There’s A Cancer In America

There is an evil, a pestilence, which is spreading across America which goes by the name of Political Correctness. According to Merriam Webster’s Dictionary, political correctness is defined as: conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated. You can call it whatever you want, cloak it under whatever disguise you want, but when all is said and done, it is nothing other than censorship.

Who and what defines what is, and what isn’t politically correct? Is it politically incorrect to say something, or display an image, simply because someone or some group takes offense to it? If being offended is the only guideline that establishes what is politically incorrect then we may as well just pass a law forbidding speech, or the displaying of any images; as there will always be someone who takes offense to something.

The First Amendment to our Constitution protects our right to freedom of speech and expression. As the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, no law can be passed which restricts this right. As the Constitution applies not only to our federal government, but to the people of this country as well, public sentiment cannot justify any law, or sociological sentiments which cause the freedom of speech or expression to be limited. This principle was affirmed by the Supreme Court dating back to 1866 when they ruled, “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.” Therefore the right to speak freely, or express oneself freely cannot be restricted by government, or one segment of society that takes offense due to what is being said or displayed.

As I speak the city of New Orleans, Louisiana is in the process of removing 4 Civil War monuments from public view…simply because they offend others who are under the misguided belief that they represent racism and prejudice. Prior to this egregious eradication of Southern Pride and heritage the Confederate Battle Flag, and those who proudly display it, came under attack after Dylan Roof, (the shooter at the Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, South Carolina) was seen displaying it on his car on his Facebook page.

Again, all this uproar came about because people have been led to believe that these images of Southern heritage represent racism. I have written time and time again that the Civil War was not fought over the South’s desire to maintain the institution of slavery. Why would the South risk war with the North to keep their slaves when, if that was why they went to war, all they would have to have done was ratify a proposed Constitutional amendment which would have made slavery a permanent institution in the United States?

The 36th Congress of the United States passed a resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution which would have forever protected slavery from any law passed by Congress, and from any further amendments to the Constitution. The text of this Corwin Amendment reads as follows: “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.”

The Corwin Amendment passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 133 to 65, and the Senate passed it by a vote of 24 to 12. To protect slavery, all that needed to be done was for the States to ratify the amendment; thereby preventing war with the North…if that is what the Civil War was actually fought over as you have been taught.

Upon being sworn in as President, Abraham Lincoln himself said this about 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.”

To further explain his position on the institution of slavery, Lincoln also said, “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.”

As the instigator of the Civil War, (by his having called forth an army of 75,000 to prevent the South from seceding), how can anyone say with any validity that the Civil War was fought over slavery? If that is not enough, then there is this; a letter Lincoln wrote to his friend Horace Greeley, wherein Lincoln clearly states his purpose for his war against the South, “I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.”

While serving as president of Princeton University, soon to be President Woodrow Wilson wrote a 5 volume set on the history of America; entitled, A History of the American People. Found within that work is the following quote, “It was necessary to put the South at a moral disadvantage by transforming the contest from a war waged against states fighting for their independence into a war waged against states fighting for the maintenance and extension of slavery…and the world, it might be hoped, would see it as a moral war, not a political; and the sympathy of nations would begin to run for the North, not for the South.”

That is why not a single leader of the Confederacy, or any of the generals who led troops against the Union, was ever brought to trial for treason or rebellion; for to do so would have brought the issue of secession into full view, and it was commonly accepted in both the North and the South that secession was a State’s right. In fact, Salmon Chase, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, is quoted as saying, “If you bring these [Confederate] leaders to trial it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion.”

Lincoln initiated his war, not to free the slaves, but to force the seceded Southern States into remaining in the Union. It was only when he did not achieve a swift victory that he began making slavery an issue; as in when he passed his famous Emancipation Proclamation; which in reality had no effect on slavery because it only freed the slaves in regions where the Union Army had no control, “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; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.”

This proclamation did nothing to free the slaves held in bondage in any State which was not, according to Lincoln, in rebellion against the Union. If his goal was to eradicate slavery, why not make the Emancipation Proclamation binding upon the entire Union?

Yet we are taught that Lincoln was the Great Emancipator, that he fought a war to end slavery. Slavery may have ended as a direct result of the loss of the South, and the abolitionist Republicans in the North forcing the 13th Amendment upon the defeated South, but it WAS NOT why the war was fought. The Civil War was fought because the South had exercised their right to leave a voluntary union of States, and Abraham Lincoln believed it was within his authority to use military force to prevent them from forming a nation of their own.

These are all facts that, had you taken the time to study the true history of the Civil War, you would have known. What you have been taught in school, and heard from the mouths of politicians, pundits, and news commentators, is all revisionist garbage designed to, as Wilson said, “…put the South at a moral disadvantage by transforming the contest from a war waged against states fighting for their independence into a war waged against states fighting for the maintenance and extension of slavery.”

It is because people have not been taught the truth that these monuments are being torn down, and there is such outrage whenever someone displays the Confederate Battle Flag. Yet, as John Adams said in his closing arguments defending the British soldiers in the Boston Massacre trial, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” You can choose to believe whatever you want about the causes of the Civil War, but your beliefs will not alter the state of the facts.

But unfortunately, for those of you who applaud the tearing down of Civil War monuments and the banning of the Confederate Battle Flag, it gets worse. You claim that these monuments to those who led the Confederacy and fought in the war against the North represent slavery. Well, what about Mr. Lincoln himself? Our nation’s capital contains a monument with a 30 foot tall statue of Abraham Lincoln seated in a chair, memorializing him as a ‘great’ American President. Great you say; well, let’s see about that.

Not only did Lincoln’s war lead to the deaths of over half a million Americans; more than were killed in all the other wars the U.S. has fought combined, but Lincoln himself was racist. Yes, Lincoln was just as racist as you folks declare the South to have been; and I can prove it.

In 1862 Lincoln invited free Black ministers to the White House for a conversation. During this conversation Lincoln told them, “You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence.”

But that is not all that proves Lincoln was a racist. On September 18, 1858, while debating Stephen Douglas for the presidency, Lincoln made the following statement, “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men.” Let me make it perfectly clear, I do not share those views; I only provide them as proof that Lincoln was not the great lover of the black man that he has been made out to be.

Again, these are facts that anyone with any amount of initiative could find on their own, yet they are not taught openly because they would paint both Lincoln, and the North in a bad light and justify the Confederate cause. That is, not only not politically correct, but it would disprove the government’s claim that no State has the right to leave the Union; and they simply could not allow that to be a commonly accepted belief.

I think I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that these monuments are being taken down because of a misguided understanding of what the Civil War was fought over, and what the South fought to preserve; their independence and right to establish a system of government which would “…seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (Declaration of Independence)

But the politically correct crowd does not want you to hear these truths, and they will fight to prevent you from both hearing them, and accepting them as the truths they are. They will call me racist for presenting them to you for your consideration and they will insult you as well if you begin to show doubts as to their version of this period of American History.

Which brings me right back to a question I asked at the very beginning of this article; who decides what is and what isn’t politically correct? British author Evelyn Beatrice Hall once said, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” That is the nature of the First Amendment; one should protect the right of those you disagree with if you value your right to say whatever you want. Who knows when the tides of political correctness may shift and you find that your beliefs are no longer considered politically correct; and that society attempts to stifle your freedom of speech and expression.

Although I am not a huge fan of Winston Churchill, he once said something I fully agree with that defines political correctness to a T, “Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.”

I’m all for showing some restraint, and some respect for others feelings; but not if it means sacrificing the truth. The truth is that during the years 1861-1865 these Southern States were part of the Confederacy. Now whether they believe that to be a point which they take pride in, or something they are ashamed of, it is part of their past, and no matter how hard they try, how many monuments they tear down, they can’t erase or rewrite that history.

These monuments show that history, and to tear them down simply because some people find them offensive is, to me, well offensive. But I guess my feelings don’t count, nor do the feelings of those who still retain pride in their Southern heritage. Just know this; you can tear down all the statues you want, you can ban the display of as many flags as you want, and you can even try to restrict what people say; but you’ll never remove what is in their hearts. Pride in, and respect for the Confederacy is something you’ll never take away from these people, and myself as far as that is concerned. So essentially all you are doing is appeasing your own misguided consciences and acting like a bunch of spoiled little children throwing a temper tantrum.

In closing, in a nation whose people say they value free speech, who say they honor and cherish the truth, you politically correct folks certainly aren’t living up to those claims. You seek to rewrite, or erase history that is not to your liking, hide facts that do not fit your agendas, and punish those who speak the truth. In some ways, you are almost like Orwell’s Thought Police in his book Nineteen Eighty-Four. You do know that book was meant to be a warning don’t you; not an instruction manual.

Now let the fun begin and see how many people this has offended…

Posted in General | Leave a comment

You Would Think… (An Impassioned Plea)

Imagine for a moment that you have awoken in a strange room. You look around and do not recognize any of your surroundings. You get up and go into the bathroom to splash some water on your face and you do not recognize the image staring back at you in the mirror. You begin to panic because you have come to the realization that you don’t know your own name, where you work, where you were born; your memory is a complete blank.

Although not common, this condition has a medical term assigned to it; amnesia. Amnesia is defined as the partial or complete loss of memory; usually due to brain injury, shock, fatigue, repression, or illness. But what is amnesia if it is not the loss of a part of your history?

Each of us have our own distinct history; from the moment we are born until the moment we die our history is being written by the things we do, the things we learn and the events we witness. What if in one clean sweep all those memories were wiped away; leaving you with nothing to define who and what you are?

However, as citizens of a particular State or country, we also share a collective history of the events which define what beliefs that nation was built upon; what it stands for. If you are not aware of this history you can easily be misled by those who wish to alter the principles upon which your country was established upon.

This past week on Facebook a former co-worker posted a comment that I felt had no historical evidence to support it. So, as I normally do, I responded with a series of quotations from our Founding Fathers regarding the subject he was discussing which disproved his position. He became upset and told me to stop posting quotes from people nobody care about or read any more.

Without even realizing it, this former co-worker of mine hit the nail right on the head as to the problem in this country; nobody reads those things any more. We are taught our history by teachers in the public school system from text books written by those whose goal is to manipulate our beliefs as to past events in this country. We trust our educators to teach our children the truth, but in fact they are indoctrinating them along a progressive, or revisionist version of the actual events.

Recently there has been a great deal of noise about so-called Fake News. People are finally coming to the realization that the mainstream news media has been providing them with biased and incomplete news; and they are becoming fed up with it. How much harder is it to believe that the history they have been taught about this country is also fake, incomplete?

When I was a kid growing up my father used to always tell me that if I wanted to find the truth, to go find the source, or as he often said, go straight to the horse’s mouth. To gain an understanding of American History and our system of government, that is exactly what I have done, gone straight to the horse’s mouth. I have scoured books, web sites, and picked the minds of more knowledgeable friends, for data regarding the history of this country and the establishment of its system of government. I may not be the most knowledgeable about the subjects, but I would dare say I’m more knowledgeable than a vast majority of Americans.

You would think that anyone who truly loved this country would want to know the information I have floating around inside my mind. Unfortunately, I have found the exact opposite to be true; nobody wants to know the truth as it would mean they would have to accept the fact that everything they currently believe is based upon lies and the indoctrination they have undergone by their teachers and the news media.

Yet, as John Adams said in his closing arguments in his defense of the British soldiers on trial for murder in what we know as the Boston Massacre, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

I find it a sad commentary on the people of this country who claim they value honesty and integrity, that they would choose to ignore the truth when it is presented to them; instead clinging to the lies they have been taught by people is supposed positions of authority.

Is it any wonder why the people of this country are so easily misled by charlatans and snake oil salesmen disguised as politicians seeking their votes? If you do not know the founding principles of this country you are easily misled by those posing as having your best interests in mind; when the truth is they seek only to expand the powers government holds over your life, your liberty and your pursuit of happiness.

If your sole understanding of politics in America is based upon the supposed differences between the Republican and Democratic parties, I weep for America’s future. I don’t care which party you affiliate with, both are wrong in their visions for America’s future if you were to compare their platforms to the things those men who established our Republic said were the powers given our system of government.

