. It is not government debt, it was debt incurred by your government for which YOU are responsible paying back. It does not matter whether you oppose the reasons for which that debt was incurred, as the 14th Amendment declares, “The validity of the public debt … shall not be questioned.” Now do you see what happened to your freedom when the 14th Amendment was ratified?

The Civil War was fought because one segment of the country got tired of having taxes imposed upon them to benefit another segment of America, so they seceded. The government said, “Wait a minute, you can’t secede, we need your tax dollars” and then proceeded to invade and conquer them. After the war, the federal government ratified, under duress, and amendment which tied every man, woman and child to the debt created by the government; making debt slaves of us all. Then in 1913 they ratified the 16th Amendment, which gave them the ability to tax your income at their discretion. The rest, as they say, is history.

I could go on and on and on about this, but I’ve already written 8 pages; and that is pushing the limits as to how much most people will read. But, if I have piqued your interest you can always ask me for more information, or even better, you could begin researching what I’ve said on your own. But I do hope I have at least set the record straight as to the cause and effects of what you call the Civil War. If I have done that, then that’s at least a small step forward.

In 1986 the British heavy metal group Judas Priest released their 10th studio album entitled, Turbo. In support of that album the band went on tour and subsequently released a live version taken from recordings over the course of that tour. On the live album Priest performs one of the songs off Turbo called Private Property in which singer Rob Halford introduces the song by saying, “Hands off, this is private property!” Now that I’ve given you a bit of rock trivia I’d like to continue by saying that is exactly how I feel about my rights…Keep your bloody hands off them!

I have tried, literally dozens of times, to explain the principle that my rights are mine and neither you nor those you elect have the authority to deprive me of them. When those we call our Founding Fathers decided to sever the ties that bound them politically to Great Britain they signed a document which laid down the foundation upon which any system of government in America should be built upon.

That document states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

You see, people today don’t give much thought to the word unalienable. Unalienable means that something is unable to be transferred or taken away. Can I steal your DNA from you? Of course not, because your DNA is both inviolate, (meaning a part of your being) and unalienable. The same principle applies to your rights; nobody can take them from you other than the source from which they originate; your Creator.

I know I’ve written about it, but how many remember that the Bill of Rights contains a Preamble? If you recall, a preamble is an opening statement of sorts; explaining the purpose or intent for what follows. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights states, “THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

During the process of ratification of the Constitution many of the States refused to ratify it unless a Bill of Rights were to be added to it; ensuring that government could not infringe upon certain unalienable rights. The first ten amendments to the Constitution list the rights that were agreed to by the States and which became things the government could not enact any law restricting.

Typically when one says government they are understood to mean either Congress or the President, but that is not 100% accurate. The Supreme Court is also part of the government, and their interpretation of the Constitution has led to many a law being upheld which restricts our fundamental rights.

Take for instance their ruling that prayer in school, (even when performed voluntarily by the students) violates the separation of church and state, and should therefore be banned. If you were to tell me that I cannot pray, whenever and wherever I want, then aren’t you depriving me of the FREEDOM to worship as my conscience dictates? It should not matter that you do not believe as I do; as long as I do not disrupt your life, or deprive you of your rights, then I should be free to pray whenever and wherever I choose.

In his Notes on the State of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” Here you see that the legitimate powers of government are confined to acts that cause injury to another. How does a person praying injure those who do not believe in the existence of God, or belong to a different faith?

Not only did Jefferson write that, in his Kentucky Resolutions he stated, “…in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press”: thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others…”

What is prayer if it is not those who believe in God communicating their innermost thoughts and desires with their Creator? To ban this form of communication simply because others believe differently than you is the ultimate deprivation of a person’s freedom of speech.

Are you aware that in 1844 the Supreme Court held that the precepts contained in the Bible could be taught in public schools? That’s right, in the case of Vidal v. Girard’s Educators the court held, “Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, without note or comment, be read and taught as a divine revelation in [schools] – its general precepts expounded, its evidences explained and its glorious principles morality inculcated? … Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament?”

