Neal's Soapbox

The most recent census data states that there are roughly 328 million people living in the United States at the current moment. If you were to randomly select one individual from among those 328 million you would probably find their life to be relatively boring, and dare I say, insignificant. Yet to that single individual their live is filled with stories, and lessons that they might someday want to pass on to their children, or grandchildren. That simple fact grants significance to them, and their life; as they are part of the fabric that makes up American history.

Most people live their lives in, what you might call, relative obscurity; hardly rating any notice from society whatsoever. These people work, play, live and die with only their immediate family, co-workers, and small circle of friends even recognizing that they even existed. Yet when someone like Ronald Reagan passed away, the whole world knew about it, with the media detailing his life and accomplishments in great detail to memorialize his passing.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not complaining that when I pass hardly a soul will notice that I’m gone, I’m only commenting on the fact that some names are more familiar, more recognizable, than others. I mention all this because, to me, the study of history is much more than the memorization of names and dates, it is the study of the men who participated in making those events noteworthy to begin with.

What I mean by that is that November 22, 1963 would just have been another day had John F. Kennedy not been assassinated on that day. It is what happened to Kennedy that makes that day stand out in history; and a study of history should not be the rote memorization that President was killed on that day; it should be the study of the men who made that day memorable in the first place. It is the drama of people’s lives that adds the spice that makes the study of history fascinating; without that spice the study of history would be as bland and boring as watching paint dry.

I have no way of knowing the exact number of people who have lived and died in this land we call America, but I’m guessing the number would be pretty high. That being the case, I cannot expect anyone, including myself for that matter, to know the names of all of them. Yet I’m certain that if I were to mention certain names, people would immediately recognize who they were, and what they were known for. Take for instance George Washington; I’m pretty sure most would at least know that he was the Commander of the Continental Army and that he became our country’s first President under the newly ratified constitution. What about Jimi Hendrix, Prince, or Michael Jackson; do those names ring a bell?

So some names are easily recognizable beyond their families and small circles of friends. Yet, if I were to mention Abel P. Upshur, what kind of response would I get from you? I’m guessing that upwards of 99% of the people in this country would say, “Who the hell is Abel P. Upshur?” Well, let me tell you a little bit about Mr. Upshur.

Abel Upshur was one of twelve children born to Littleton and Anne Upshur in the year 1790 in the Commonwealth of Virginia. He was tutored privately until it became time for him to move on to college, where he attended both Yale and Princeton; being expelled from the latter for participating in a student rebellion. During the War of 1812 he served honorably as a Captain in the Army, and afterwards moved on to public life; where he served in the Virginia Legislature, as well as serving as Secretary of the Navy and Secretary of State under President John Tyler. Upshur was killed on February 28, 1844 in a freak accident when a gun exploded during a demonstration aboard the new warship the USS Princeton.

So while Upshur’s life was more noteworthy than mine, it does not rank up there with the lives of a Lincoln, a Kennedy, or even a Reagan; so you may be asking why I bother mentioning him at all. I mention him because during the course of his life he wrote a book entitled, A Brief Enquiry into the Nature and Character of our Federal Government: Being a Review of Judge Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.

Now I’d be willing to bet that the title of that book means about as much to most people as does the name of its author; yet it was that book, or at least a certain passage in it, that kept me awake for most of the night last night. The particular passage to blame for my insomnia was: A deep and solemn feeling of religion, and an attachment to, and an understanding of, the principles of civil liberty, far in advance of the age in which they lived, suggested to most of them the idea of seeking a new home, and founding new institutions, in the western world. To this spirit we are indebted for all that is free and liberal in our present political systems. It would be a work of very great interest, and altogether worth of the political historians, to trace the great principles of our institutions back to their sources.

It was that last sentence that did it; twenty-eight simple words that unleashed a floodgate of thoughts that kept me awake until sunrise. One of the first things I remember thinking, before the thoughts became a maddening cacophony of noise, was that what Upshur was describing was the genealogy of American Liberty. I found that to be a fitting analogy, and a fitting title for this rant; hence the reason I brought his name up in the first place.

While I have no problem with people wanting to know the history of their family; their ancestors, I do find it somewhat perturbing that they don’t seem to have the same burning desire to learn the history of their country; particularly when it comes to the lives and actions of its most notable figures. You may know that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, and you may know that he served as our country’s 3rd President; but what else do you know of his life? You may know that Patrick Henry was a staunch patriot, that he spoke the famous words, “Give me liberty or give me death”; but what else do you know about him?

I have 3 books written solely about Jefferson; one about his life, one about his political disagreements with Alexander Hamilton, and another one about the contentious election of 1800 that saw him become our 3rd President. How much have you read about the man; other than what you may have read in a high school history textbook? I also have 2 books written about James Madison, 2 about Abraham Lincoln, and 2 about Patrick Henry. I also have 5 books dealing with the drafting of, and the debates over the ratification of our constitution; one of which is the book written by Abel Upshur; and I’ve read all of them at least once.

I’m not bragging, well maybe a little; but the point I’m getting at is how much do you know about the lives and actions of the men whose names we find in our history books? I’m not saying I’m a genius, or even overly intelligent. What I am getting at though is, if you are among those who haven’t read a word about history or civics since you graduated from high school, what makes you believe that your opinions are more factually based than mine are?

The study of genealogy always begins with the name of the person initiating the search. It then moves on to that person’s parents, then it branches out like a tree to include aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews, and all their relatives they can find information on. Yet if all that person can find is a name, then they know nothing of the life of that ancestor; what they accomplished during their lifetime. That is what makes the study of genealogy so fascinating; discovering little tidbits about the lives of your ancestors.

The study of history should be akin to tracing back your family tree; it is meaningless if all you learn is that on a particular date in history something of importance happened. What makes the study of history fascinating is the learning of facts relating to the event that made that date noteworthy; the arguments or debates of those who participated in making that a date to remember.

If I were to tell you that on September 17, 1787 the delegates of the Constitutional Convention introduced their finalized document to the public, and that on June 21, 1788 that document was ratified, and went into effect, that is pretty boring stuff; even I’ll admit that. It is the study of what went on behind the closed doors of the Constitutional Convention; what led to the requirement that a Constitutional Convention be held; a study of the debates between the constitution’s opponents and its supporters that makes a study of that period of our history fascinating to me. Yet until I endeavored to learn as much as I could about that period, all I basically knew was that dry boring synopsis I gave you a moment ago.

If that was all there was to learn about the establishment of our system of government I wouldn’t have wasted the last 20 years of my life studying that single event with the same intensity and focus I have. What I’ve learned, thanks to many individuals along the way, just scratches the surface of all there is to learn; yet if I were to begin stacking all my notes about it on the floor, I would reach the ceiling at least once. Yet the average person thinks their opinion on the subject is just as informed as mine is? Give me a break!

The thing about all this is, if you think back to the quote that inspired all this, Upshur said, “It would be a work of very great interest, and altogether worth of the political historians, to trace the great principles of our institutions back to their sources.” If you’ll note, he did not say it would be a great work to study our institutions themselves, rather he said it would be a great work to study the principles of those institutions back to their sources.

I would venture to say that everyone has someone who has inspired them; been a role model they looked up to. I think what Upshur was saying is that it would be a great work to study what inspired those we call our Founders and our Framers; see who, or what inspired them; formed their beliefs regarding things like government, rights, and liberty. I have tried to do that to a certain extent; by quoting from books such as Locke’s Second Treatise.

The problem I’ve found is that, for the most part, people just don’t care; they don’t want to spend the time reading over a bunch of stuff written before their great-great grandparents were born. Yet they will spend untold hours glued to a television watching as camera crews record the lives of people like the Kardashian’s, Ozzy and Sharon Osbourne, or some rich bachelor as he seeks true love. People will spend an entire day of the week glued to their television watching football; which does nothing to improve their life; yet they complain that they do not have the time to read books about history like I do.