If the consequences of your ignorance and apathy did not directly affect me, I would let you vote yourselves into a complete dictatorship for all I care. Unfortunately, the laws these so-called public servants pass also affect me, and I have had just about enough of the idiocy and the infringement upon my liberty.

The Declaration of Independence, America’s birth certificate, if you will, states, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

That is a founding principle upon which this country was built; that when government got too big, too powerful, it was the right of the people to alter, or completely abolish it. Yet to talk like that today will most likely get you accused of treason. Treason is often misunderstood to mean attempting to overthrow the government, when in truth it is disloyalty to, or aiding in those who would do harm to the country. If it is our government that is bringing harm to this country, is it treason to ask that it relinquish all power and authority over our lives?

Even though many may not know the words spoken by our Founders, their names often evoke the sentiment of patriotism amongst the masses. Patrick Henry is amongst those whose name evokes a feeling of patriotic pride, having uttered the immortal words, “Give me liberty or give me death.”

I wonder how many are aware that in a speech defending resolutions he had introduced, Mr. Henry also said, “Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell and George the Third…”, at which point cries of TREASON rung out from the audience, by those who understood the reference to assassinated leaders. Henry paused for a moment, then continued by saying, “may profit by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it.”

Is it treason to question our government, to resist unconstitutional laws? Thomas Jefferson didn’t think so. In a letter to Abigail Smith Adams Jefferson wrote, “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all.”

I see a lot of protesting going on now, but it is directed solely at the actions of the current President, Donald Trump. Those protesting are doing so for a wide range of reasons, yet those they would have preferred occupy the Oval Office would not have been any better than Trump if you view it from a purely constitutional viewpoint.

I know a lot of people who stand behind Trump, and take great offense when he is criticized for the things he is doing. But what these people fail to realize is that Trump, or whoever else sits in the Oval Office, is just another cog in the machine that is government. Sure, they may be front and center in the spotlight, the supposed leader of the free world, and all that other garbage, but they are just one part of a government that has gone haywire; far exceeding the powers originally granted it by the Constitution.

People vote along partisan lines, often never having given a moment’s thought as to whether any of the things these candidates campaign upon are among the powers granted government. In that respect, the American voters are a bunch of amnesiacs who have forgotten what this country once stood for, and now vote according to the lies they have been taught.

It truly is a sad spectacle to watch; these elections in America. How I have wished that I could find just the right words to break through the ignorance and apathy of the American people; to get them to see the truth which is so easily obtainable. But nothing I say gets through; instead I am criticized for repeating the words of a bunch of old dead guys.

Which leads me to wonder, if by some miracle, the people of 2017 America were suddenly transported back in time to 1775, how many of them would call for loyalty to the Crown and how many would pick up their guns and fight for their liberty? I think I know the answer to that, but I want you to ponder that question for yourself. If you can’t count yourself among those who would have picked up arms to defend your liberty in 1775, how can you say you stand for the same principles our Founders stood for; especially when you willingly accept and tolerate law after law which clearly shows that our government today is far worse than the one our Founders lived under?

I don’t know what sets me, and others like me, apart from the herd of society; that gives us the ability to see through all the rhetoric, the propaganda, the lies, but we do. We go through the daily motions of living, shaking our heads in amazement at the things we hear people say. Then we attempt to correct these misconceptions, disprove these lies, we are called all manner of names…simply because most don’t have a shred of historical evidence to back up their positions.

I suppose all I can hope for is that some day, far off in the future, when America has finally collapsed due to the collective ignorance and apathy of its people, that future historians will look back and see that there was a remnant of the patriots of 1775 and 1861 who tried to warn the people of the impending doom; but that the people would not heed their warnings.

When that time comes I will say to you what Samuel Adams said to those who would not join his cause for American liberty, “May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

Posted in General | 2 Comments

The Civil War: The Last Dying Gasp of Federalism in America

How many of you remember back in grade school when they would give you a sentence with a blank in it, then provide you with choices to fill in the blank correctly? I want to try something similar, except I’ll never know how you answer. So fill in the following sentence with either “federal” or “national”: In the United States the __________ government is located in Washington, D.C.

I’m sure there were a few of you who thought to yourselves that this was a stupid exercise as they both mean the same thing. Well, that’s the entire point of this exercise, because they don’t mean the same thing.

Federalism refers to a system in which distinct sovereign entities form together in a confederation with power shared by the federal and State/local governments. Each has their own distinct spheres of operation in which they exercise jurisdiction and sovereignty.

In Federalist 45 James Madison declares our system to of a federal nature as follows, “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.”

A national government, on the other hand, is a consolidation of all the component parts of a nation into a single entity with a centralized government at the head. Under a national form of government the people owe their citizenship and their allegiance to the nation.

Patrick Henry warned of the threat of our Constitution establishing a nationalist form of government in a speech he gave to the Virginia Ratifying Assembly on June 5, 1788, “I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious: The fate of this question and of America may depend on this: Have they said, we, the States? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation: It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, Sir, on that poor little thing-the expression, We, the people, instead of the States, of America.” (My emphasis)

In a free country such as ours, where the people hold the absolute political authority or sovereignty as it is rightfully called, whenever a system of government is established by the people, they cede, or give up, a portion of their sovereignty to the government to act on their behalf.

Typically, whenever a free people establish a system of government they do so via a written constitution which outlines the shape their government shall take and the powers granted to it. As this government only acts on behalf of those who created it, and its power and authority is derived from them, if this government should overstep the limits to its powers, its acts become breaches of the trust granted it, and the government forfeits all power and authority, which then devolves back to those from whence it originated.

By the end of the American Revolution each State had written their own constitution, establishing their own system of government to act on behalf of the citizens of each State. Each State was, for all intents and purposes, a nation unto itself. This was a fact which was recognized by the Colonists and the Crown in the Treaty of Paris, 1783, “His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States…”

These sovereign and independent States had bound themselves together in a confederation, a loose union of States working together for certain specific purposes which benefited the whole. The power given to the Congress by the Articles of Confederation extended only to that which affected the interaction and intercourse between the States, also while providing for the common defense of all.

When our constitution was written, those sent to the convention which produced it had only been granted the authority by their State Legislatures to amend the Articles of Confederation, nothing more. Their task was to come up with proposals that would strengthen the existing Congress and give it the authority to enforce whatever laws it might pass, not trash the whole system and build upon its ashes an entirely new, much stronger system of government.

From a purely legal standpoint, the government we currently have was created by fraud and enacted by illegal means. As I just said, the delegates to the Philadelphia, or Constitutional Convention, clearly overstepped their authority by writing the Constitution. This breach of authority was such that Robert Yates and John Lansing, delegates from New York, departed the convention early in protest.

Upon completion of the constitution, it was merely a proposal; none of its provisions having been approved by either the State Legislatures or the people. How is it then that it could be ratified by terms found within it, and not what the Articles of Confederation said in regards to amending them, “…nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”

Yet our Constitution went into effect when only 3/4 of the States had agreed to it, and the government it outlined was shortly thereafter put into action. Tell me, how was that legal by any definition of the word?

Not only was the Constitution not agreed to unanimously, it was never voted upon by the Congress, never sent to the State Legislatures for a vote, it was ratified by assemblies drawn from the whole mass of the people; hence the warning from Patrick Henry I mentioned a bit earlier.

Regardless of the criminal, or at least, questionable means by which our constitution was written and ratified, it is commonly accepted that it went into effect and is the Supreme Law of the Land. Nothing about the process by which it became the Supreme Law of the Land changes the nature of what this constitution is; a delegation of authority to a governing body to act on behalf of those it represents, for specific purposes. Nothing changes the fact that if the government this constitution created oversteps it’s just authority, then the power granted it devolves to those who granted it the power in the first place.

The question then arises; did this constitution establish a federal form of government, or a national one? As it was ratified by the whole of the people, one might say it formed a national one. Yet as the States still retained their sovereignty and were represented in Congress via the Senate it could also be said to be a federal one. As long as the government created by this constitution stuck to the specific powers defined within Article 1, Section 8, and left the remainder of the power to the States or the people, (See the 10th Amendment), then the government created by the constitution could be said to have been a federal one.

Yet prior to its ratification, in Federalist 48, James Madison declared that, “It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.” Once people are given power over the lives and fortunes of others, it is a mighty temptation not to seek to expand that power. I believe it was Lord Acton who said, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

It was not unexpected then that the government created by this constitution would seek to expand its power and overstep the limits placed upon it. In fact, it was less than a decade before this first tentative step of encroaching upon the power of the States occurred with President Adams signing the Alien and Sedition Acts.

This act was so grievous to Thomas Jefferson, Adams’ Vice President at the time, wrote the Kentucky Resolutions in response, stating, “Resolved that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government . . . . and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”

This concept is known as nullification; where a State may simply declare an act by the general government unconstitutional and refuse to see it enforced within their boundaries. As further proof that the general government created by the constitution was federal in nature, in a letter to C. Hammond, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated ….”

These checks of one government on another that Jefferson mentioned were the checks of the State governments upon the encroaching power of the general government. In essence, Jefferson was saying when our government assumed a national form, with all power in Washington D.C., it will have abolished the federal nature of our Constitution.

Now tell me, in all honesty, does not the government we have today sound strikingly like the one Jefferson warned us about? How many laws does this general government enact which apply directly to the lives, and liberties of the people within the States; areas that, according to Madison, were to be the States responsibility?

Yet there was a time when the balance of power between the general government and the State governments was a form of detente; with the States still having sufficient authority, and will, to resist the encroachment upon their sovereignty by the general government.

In the 1830’s a little known crisis occurred; known as the Nullification Crisis. This came when the tariffs imposed by the general government upon the South were being collected, then spent on improvements on the infrastructure of the North. South Carolina was at the front of those who fought against these unjust and unfair tariffs, which not only burdened them with a large majority of the revenue which funded government, but which also protected Northern business interests at the detriment of their primary business; agriculture.

This crisis was of such a nature that, once again, a Vice President rose up, this time resigning his position as Vice President, to better help his State, (South Carolina), fight these unjust tariffs.

Before I continue I need to backtrack somewhat and discuss a bedrock principle upon which this nation was founded. Prior to 1775 you could not find a Colonist who did not consider the Crown their legitimate government, and consider themselves as British citizens. It was only when the oppressions heaped upon the Colonists became too much to bear that a Declaration of Independence was written.

The words that Jefferson put to paper are among the most definite and illuminating as they pertain to the rights of man and the nature between man and government. They also form the very bedrock principle upon which America became a free and independent nature, and should be read, and fully understood by every citizen in this country.

Therefore, I would like for you to take a moment to read, and ponder Jefferson’s words; “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” (Of course I have emphasized the pertinent quotes)

In 1861, after a long train of abuses, South Carolina had finally had enough of being governed by tyrants who represented the interests found solely in the North. They then exercised, what was widely accepted as a State’s right, to secede from a voluntary Union. They were quickly followed by six other States. It was only when Abraham Lincoln called forth for 75,000 volunteers to suppress, what he called rebellion in the Southern States, did 4 more States secede, bringing the total to 11.

History books, especially those written by modern politically correct thinkers, tell us the Civil War was fought to end slavery. That is what they want you to believe because if you knew the truth the belief that a State, or group of States, still retain the right to leave a voluntary Union; a fact which a wholly national form of government simply will not tolerate.

Lincoln himself, in a letter to Horace Greeley, declared that his intent was not to interfere with slavery, but to save the Union, “I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.” (August 22, 1862)

Lincoln raised an army without Congressional approval or a declaration of war. Nowhere within the Constitution does it authorize the Executive the authority to compel any State to remain in the Union should it choose to leave. In fact, in his Inaugural Address Thomas Jefferson declared it to be a State’s right to do so; however misguided their reason may be, “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it.”