How could the court rule one way in 1844 then turn around and change its mind in the 20th Century? Was it because the attitudes and beliefs of the people in this country had altered, and that the court was just keeping pace with how the people of America felt? Well, I wonder how many people know that in an interview for the Christian Science Monitor, Chief Justice Warren Burger said, “Judges … rule on the basis of law, not public opinion, and they should be totally indifferent to pressures of the times.” If a fundamental right was inviolate and unalienable back in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was ratified, it is just as inviolate and unalienable in 2018!

How many laws have passed, and been upheld by the SCOTUS, which restrict our right to keep and bear arms? All I have to do is say, “Assault weapon ban” to prove my point. Where exactly in the 2nd Amendment is the qualifying terminology that restricts our right to keep and bear any category of arms?

People support these laws because they want to feel safe when they leave their homes and they believe that an assault weapon is not required for the hunting of deer. This shows me that they do not understand WHY the right to keep and bear arms was so vitally important that it be protected by a constitutional amendment.

We do not have the right to keep and bear arms so that we can hunt deer, nor shoot those who might burglarize our homes; we have the 2nd Amendment so that the people of this country might be sufficiently armed, and trained in the use of those arms, to comprise a force that could rise up against the tyranny of their government. Yes, I’m talking about revolting against your government; for isn’t that EXACTLY what our Founders did when they stood at Lexington and Concord when the British attempted to deprive them of the same right our Founders later protected by ratifying the 2nd Amendment?

How anyone could believe that our Founders would have wanted a government to be better armed than the people is beyond me. As the character Spock in Star Trek might say, “That is highly illogical.” In his Commentaries on the Constitution, Justice Joseph Story explains the reason why we have the 2nd Amendment, “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

To pass a law which deprives us of this right is to say that we must submit to the arbitrary will of a government that is better armed than are the people who created it; and this is true whether those laws are passed to provide you with a false sense of safety and security. People say they want to be safe from the actions of criminals, but do they ever stop to ask how they would be safe from the actions of a criminal organization known as government?

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

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court held, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.”

In 1878 an Arkansas Appellate Court held, “To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”

Yet today we have laws restricting what type of guns we might own; the capacity of the magazines those guns can hold; the addition of things such suppressors…all of which are limitations upon our right to keep and bear arms of all kinds. All of these laws have been passed because there is an ever growing climate of fear regarding the private ownership of firearms.

Guns are what gave our Founders the ability to resist the tyranny of King George III. Can you imagine how the American Revolution would have turned out had the Redcoats gone into battle with muskets while the Colonists were limited to bows and arrows? Can you imagine the outcome of the Battle of Gettysburg had Lee’s Army been equipped with modern day weaponry; the South would have won its independence from the tyranny of Abraham Lincoln and his overbearing government.

Now I want you to read something. Although this is not a law, nor a Supreme Court ruling, it still bears a great deal of consideration when you are deciding whether or not to support a measure that violates any of our fundamental rights; be it the right to pray freely or the right to keep and bear arms.

This comes from the 16th American Jurisprudence and I suggest you think hard about what it says, “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 it’s unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Such an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follows that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it.”

Now I’d like to focus on 7 words from that statement; .”…bestows no power or authority on anyone…” How is it that the government can create agencies whose sole function is the enforcing of laws that violate a fundamental right, or how is it that local law enforcement can arrest and imprison people for exercising a right that the government has no authority to restrict?

Who, in reality, is the criminal in these instances; the person who is exercising their right, or the government or agency which passes laws and punishes them for doing so? Remember, for a crime to be committed a person must violate the rights of another, so whose rights are being violated by those who attempt to own firearms the government has deemed to be illegal?

Just doing their job, just following orders does not justify the punishment of those exercising their fundamental rights; and makes tyrants of those who commit such crimes against our rights; no matter how much good they do in the other aspects of their chosen profession. The Nuremburg Trials upheld that principle; that just following orders did not relieve a person from guilt when they violate the rights of others.

Our government is guilty of violating almost every single right we have; including our right to property. If we do not pay the property taxes upon our land we can be evicted from it; even if we have paid it off in full. If we do not pay registration fees on our vehicles we can be fined or imprisoned for operating them on public roads. We need to purchase a license or a permit to hunt, to fish, and even to build a home. Our income, the very fruits of our labors, is taken from us in the form of taxes and spent upon things that are blatantly unconstitutional.