Yes they do, it is just that their priorities are wrong; entertainment is more important to them than knowledge. Actor Stephen Fry described people like that when he wrote, “There are young men and women up and down the land who happily (or unhappily) tell anyone who will listen that they don’t have an academic turn of mind, or that they aren’t lucky enough to have been blessed with a good memory, and yet can recite hundreds of pop lyrics and reel off any amount of information about footballers. Why? Because they are interested in those things. They are curious. If you are hungry for food, you are prepared to hunt high and low for it. If you are hungry for information it is the same. Information is all around us, now more than ever before in human history. You barely have to stir or incommode yourself to find things out. The only reason people do not know much is because they do not care to know. They are incurious. Incuriosity is the oddest and most foolish failing there is.”

In wrapping things up there are two quotes I would like for you to read, and ponder:

-But every child in America should be acquainted with his own country. He should read books that furnish him with ideas that will be useful to him in life and practice. As soon as he opens his lips, he should rehearse the history of his own country; he should lisp the praise of liberty, and of those illustrious heroes and statesmen, who have wrought a revolution in her favor. (Noah Webster, 1788)

-I agree with you that it is the duty of every good citizen to use all the opportunities, which occur to him, for preserving documents relating to the history of our country. (Thomas Jefferson, 1823)

Our country is in the state it currently is, not because of tyrannical and despotic leaders, it is in this condition due to the ignorance and apathy of the masses that make up the voting public. As Jefferson wrote to Charles Yancey in 1816, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”

Freedom either begins or ends with you. It begins or ends when you stop believing the lies you were taught, and are currently being told, and begin seeking out the truth. Ten million armed citizens could take this country back from the tyrants who run it, but if the 328 million people living here were not informed as to what constitutes good government, they despots and tyrants would take it back from us within a month. As John Adams said, “The right of a nation to kill a tyrant, in cases of necessity, can no more be doubted, than to hang a robber, or kill a flea. But killing one tyrant only makes way for worse, unless the people have sense, spirit and honesty enough to establish and support a constitution guarded at all points against the tyranny of the one, the few, and the many.”

It all begins and ends with you; so what are you going to do about it; shirk your duty as you have been, or are you going to rise to the occasion when your country needs you most. After all, when it all boils down to the nitty gritty, I think that is what sets patriots apart from the average person; rising to the occasion when they are needed the most. So, are you a patriot, or are you a sheep who prefers to be led around by the nose by its rulers?

After the American Revolution ended the former 13 Colonies became 13 independent States. That is a proven fact, supported both by the treaty that ended the war and the Articles of Confederation that had been established during it. Here are the passages supporting that fact:

-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 (Treaty of Paris, 1783)

– Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled. (Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation)

The Articles of Confederation were, for all intents and purposes, the constitution of the time; predating the drafting and ratification of our current constitution. Therefore, they were the supreme law of the land at time; another point which is found in Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation, “And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State…” That is quite similar in intent to the Supremacy Clause of our current constitution; making the Articles the supreme law of the land.

Yet the Articles were not fixed; they could be altered or amended just as our constitution can be amended by the procedures found in Article 5. Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation lays out the procedure for altering 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.”

So far everything I’ve told you is easily verifiable if you have a smart phone, an internet connection, and the willingness to look and see if I’ve been telling the truth or not.

Now if you would just think back in time to when the American Revolution began; the individual Colonies were distinct holdings, or possessions of the Crown. Look at it this way; let’s say some extremely wealthy person owns a bunch of properties; restaurants, factories, and apartment complexes. All those things belong to that individual, yet each one is distinct and separate from the others. The Colonies were very similar except that the King did not purchase them, they were established by charters granted by him; yet each Colony was not tied to the others except through their common allegiance to the Crown.

Any one of those Colonies could have declared independence on its own, but to do so would have been suicide when faced with the strongest military on the planet at the time. They knew that, if they were to succeed, they would have to unite together with a common goal; that goal being to throw off the shackles of a tyrannical ruler. Although common usage has shortened the title to The Declaration of Independence, the full title is; The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.

The thirteen Colonies or States as they chose to call themselves were not united into a single indivisible nation; as the Pledge of Allegiance claims we are today; they were thirteen independent States united in a common cause. The cause itself was independence; the principles that led them to seek that independence are found in the Declaration of Independence.

One of those principles is that, “…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” Don’t you find it a bit intriguing that they didn’t say that government derives its powers from the people; I certainly do?

Prior to the Revolution each Colony was allowed to pretty much govern their own internal affairs as they say fit, as long as they remained loyal to the Crown and obeyed whatever laws handed down to them by Parliament. One of the reasons the Colonies declared their independence was that the King had abolished some of the Colonial legislatures, such as what occurred when Parliament enacted the Massachusetts Government Act in 1774.

During the Revolution each Colony/State proceeded to draft up constitutions of their own, establishing systems of government for themselves; governments that were not dependent upon the King’s permission, or subject to his authority. Upon completion these constitutions were submitted to those upon whom the governments they established would govern for their approval; the people of each Colony/State.

So when the Revolution ended and each State became free and independent, they already had governments in place to handle their own internal affairs. So why the need for a centralized government such as the one established by the Articles of Confederation? The reason is found in Article III of the Articles of Confederation:

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

Now if you take that in conjunction with Article II where it states that each State is sovereign and independent, then the Congress established by the Articles of Confederation was put into place to act, not upon the people, but the States as sovereign and independent political entities. The States themselves were comprised of people, but they were not people, which is why the Declaration of Independence says that governments derive their power from the consent of the governed.

Now that may not make perfect sense, so let me expand upon it a bit more. The State governments derived their authority from the people because the things they did directly affected the people living within each State. The government established by the Articles of Confederation were established by the States, because the things the government it established directly affected the States as political entities, not people.

The Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781, which means that from that point forward, even during the War for Independence, the States were governed internally by the governments established by the people of each State, and externally by the government established by the Articles of Confederation.

I won’t go into a lengthy discourse on why it was felt that the government established by the Articles of Confederation was insufficient; even though it is relevant as to why what happened next did happen. What is important is that there were some who thought that the existing government did not meet the wants/needs of the country.

Of the many reasons that led to the formation of a constitutional convention, three reasons stand out; the inability to raise revenue; the inability to regulate commerce, and the inability to put down rebellions. Although there were others, those three were the ones heard most often by those calling for a change in the existing form of government.

Now you have to firmly fix it in your mind that the government that did exist at the time was the legal form of government, that it had laws dictating how it could be altered or amended, and that it served the States, not the people. Those three things are of the utmost importance, and if you do not look at what happened next with them in mind, the significance of what did happen next will be lost upon you.

One attempt was made in Annapolis in 1786, but not enough delegates came to conduct any business. Yet they did recommend to Congress that a convention be called for at a later date in which they could discuss the matters at hand with representatives from all the States. On February 21, 1787 the Congress acted upon that recommendation, calling for a convention of delegates to meet in the city of Philadelphia; the purpose of such convention to be:

That it be recommended to the States composing the Union that a convention of representatives from the said States respectively be held at on for the purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the United States of America and reporting to the United States in Congress assembled and to the States respectively such alterations and amendments of the said Articles of Confederation as the representatives met in such convention shall judge proper and necessary to render them adequate to the preservation and support of the Union.

There you have the purpose for which delegates were chosen to attend the convention that ultimately resulted in the Articles of Confederation being scrapped, to be replaced by the Constitution. So when the States chose their delegates to attend this convention it was upon the assumption that they would perform only that function.