After the Civil War ended, the leaders of the Confederacy were never brought to trial for treason or rebellion, as it would have given credence to their cause, and condemned the North. This fact was affirmed by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase in 1867, “If you bring these [Confederate] leaders to trial it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion.”

During the Civil War the London Times compared the war to the war for independence fought by the original 13 Colonies, ” [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.” (London Times, November 7, 1861)

Years after the war ended, former President Woodrow Wilson would sit down to right his History of the American People, saying this about the Civil War, “It was necessary to put the South at a moral disadvantage by transforming the contest from a war waged against states fighting for their independence into a war waged against states fighting for the maintenance and extension of slavery…and the world, it might be hoped, would see it as a moral war, not a political; and the sympathy of nations would begin to run for the North, not for the South.”

That is not what your politically correct history text books tell you, and it is not what the politically correct members of society today say when they seek to tear down any remnant of the pride and history of those who fought America’s Second War for Independence.

The freeing of the slaves by the 13th Amendment was but a consequence of the loss of the war by the South, but it was not the reason the war was fought. The reason the war was fought was because the general government had shifted from a federal form to a fully national form, and under a national form all State sovereignty is relinquished to the national authority.

Why is it that today when you ask a person their citizenship status they reply not with the State they reside in, but say instead, I’m a U.S. citizen, or an American Citizen? It is because we have seen our government shift from a federal to a national one, and in a national form of government the people owe their allegiance and citizenship status to the nation, not their native State.

When I write these little commentaries of mine, okay sometimes not so little, I am often criticized for my lack of loyalty to my country and my lack of patriotism. I think the problem lies in how one defines patriotism. I do not define patriotism as unquestioned support for the actions of my government, or blind acceptance of whatever laws it might enact. Instead, I consider patriotism to be the adherence to the principles upon which this, once mighty, nation was founded.

I cannot, in clear conscience, support a government whose every act violates those principles; and it doesn’t matter if these violations are perpetrated by Republicans or Democrats. I see government as an entity created by the people with certain specific powers granted it on our behalf. If government, and it does not matter if it is controlled by Republicans or Democrats, oversteps those limits, then its actions become criminal, and in my mind, both the government, and those who support it are criminal.

You can question my patriotism all you want, all I ask is that you provide some sort of evidence to back up your claims. If you are unable to do so, then just maybe you ought to reconsider for yourself what it means to be patriotic.

And, as Forrest Gump said, “That’s all I have to say about that.”

Posted in General | Leave a comment

A Few Assorted Comments Regarding Yesterday

April 19, 2017 came and went like any other day, with few of the people I spoke to realizing the significance of the date. For those who aren’t aware, yesterday was the anniversary of the day the first shot of the Revolutionary War was fired; when the Kings soldiers marched on Lexington and Concord leading to the ‘Shot heard round the world.’ In some States April 19th is celebrated as a holiday, but in most instances April 19 is just another day; its significance lost in the fog of time.

In some ways I consider April 19 to be an American Molon Labe Day. For those of you who don’t know what Molon Labe means. Molon Labe is what King Leonidas said to the Persian King Xerxes at the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC when Xerxes ordered the Spartans to surrender their weapons. Roughly translated it means, “Come and take them.”

The Battle of Thermopylae was a famous historical battle in which a small contingent of 300 Spartans held off the advance of the much larger, (some estimate upwards of a million strong) army of the Persians for 3 days. The film 300, starring Gerard Butler as Leonidas, is loosely based on the Battle of Thermopylae, although Hollywood took extensive liberties with the actual events.

I say there is a similarity between Thermopylae and Lexington and Concord because in both instances a small contingent of determined men held off a much larger force; and in the case of Lexington and Concord, were even successful in repelling their advance; forcing the Redcoats to flee back to Boston.

While I’m not taking anything away from our Declaration of Independence, or he resolve of those men who signed it with the full knowledge that by doing so they were placing their lives on the line, if there ever was a day that should be an American Holiday, it should be April 19th.

To me, the Battles of Lexington and Concord represent something that America has lost; that spirit of standing up to government when it seeks to deprive people of their fundamental rights. Although tensions between Britain and the Colonies had been on the rise for quite some time, it wasn’t until the King sent his soldiers to take away the Colonists guns that the Colonists put up any form of armed resistance.

Today there are many phrases I’ve heard over the years that represent the same sentiment. For instance, “I’ll give you my guns when you can pry them from my cold dead hands” is one of them. Another one is, “You can have my guns when they are empty.” Both represent a willingness to stand one’s ground and never surrender the ability to defend one’s life, property, and liberty.

I sometimes wonder what kind of convoluted logic people use when they compare the founding of this country to modern times. Our Founders, for the most part, are revered as patriots who fought to establish America as a free and independent nation. Yet the key word there is FOUGHT. America’s independence did not come to them simply because they signed the Declaration of Independence and mailed the King a copy of it; they had to fight to obtain what the Declaration said. Yet today anyone who even talks of the possibility of taking up arms against our government is looked upon as if they were insane. Those who resist the federal government’s intrusion into areas it has no business interfering in are vilified by the media and the people. Just look at how the media portrayed the Bundy’s or LaVoy Finicum; that is if the media even mentioned their names.

One of the most famous incidents prior to the American Revolution was the Boston Tea Party; when the Son’s of Liberty, dressed as Native American Indians, rowed out to the ships owned by the East India Tea Company and dumped 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor. How do you think the American people would respond today if patriots were to commit a similar act against someone they felt represented the tyranny of their government? How would the media portray those who committed such an act?

The answer to those two questions says a lot about how much America has forgotten about what it means to stand up to tyranny. Today it is perfectly acceptable to condemn the actions of one political party, while standing behind your own; yet the moment you put aside the whole two party paradigm and protest government as a single entity you are viewed as a threat to society, a danger to national security, or even a possible domestic terrorist.

One look at how people respond when you mention the name Edward Snowden is all you need to know about where people stand when it comes to their unalienable rights. All Edward Snowden did was to release information regarding the extent to which our government spies upon us. He released no information regarding the technology which made this spying possible, only that the spying was, in fact, going on. Yet he was vilified and forced to flee to Russia for sanctuary from prosecution. Had America been populated by true patriots, Snowden would have been given an award and it would have been our government that was forced to flee the country to escape the wrath of the people.

In 1975 Senator Frank Church appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press, where he stated, “In the need to develop a capacity to know what potential enemies are doing, the United States government has perfected a technological capability that enables us to monitor the messages that go through the air. Now, that is necessary and important to the United States as we look abroad at enemies or potential enemies. We must know, at the same time, that capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left such is the capability to monitor everything—telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide.

If this government ever became a tyrant, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology.

I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.”

All that Edward Snowden did was to provide proof that our government had, in fact, crossed that bridge and was actively spying on every single American in this country. Yet his name, as well as the names Bundy and Finicum, are despised by many who consider themselves to be patriotic Americans.

Theodore Roosevelt once said this about patriotism, “Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.”

Our country is not our government, our country is an idea that man can live in a society in which they enjoy the perfect freedom to exercise their natural rights, and one in which all the opportunity for success is available for them to partake of. Nothing is guaranteed, as Ben Franklin said, “The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.”

Today, what people know about government, about liberty, and about the principles this country was founded upon, could barely fill a thimble. Yet these people actively condemn people such as me who oppose government in its entirety for their constant abuse of power and violations of our rights. Just shows how much people know about what it really means to be a patriot.

In a letter to Abigail Adams, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all.”

If that wasn’t enough to prove that we should resist government; especially when it violates our rights, then maybe this will convince you. In a 1787 letter to William Smith, Jefferson made the following comments, “… what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

April 19, 1775 was such a day; a day when the Colonists in and around Boston took up arms to defend their most precious right; the right to own guns to defend their lives, their property, and their liberty. These ragtag militia members knew that they were outnumbered, less trained, and less armed than those they took up arms against; but to them that was unimportant. What was important was that a tyrant had threatened one of their most sacred rights, and as patriots they felt it was their duty to resist.

That is what America has lost, and it is why April 19 should be celebrated across the land as a day which commemorated the bravery and patriotic spirit of those who stood their ground on Lexington Green; not a day that passes by just like any other day of the year.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

A Patriots Day Message

What most people know about the Civil War comes from the textbooks they read in school. Most people probably think that the Civil War began on April 12, 1861 with the attack upon Fort Sumter, and ended with the surrender of Robert E. Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox Courthouse on April 8, 1865. I do not, by any means, claim to be an expert on this era of American History, but I’d be willing to bet I know more about this period of our nation’s history than most people do.

In 1815, forty-six years before the first shots of the Civil War were fired, John Adams sat down and wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson in which he said, “As to the history of the revolution, my ideas may be peculiar, perhaps singular. What do we mean by the Revolution? The war? That was no part of the revolution; it was only an effect and consequence of it. The revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected … before a drop of blood was shed.” I feel very much the same about the Civil War; that it was an effect of something much larger; something the origin of which can be traced back to the very first settlers to come to this land we call America.

Since so many people are of the belief that the Civil War was fought solely over the issue of slavery, I feel it is my duty to speak on it to a certain extent. Most of those who feel strong anti-Confederacy sentiments do so because of the fact of slavery in the South. Yet their ignorance regarding slavery in America allows them to have their emotions manipulated against the South and their cause.

While it was not as predominant, and was on its way out as an institution, there were slaves in the North as well. The belief that those in the North were fighting a righteous war to end slavery only shows how ignorant people truly are about the North and their ‘righteous’ war. In his book Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville writes, “…the prejudice of race appears to be stronger in the states that have abolished slavery than in those were it still exists; and nowhere is it so intolerant as in those states where servitude has never been known.”

So, while it may, or may not be true that the North fought to end slavery, it is also true that they were probably even more prejudiced against the black man in 1860’s America than their counterparts in the South.

Then there is the question of how slavery even got started as an institution in America. Do people think that the settlers to Jamestown or Plymouth brought slaves along with them on their voyages to the New World? Do people think that, once they established their Colony, they took a ship to Africa to capture a few slaves to work their land?

The first ship to bring slaves to America came in 1617 where the slaves were sold to the Colony of Jamestown, not by the Dutch as many believe, but by British pirates who had stolen the human cargo from the Portuguese slave ship, the San Juan Bautista. So, it was the British who introduced slavery to America, and until the Colonists developed their own shipping industry, it was the British who continued to bring slaves to America.

I’ll bet you also didn’t know that the overwhelming majority of the slaves which found their way to Southern Plantations were brought here by shipping companies owned and operated by Northerners. Fortunes were made by many in the North, with the importation of slaves providing much of their wealth. For instance, I’ll bet you never heard the name James DeWolf. At the time of his death James DeWolf, of Bristol, Rhode Island, was the second richest man in America. And how did he acquire that wealth? It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with his shipping business which just happened to be delivering captured slaves to America…could it?

Then there was the Brown family, also from Rhode Island, who from the fortune they made on the slave trade established Rhode Island College, later to be renamed Brown University. Hell, Ezra Styles owned a shipping business which imported slaves while he served as president of Yale University; that bastion of the Ivy League. So the hands of those in the North certainly aren’t clean when it comes to who is responsible for slavery in America.

And, since were assigning blame for slavery, let us not forget those fellow Africans who were in the business of rounding up their countrymen and selling them to the slave traders. The Oyo and Ashanti empires routinely captured those of other tribes and sold them to Western slave traders. Oh, by the way the Oyo and Ashanti empires are now the nations of Nigeria and Ghana.

So there is plenty of blame to spread around if you want to blame someone for slavery in America. Your anger and resentment over that tragic blot on our history should not be focused solely upon the South; it should also go to those who profited off slavery.

To those who say the North holds the moral high ground on the issue of slavery, you might ask yourself the following question: If slavery was such an important issue with them, why did the Northern delegates compromise their beliefs and allow it under the Constitution? As much as slavery was, and is an evil practice, it was Constitutionally legal at the time.

I’ll bet you didn’t know that in Thomas Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence he laid the blame for slavery at the feet of the King of England. Among the list of grievances against the King, Jefferson states, “…he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.”