How anyone can consider themselves free is beyond me; unless of course freedom to you is defined as what clothes you choose to wear, what food you will eat, and what mindless drivel keeps you entertained. And even those things are taxed; so they are not free either.

Our country was founded by men who understood what liberty was and who were ready to die obtaining it. People today don’t have the faintest idea of what liberty is, so allow me to enlighten you. According to Thomas Jefferson it is as follows, “Liberty then I would say that, in the whole plenitude of it’s extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will: but 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.” (My emphasis)

If you, because you fear, or are offended by what others do, seek to restrict the liberty of the one, or the many, then you are just as tyrannical as any form of government. If you do these things because of your misguided understanding of what rights are and why we have them, then you don’t know the first thing about why our system of government was created, and should be restricted from participating in choosing those who represent us in that government.

But oh, that’s a violation of your rights you say. Now you know EXACTLY how I feel when you try to restrict mine. To rephrase what Rob Halford said, “Keep your hands off my rights, they’re private property!”

I would like to begin this by asking you a question. Why do you think our Founders chose war against a bigger and much better equipped army rather than the continuation of the status quo that had existed for over 150 years; what was it the led them to risk their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor?

I’ll bet you didn’t know that, upon hearing the shots being fired at Lexington and Concord, Samuel Adams proclaimed, “This is a glorious day for America.” How could the sound of gunfire be a glorious day unless it was being fired in defense of something people were willing to die for?

What would YOU be willing to die for? Is it your own life, the life of your family, or possibly the defense of the things you have acquired over the course of your life; your property? Is that it? What good is life if you have no freedom? What good are belongings if you are told when and where you can use them?

Our Founders knew that liberty above all else was worth fighting and dying for. If you recall your American History it was Patrick Henry who loudly proclaimed, “Give me liberty or give me death.” Henry knew, as did many of the other Founders; men such as Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams, that liberty was something that carried with it a high price; but that if people wished to secure it they must be ready to pay whatever it cost to secure and defend it.

I would now like to ask you another question. Does the spirit of liberty beat within your breast; would you be willing to lay down your life to obtain and defend it? I’m not talking about the men and women of the armed forces, or those who enter into the law enforcement profession to uphold our nation’s laws; I’m talking about average citizens who would be willing to stand up the their government when it violated their most basic rights…can you say, without reservation, that you would be among them?

I have read that during the period which saw America become an independent country the people living here were divided into 3 categories; roughly consisting of about 1/3 of the people in each. The first category was those who favored independence from England; the second were those who favored a continuation under English rule; and the third category consisted of those who really didn’t care one way or the other.

I believe that the three categories still exist in America today, just that the proportions of those within them have changed. I know quite a few people who show little concern for what is happening in this country as it pertains to what their government is doing. For simplicities sake let’s call this group the ignorant and apathetic majority. Then there are those who are active politically; that is they vote and pay a certain amount of attention to what is going on in government; yet their loyalty is to the government itself and not the principles upon which that government was founded. If you were to combine these two categories I believe they would make up somewhere in the vicinity of 90% of the American people; possibly even more.

Then there are the rest of us, and I say us because I include myself in this category. We are among those who have taken the time to learn the history of the American Revolution; why it was fought, and we see a repetition of the tyranny of King George III in our existing government today; in fact we believe that the government we live under today is far worse than the one our Founders fought to free themselves from. We are among those who the rest of the country calls the radicals, the extremists, the conspiracy theorists, and all the other insults people hurl in our directions to get people to disregard our message and our warnings.

If you have any functioning critical thinking skills left in you, I would ask that you focus them all upon the following quote, “You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence.” That alone should tell you that there is something very, very wrong in America today; when the same beliefs held by those who risked their lives to obtain their independence from a tyrant are now considered DANGEROUS.

The root of this problem is simple; people simply do not know why their government was created; what purposes it was established to serve. I can say that with certainty because when I discuss politics with most people their arguments always originate from their individual positions along the two party paradigm. Rarely do I encounter people who question whether what their government is doing is constitutional or not; or whether it serves to further the purposes for which their government was established in the first place.