Yet to show that what actually did happen was not a fluke; that the delegates could not agree upon amendments to remedy whatever deficiencies existed in the Articles of Confederation, let me provide you with a passage from a letter James Madison wrote to George Washington prior to the convention even convening:

Having been lately led to revolve the subject which is to undergo the discussion of the Convention, and formed in my mind some outlines of a new system, I take the liberty of submitting them without apology, to your eye.

Conceiving that an individual independence of the States is utterly irreconcileable with their aggregate sovereignty; and that a consolidation of the whole into one simple republic would be as inexpedient as it is unattainable, I have sought for some middle ground, which may at once support a due supremacy of the national authority, and not exclude the local authorities wherever they can be subordinately useful.

The convention began on May 25, 1787; that letter was written by Madison a month earlier on April 16, 1787. That shows that Madison was already scheming to disregard the instructions given him as a delegate representing the State of Virginia.

One of the very first things the convention did, upon organizing itself and choosing George Washington to act as presiding officer, was to swear each other to secrecy as to what was happening behind closed doors. As these were delegates representing their respective States, their loyalty, their duty was to do what was best for their States. How could their States have any idea as to what was happening behind closed doors if the delegates were sworn to secrecy; especially considering Madison had clearly proven his intent to diminish the stature and power held by the States?

To keep this as short as possible I won’t spend any time going through the Constitution point by point to show how it did exactly what Madison had planned, and put the rights and liberty of the people under the authority of the government they were establishing. What I want to focus your attention upon is the part of the Preamble where it says ‘We the people…’

That is of importance as it denotes what kind of government they were establishing; federal or national. The government in existence at the time, under the Articles of Confederation, was a federal government; a government whose authority extended to sovereign political entities; the States. It was a government for the States and by the States.

Those who were chosen by their States to act as their representatives had only been given certain limited authority, and the abolishment of the existing system of government went far beyond the authority they’d been given. Patrick Henry summed that up rather well when he said, “I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, what right had they to say, We, the People? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, who authorised them to speak the language of, We, the People, instead of We, the States?”

Henry also wanted to have read into the minutes of the Virginia Ratifying Assembly the documents pertaining to what powers the delegates had been given, stating, “That the act of Assembly appointing deputies to meet at Annapolis to consult with those from some other states, on the situation of the commerce of the United States — the act of Assembly appointing deputies to meet at Philadelphia, to revise the Articles of Confederation — and other public papers relative thereto — should be read.”

Edmund Pendleton then rose and said, “Mr. Chairman, we are not to consider whether the federal Convention exceeded their powers. It strikes my mind that this ought not to influence our deliberations.” Pendleton then continued by saying, “Although those gentlemen were only directed to consider the defects of the old system, and not devise a new one, if they found it so thoroughly defective as not to admit a revising, and submitted a new system to our consideration, which the people have deputed us to investigate, I cannot find any degree of propriety in reading those papers.”

First off Pendleton admits that what the delegates did exceeded their authority. However it is what he says after that which is important, “…if they found it so thoroughly defective as not to admit a revising, and submitted a new system to our consideration, which the people have deputed us to investigate, I cannot find any degree of propriety in reading those papers.”

The problem with that is that the convention never discussed revising the Articles of Confederation; they went straight to the business of drafting a document that would abolish that system and replace it with one of their own creation. The problem is, Pendleton did not know that, as the delegates had been sworn to secrecy; not that it would have made much of a difference for some who were in favor of trashing the existing system and replacing it with a much stronger system whose powers extended directly to the people.

The thing about it is, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention violated the trust placed upon them by their States, and they violated the law when they said the Constitution must be ratified by conventions chosen from among the people. You have to realize, at this moment in time the Constitution was merely a proposal, it had no force or gave no authority to anyone; the Articles of Confederation were still the existing law and they state that any alterations to them must be submitted to the State Legislatures for their approval, not to the people directly as was the case with the ratification of the Constitution.

There is much more I could discuss regarding the powers given the government by the Constitution; both those expressly mentioned and those implied, but I won’t bother for now. The point is that the Constitution was conceived and ratified by men who violated the trust imposed upon them, and in violation of the law.

I will say one thing else though, and I dare anyone to prove me wrong. In the 1870’s a fellow by the name of Lysander Spooner wrote, “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

The government we have today was created by the Constitution, so good or bad it is a child of the men who drafted that document. A good constitution, one which was designed to secure the rights and liberty of the governed, would provide a means for punishing those who breached the trust placed in government. Our Constitution does not have any means of punishing those we elect; nor does it in any way secure our rights and liberty.

We are in the state we’re in now because people do not know how the Constitution came into being; they don’t understand the intricacies of the English language and how they were used to insert hidden powers into the document; and they don’t even care when their government blatantly oversteps its powers and infringes upon the people’s rights and liberty.

None of that could have happened had the Constitution not been written or ratified; so prove Spooner wrong, and prove me wrong; I dare you to try!

There are no evil thoughts except one; the refusal to think.
Ayn Rand-Atlas Shrugged

I hate to resort to using words such as stupid to describe people, but what else can you call it when people either cannot, or will not utilize facts when forming their opinions and beliefs? It is just common sense to me that if I hold a belief and someone comes along and provides facts that proves that belief to be wrong, that I change my beliefs so that they conform to the facts. So why is it that so many people find this process to be so difficult? You can’t call it ignorance, for ignorance is simply the lack of knowledge, and since knowledge has been given to them, and they refuse to accept it, you can call it but one thing: STUPIDITY!

I have often wondered if those who refused to accept facts that contradict their beliefs suddenly dropped dead from something akin to a brain aneurysm? How many would die within the first 24 hours; the first week? I hate to say this, but if this were to pass, if it did become a pandemic of the proportions they are making Covid out to be, within a month nearly 3/4 of the U.S. population would probably be dead. I’m not saying that I wish something like that would happen, but at the same time I would not be adverse to it causing such pain that it left those afflicted with it bedridden until they began to think critically.

Thomas Alva Edision, the man who gave us the incandescent light bulb, the phonograph, and the earliest forms of electronic communication, once said, “Five percent of the people think. Ten percent think that they think. The other eighty-five percent would rather die than think.” In theory I think there is a great deal of truth to that statement, although I think the first percentile range is too high; it should be around 3%.

The thing about that is that most people simply cannot fathom the torture that life becomes when those who think have to interact with those who cannot, or, refuse to think. Once I began thinking, (and make no mistake about it I lived a large part of my life in the 85% range), I enjoyed throwing facts at people to prove they were wrong. The problem is that, to them, facts do not matter; it is how they ‘feel’ about a subject that is important. When facts, or the truth, no longer matters, trying to use them in a debate becomes as futile as trying to break into a bank vault by throwing a tennis ball at it!

What truly boggles my mind about all this is the fact that man is capable of inventing complex machinery that can do amazing things, but when you ask them to put those same mental faculties to use in regards to social issues, politics, or the nature of their rights and liberty, it as if a circuit breaker inside their brain trips; leaving them as dumb as a rock.

Our school systems are partially to blame for this, for they simply do not teach our children how to think anymore; they teach them ‘what to think.’ Yet the basic operating system that is the brain is still intact; it can be taught to think if people were just willing to try. There are two quotes I’d like for people to read, and ponder, if that is possible.

– Education is not the learning of facts, but the training of the mind to think. -Albert Einstein

– Men are born ignorant, not stupid. They are made stupid by education.-Bertrand Russell

When we are born our minds are a blank slate; it is what we are taught as we grow that forms the basis of the opinions and beliefs we come to hold as adults. If what we are taught is incorrect, then it follows that the opinions and beliefs we form based upon what we were taught will be incorrect also. The problem, at least as I see it, is that the older we get, the more difficult it becomes to accept that what we were taught was incorrect; we refuse to go through the process of examining all our beliefs, and if they are found to be based upon lies, change them so they conform to fact.