While many despise Jefferson simply because he owned slaves, they forget that many Founders, including George Washington, also owned slaves. These same people that condemn Jefferson for being a slave owner do not realize that under Jefferson’s leadership slave importation was banned in Virginia in 1778. He also led an effort to criminalize the international slave trade, and in 1807 signed a bill sent to him by Congress doing just that.

Jefferson felt that slavery was a violation of the most fundamental of human rights. Yet he sought to educate and train those serving as slaves so that they could become self-reliant before they were freed. Yet Jefferson also felt that, after over a century of having served as slaves, the lingering resentment between them and us would be so great as to not permit the two races to live peacefully side by side. Jefferson felt that education, and then colonization elsewhere was the best possible solution to the question of what to do with emancipated slaves.

Jefferson wrote of his plans in his Notes on the State of Virginia, saying a “…bill should be taken up, and further directing, that they should continue with their parents to a certain age, then be brought up, at the public expence, to tillage, arts or sciences, according to their geniusses, till the females should be eighteen, and the males twenty-one years of age, when they should be colonized to such place as the circumstances of the time should render most proper, sending them out with arms, implements of houshold and of the handicraft arts, seeds, pairs of the useful domestic animals, &c. to declare them a free and independant people, and extend to them our alliance and protection, till they shall have acquired strength…”

As to why not allow the freed slaves to live among us, Jefferson declared, “Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expence of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.”

I’m not taking either side on the subject of slavery; I only want to show that the South was not the only part of the country responsible for its being an institution in America, and that certain of our Founders had plans for eradicating the practice of slave ownership in America.

So the seeds of the Civil War, if you can call them that, and if you believe slavery to be the only reason the war was fought, were laid from the very beginning when the first settlers to America purchased slaves to work their land way back in 1617. But what happened after the South surrendered in 1865 is what I would now like to discuss.
After Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox Courthouse, the hostilities between the two warring nations died down. Yet the South lay in ruins, with entire segments devastated beyond belief. The entire Shenandoah Valley had been burnt and destroyed by Union General Sheridan, and the area between Atlanta and Savannah was total wreckage after Sherman’s March to the Sea. Estimates vary between 1 to 13 percent of the adult male population of the South perished during the four years of war. Aside from the 3 day battle at Gettysburg, most of the major battles took place on Southern soil; leaving the countryside and the infrastructure devastated. Those who fought for the South, and survived, were to go back to their homes and face the enormous task of restarting their lives.

President Andrew Johnson hoped to make the transition back to peace as smooth as possible for the defeated South. Yet there were those in the Republican Party who wanted revenge and sought to humiliate the South; to make them suffer the consequences of their having ’caused’ the Civil War.
Prior to the Civil War the US Supreme Court had ruled that even though a slave may have obtained his/her freedom, they were still not considered citizens of the United States. This Dred Scott decision was now a major problem because after the ratification of the 13th Amendment, every slave in America was suddenly free; but without any legal status.

The Republicans in the North saw this as an opportunity to rub salt into the wounds of the South by proposing the first Civil Rights Act in America. However, the law was vetoed by President Johnson; raising the ire of Northern Republicans.

All the while a 14th Amendment to the Constitution was in the works, which before they were allowed to resume their places in Congress, the South was forced to ratify; a clear case of coercion, or blackmail. One of the major claims of the Lincoln administration was that secession was not constitutionally legal; and therefore the South had never legally left the Union. If this is true, then how come the South was forced to accept the 14th Amendment BEFORE they were allowed to resume their rightful places in Congress?

Once the 14th Amendment was ratified, and another election held, the Republicans garnered enough power to overturn President Johnson’s second veto of the Civil Rights Act and it became law.

Today the 14th Amendment is both misunderstood and perverted. People are taught that it gave citizenship to the freed slaves; which in a way it did. What it did was to create a category of citizenship which had previously not existed; that of a United States citizen; the freed slaves fell into that category. The 14th Amendment was never meant to apply to white people; a fact upheld by later Supreme Court rulings. In Van Valkenburg v. Brown, the Court made the following statement regarding the 14th Amendment, “No white person born within the limits of the United States and subject to their jurisdiction…owes his status of Citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution.”

Today the 14th Amendment has been perverted to grant citizenship status to children born to illegal alien parents on U.S. soil. The best way of explaining this perversion is by saying that if a pregnant woman breaks into your home and then delivers her child, does that child assume YOUR last name? No, it retains the name of the parent, and it does not grant that child any privileges. Now if you were to adopt that child, then it would assume your last name. So, basically the 14th Amendment was a declaration that America had adopted the freed slaves and they were now considered, at least legally speaking, on equal footing with the whites who lived in America. I know that is not 100% accurate, but it’s as close a metaphor as I can get to explain the intent of the 14th Amendment.

However, the 14th Amendment did not restrict itself to citizenship status of the newly freed slaves; it also had a more diabolical purpose; as found in Section 3 of the amendment, “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

What this did was to bar anyone who had served in the Confederate Army, served in its government, or supported its cause, from serving in any position of authority within the former Confederacy; which was pretty much the entire population of the South.

So what happened was that the South was divided up into districts, with each district being governed by a former Union General. It also created the need for those not loyal to the Confederate cause to hold positions of authority within these districts. This was the impetus for the Carpetbagger, an unscrupulous, greedy, or vengeful Northerner who went to the South to take advantage of the defeated Southerners.

So not only were the Southerners denied their Constitutionally protected right to a Republican form of government denied by the establishment of these military districts, those who sought to profit off them or rub salt in their wounds flooded southward to fill the vacant positions within local communities. And people wonder why there is still a certain degree of lingering animosity in the South for Yankees?!?

So, not only did the South lose the war, their cause dying with Lee’s surrender; not only was their land and infrastructure left in ruins, they also were forced to accept a Constitutional Amendment they disagreed with before they were allowed to resume their rightful place in the Union, and they were governed by people who despised them, or sought to take advantage of them.

If, as Adams said, the America Revolution was not the war itself, that the fighting was but a consequence of the Revolution, then we might also say that the Civil War was not just the actual fighting; it was all that led up to it, and all that occurred after the fighting stopped. If that viewpoint is an accurate description of what actually happened, then even after Robert E. Lee laid down his sword and surrendered at Appomattox, the North still was inflicting its will, or fighting if you will, against a defeated people.

The South never sought conquest or riches, they only wanted to be left alone in peace and allowed to govern themselves as they saw fit. The North, especially the administration of Abraham Lincoln, refused to allow them that fundamental right, and after the war ended, the North still pillaged and plundered the South; making them suffer for their insolence in thinking they had the right to do what the Founders had done just 84 years prior.

But history is written by the victors and the version you have been taught is a decidedly one sided version; with a definite bias towards the North. You’re going to go on believing whatever you want to believe, no matter how much evidence is presented to contradict those beliefs; and that’s your right. But you cannot make the claim that you have never been offered the truth regarding the South, the truth about slavery, and the unjust treatment of the South after the war had ended. The facts are here, and in previous articles I’ve written; you’ve simply chosen to ignore them.

And for that, the guilt falls squarely upon your shoulders. I simply go where the facts take me; and the facts prove that the South was just in leaving the Union; for whatever cause. The North, on the other hand, was guilty of an act of war against a peaceful nation; and every horror suffered by the South, both during and after that conflict, is a war crime which should be laid at the feet of the instigator of that horrific conflict; Abraham Lincoln. Yet he has a monument in our nation’s capital which people flock to by the millions.

As this is Patriots day; the day which certain States celebrate the beginning of the American Revolution, I felt it only fitting to write in an effort to speak the truth regarding those patriots who lost the Second War for Independence. I don’t know whether I’ve succeeded in getting you to see the truth, but I don’t care; the truth is the truth no matter how many people ignore it.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

More Pesky Facts (Or Why Is The Use of Marijuana A Federal Crime?)

In the same election which saw voters across the country elect Donald Trump, a ballot measure, Proposition 64, was passed by 56% of California voters; legalizing the recreational use of marijuana. Unfortunately, just because Prop 64 passed it doesn’t necessarily mean you can climb up into the attic and dig out your old bong and relive your glory days of high school; no pun intended.

Although the voters passed Prop 64, by a pretty narrow margin for a progressive State like California, there are a few things you should know before you break out the Zig Zags and start rolling up a few joints, blunts, or whatever they are called today.

First off, and I’ll get to this in greater detail shortly, the recreational use of marijuana is still a crime under federal law. I am also betting that a vast majority of those who voted YES on Prop 64 did not read the entire proposition. Had they done so they would have found that it still allows employers to enact workforce policies pertaining to the use of marijuana by their employees. This means that if you show up positive on a drug test the company you work for can, and most likely will, terminate your employment.

The thing about marijuana is that it is not like alcohol, in that if you drink heavily on a Saturday, but allow yourself to sober up on Sunday, by Monday you would not fail a breathalyzer test at work. Marijuana, or to be more precise, THC remains in your body for much longer. This means that, depending upon how much you smoke, and the frequency which you smoke, the THC could show up days, weeks, even months after you stop. You may have been a regular smoker and quit two weeks prior to going in for a drug test for a new job, and still show up positive on a urinalysis. It is very likely that if you get off work on a Friday and smoke a few bowls at a party, that you will show up positive for marijuana on a Monday morning.

So if you do decide to exercise your ‘supposed’ new found freedom to smoke weed, beware of your employer’s policy towards drug usage.

The last time California introduced a ballot initiative trying to legalize the recreational use of marijuana, Proposition 19, back in 2010, the backers included a provision within it which prohibited employers from firing employees for marijuana use unless it affected their performance at work. Although the phrase affected performance is open to interpretation, it nevertheless doomed Prop 19 to failure. So, like it or not, just because marijuana is now legal in California does not necessarily mean you can get off work and go home and smoke a bowl or two.

Is this fair, I do not believe it is, but it is reality. I do not think it is fair that someone can get off work and go home and drink a six pack, but NOT smoke a joint. Much of that may have to do with the residual paranoia from the rabid anti-drug culture and the ‘this is your brain on drugs’ ads we were subjected to. Listen, I smoked marijuana every day of my life from 1972-1979; after which I quit to join the Air Force. Although I would desperately love to be able to come home from work and smoke a bowl or two to relax, I know that there is a good chance that I may lose my job; therefore I won’t risk it, and neither should you if you value your job. That’s just life. Maybe someday in the future they can amend Prop 64 to prohibit employers from firing people for marijuana usage during their off time, but for the time being, if your employer has a policy which makes marijuana use grounds for termination; I would suggest you not push your luck.

Even though there is nothing you or I can do about all this, I find it all that a tad bit hypocritical. I find it hypocritical that employers will disallow their employees to smoke a naturally occurring substance on their own time, but allow them to drink distilled liquor and beer. I find it a tad bit hypocritical that they will enact policies that prohibit their employees from smoking marijuana but allow them to take mind altering drugs as long as they are prescribed by their physician. How many workers across America are taking psychotropic drugs for depression, bipolar disorder, obsessive compulsive behavior, or a host of other mental illnesses while on the job? How many employees are taking opiates for pain while on the job? But a person can’t go home after work and enjoy a bowl of weed? Like I said, hypocritical.

Then there is the fact that the smoking of marijuana is a federal crime; a fact which I hope to prove is a crime in and of itself. First I need to show you where exactly in the law the smoking or possession of marijuana is a crime.

Title 21 of the United States Code is where you will find all the drugs which the government has deemed to be illegal. Title 21 of the United States Code contains the codified version of the Controlled Substance Act, which gives the government the authority to regulate and restrict the use of any drugs.

So the first thing we need to discuss is, what does the government consider a drug? Section 321 (g)(1) gives us the government’s definition for the word drug, “The term “drug” means (A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them; and (B) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; and (C) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals; and (D) articles intended for use as a component of any article specified in clause (A), (B), or (C). A food or dietary supplement for which a claim, subject to sections 343 (r)(1)(B) and 343 (r)(3) of this title or sections 343 (r)(1)(B) and 343 (r)(5)(D) of this title, is made in accordance with the requirements of section 343 (r) of this title is not a drug solely because the label or the labeling contains such a claim. A food, dietary ingredient, or dietary supplement for which a truthful and not misleading statement is made in accordance with section 343 (r)(6) of this title is not a drug under clause (C) solely because the label or the labeling contains such a statement.