As I’ve said before, the Preamble to the Constitution is not a grant of power; it is a declaration stating the intent of the document that follows. They say a broken clock is correct twice a day, and with that in mind I’d like to share with you a quote from Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution. I preface this quote that way because, for the most part, I disapprove of what Story says in his Commentaries; yet in this instance he got it right. The quote is as follows:

And, here, we must guard ourselves against an error, which is too often allowed to creep into the discussions upon this subject. The preamble never can be resorted to, to enlarge the powers confided to the general government, or any of its departments. It cannot confer any power per se; it can never amount, by implication, to an enlargement of any power expressly given. It can never be the legitimate source of any implied power, when otherwise withdrawn from the constitution. Its true office is to expound the nature, and extent, and application of the powers actually conferred by the constitution, and not substantively to create them.

Therefore, does it not make sense that in deciding what powers we will allow our government to exercise on our behalf we should look to the Preamble to the Constitution and not what some candidate or political party tells us is the purpose for which our government was established?

So what does the Preamble say? It says, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” (My emphasis)

If securing liberty is one of the purposes for which your government was established doesn’t it stand to reason that if that government seeks to restrict your liberty it is not doing its job? Does not it stand to reason that if government seeks to deprive the people of their liberty; of their unalienable rights, then government itself is destructive of the ends for which it was established, and as Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, “…it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government…”

These are not just random thoughts I am throwing out at you, they are the very principles that led our Founders to seek their independence, and the very purpose for which your government was originally instituted. Take for instance the words of Patrick Henry, “You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.”

Then there is this, from James Wilson’s Lectures on Law, “Government … should be formed to secure and enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government which has not this in view as its principal object is not a government of the legitimate kind.”

I placed Wilson’s quote last for a reason, and that reason is because Wilson uses the term members when referring to the natural rights. While you might assume that the word members is in reference to the people who inhabit a country, I tend to believe it refers to those the government was established to represent.

Why would those who wrote the Constitution establish a Senate which derived its authority from the States if the States were not an essential part of the government? It seems to me that they did so in order for the States to have a say in what laws were passed by the federal government. When, if I may be so bold to ask, can you recall your State Legislature choosing who will represent YOUR State in the Senate?

If you can’t answer that, I’ll do it for you; the last time that happened was a century ago; prior to the ratification of the 17th Amendment. But even then, the States had become mere appendages to the central authority; that having occurred when the federal government told its creators that they must submit for all eternity to its authority or face an army whose sole purpose was to impose the federal authority upon the individual States; i.e. The Civil War.

Does it matter why the Southern States chose to secede; be it over slavery, tariffs, or something else altogether? If the people within each State had, as sovereign citizens within their State, granted their consent to be a part of a Union for certain specific purposes, then if the government created by their consent became destructive of the ends for which it was established, was it not their right to withdraw their consent and leave the Union?

Those who participated in ratifying the constitution felt so. In fact, some of them included wording to that effect in their ratification statements. For instance, Virginia’s Ratifying Statement declared, “We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly … 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…”

New York declared similar sentiments in their Ratification Statement, “That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness.”

I’ll bet you weren’t aware that after the Civil War ended Confederate President Jefferson Davis was held in prison for two years without ever facing a jury for the crime of treason against the Union. Why would they not bring him to trial if they had nothing to fear? The reason for that was that if he had been brought to trial the argument of whether a State had the right to secede from a voluntary Union would inevitably have come up, and it was still commonly believed that the States retained that right. Had Davis gone to trial the blame for the Civil War would have been placed squarely upon the victors, and Abraham Lincoln himself; and the government could not allow that to happen.

Yet whenever the topic of the Civil War comes up the first thing people do is equate it to a war to end slavery. That is because that is what they have been taught in school. However, towards the end of the Civil War Major General Patrick Cleburne warned of what would happen if the North were victorious, “Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.”

The Civil War was, and remains, not a war to end slavery, but a war to subjugate the States under a strong centralized government; exactly the opposite of what those who ratified the Constitution were promised would happen if they chose to accept this form of government. The ratification of the 17th Amendment was merely the final nail in the coffin for State involvement in the operation of the federal government.