This lack of critical thinking skills is not a pandemic; it is a plague! It has been sweeping across this country for generations; with the number of those willing and capable of critical thinking diminishing with each passing generation. Now it seems we are at the point Asimov spoke of where a majority believe that their ignorance is as good as the knowledge of those who have made the effort to think.

Although this isn’t always the case, most of the political discussions I have with people have led me to believe that they are incapable of engaging in a debate using logic and fact; their responses are all emotion driven; how they feel about something is more important to them than the underlying causes and possible solutions to the problems we face as a country. Trying to have an intelligent conversation with them is futile; akin to a person who only speaks Chinese trying to hold a conversation with someone who only speaks Greek.

For years I have tried to provide logic and fact based arguments to support my positions on a multitude of issues, only to have my words fall upon deaf ears. I have met people whose minds are open to facts, who can debate the issues intelligently. Even if I disagreed with them I was able to engage in an honest debate because they provided facts, not feelings, to support their position; and facts are what I deal in, not feelings.

For the most part though the people I’ve debated can’t see past Republicans good, Democrats bad, or vice versa; they simply do not want to look beyond their partisan loyalty or their beliefs as to what purpose government should serve. Because of this I have grown increasingly angry, and frustrated with people who simply cannot see what is staring them in the face.

I know there has got to be people out there who stumble across my rants, and read them with interest, but unless they respond in some manner I have no way of knowing whether that is the case; or how many there are. I also know that it shouldn’t concern me; my job is to share the knowledge I have acquired, and not worry how many people are learning from it. Maybe I’m just not a good human being, but I do have a life to live beyond writing these rants; and I have been negligent in living it to the fullest because of my dedication to sharing the knowledge I have learned.

I think some of you may have guessed by my use of quotes from Atlas Shrugged lately that I’ve been re-reading Rand’s epic novel. The other night before retiring to bed I was reading and stumbled across a passage that hit my like a lightning bolt, “Reardon sat in his room at the Wayne-Falkland Hotel, fighting an enemy more dangerous than weariness or fear: revulsion against the thought of having to deal with human beings.” Upon reading that I thought, My God, that’s exactly how I’ve been feeling lately; I’m simply tired of people; especially stupid ones.

Maybe I’m just burnt out; maybe I just need a rest, but there is one thing I would like to speak of before I finish this up. If you have read Rand’s book Atlas Shrugged you’ll recollect how there are many subplots within the primary plot. One of the major subplots is how the world is going to shit because of a corrupted moral code held by the majority of the people; something I’ve referenced in the last couple of rants I have written.

Yet there is another subplot, one more in line with what I want to say here, that I want to bring to your attention. Throughout most of the first 2/3 of the novel there appears to be a person, or force, that is removing the producers from the world; those who Rand calls men of the mind. One of the leading characters in the novel, Dagny Taggart, calls this person the destroyer; for he is taking away the intelligence needed to keep the world going.

Finally Miss Taggart comes face to face with her ‘destroyer’ and learns that he is intentionally removing these men of the mind from society because they were not appreciated for their contributions; they were being looted and plundered to satisfy society’s broken moral code; that those who produce owe society access to the fruit of their minds to satisfy the public good. The goal of this destroyer was to show these men of the mind that they could ‘go on strike’; remove themselves, and the fruits of their minds, and live free from the burdens imposed upon them by society’s broken moral code.

I know there is no Galt’s Gulch, no safe haven people can run to and be free of society’s broken moral code, or from government and its intrusive policy of restricting our rights and liberty until we become slaves; yet the principle of going on strike; not sharing the fruits of my labors with those who do not appreciate it intrigued me.

In reading Frederic Bastiat’s book The Law, I ran across a few quotes that, to me, accurately describe the society we live in today. The first of these quotes state: Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.

But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.

Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain—and since labor is pain in itself—it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.

Bastiat describes the above passage as a fatal tendency of mankind. The next quote I’d like to share describes his thoughts on what happens when that fatal tendency pervades government: It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.

But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.

This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder.

Next Bastiat references the reason, at least that’s how I see it, why there are political parties; opposing sides seeking to gain control of a system designed to allow for one group to plunder another: In fact, if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the organized combination of the individual’s right to self defense; if law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression and plunder—is it likely that we citizens would then argue much about the extent of the franchise?

Bastiat then goes on to explain how plunder can become institutionalized; which is the case in the United States right now: But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law—which may be an isolated case—is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.

Finally, he explains the various forms this plunder can take: Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole—with their common aim of legal plunder—constitute socialism.

Tell me, and be honest, does that not describe America right now; people fighting over control of a system, not for the preservation of the rights and liberty of all, but for who gets to plunder the opposition.

Unfortunately, no matter how hard I try, what words I use, I cannot seem to get people to look beyond their partisan loyalty to the fact that their system of government is evil; that it seeks not to secure our liberty; rather it seeks to enslave us.

It is my frustration over my failure to convince people of this fact that has led me to lash out at people, and to suffer a great deal of emotional stress at the ignorance, apathy, and sheer stupidity of the masses.

Therefore I have decided that I am going to go on strike; I am removing myself from political discussions; as any effort to educate and enlighten the masses is an exercise in futility; they just don’t give a damn! This may be temporary, or it may be until the entire system collapses; as it does at the end of Rand’s novel; I really can’t say. I may just need a ‘time out’ a period to regain my willingness to fight what appears to be a losing battle.

I love this country and what it once stood for, but I have grown weary of, and repulsed by the people that inhabit it. I’m not going to go into seclusion, become a hermit, but I am no longer going to waste a second of my time trying to educate people who have no interest in being educated. If someone wants to ask me a question, I’ll do my best to answer it; but I’m no longer going to spend the time it takes to research and write these rants; not until I see that there are those who thirst after the things I have to say.

My blog will still be there for those who wish to go back and read what I’ve already written, but as for new essays, I have but one word of advice for you, ‘Don’t hold your breath waiting for them.’ The truth is still out there; just don’t ask me to waste any more of my time digging it up for you; that’s on your shoulders until I decide otherwise.

And, if this happens to upset any of my friends, I’m sorry, but I just can’t do this anymore; the anger and frustration I feel has burnt me out. We each have our own lives to live, and I intend to enjoy mine for awhile without having to worry about whether what I’m saying is penetrating the craniums of the indoctrinated masses. If you can’t accept that, then I honestly don’t know what else I can say; maybe you’ll forgive me someday. If not, then I guess you’ll have to stay mad at me, for I’ve made up my mind about this.

I suppose I’ll find out soon enough who this pisses off, and who is able to understand why I’m doing this; and in either case, I will still consider y’all my friends regardless of what you may think about me.

Every year almost 2 million people in the U.S. are diagnosed with some form of cancer; while more than half a million die from some form of it. You can hardly talk to anyone who hasn’t known, or been related to someone who has either had, or died from cancer. Both of my parents died from it, and although she survived the ordeal, my wife lost both her breasts to it. Yet as common as this disease is I often wonder how many actually know anything about what is taking place within the bodies of those who have it.

I’m no medical professional, so what I’m about to say may not be wholly accurate, but when my wife was diagnosed with cancer in 2013 I did a bit of research on my own to try and understand this disease that was threatening the life of the woman I loved. What I found, and correct me if I’m wrong, was that cancer occurs when a group of rogue, or altered cells, begin multiplying uncontrollably; attacking the healthy cells surrounding them. Eventually enough of these rogue cells form and create a tumor that then continues to spread in the affected area of the body. If those cells are not excised, (removed), or killed, they can eventually metastasize to other parts of the body, resulting in the death of the host body they have taken over.