Yet why aren’t alcohol and tobacco classified as drugs, even though they have a chemical effect upon the body? Well, that is because they are regulated by the Internal Revenue Code found in Title 26 of the US Code. All this means is that they are drugs which the government has allowed and has found a way to derive taxes from.

Title 21 of the US Code classifies drugs according to three categories, Schedule I, Schedule II and Schedule III drugs. Marijuana is considered a Schedule I drug, which according to them means:

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

And finally, marijuana is defined as, “…all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin.”

So, there you have the law which makes it a crime to cultivate, possess, or use marijuana. Now let’s find the authorization for our government to enact such a law.

The Constitution is the document which says what laws our government can and cannot pass. Those powers are specifically listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and are as follows:

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

That’s it; those are the sole powers given our government. Where among those powers does it say the government can decide what substances we put into our bodies? It doesn’t. The only way marijuana could be made illegal to cultivate or consume would be the ratification of a constitutional amendment prohibiting it; such as they did with the 18th Amendment prohibiting the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. In speaking of the effects of Prohibition in America, John D. Rockefeller wrote, “When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before.”
So the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment, once again making it legal to purchase and consume alcohol; although they did allow States and local territories the right to ban it within their jurisdiction.

In speaking to the powers given the federal government by the Constitution, James Madison told the people of New York, “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.” (Source: Federalist 45)

The 10th Amendment clearly 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.” Therefore, if the power to control the growth, sale, or use of marijuana, or any other drug for that matter, is not found within those powers granted government in Article 1, Section 8, then it resides with the States or the people; and the people of California have spoken; passing a ballot measure making it legal to do so within their State.

By what authority does the federal government exercise jurisdiction in regards to the enforcing of federal drug laws within the State of California, or any other State for that matter? The simple truth is they do not have any authority to do so; but that hasn’t stopped them, or local law enforcement and the criminal justice system, from arresting and prosecuting people for violation of federal laws the government had absolutely no authority to enact.

Thomas Jefferson once said, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” (Source: letter to Francis Gilmer, 1816)

Legally speaking a crime is committed when one person violates the rights of another; be it theft of property or harm done to another. Where is the crime against another’s rights, or harm brought to someone else when an individual, within the comfort of their home, decides to smoke marijuana?
Jefferson said that liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, with the only limits being the equal rights of others. If you or I should wish to smoke marijuana, it is our right to do so, and the federal government should have no say in the matter. Jefferson also said that law is often but the tyrants will; and the criminalization of marijuana by the federal government is a perfect example of what he meant.

Did you know that George Washington grew marijuana? Although it was for the production of hemp, he still grew it at Mount Vernon. Then, in the 1850’s, marijuana began being used for medicinal purposes and being found in pharmacies.

It wasn’t until they began classifying drugs not specifically sold by pharmacies as poisons that marijuana began to become illegal. By 1905 twenty-nine States had enacted laws that specifically mentioned cannabis, while 8 States had it listed as a poison.

All this led to the federal government enacting the Federal Pure Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act of 1938. Prior to the passage of that act the government established the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, a precursor to the present Drug Enforcement Agency, led by one Harry J. Anslinger.

Anslinger was of the belief that cannabis caused people to commit violent crimes, act irrationally and become overly sexual. The Federal Bureau of Narcotics produced numerous propaganda films promoting his beliefs; which are at the root of many people’s misunderstanding of the effects of marijuana today.

Sure, it has the potential for abuse, as does anything else. How many functioning, (and non-functioning for that matter), alcoholics are there in America today? How many people have eating disorders that cause them to overeat and become morbidly obese? Yet food and alcohol aren’t illegal, why should a naturally occurring substance such as marijuana be?

The point I’m getting at is that the federal government has erected this huge bureaucracy to enforce drug laws that they have absolutely no authority to enact. The DEA, (Drug Enforcement Agency), and the FDA, (Food and Drug Administration) would not even exist if the Constitution were adhered to by our government, as those powers belong to the States to regulate.

But, just as in everything else we fear from terrorism to gun ownership, a well orchestrated campaign of propaganda has been constructed to cause us to fear the recreational and medicinal use of marijuana; although it would seem that the medicinal use of it is becoming slightly more common in certain cases. Yet the public’s willingness to allow the government to enact, and then its willingness to tolerate the enforcement of laws prohibiting the recreational use of marijuana only show how ignorant people are as to the actual powers held by our government, and how susceptible they are to propaganda.

I don’t expect to change anyone’s minds by the things I have just said. I am only laying out the facts as I have found them. I think people are gonna go on believing whatever they want to believe regardless of the facts presented to the contrary say.

And that, my friends, is the problem with everything in America today; people are so dead set in their beliefs that even mountains of evidence proving their beliefs to be wrong will change their minds. Which is why this quote from Aleister Crowley is one of my favorites, “The sin which is unpardonable is knowingly and wilfully to reject truth, to fear knowledge lest that knowledge pander not to thy prejudices.”

And that is why I titled this little ditty the way I did; just more pesky facts that nobody will listen to anyway.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Those Pesky Facts

Do you know the definition for the word fact? A fact, simply stated, is something that is undeniably true. For instance, it is a fact that in an open container water will boil when it reaches 212° Fahrenheit. The reverse is also true; at 32° water will freeze. The thing about facts is that, no matter how much you argue against them, they remain constant.

In 1770 a group of British Soldiers fired into a crowd in the city of Boston, causing a great deal of outrage among the citizens of that city. A trial was held, with the charges of manslaughter being brought against those accused of killing innocent citizens. Future president John Adams defended those charged with the crime of murder, and in his closing arguments made the following statement, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

In the English language there are things known as synonyms and antonyms. A synonym is a word that has the same meaning, or is similar in meaning to another word. An antonym, on the other hand, is a word that has the exact opposite meaning of the word being discussed. According to the handy dandy Thesaurus included in Microsoft Word, a few synonyms for the word fact are reality and truth. By chance, can you ponder a guess as to what you might find were you to look up the antonym for fact? Two of the words I found most frequently associated with the antonym for fact are fabrication and lie.

Let me come right out and say it, emotions are not facts. Sure, it may be a fact that you are angry, or emotional, but those emotions cannot be used as the sole means of justifying, or supporting your position on an issue; you need facts as well, otherwise your argument is nothing more than an emotional rant and should not be taken seriously. If you want people to give your position on an issue any credence you must be able to provide facts to support it. Even then, as I have found out to my own frustration, there will be those who ignore the facts; choosing instead to go on believing lies.

What I would like to do now is to present a series of facts and let you ponder them.

FACT: The first settlers to the region which we now call Massachusetts arrived they were not Americans; they were British subjects who were granted permission to establish British Colonies within what would later become the United States.

The very first political document written in the new colonies was the Mayflower Compact, which verified this relationship between them and their Sovereign, “We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia…” Not only do they declare their allegiance to the King of England, but they proclaim that their purpose in establishing this Colony was for the advancement of the Christian Faith.

Even Thomas Jefferson considered himself a British subject; as in when he wrote his Summary View of the Rights of British America. During the beginning of the period which led to the Revolution our Founders did not seek independence, they sought reconciliation; a restoration of the rights they felt had been violated by their King. It was not until they had suffered repeated injuries, without any redress from the King, that they were left with no other option but to seek independence.

FACT: Government, in whatever shape it may take, is a creation of man and can therefore have no more power than the creators bestowed upon it.

In his 1791 book The Rights of Man, Thomas Paine, (whose book Common Sense inflamed the hearts and minds of many patriots towards independence), states, “It has been thought a considerable advance towards establishing the principles of Freedom to say that Government is a compact between those who govern and those who are governed; but this cannot be true, because it is putting the effect before the cause; for as man must have existed before governments existed, there necessarily was a time when governments did not exist, and consequently there could originally exist no governors to form such a compact with.”

Also, in John Locke’s Second Treatise, a book which formed the political basis upon which many of our Founders formed their beliefs, we read the following about the power which government may exercise over those they govern, “Though the legislative, whether placed in one or more, whether it be always in being, or only by intervals, though it be the supreme power in every common-wealth; yet, First, It is not, nor can possibly be absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people: for it being but the joint power of every member of the society given up to that person, or assembly, which is legislator; it can be no more than those persons had in a state of nature before they entered into society, and gave up to the community.”

FACT: The American Revolution was not a war between Britain and the United States; it was a rebellion by the governed against their system of government which they believed had become oppressive.

When Thomas Jefferson was tasked with writing our Declaration of Independence he chose each word and phrase carefully to write what is, in my honest opinion, the most eloquent document regarding the nature of our rights and the relationship between man and their system of government. In that document Jefferson states, “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”

Jefferson did not accuse the British people of these injuries, he laid them at the feet of the head of their government; the King of Great Britain, George III. The uprising and rebellion was not against the British people, nor did the Colonists seek conquest or riches, they only sought independence from a tyrant and the ability to establish their own system of government which would “…seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…”

Sure, the war was fought between the Redcoats and the Patriots who sought independence, but those Redcoats would not have come had their King not ordered them to go restore order and stop the rebellious Colonists from disobeying his laws.

FACT: When the Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown and the war wound down to its conclusion, the Unites States, as we know it today, did not exist. Instead, each Colony, or State, became a free and independent nation unto itself.

In 1783 delegates from the Colonies and the Crown gathered together in Paris to formalize peace between the two countries. A treaty was written, and agreed to by parties from both sides, including John Adams, John Jay and Benjamin Franklin from the Colonies. The first Article of that treaty states, “His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States…”

Now I have used sovereign and sovereignty frequently in my writings, but I am not certain that everyone understands the importance of that word. Sovereignty is defined as the absolute or supreme authority or power. Each State, with its own system of government, was sovereign and independent from the others and able to pass laws which affected only those residing within their State.

Pennsylvania could not pass laws which affected the people of Virginia, and vice versa. Each State was free to regulate their own internal affairs and pass whatever laws they felt were necessary to benefit their State.

FACT: Although the King recognized the States as sovereign and independent, they were not the true sovereigns of the country; the people were.

As I have already shown, government did not just will itself into existence, the powers it held was either somehow created by the people, or assumed by certain members of society. Therefore, if the States were sovereign and independent from each other, they were not sovereign over the people within the States themselves, as those governments must have been created by the people residing within the States.

In 1793 The Supreme Court heard the case of Chisholm v. Georgia. In their ruling they made the following comments, “…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.”

Therefore, all political power in this country is both held by, and flows from the people, not any form of government they may create. This was a fact established also by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

I think, therefore, we can lie to rest the question of who holds the true political power in this country, the people or the government. The people created government, and if they created it, they can, at a later date, tear it down.

FACT: The Constitution was created by fraud and put into effect illegally.

Prior to the adoption of our Constitution we already had a rudimentary system of government in place; outlined by the Articles of Confederation. The system outlined by this document was a confederation, or a loose union of sovereignties which granted a Congress certain powers to act on their behalf. This was expressed in Articles 2 & 3 of the Articles of Confederation, wherein Article 3 declares, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

However, it is Article 13 to which I would like to direct your attention. Article 13 declares, “Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.” (My emphasis)

In 1787 a convention was held in Philadelphia, with the delegates being sent by their States to do just that, alter, or amend the Articles of Confederation…nothing more. However, there were those who felt that the government outlined by the Articles of Confederation was weak and ineffective, and they sought to establish a much stronger system of government to replace it.

This flagrant violation of the authority granted the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention was of such a nature that 3 delegates refused to sign the finished document and two others, Robert Yates and John Lansing from New York, left the convention before a finished document could be produced.