If what I say is true, and it is easily confirmed if you would just do some research on your own, then what other crimes is your government guilty of?
Let me ask you something. If you were walking down the street and were accosted by a robber, would you ask the robber if he was a Democrat or a Republican, and then surrender your money to him just because he belonged to the same political party you did? Then why in God’s name do you support your government’s continued violations of the Constitution and your rights simply because your party happens to control it?

This corruption that people today refer to as the Deep State, or the Swamp, began to work its way into our system of government the moment it went into operation in 1789. It was under the policies established by Alexander Hamilton, then enacted by President George Washington which say our limited form of government, with a few specific powers, begin to transform itself into this monstrosity with almost unlimited authority.

Just as water in a stream slowly erodes away at the surface of a stone, time has lessened the regard people have for the purpose for which their government was established; to preserve their liberty. In his book Democracy in America, de Tocqueville writes, “Another tendency, which is extremely natural to democratic nations and extremely dangerous, is that which leads them to despise and undervalue the rights of private persons. The attachment which men feel to a right, and the respect which they display for it, is generally proportioned to its importance, or to the length of time during which they have enjoyed it. The rights of private persons amongst democratic nations are commonly of small importance, of recent growth, and extremely precarious; the consequence is that they are often sacrificed without regret, and almost always violated without remorse.”

This did not occur suddenly in one generation; rather it was a slow and gradual erosion of the principles the people of this country believed in. In 1788 James Madison told the Virginia Ratifying Assembly, “I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” That is exactly what has happened too; the erosion of our liberty began in 1789 when your government first went into effect, and it has continued unabated until you have very little liberty left.

Patrick Henry tried to warn people of the dangers this system of government would lead to when he said, “Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: And cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case?” Yet the people would not listen, the allure of a great and mighty American Empire was too strong, or the fear that should they not ratify the Constitution the Union would split asunder was too strong. The result was that they ignored Henry’s dire warnings and adopted this system of government; and the rest, as they say, is history.

Before I close there are two other things I would like to say. First of all, liberty is not the property of the government to control and restrict at their leisure or will; it is yours. However, if you want it, if you cherish it, you are shouldered with the burden of defending it from whomever might threaten to restrict it; and this is true regardless of which political party they belong to.

As Judge Learned Hand so aptly 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.” Or, as Thomas Paine wrote, “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”

If liberty means anything to you then how can you justify your continued voting for candidates who, once elected, seek to undermine and restrict it? It’s a simple question, but one which all those who consider themselves politically active should be asking themselves.

My final thought is this. I have come to the conclusion that the state of affairs in this country was all but inevitable once the Founders chose to accept this system of government. Even Ben Franklin warned that it would become despotic when the people became corrupted and needed despotic government to rule over them. Now when I say corrupted what I mean is that the principles which led our Founders to seek their independence no longer beat in the heart of every American, then the founding principles themselves will have been corrupted; not the morals or virtue of the people.

Thomas Jefferson called this corruption of principles a gangrene that is to be avoided by the people, “Time indeed changes manners and notions, and so far we must expect institutions to bend to them. But time produces also corruption of principles, and against this it is the duty of good citizens to be ever on the watch, and if the gangrene is to prevail at last, let the day be kept off as long as possible.”

In any case, I believe that the moment the State Ratifying Assemblies chose to replace the government established by the Articles of Confederation with the one outlined in the Constitution, the death of liberty was a done deal; that it was all but inevitable. It is as Lysander Spooner said, “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

You can call that treason if you will, but it only shows me that you ignore the treason being committed on an almost daily basis by your government when it no longer adheres to the purposes for which it was established.

If you wish to remain blind and ignorant to the truths I have just laid bare before you, go ahead. Just don’t expect me to live in the darkness of ignorance, apathy, and blind loyalty to a system of government that enslaves you.

To repeat the time tested toast my friend Michael Gaddy sent to me on Facebook the other day, “To us, and those like us. So damn few left.” If patriotism and loyalty to the principles this country was founded upon are considered treasonous by people today, then let me repeat what Patrick Henry said in 1765, “If this be treason…then make the most of it.”