Now you may be thinking I’m about to go off on the medical profession, or somehow tie this into the Covid scandemic sweeping the country; I’m not. What I wanted to do was use how cancer spreads within a human body as an analogy; because I believe that there is a cancer, of sorts, that has been spreading across the country for generations now; and it is slowly destroying what this country once stood for.

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

Now any thinking individual should be able to take that quote, along with my opening comments on how cancer spreads, and form a general idea of where I’m going with this rant. The problem is, and I hate to say this, there simply aren’t that many people left who can put 2 and 2 together and come up with 4. So to make things easy for people, the cancer that I’m speaking of is a corruption of the principle of private property.

I my last rant I included a list of the things James Madison felt fit under the umbrella of the word property, so I won’t repeat myself in that regard. However, I do feel it is important to include Madison’s opening statement regarding property, “This term in its particular application means “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.” That defines private property to a T; those things that each individual can claim dominion over, and which no one else has a right to. Now if you’ll go back and read my last rant, you’ll find that the list of things that fall into the category of private property is pretty long. Of course if that is too much work you could always type ‘James Madison on Property’ into a search engine and save yourself the hassle of having to scan through my last rant to find that info.

Now I want to kind of sidetrack a minute and talk about justice. We all know that we have a criminal justice system in this country; a system designed to supposedly punish those who violate the law. Unfortunately, as Jefferson said, “Law is often but the tyrants will, and always so when it violates the rights of an individual.”

My concern is that few people really know what the meaning of the word justice is. In the 1856 edition of Bouvier’s Dictionary of Law justice is defined as, “The constant and perpetual disposition to render every man his due.” So what does due mean? Due means something that is owed a person; as in a debt, or a right. Our Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal, with certain unalienable rights; among them being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Four years before the Declaration of Independence was even a consideration, Samuel Adams said something quite similar, “Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can–Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature.”

So, in essence, the Declaration of Independence was written to uphold the First Law of Nature; that all men are endowed with certain rights, as well as the right to defend those rights in the best manner they can.

Close to a century after the Declaration of Independence was written, a Frenchman by the name of Frederic Bastiat would write something very similar to what Adams wrote in 1772, “Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?”

Adams hints that these are individual rights by his use of the words ‘Colonists’ and ‘they’, and Bastiat affirms that by his use of the term ‘Each of us has a natural right to…’ Our Natural Rights precede and predate our civil rights; those rights which are protected by laws written by man. If we were to hold true to what the Declaration of Independence says, then governments exist to secure those rights to the governed; not attempt to deprive us of them through legislation.

The cancer that is eating away at this country is the people forsaking the belief that each of us are endowed with individual rights, and entitled to individual property; along with the right to defend them against all attacks. Let me provide you with a quick example of what I mean by that.

Take an individual, any individual who gets up every day and goes to work. That person puts in their time, and is paid a wage, a salary, by their employer. Does the government put in the labor that earns that pay? Does society? No, the individual does; therefore the money that he is given in return for performing labor for someone else is theirs and theirs alone; it is their private property.

Now we know that government exists; that is an unfortunate fact of life. But these governments are supposed to serve a function; that function being the preservation of our rights, our liberty, and our ability to pursue happiness. If government no longer serves that purpose, if it acts in opposition to that purpose, then when it forces us to pay taxes to support what it does, it is stealing from us, or depriving us of our property; our income.

The problem is that government could not get away with doing that if the people did not consent to what government was doing. What if every employer throughout the country told Uncle Sam, “Sorry, you’re not doing the job government is supposed to be doing, therefore we will no longer withhold federal taxes from any of our employees pay.” What could government do if that happened? Not much; they couldn’t arrest everyone!

However, since people don’t know, or don’t care that their government does things it is not supposed to, they pay their taxes willingly, with many saying that the rich should pay more to provide for the wants and needs of those less fortunate.

Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against charity. In fact, I think it is our Christian duty to be charitable. However there is a huge difference between voluntarily giving to those in need and having your income stolen from you, to be redistributed according to the whim of a bunch of legislative bureaucrats.

You see, that is where the cancer has seeped into our system. The common belief that elected officials have the right to decide for us who benefits from the tax dollars they steal from us is denying us the right of freedom of choice; the freedom to decide for ourselves if we want to be charitable, and who we want to help. It has taken an individual right, (the freedom of choice), and turned it into a collective right; determined society, or by a government elected by the majority.

Political correctness is another example of how society has taken away an individual right; the right of freedom of speech. Society now determines what is, and what isn’t acceptable speech; calling it political correctness.

All of this falls under the general category of social justice; society deeming what should and should not be. If justice is rendering to each man what is due them, then social justice must be rendering unto each man what society thinks they are due; thereby eliminating the fundamental law of nature from whence all our civil rights originate and thereby tearing down the fabric this country was founded upon.

In determining whether or not a system of government is good, one must compare its actions against the purpose for which it was established; not your beliefs as to whether or not your parties platform best serves the overall public good. That is why I harp incessantly against the two party paradigm; party loyalty has replaced principle when it comes to whether or not people think government is doing a ‘good’ job.

In the Book of Matthew, Chapter 7, we read:

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.(If only that were the case in regards to our government)

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Does our government bear good fruit, or does it bear corrupt fruit? Does our government serve the function the Declaration of Independence says all governments should serve, or does it serve in opposition to what that document says is the function of all government?

Although Bastiat wrote the following 171 years ago, he may as well have been writing about our government today, “The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!”

If our government is, indeed, corrupt, it is because we tolerate it being so; it is because we ourselves have become corrupt in our principles and beliefs as to what purpose government should serve. The cancer that is destroying this country is our forsaking the principles this country was founded upon; the principle the Colonists risked their lives in defense of; which are summed up by Patrick Henry, “Give me liberty or give me death.”

What both saddens and angers me is how people complain about how bad things are in this country. Well, I’ve got some news for you; they are bad because you don’t know, or care, what purpose your government is supposed to serve; they are bad because your beliefs are wrong, your moral code is wrong; it is evil.

In closing I would like for you to read a paragraph taken from John Galt’s speech in the book Atlas Shrugged; and if there is a spark of decency, integrity left within you, you will ponder what it says long and hard.

Here are my closing thoughts: You have destroyed all that which you held to be evil and achieved all that which you held to be good. Why, then, do you shrink in horror from the sight of the world around you? That world is not the product of your sins, it is the product and the image of your virtues. It is your moral ideal brought into reality in its full and final perfection.

The myriad problems this country faces is not due to either of the two political parties that dominate American politics, nor are they due to our system of government; although it has certainly not helped matters any. No, the problems this country faces are all due to a lack of morality amongst the people who inhabit this land we call America.

The French philosopher Joseph de Maistre once said that every nation gets the government it deserves. Now what on earth could he have meant by that? I think it is well worth the effort to take a look at what Maistre meant when he said that; for I believe there is a great deal of merit to those words.

After our constitution had been written, and given to the states for consideration, a great war of words erupted between those who supported it and those who opposed it. Those who supported it went by the name Federalists; which in and of itself is a joke; for the system they supported was anything but federal in nature. Of course those who supported it were given the name Anti-Federalists; which is also ironic because they consisted of men who supported true federalism.

Anyways, members from both sides of the issue wrote essays which explained their reasons for either supporting or opposing the constitution. The most well known among the constitutions supporters were the authors of the Federalist Papers; James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay; who wrote under the pseudonym of Publius. In the 51st of these essays Publius writes, “But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?”

Now I may be wrong, but I take that to mean that government is akin to a mirror that reflects the values, the morals, and the ethics of the people that make up a country. Therefore, if our government is evil, it if is corrupt, if it violates the rights and liberty it is supposed to be securing, then it is because the people who place these politicians in office do not care whether it is corrupt, evil, or violates their rights and liberty.