Not only were the delegates called to Philadelphia under false pretenses, the means by which the Constitution was adopted violated Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation. The law, as it existed back then, declared that for any changes to be made to the Articles of Confederation it must be voted upon and agreed to by each State. I would say tossing the Articles of Confederation into the waste heap and replacing them with a Constitution qualified as a pretty radical change. Not only that, but the proposed Constitution was adopted under terms found within it. How can a document that nobody has agreed to yet dictate the means by which it was accepted? So, instead of a unanimous vote of support for the Constitution, it only required 3/4 of the States to vote yes upon its adoption for it to go into effect.

I don’t know about you, but that sounds highly suspicious to me.

FACT: The Constitution is a law, and therefore those who violate it are criminals.

Yes I know, I just railed against the Constitution, but since it is commonly accepted as having been lawfully ratified, and since it is the document that produced the system of government we have today, I think it best we discuss what, in fact, it is. Let me begin by saying what it is not; it is NOT a list of suggestions or recommendations.

I think it is best if I let Thomas Paine explain what exactly a Constitution is. So again, from his book The Rights of Man, here is Thomas Paine on constitutions, “A constitution is not a thing in name only, but in fact. It has not an ideal, but a real existence; and wherever it cannot be produced in a visible form, there is none. A constitution is a thing antecedent to a government, and a government is only the creature of a constitution. The constitution of a country is not the act of its government, but of the people constituting its government. It is the body of elements, to which you can refer, and quote article by article; and which contains the principles on which the government shall be established, the manner in which it shall be organised, the powers it shall have, the mode of elections, the duration of Parliaments, or by what other name such bodies may be called; the powers which the executive part of the government shall have; and in fine, everything that relates to the complete organisation of a civil government, and the principles on which it shall act, and by which it shall be bound. A constitution, therefore, is to a government what the laws made afterwards by that government are to a court of judicature. The court of judicature does not make the laws, neither can it alter them; it only acts in conformity to the laws made: and the government is in like manner governed by the constitution.”

But there is more. In 1866 the Supreme Court delivered the following ruling regarding the nature and status of our Constitution, “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. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of men than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.”

Not only is our Constitution a law which those we elect take an oath to uphold, it is a law which restricts us from asking our representatives in the government it establishes from doing things which the Constitution does not expressly give them the authority to do.

I now have a question for you. What is the word you use to describe for someone who violates the law? Could your answer to that question possibly be the word criminal? Well then, if the Constitution is indeed a law, and it applies equally to those whom we elect and to ourselves when we seek our government to enact laws on our behalf, if we violate the terms expressly laid out within the Constitution, or seek to give to one branch powers it was never intended it possess, are we not acting criminally?

Don’t you find it just a tad bit funny that our government can pass all manner of laws, placing fines and jail time as punishment for their violation, yet the Constitution, being the Supreme Law of the Land, has no penalties attached to it for those who violate it?

On June 7, 1788 Patrick Henry addressed this very issue in a rousing speech delivered to the Virginia Assembly chosen to accept or reject the Constitution, “Where is the responsibility — that leading principle in the British government? In that government a punishment, certain and inevitable, is provided: But in this, there is no real actual punishment for the grossest maladministration. They may go without punishment, though they commit the most outrageous violation on our immunities. That paper may tell me they will be punished. I ask, by what law? They must make the law — for there is no existing law to do it. What — will they make a law to punish themselves? This, Sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility — and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves.”

If we do not adhere to the limits imposed upon government by the Constitution, how can we expect those we elect to do so? If nobody adheres to the Constitution, what is the use in having a Constitution? Why do we not come out and admit we have an Oligarchy, a Collective Dictatorship, or whatever name you wish to assign to our government. But to go on believing we have the type government outlined by that document is to go on believing a lie; and by your participating in choosing whom will fill the various seats of power within that government you are giving your consent to the unconstitutional laws it passes; not matter if they are passed by your party or the other guys.

FACT: No people are bound for eternity under any system of government.

This fact should not require any explanation, but I fear it does. How can any generation decide for posterity how they should be governed? If the concept that one generation can decide how following generations are to be governed, then upon what principle did our Founders seek independence from the Crown; upon what principle were the Articles of Confederation replaced by our Constitution?

Thomas Jefferson expressed this belief in a letter to James Madison, wherein he states, “We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country.”

Was this not the very principle expressed in our Declaration of Independence, “That whenever ANY Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (My emphasis)

Even Abraham Lincoln, who 13 years later would change his position when the South exercised their right to leave the Union, said the following in 1848, “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, most sacred right- a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to excercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize and make their own, of so much territory as the inhabit.”

Whether the sole reason the South left the Union was slavery, or if it was a combination of things that led them to sever ties to the Union, it does not matter; it was their right to do so. Abraham Lincoln used force to compel their obedience and over half a million people died and the Southern economy and infrastructure was devastated. Not to mention the years of suffering under the rule of Northern established government and carpetbaggers.

All this because Lincoln denied the very right which gave birth to our nation and decided that the creation of the people was greater than the will of the people.

We have not had a Constitutional form of government since the Civil War. Since the end of that use of military force by our government to impose its will upon a segment of the Union our government has continued to amass more and more power and authority over our lives. We take these small encroachments for granted because we have lived our entire lives under an unconstitutional form of government…because we are ignorant of the truth.

People go to the polls and cast their votes for whomever they believe will best lead this country without the slightest regard for the limits the Constitution imposes upon them. Then, when someone such as myself exercises my right to not participate in the fraud of choosing which dictator I want to violate my rights, I am told that I lose my right to complain about the state of affairs in America. That is absolutely ludicrous, as those who are ignorant of the limits imposed upon our government are the ones responsible for electing people who routinely violate their oaths of office to support the Constitution.

Yet our country was founded by people who stood up to government, not those who meekly followed all orders given them. Our country was founded by those who understood what liberty meant, and who were willing to die securing it for themselves and for their posterity.

You can call me whatever names you want because I no longer support our government in any of its endeavors, I’ll gladly accept the insults; for I consider myself to be in good company. Were they alive today, it is my firm belief that I would be standing side by side with Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson. The facts support my belief and my position, what supports yours?

Posted in General | Leave a comment

There’s Something Wrong Alright…

A nation that is ignorant of its past is a nation that is ripe
for deception and manipulation. Therefore, it is not what
happened, but rather what people believe happened which
determine the present actions of a nation.

(From the film Warriors of Honor)

The above quote explains, in a few short words, the importance of knowing the history of your country, and how its system of government, came into existence. You may not care about these things, but if you do not know the events which led to the establishment of America as a free and independent nation, the process which led to the establishment of our system of government, and more importantly, the beliefs held by those who participated in these events, then how can you honestly make the claim that you are informed as it pertains to how our government is supposed to function today?

What if, during the time you passed through the public school system, the history you were taught was not completely accurate? What if certain facts were withheld from you, while other things you were taught were outright lies? If any of your current opinions and beliefs happen to be based upon this ‘so-called’ education you received, isn’t it conceivable that your opinions are flawed? Wouldn’t you want to know the truth, or are you content to go on believing that you are in full possession of the facts?

It has been my experience that people today simply do not care what happened in the past; or are at least content to continue believing whatever they have been told happened. This attitude is not something new; a recent occurrence; it is something that has been going on for quite some time now.

Recently I just re-read a book by Richard Taylor, son of former president Zachary Taylor. The second to last paragraph in that book states, “The story of the six centuries of sturdy effort by which our English forefathers wrought out their liberties is unknown, certainly unappreciated. Even the struggles of our grandfathers are forgotten, and the names of Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Jay, Marshall, Madison, and Story awaken no fresher memories in our minds, no deeper emotions in our hearts, than do those of Solon, Leonidas, and Pericles. But respect for the memories and deeds of our ancestors is security for the present, seed-corn for the future; and in the language of Burke, “Those will not look forward to their posterity who never look backward to their ancestors.””

You are well within your rights to say that you don’t care about the study of our nation’s past. But you are not within your rights to then make the claim that you are making informed decisions when you go to the polls and choose who will fill the various seats of power within our government. If the decisions you make at the voting booth are not based upon the beliefs and principles held by those who participated in this country’s history, then what are they based upon? Are your current beliefs and opinions based upon the opinions of our nation’s Founders, or are they simply you repeating the political party talking points and rhetoric you have been exposed to?

I wonder how many have given any thought to the fact that from the time the Pilgrims disembarked the Mayflower in 1620 to the time the 56 delegates to the Second Continental Congress affixed their signatures to the Declaration of Independence, America did not have a system of government, nor a country for that matter, to call her own? That was over a century and a half that America was considered a Colony, or group of Colonies, subject to the jurisdiction of a government they had no say in choosing representatives to.

What events led our Founders to expose themselves to the peril of telling their government that it no longer held any authority over them? More importantly, what were the beliefs which led them to believe they even had the right to do that? These things did not simply just happen; there were reasons why they happened, and to understand what is happening today you must also understand what happened back then.

Prior to 1789 the government of the United States, as we know it today, did not exist. That is a fact of historical record that, I think, both sides of the political spectrum can agree with. Prior to the ratification of our Constitution our government consisted of a Congress which held its authority by virtue of the Articles of Confederation; one of the clauses of which required that before any law passed by the Congress could go into effect a unanimous vote of the State Legislatures was required.

Under the system established by these Articles of Confederation, who do you think held the most power; the Congress, or the States themselves? If a single negative vote by one State could derail any law passed by the Congress, I would have to say that the States held more power than the Congress.
Yet this is how it should be, as each State was, for all intents and purposes, a nation unto itself. A confederation, of which we were prior to the adoption of the Constitution, is a loose alliance of entities who band together for the common good of all. To prevent the tyranny of a majority from imposing their will upon a minority, it made sense that for any law to go into effect, all the States must first agree to it.

Some saw this as an immense evil which prevented government from being able to…well, govern. Among those who felt this limitation upon the centralized government was James Madison. In 1786 a convention was held in Annapolis, Maryland, in an effort to get delegates from the States together in one place to propose amendments which would strengthen the government created by the Articles of Confederation. Only five states sent delegates, so not much was accomplished. However, it was agreed that the following year, 1787, delegates would once again be dispatched to attend a convention in Philadelphia under the guise of proposing amendments to the Articles of Confederation.

I am not psychic, nor can I channel the spirits of those who have passed and read their thoughts; yet evidence suggests that Madison had grander designs for this Philadelphia convention than those declared to the States. Instead of proposing amendments to the Articles of Confederation, which was all the delegates had the authority to do, Madison’s plan was to scrap the Articles of Confederation and replace them with an entirely new document; a Constitution.

In a letter sent to George Washington prior to the convention, Madison outlined his plans for an entirely new system of government; a plan which Washington wholeheartedly supported. Why else would the delegates, once they arrived in Philadelphia, be sworn to secrecy? Could it be that Madison did not want the State Legislatures to get wind of his plans and recall their delegates? Did you know that Rhode Island was not represented in that convention; as they refused to send a single delegate? Did you know that Patrick Henry turned down an invitation to attend because he “smelled a rat in Philadelphia, tending toward monarchy”?

Did you know that three men; Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts along with Edmund Randolph and George Mason of Virginia refused to sign the finished document? Did you know that John Lansing and Robert Yates of New York left the convention early, stating that the delegates had exceeded the authority given them by their respective States?

This division over those who supported the finished document and those who didn’t carried over into the following year, when the States themselves took up the debate over whether to accept or reject it. It was also the leading cause which led to Madison agreeing to include a Bill of Rights if the States would only accept the Constitution first. Even so, there were still those, among them Patrick Henry, who refused to support ratification; believing the document would produce a system of government which proved fatal to the authority of the States and the liberty of all.

Yet in the end, after, an often bitter, war of words, the Constitution was ratified and the system of government it outlines went into effect. This constitution has been in effect now for almost 230 years; yet I think there are those alive today who simply cannot grasp certain basic facts regarding it.

First and foremost is that the Constitution is not a basic guideline or a list of suggestions; it is a law which binds both the government as to what it can and cannot do, and it binds the people from asking their government to do things which are not among the specific powers listed within it.