There are probably some who could answer this, but if I were to ask everyone in this country who James Garfield was, I’m guessing that less than half would be able to answer correctly. James Garfield was the 20th President of the United States and in 1788 he stated, “Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature…. If the next centennial does not find us a great nation … it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.”

Far too often the people of this country vote for people they know little about; their character as well as whether or not the campaign promises they make are in accordance with the function all governments should serve; the preservation of our rights and liberty. Worse still, once the people have cast their vote, and the winner is announced, most of them go back to their lives; totally ignorant as to what those people are doing while in office.

Therefore, if Publius was right, that government is a reflection of human nature, then if our government is ignorant, reckless, and corrupt it is because we as a people are ignorant, reckless and corrupt. It also seems logical that the more ignorant the people become as to the function government should serve, the more corrupt their system of government becomes. Now don’t get all butt hurt, I’m just following the logical train of thought here!

So if we want a government that is not ignorant, reckless and corrupt, we as a people must hold those we elect to a certain set of standards, values, or morals. The problem arises when those who do the electing have no standards, values, or morals of their own.

In 1823 Noah Webster, the father of American dictionaries, wrote, “When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, ‘just men who will rule in the fear of God.’ The preservation of [our] government depends on the faithful discharge of this Duty; if the citizens neglect their Duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the Laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizen will be violated or disregarded. If [our] government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine Commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the Laws.”

I find it illuminating in regards to the intent of those who drafted our constitution that did not seek God’s guidance through prayer while writing it, they also eliminated any requirement that those holding office proclaim their belief in, or allegiance to God by eliminating religious tests for holding office. Yet in 1844 the Supreme Court established by this constitution would hold, “Where can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament.” (Unanimous decision of the court in the case of Vidal v. Girard’s Educators)

The truth of the matter is that a people’s morals, their values, have to come from somewhere; and if they aren’t coming from Scripture there is a good chance they are coming from the ‘other’ guy; Satan. Listen, I’m not making any claim that I’m the most righteous individual; I’m merely pointing out that if you are a Christian, then all that is good comes from God, and all that is evil comes from the other guy; so if our government is evil and corrupt I would hope that you could put 2 and 2 together and start to understand why.

Now I’m not saying our country is not fit for those who are not Christians. I am saying, however, that if we wish for our government to be good, to serve the function all governments should serve, then those living here need to adhere to a certain common set of values; or morals if you will. One of those values, in fact the most important in fact, is that our rights and liberty do not come from government, they come from our Creator; therefore any law that violates or infringes upon them is not only an attack upon us, they are a denial of the principles this country was founded upon.
Thomas Jefferson was the primary author of our Declaration of Independence, but I’m betting that not many know that he was not a Christian; not in the sense of the word we understand it today. Jefferson was a Unitarian; he believed in the existence of a supreme being, a Creator, but he rejected the Christian belief that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. Jefferson felt that Christ was a great moral teacher, but he rejected the belief that He was divine.

Regardless of his personal beliefs, in the Declaration of Independence Jefferson made it clear that he believed that our rights are derived from our Creator. This wasn’t the first time Jefferson made such statement; in his Summary View of the Rights of British America he states, “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?”

It would, therefore, seem to me that one of the values that we must adhere to if we do not wish for our government to be evil or corrupt, (although it is a bit late in the game for this to happen), would be for everyone in this country to respect the rights and liberty of everyone else. Do you recall that Publius quote I mentioned earlier about government being a reflection of human nature? Well Publius then went on to say, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” What I think, or at least I hope, he meant by that was that if men would respect the rights and liberty of others, there would be no need for government at all.

In 1849 Henry David Thoreau wrote his timeless book, Civil Disobedience in which he states, “That government is best which governs least”; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe- “That government is best which governs not at all”; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.”

Placing that into the context of what I’ve been saying, the more moral, the more virtuous we become, the less need we would have for a government until eventually we would have no need for government at all. Unfortunately, it seems we are moving in the wrong direction; government is growing bigger and stronger, while we as a people grow less virtuous, less moral.

Why is it then that we, as a country that still claims to be predominantly Christian, are becoming less moral, less virtuous? I want you to read something written by a Presbyterian Minister by the name of Charles Finney back in 1875, “If immorality prevails in the land, the fault is ours in a great degree. If there is a decay of conscience, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the public press lacks moral discrimination, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the church is degenerate and worldly, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the world loses its interest in religion, the pulpit is responsible for it. If Satan rules in our halls of legislation, the pulpit is responsible for it. If our politics become so corrupt that the very foundations of our government are ready to fall away, the pulpit is responsible for it.”

If you are a Christian, your pastor, your minister, your priest, is supposed to guide you in your understanding of God’s will and the teachings of His son, Jesus Christ. While it is up to us to seek out the truth for ourselves by reading Holy Scripture, if our pastors lead us astray, then all the immorality that abounds is due to their having not taught us God’s will. While they may bear a large portion of the blame for all the evil that permeates society today, how can we call ourselves Christians when we remain silent about it; even participate in choosing evil men who rule not in fear of God?

How can you call yourself a Christian while at the same time support a government that:

-Has legalized the murder of unborn children

-Condones and supports sexual behavior that violates God’s Law

-Sends our young fighting men and women off to bomb or kill innocent people who have never harmed us; then abandons them after being captured and imprisoned (Look into the POW’s left behind in WW II and Vietnam if you don’t believe this one)

-Uses the American people as test subjects, Guinea Pigs if you will, for experimental vaccines

-And violates almost every single one of our rights, while severely restricts our Creator given liberty. And those are just a few of the things our government has done that ought to cause any God fearing Christian to question its legitimacy.

There is something else I would like for you to read. In 1787 John Adams wrote something titled, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America. In it Adams writes, “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”

What is property; is it your home, your car, or maybe your TV or stereo? Yes, it includes, but is not limited to, those things. In 1792 James Madison defined property as, “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

If our rights are individual rights, then they are OUR property as individuals, and any attack upon them would therefore be an attack upon the values this country was founded upon. But Madison did not stop there, he went on to say:

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man’s land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.
He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

If my rights are, what Madison describes as, a part of my property, then neither you as an individual, nor any entity representing you, (i.e. government), can infringe upon or violate them without violating the laws of nature that dictate that all men shall be free to enjoy and exercise their rights so long as in so doing they do not deny others the same freedom. Just because you dislike something I do or say, or because what I say or do offends you is not sufficient justification to deny me a single right. Sorry, that’s just the way things are supposed to be.

But since the vast majority of those living in this country today no longer adhere to the values of our founders we currently have a system that can restrict and annihilate the rights and liberty of the people with impunity; simply because people are too ignorant, or cowardly, to stand up to it.

If your rights are yours and mine are mine, then the only word that can be used to describe them is individual; as in individual rights. Therefore, as they are ours, it is up to each of us, as individuals, to stand up for them. It is not my responsibility to stand up for yours, although one who loves and cherishes their rights would understand that to stand up for the rights of someone else is to stand up for their own as well. How can you say you are standing up for your rights when you support the entity that passes law after law that restricts them; all while engaging in the idolatry of supporting those who enforce these laws upon you?

If government were good, if it acted in accordance with the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, well over 90% of the laws that have been passed would never have made it to the floor of Congress for a vote. Sometimes, as often is the case with gun control laws, these egregious pieces of legislation emanate from the left; or the Democrats. Other times, however, such as was the case of the Patriot Act, they are written and cosponsored with a bipartisan effort. Regardless of that, no matter which side introduces a bill, once they become law they are rarely, if ever, repealed.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it until it sinks in, if there was a difference between the two parties they would spend most of their time repealing the laws that were passed by the other side while they had control of government. Yet while people will admit that sometimes their government does things they don’t like, they always blame it on the ‘other’ side; never thinking that it is the nature of government itself to grow more powerful, while the rights and liberty of the governed diminish.