Secondly, the government created by this Constitution derives its authority from the consent of the people, and when the people decide that the government created by that document has overstepped its authority, that authority can be recalled; and there isn’t a thing the government can do to stop them from exercising that fundamental right.

Thirdly, nowhere in the Constitution, nor in the Preamble, does it declare that the Union this government was meant to serve must be perpetual. The Preamble does state that the Constitution was designed to form a more perfect Union, but it does not make any mention of the fact that it gives the government the authority to deny the States or the people the authority to dismantle the government it creates if it every became tyrannical. You may argue that because the full title of the document which the Constitution replaced was The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, then the Union remained perpetual under the Constitution.

I would argue back that since the Constitution was written exceeding the authority given the delegates by the State Legislatures, and because it was ratified by means not found in the Articles of Confederation, but within the Constitution itself, that the Articles of Confederation should not be considered when discussing the question of whether we must be forced to forever live under an institution which was given life by an act of the people.

In 1863, at the scene of the bloodiest battles of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln delivered a speech in which he said “…these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.” Upon first glance that sounds both noble and eloquent; but if one were to examine the precise wording one might come to the true reason Lincoln fought his little war against the South; the audacity of those who would question the authority of the government itself.

Just as in 1788 when Patrick Henry questioned the intent of the Constitution by questioning the phrase “We the people” rather than “We the States…” Lincoln’s use of the words, “…that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.”

Lincoln fought his little war because, had he allowed the South to leave in peace, the government, of which he was at the head of, would have withered and died without the revenue which was borne by the South which was derived by the tariffs the government imposed upon the South. Had Lincoln allowed the South to leave, he would have been forced to find other means of supporting the government; possibly by imposing taxes upon the Northern business interests, which formed the base from which the Republican party derived its support. That simply was not going to happen, so Lincoln used the bayonet and cannon as a means to get the South to remain in the Union; forever altering the balance of power between the government and those it was designed to represent; not be master over.

Yet today we are taught the Civil War was a righteous war which was fought to put an end to the evil institution which was slavery; that the North fought to free the slaves and the South fought so that they could keep them. Rarely does the discussion turn to the question of whether the government created by a solemn act of the people has the authority to demand that those it governs forever remain under its authority. Rarely is it mentioned that the entire premise contained within our Declaration of Independence is the idea “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”

We are not taught that the Civil War was fought, not over the issue of slavery, but over the question of whether a State, or a group of States had the right to leave a voluntary Union which was detrimental, or harmful to them. Nor are we taught that the government created by the Constitution was given only limited authority from the true sovereigns of this country, the people, and that any act which exceeds the limitations placed upon it is not just simply unconstitutional, but criminal; as the Constitution is not just an outline for a system of government, but a law.

In 1866 the Supreme Court held that, “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. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of men than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.” (Source: Ex parte Milligan) Ironically, this ruling came after the Civil War, an act of aggression by the government of Abraham Lincoln against a segment of the Union which had only exercised the fundamental right enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.

If government was established by the will of the people, and the people are those who hold the ultimate sovereignty in this nation, then how can an entity created by the people tell those it was designed to serve that they forfeit the right to dismantle it, or leave the Union when the government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established? It can only do so if it begins to consider itself our master, not our servant.

Our schools do not teach us of the true relationship between the government and the governed; nor do they teach us that the States have the authority to deny the authority of the federal government when its acts are found to be beyond the specific powers granted it by the Constitution; nor are we taught that we the people, as jurors, have the authority to refuse to convict a person of violating a law which was written which exceeds the specific powers given the federal government, or one which violates any of our unalienable rights.

Instead of being taught that our government was limited as to what it can and cannot do, we are taught that America has a democracy; a system of government our Founders despised. We are taught not to question authority, but to submit to it without question. We are also not taught the true nature of our rights; that they cannot be infringed upon without the grossest of violations against humanity itself. Instead we are taught that, if the public welfare demands it, the rights of the people are of secondary concern and therefore can, and should be, restricted or denied.

When one dares even suggest that the true repercussions of the Civil War was that it replaced the servitude of those held in slavery on the plantations of the South to a nation where all the people are held in servitude to a system of government with unlimited arbitrary authority, they get this “Are you out of your mind” look in return. Too many people still believe that this is the land of the free because they are free to do so much; like decide what to eat, what to watch on TV, where to go on vacation, etc etc. But try exercising your rights without a permit, try exercising your right to disobey a law which was written by a government without any constitutional authority and you will quickly find out how un-free you are.

The government we have today has a standing army, in the form of a barrage of alphabet soup acronym agencies whose sole job is to ensure the people obey the laws the government enacts. How else can you justify the existence of agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, (BATF), the Drug Enforcement Agency, (DEA), the Internal Revenue Service, (IRS), and many others? Their sole jobs are to enforce the governments will upon us.
Honestly, if that is most people’s idea of freedom, I’d hate to live in a world in which they finally admit that they were slaves.

Yet most Americans can’t get past the belief that there are distinct differences between the two political parties in this country; the Republicans and the Democrats. Sure on the surface, in regards to many superficial issues, the two parties have distinct and different views on what government should do, but underneath they both adhere to the same beliefs. Why is it that nary a law passed by one side is ever repealed entirely by the other? One look at what Trump attempted to do with the Affordable Care Act ought to be enough to convince you of this. Did Trump seek to repeal government run health care altogether? No, he wanted to remake it in his vision. It does not matter to him that the whole idea of government requiring that people obtain health insurance is unconstitutional, only that the program in place was instituted by him, not Obama.

Under both Democratic and Republican administrations, agencies which spy upon the American people have continued to grow, and in growing, become more intrusive upon our right to privacy. When have you heard either a Republican or a Democrat promise to downsize these agencies, or eliminate them altogether? If one were to run for office, would YOU vote for them?

The answer to that alone should provide you with all you need to know about what is wrong in America today.

Everything that is wrong in this country today can be traced back to one simple fact; there is a preponderance of ignorance and complacency in the people of this country. The people simply do not know, nor do they care, what the beliefs our Founders held regarding the whole plethora of issues; from what liberty means to the abuse of powers by government, to how the people can respond to such abuses.

It is just as Asimov said, “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

As long as people are not taught the truth, and as long as when they are presented with the truth they continue to believe the lies they have been taught, nothing will change in America; no matter how many times you flip flop back and forth between Republican and Democratic candidates, or how many political outsiders you elect.

When I see people cheering a president’s bombing of a country which never threatened or attacked the United States for supposed violations of human rights, but then ignore the violations of their rights by their own government, I see no hope for our future.

As long as people view patriotism as being loyal to the government as long as it adheres to the political ideology of political parties, and not the principles held by those who established our system of government in the first place, I see no hope for the future of this country.

As long as I see people fight to protect the cocoon of lies which shield them from the truth, I see no hope for the future of this country.

The truth is out there, and the solutions to all our problems are right there along with it; but for them to be of any good the people have to first want to find the truth; then they have to have the courage to act upon it. But from the overall responses, or lack thereof, to the things I write, I hold out little hope that enough people care about the truth to bring about the necessary change to restore America to the land of the free and the home of the brave.

One final thought; if government is of the people, by the people and for the people, as Lincoln proclaimed, then whose fault is it if government is corrupt and does things which defeat the purposes for which it was established.

Sleep on that and get back to me with your answer….

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Why Jefferson Davis Never Stood Trial

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.~Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne~
CSA, January 1864

Sometime early in the morning on April 2, 1865, near Irwinville, Georgia, a detachment of the 4th Michigan Cavalry, under the command of General James Wilson, captured and arrested the former Confederate President Jefferson Davis. Davis was taken to Savannah, were he was put on a steamship and then later transferred to the warship Tuscarora, upon which he was transported to Fort Monroe in Hampton Roads, Virginia.

Davis was then imprisoned in a casemate, (a fortified gun emplacement), where shackles were riveted to his ankles under orders of General Nelson Miles, who was in charge of the Fort. Davis was allowed no visitors or books, other than a Bible, and his health quickly deteriorated to the point an attending physician warned that his life was in danger.

Sometime in late Autumn Davis was transferred to officer’s quarters, and after Miles was transferred out of Fort Monroe his treatment continued to improve and his wife and family were allowed to join him.

The charges which led to the arrest of Davis were rebellion and treason; which ultimately led to the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. Davis languished in prison for two years awaiting a trial, and a chance to explain the Confederacy’s cause before a jury. His chance never came, as after his release on $100,000 bail President Andrew Johnson issued a declaration of amnesty for, “…every person who directly or indirectly participated in the late insurrection or rebellion…” and on February 15, 1869 a federal circuit court dropped all charges against Mr. Davis after one of the attorneys representing the government informed them that they would no longer seek prosecution.

Jefferson Davis was once again a free man, but at what cost? His Confederacy lay in ruins, the North, having won the war would, not only exact a harsh revenge upon the South, but also write the history of that conflict , and the question of whether or not a State had the right to voluntarily leave the Union would never be decided by jurors in a court of law. Instead, that question was settled by the Supreme Court in 1869 when they declared that the Acts of Secession by the Confederate States were null and void, and that the Confederate States had never legally left the Union. (Source: Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700)

There is so much that we are not taught about the Civil War that it would be, perhaps better, if we were taught nothing at all about it. What we are taught is that it was about slavery, (a lie), and that Abraham Lincoln was a great president who freed the slaves and saved the Union. Had Jefferson Davis had his day in court there is a good chance that history books would tell an altogether different story about the war, about Lincoln, and about the cause of the Confederacy.

I may be alone in thinking this, but I believe there were three pivotal points, or events, in American History; the American Revolution where our Founders sought to free themselves from a tyrant; the Ratification of our Constitution where they sought to implement a system of government to secure the blessings of liberty for all Americans; and the Civil War which saw us placed under the tyranny of a government of our own creation.

The end result of the Civil War was the fulfillment of Byles Mather’s quote, “Which is better – to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?” You may have heard the character Benjamin Martin, played by Mel Gibson, say that in the movie The Patriot, but it was Byles Mather, a Loyalist Boston Clergyman who said it originally.

As the opening credits of the TV show The X-Files say, “The truth is out there”, such is the case regarding this conflict which forever altered the relationship between the States and the federal government. To find that truth, and understand it, you must first open your minds to the fact that all you have been taught about that period of American History is a lie.

The first crucial point you have got to understand is that the war was not fought to either abolish slavery, or permit the continuation of the practice of holding other men in servitude as slave labor. In his first Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln himself said, “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.”

Although at first glance that may sound innocent enough, there is a veiled truth there that one may miss if they simply read over those words without giving them another moment’s consideration. Lincoln said he had no intention, “… to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists.” What he did not say, and said by implication, was that he, as well as his other Republican cohorts in Congress, seek to prevent newly admitted States from instituting the practice of slavery.

As terrible as slavery was, you have to accept the fact that during this period of American History slavery was legal; the Constitution did not ban it, nor were there any constitutional amendments prohibiting a State from allowing that institution within its borders. Therefore, any attempt by the government to prohibit the people within newly admitted States from owning slaves was, therefore, unconstitutional.

Sure, there were abolitionists, both in the North and in Congress, but the primary reason they sought to prohibit the expansion of slavery into newly admitted States was not due to their opposition to holding men in servitude, but because slave States tended to be Democrats, and by not allowing new States to practice slavery, the Republicans could weaken Democratic control in Congress. It was more about control of Congress than it was the opposition to the practice of slavery itself.

Lincoln himself implied that in a letter to Horace Greely, dated August 22, 1862, “If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy Slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”

You may find it interesting to know that the same Horace Greely to whom Abraham Lincoln said this to was among those who contributed the money towards the $100,000 bail for Jefferson Davis.

Lincoln is held in high esteem as the Great Emancipator; the president who issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Yet how many Americans know that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free every slave in America? Had people read it they would know that it says, “… 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…” Those held in bondage in the Border States, or those areas already under control of the Union Army would still be considered, and treated as slaves.