Let me provide you with a short analogy to explain why people should stop supporting a system that oppresses them. Let’s say there is a company that employs a great many workers, but they pay them poorly; make them work long hours; provide them with no benefits; and the working conditions are poor. Who is to blame for all that; the employer or the employees? Sure the employer may be greedy, evil even, but it is the employees who return to that job day after day instead of quitting.

Now you may say that people cannot quit, they might not be able to find a job and they have families to feed and bills to pay. That may be true, but they also have a choice as to what is more important to them; paying for food, or being treated like human beings and not slaves. Where is their own sense of worth; their dignity?

As I said, that employer may be greedy or evil, but he gets away with it because people are willing to sacrifice their own dignity and return to that job day after day. If people told him that they would not work under those conditions, for that pay, without any benefits, and then not show up for work, his greed would not keep the company running and he might see the worth of his workers, and change his ways.

It all boils down to what people are willing to sacrifice, or tolerate.

Tools are items that can be used to accomplish, or carry out a particular function. Your hands are tools; they can write a moving essay, plant a tree that will one day provide them with fruit to eat, learn to play a beautiful sonnet on the piano…or they can be used to punch someone in the face or build terrible weapons of destruction. Guns are the same way; they can be used to put food on your table or defend you and your family, or they can be used to bring harm to others and deprive them of their property or life. It all boils down to the character of those wielding these tools; good men use tools for their proper function, and bad men use them for bad things.

Government is a tool as well; it can be used to expand the liberty of those it governs, or it can be used to limit and restrict it; it depends upon the character of those running government, and how much the governed are willing to tolerate; how much of their freedom they are willing to sacrifice just for the sake of being governed.

The tool which is our government is in the hands of evil and corrupt individuals. It is in the hands of evil and corrupt individuals because we, the people, have forsaken the values that led our ancestors to risk their lives seeking their independence from a system of government that was far less tyrannical than the one we suffer under today.

Whether you are a Christian or not, if you consider yourself an American then you MUST accept that this country was founded by men who believed that their rights and liberty came from their Creator, and that government’s are established to secure those rights. If, however, you are a Christian, it is not only your obligation to know that, but to stand up in opposing any system that seeks to deny you those rights or that liberty.

All I see today are people bowing down before the entity that seeks to deprive you what is your Creator’s gift to you; your freedom. As I said, I may not be the most righteous person in the world, but I am capable of a certain amount of critical thinking. Therefore, if my rights come from God, I sure as hell do not want to face Him on Judgment Day and have to explain why I sat back and allowed my government to deny me the full exercise of His gift of liberty to me without putting up a fight.

If you too consider yourself a Christian, you may want to think about that.

To those who are products of the public school system; especially those who have graduated within the past two decades, the belief that a person is an individual; that they alone are responsible for providing for all their wants and needs is blasphemy. What our schools are doing ought to be a crime, for they are eradicating the very individuality of those who pass through their halls.

Our schools have ceased being centers where the human mind is taught to think, to question; they have become collectivist indoctrination centers where minds are taught what to think, and not to question established authority. The individuality of those who pass through our schools these days are, if not stifled, severely restricted from blossoming and providing fruit. What happens is that our schools are producing obedient little worker drones who are fed the lie that they cannot survive without the system of rules and control that enslaves them, while providing them with just enough menial entertainment to prevent them from grasping how pathetic their existences are.

Groupthink, or collectivism, never elevate anyone out of poverty, or misery, they always reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator; except for a few select ‘chosen few’ who get to manage the peasants. Soviet era Russia was a perfect example of the end result of collectivist ideologies. In Russia under communism the average person suffered equally, while the closer you were to the party, the controlling influence over society, the better off your status became.

Individualism equates to liberty in that each person is free to achieve or fail based upon their own abilities, without hindrance or restriction; while being allowed to enjoy the full fruits of their labor without having it taken from them by burdensome taxes and licenses.

Collectivism equates to bondage, to servitude; its keywords are conformity and equality. Collectivism believes in the false premise that that fact that all men are created equal means they are entitled to equality in all things; whether they have earned them or not; and if they cannot rise to the same level as others, others must be brought down to their level to produce perfect equality.

Collectivism and individuality cannot exist peacefully side by side in society; one must eventually prevail over the other. Individuality celebrates the individual; their worth and their responsibility to provide for their own wants and needs; which is another way of saying self-reliance. Collectivism is the celebration of the group, of society, and the wants and needs of the group takes precedence over the rights of any individual.

If a society were based upon individualist beliefs those living within the society would be free to form groups, if they wished, but those groups would not have the power to impose their views upon anyone other than those who voluntarily agreed to membership within the group. However, if a society is based upon collectivist beliefs there is no tolerance for individuality; all must contribute for the benefit of the whole; the collective.

Although people, for the most part, are unable to see it, the battle between collectivism and individuality has been portrayed in the media going back years. Ayn Rand’s novel Anthem, published in 1937, explains the struggle of a man, and later a woman, against the collectivist rule that governed people’s lives. In that novel the word ‘I’ did not even exist in their vocabulary; it was we or they. People were given numbers, not names, and any non-conformists were ostracized or punished.

Harrison Bergeron, written by Kurt Vonnegut and published in 1961 is another example of recent fiction that details the battle between individuals and collectivists. In Vonnegut’s frightening story people whose ability or talent exceeds the norm are controlled by means of ‘handicaps’. Those who are beautiful are made to wear masks to hide their beauty; those who are stronger than others are made to carry weights to make them equal in strength to others; and those who are smarter than others are made to wear collars or headsets that emit noises which limit their ability to focus their thoughts.

However a young boy, Harrison Bergeron, continues to excel, no matter how burdensome his handicaps are. Eventually he is captured, but escapes; where he appears on TV to show the world what people could achieve if they were freed of the handicaps imposed upon him. Bergeron is then shot on stage; as the system cannot allow for anyone to be less equal than others. Ironically, Bergeron’s parents watch his execution on stage; not even recognizing him as their son.

The battle between individualism and collectivism is/was a recurring theme in the Star Trek show Next Generation, with the crew of the Enterprise being the individuals, and the Borg being the collectivists whose goal was to assimilate all life into their collective.

Then of course there is my favorite film, The Matrix, where men are enslaved to the machines, (the system), and those who escape, (free their minds as Morpheus tells Neo), are hunted by Sentinels; machines whose sole purpose is to hunt and kill those who are not part of the collective of human minds serving the machine world.

It is truly a sad commentary on our school systems, and humanity in general, that people can read stories like the ones I mentioned, or watch films and TV shows like Next Generation and The Matrix, and cheer on the heroes battling against collectivism, yet they fail to recognize that analogy between fiction and the reality that dominates their existence.

Just look at what happens to individuals such as myself who do not want others dictating, (controlling), how we should be forced to live our lives, exercise our unalienable rights; we are denigrated, chastised, and told we are a danger to society. It is truly ironic that the only danger we pose is to those who seek to deprive us of our individuality; our freedom. If people would just leave us alone, we would leave them alone; and that is what people who are addicted to the collective, (the state or system), cannot see. They see us as a threat; which in a way we are, for the system is parasitic in nature; it feeds off the efforts/labor/wealth of those who compose it.

If the system were to allow for individuality to take hold, for freedom to become the driving force in people’s lives, the system would collapse; starved of its essential nutrients for existence. That is why our children are taught conformity, and to fear those who seek freedom. This too was depicted in film; in the classic movie Easy Rider, starring Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper, and Jack Nicholson.

In the film Easy Rider there is a scene when the three characters are sitting around a campfire, and the following conversation occurs:

George Hanson: You know, this used to be a helluva good country. I can’t understand what’s gone wrong with it.