The interference in the practice, and expansion of slavery was one of the reasons which led some of the Southern States to secede from the Union, but it was not the cause of the war itself; that came about when the government led by Abraham Lincoln denied the States the right to voluntarily leave the Union, contradicting what he himself had said nearly a decade and a half earlier in a speech regarding the War with Mexico to the House of Representatives, “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, most sacred right- a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to excercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize and make their own, of so much territory as the inhabit.”

Had Jefferson Davis stood trial the subject of a State’s right to secede from a voluntary union of States was sure to have come up. Had that subject come up in a court of law, there is a good chance that the jurors would have rendered a verdict which supported a State’s right to leave the Union. Had that happened, instead of Jefferson Davis being charged with treason and rebellion, the tables would have been turned and Abraham Lincoln, and his commanding generals, would have been found guilty of invading a sovereign nation, and all the atrocities committed during that invasion would have been considered war crimes.

There are those who say that Abraham Lincoln was between a rock and a hard place; with allowing the South to secede in peace, and the controlling influences of the bankers and industrial interests of the North. But Lincoln took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and the Constitution, as an act of the people can be undone by the people, and there’s not a damned thing the government can legally do to prevent it.

Lincoln could not let the South leave, if he did the North, and his government would have suffered a devastating loss of revenue. In an article published in the Union Democrat, Manchester New Hampshire, dated February 19, 1861, we read, “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.”

It has been said that when a delegation from Virginia met with Abraham Lincoln in 1861 to discuss a compromise they asked Lincoln why not let the South go in peace? Lincoln’s supposed response was, “I can’t let them go. Who would pay for the government? And, what then will become of my tariff?”
The Civil War was not fought over slavery, it was fought over the economic security of the Northern business interests, to whom the Republicans owed their allegiance, and the economic security of the government itself; for it was the tariffs imposed upon the South which funded much of the government’s operation.

To put it in simple terms, the South did not need the government, but the government needed the South. No, Lincoln could not let the South leave; not if he wanted anything left to govern that is.

I’m sure you all know, or at least I would hope you know, that the Confederacy consisted of 11 States. However, are you aware that it almost consisted of 12? Maryland was split pretty equally in regards to those who wished to remain in the Union and those who wished to secede. There was enough pressure put upon Governor Thomas Hicks, a Union supporter, to hold a convention to discuss the subject of secession. However, instead of holding these talks in the State Capital, Annapolis, they were held in Fredrick, a strong pro-Union town. The vote was 53-13 against secession.

Yet the following month, 1,000 Union troops, led by General Benjamin Butler entered Baltimore in the stealth of night and took possession of Federal Hill. His reasons for doing so were to prevent further discussion of secession and secure Maryland as a Union State. Maryland was of critical importance to the Union due to its proximity to Washington D.C. Had it gone over to the Confederacy the North’s capital would face the Confederate States of Virginia to its South and Maryland to the North; it simply could not allow that to happen; so they took Maryland, instituting martial law and suspending the writ of habeas corpus; one of Lincolns many war crimes.

Yet, had Jefferson Davis stood trial, and his cause justified, Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus would have paled in comparison to the atrocities committed against the South by his commanding generals; Philip Sheridan and William Tecumseh Sherman.

Under the concept of total war, of which both Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant were both aware of, and supported, civilians were targeted as combatants. There homes were destroyed, their women raped, and their goods pillaged to destroy their morale and weaken their resolve. Things were this way from the very onset of hostilities, leading Union General George McClellan to write President Lincoln, imploring him to see that the war was conducted to “…the highest principles known to Christian civilization.” Not only did Lincoln ignore his letter, he replaced McClellan with General Ambrose Burnside as Commander of the Army of the Potomac.

Union General Philip Sheridan was responsible for the total destruction of the entire Shenandoah Valley. In recounting the barns, mills and other buildings his men burnt to the ground, Sheridan said, “A crow flying over the Valley must take rations with him.”

General Sherman was even worse; developing his ‘collective responsibility’ policy which held civilians responsible for the actions of those actively fighting Union forces. Sherman burnt the entire town of Randolph, Tennessee to the ground as well as Jackson and Meridian, Mississippi, although there were no Confederate forces there.

Sherman not only hated those who actively took up arms to defend those States which seceded, he hated those who supported the idea of secession, stating, “…to the petulant and persistent secessionists, why, death is mercy.” In 1862 Sherman would write to his wife that his entire purpose of the war was the “…extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least of the trouble, but the people…” His wife was of an equal vile nature, responding that her wish was for “a war of extermination and that all [Southerners] would be driven like swine into the sea. May we carry fire and sword into their states till not one habitation is left standing.”

Yet for two years Jefferson Davis languished in prison for supporting the very principle enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, that ” when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Abraham Lincoln, on the other hand, felt that the government established by the Constitution was superior to the will of the States and the people, and that any who questioned the national authority were guilty of treason. The problem is, he could not allow that belief to be tested by a jury; which more likely than not would have found Davis innocent. Had Davis been found innocent of treason, then Lincoln’s aggression against the South would have found itself on trial, and instead of being the great president everyone believes he was, history would have recorded him truthfully, as a war criminal who illegally invaded a sovereign nation and, whose commanding officers were guilty of committing horrendous atrocities against the people of the South who only wanted to live in peace.

You don’t have to take my word for it, take the word of a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Salmon Chase, who said, “If you bring these [Confederate] leaders to trial it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion.”

You can say that the Civil War was a just war fought to free those held in slavery until you are blue in the face; it won’t change the facts that prove otherwise. Dr. James Thornwell, in his book Our Danger and Our Duty, tells what the real consequences of the Civil War are, “If they (the North) prevail, the whole character of the Government will be changed, and instead of a federal republic, the common agent of sovereign and independent States, we shall have a central despotism, with the notion of States forever abolished, deriving its powers from the will, and shaping its policy according to the wishes, of a numerical majority of the people; we shall have, in other words, a supreme, irresponsible democracy. The Government does not now recognize itself as an ordinance of God, and when all the checks and balances of the Constitution are gone, we may easily figure to ourselves the career and the destiny of this godless monster of democratic absolutism. The progress of regulated liberty on this continent will be arrested, anarchy will soon succeed, and the end will be a military despotism, which preserves order by the sacrifice of the last vestige of liberty.”

But most likely you are not going to believe me, you’re going to go on admiring Abraham Lincoln as a great president, and the Civil War a just war against the evil of slavery. That’s okay, believe what you want to believe. But before I go I’d like to leave you with a final quote from the man himself, make of this what you will:

The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself,
though it may be at another time and in another form.
~Jefferson Davis~

Posted in General | Leave a comment

You Call Yourself A Conservative Do You?

Imagine for a moment that you are a high school teacher and you have developed a lesson plan that requires your students to read so many chapters out of a book per night so as to finish the book in two months. It is now well into the second month and you are discussing the final chapters of the book, but your students haven’t even begun reading the first chapter; how can they be expected to know what you are discussing in class when they haven’t even begun to read the book? Now imagine that no matter how well the students perform in your class, you MUST give them a passing grade.

I want you to pause right now and picture yourself in that position…how would you feel? I’m serious, wherever you are, put this down and think about the emotions that would be running through your head if you found yourself in that particular situation. When you have decided how you would feel, you may once again begin reading.

I don’t know what emotions that conjured up for you, but I can tell you how it would make me feel. I would be both angry and frustrated. I know, because those are the emotions that I live with every single day of my life.

Twenty five years ago I was just like most people I know, a staunch supporter of their political party with little to no understanding of how our system of government was supposed to work. Sure, I knew the overall picture, the details as to what shape our government was given by those who created it; but I was ignorant as hell as to the fine print, so to speak. Back then I was completely unaware as to how our Founders felt about the issues that find themselves front and center in today’s political debates. I also had never studied the actual debates between those who supported the constitution of 1787 and those who opposed it.

To this day I cannot pinpoint what it was that set me on this path towards learning all that I could about the history of this country and the founding of its system of government; it’s simply as if someone flipped a switch on inside my brain and that became an overwhelming passion that I simply could not ignore. All I know is that today I feel exactly like that fictional teacher I spoke of at the beginning; trying to discuss with people concepts that are chapters ahead of where the people I am talking to are.

I have had numerous discussions with people; some of whom consider themselves to be conservatives, and some who consider themselves to be liberals; and there is one point they all have in common; the principles held by our Founding Fathers, those contained within the Declaration of Independence, and the law as established by our Constitution do not matter to them.

Oh sure, people will go to the polls and cast their votes for the conservative, i.e. Republican who comes closest to their own belief system, or the same thing with the liberal, i.e. Democrat, but how many go to the polls, or refuse to vote for that matter, when there is no one who stands for the principles this country was founded upon and which our enshrined in those Founding Documents?

Of the two political parties, which do you think I despise the most? If you answered with the Democrats you would be wrong. The Democrats, for all that they stand for, are at least honest about who and what they are; the same can’t be said about the Republicans. The Republicans hide their true natures behind this moniker of conservatism and are, in reality, as far from true conservatives as the Democrats.

Today the terms conservative and liberal are interchangeable with the two political parties in America; Republicans and Democrats; but if you look up the meaning of the two words you will find that there is no mention of political parties associated with them.

A conservative is one who strictly adheres to traditional values and beliefs, while a liberal is one who is open to changing those established values and beliefs. Now, using that as your guide, can you tell me which party is honest about who and what they are, and which one isn’t?

People today look at the political spectrum like it was a standard twelve inch ruler; with the liberals being on one end and the conservatives on the other; with moderates being somewhere around the midpoint. The truth is that conservatives would be at one end, with anything beyond true conservatism being but varying degrees of liberal beliefs.

A true conservative would not stand for any violation of the Constitution or infringement of their rights. A true conservative would know how the Founders felt about government and rights and would not tolerate anything other than the system in its purity as it was originally established. A true conservative would understand that the American Civil War was not a war between the North and the South over slavery, but a war between one part of the country that saw the government our Founders had established was becoming tyrannical and wanted to separate themselves from it and “…institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (Declaration of Independence)

It may come as a surprise to you conservatives today, but prior to the Civil War the conservative party in the U.S. was the Democrats; as it was they who adhered closest to the principles contained within our Founding Documents.

It may also come as a surprise that many of our Founders despised the whole idea of political parties; fearing they would divide our country among warring factions. In his Farewell Address George Washington said, “Let me … warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party.”

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

Alexander Hamilton said this about them, “Nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties.”

In Federalist 10 James Madison said this about them, “A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.”

Finally, Jefferson said this about them, “I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.”

I saved that one for last because it contains something that lies at the crux of all that is wrong in America today; the quote, “…where I was capable of thinking for myself.” How many of you actually do that; I mean think for yourselves? Or are you basing all your political decisions upon the party rhetoric that has been ingrained into your heads over a lifetime?

How many of you have taken the time to sit down and read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the anti-Federalist Papers and then ask yourself if our government today adheres to the Constitution? More importantly, how many of you have ever given any thought to who was right, the Federalists or the anti-Federalists, in regards their views on the good, or evil that this Constitution posed?

How can you say that you think when you are not familiar with what our Founders had to say, both good and bad about the Constitution they established for us? How can you say you think, or that you are a conservative, when you vote for candidates whose campaign promises are so far outside the specific powers given the office they seek that they may as well call themselves Democrats?

How can you say you want to make America great again when you don’t know what it was that made America great in the first place? What made America great is contained in twenty one words spoken by Thomas Jefferson a very long time ago, “The policy of the American government is to leave its citizens free, neither restraining them nor aiding them in their pursuits.”

Anything our government does for us beyond that is faux conservatism, and will not fix all that ails this country. If you can’t see that, then I don’t know what else I can say on the matter. But, if you cannot accept that, could you possibly take a moment to be brutally honest and admit that you are anything but conservative? Leave that title to those who deserve it and understand what it means. Now that may upset a few of you, but in closing I’d like to ask you one simple question: Were Thomas Jefferson alive today and running for president, would you vote for him? If you could not immediately answer yes, you are anything but a conservative.

I rest my case…

Posted in General | Leave a comment