Billy: Man, everybody got chicken, that’s what happened. Hey, we can’t even get into like, a second-rate hotel, I mean, a second-rate motel, you dig? They think we’re gonna cut their throat or somethin’. They’re scared, man.

George Hanson: They’re not scared of you. They’re scared of what you represent to ’em.

Billy: Hey, man. All we represent to them, man, is somebody who needs a haircut.

George Hanson: Oh, no. What you represent to them is freedom.
Billy: What the hell is wrong with freedom? That’s what it’s all about.

George Hanson: Oh, yeah, that’s right. That’s what’s it’s all about, all right. But talkin’ about it and bein’ it, that’s two different things. I mean, it’s real hard to be free when you are bought and sold in the marketplace. Of course, don’t ever tell anybody that they’re not free, ’cause then they’re gonna get real busy killin’ and maimin’ to prove to you that they are. Oh, yeah, they’re gonna talk to you, and talk to you, and talk to you about individual freedom. But they see a free individual, it’s gonna scare ’em.

Billy: Well, it don’t make ’em runnin’ scared.

George Hanson: No, it makes ’em dangerous.

And therein lies the whole truth as to our current situation. Each side; collectivism and individualism, poses a threat to the existence of the other. The sad thing is that individualists don’t recognize the threat they are facing; they think they can work within the system to correct its faults. They believe in the concept of America democracy; when democracy, no matter what form it takes, is simple majority rule; where the majority controls the lives, property, and liberty of the minority; which is antithetical to liberty. Collectivists, on the other hand, recognize individuality for what it is, a threat to their beliefs; and they are working tirelessly to exterminate individuality, (freedom), in America.

The problem with individualists, or those professing to love freedom, is that they cannot see that as long as there is a system of control, (government), that has the power to enact laws, and force the people into complying with them, there will always be those who seek to gain control of that system and dominate every aspect of their lives. The only way to enjoy freedom, (liberty), is to get rid of any system that has that kind of power over their lives.

Those who profess to be lovers of liberty, or conservatives, recognize that the collectivists, liberals, Democrats are a threat, but they cannot shake their dependence upon the system that gives their enemies control over a system that has the power to enact laws that deny them their freedom. As Morpheus tells Neo, they are too hopelessly inured to the system that they will fight to preserve it.

And that is why we will never be a truly great country; because we have a system of government designed to make slaves of the governed; to control them through taxation and the ability to enact laws that deprive them of their unalienable rights. My God, the drafters of the document that produced this system condoned slavery within their constitution when they wrote the 3/5’s Clause and allowed for slavery to continue as an institution. What more proof do you need?

The only way anyone can truly be free in this country is through death; life entails obedience to a multitude of laws/rules/regulations that invade every aspect of our existence. However, that does not mean we must consent to all of them. I do not wear a face mask, and I won’t take the Covid vaccine; even if they threaten to deny my ability to leave my home, or access my money or other essential services. I refuse to obtain a permit to exercise any of my rights; as the moment you agree to obtain that permit you have given control of your rights over to the issuing agency.

America gained its independence because there were enough people who refused to conform, and who had the courage to risk their lives by standing up to those who would oppress them. We have sunk to where we are today because we believe that civil disobedience and resistance to established authority is a threat to society. The only threat civil disobedience poses is to those who wish to make slaves of us; and until we stop complying, stop obeying the orders of those who enforce this tyranny upon us, America will never be free.

If you wish to be free, be free; do not comply or conform; be an individual in all sense of the word. You can respect the rights of others without forcing them to comply with your beliefs. If we could all do that, then we’d be taking the first baby steps towards true freedom. Anything else is just marching down that pathway to absolute despotism.

Stop living in fear of the propaganda that is being spoon fed to you by the media; how you must do this or do that for the public good. Start using your mind; question what you are being told; for only slaves take the words of their masters at face value, a freeman asks whether what they are being told is the truth; if it denies them their God-given rights and liberty; and if it does, they do not comply.

And I see very little of that going on in America; which leads me to believe that America will never again see freedom.

Since Groper Joe was sworn in he has signed numerous Executive Orders, and the Democratic controlled Congress is pushing forward numerous bills; many of them dealing with the right to keep and bear arms. I’ve seen quite a few posts on Facebook and other social media sites that are calling for the Republicans to mobilize; pick up their phones and their pens, and send their Congress Critters messages imploring them to vote no on these egregious violations upon our right to keep and bear arms. Then this morning I stumbled across this on another friends post, “I certainly think that is grounds for impeachment as a violation of our 2nd Amendment rights.”

There was a time, not too long ago I might add, that I might have said something similar to that. However, now that I’ve grown in knowledge I wouldn’t dare say something like that; and if I did I would certainly hope that my friends would shame me into recanting it. You see, there are two things wrong with that statement; and they are both interconnected.

The first is that our right to keep and bear arms is not derived from the 2nd Amendment; in fact none of our rights are derived from the Bill of Rights; they existed long before the ink on that document was dry. I have asked this before, and I’ll ask it again now, “If the Bill of Rights grants us our rights, are you saying that every human being who lived before that document was written DID NOT HAVE ANY RIGHTS?”

You may not know who James Wilson was, but he was a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a major force in the drafting of the constitution; which is why I don’t care too much for the man. However, in his Lectures on Laws, 1791, he got a couple things right, “Government, in my humble opinion, should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government, which has not this in view, as its principal object, is not a government of the legitimate kind.”

First of all he didn’t call them constitutional rights, he called them natural rights; which is what they are; the rights that all men are endowed with by their Creator; rights that no man, or group of men, can deprive them of. Secondly, he says that it is the function of government to secure and enlarge the exercise of those rights, and that any government that does not do so is NOT legitimate. That could very well be stated as the founding principle upon which this country was established; as it is also found in our Declaration of Independence, “…That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”

I have heard the argument that our Founders could not have foreseen the advancements in technology that would lead to the creation of weapons of war such as those that we have today. Whether or not that statement is true is, actually, irrelevant; and I hope to prove it.

In 1772 Samuel Adams prepared a document for the Committee of Correspondence for the town of Boston in which he states, “Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can–Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature.”

Whether or not you personally agree with that, and I know a lot of people who don’t, is also irrelevant; as it is what many of those we call our Founders believed; and they are the ones who established this country, not you; so their views hold more weight with me than yours do!

So if our rights are derived from our Creator, and if we retain the right to defend them, as well as our property, from attack, then as long as guns exist, we retain the ‘equal’ right to be as well armed as any who would threaten our rights; including officers and agents of any system of government which may seek to oppress us.

When our country fought its War for Independence, the Continental Army may not have had as many arms as the British, and they may not have been as well trained, but for the most part they kinds of arms borne by both sides in that conflict were the same. In fact, it was when the Kings enforcers, the Redcoats, sought to take way the guns of to Colonists at Lexington and Concord that the first shots of that conflict were exchanged.

You see there is something about that event that you probably were not taught in school, and which your education has not given you the ability to figure out on your own, that being that the reason the Colonists fought back when the Redcoats came for their guns was because they knew that had they been disarmed they would be easy prey for tyrants.

This leads us to the whole reason for our right to keep and bear arms, which is not for home defense and hunting; it is so we have the means of rising up against tyrants. How can we be expected to do that, with any measure of success, when we are limited to single shot weapons with magazines holding only ten rounds, yet those who would tyrannize us are equipped with the latest and most advanced military hardware? Can you imagine the outcome had the Redcoats been equipped with the same kind of guns our cops and military have, while the Colonists were limited to single shot flintlock rifles? We certainly wouldn’t be celebrating Independence Day, that’s for sure!

I know I kind of went off on a tangent, and I’m sorry; but I needed to make myself clear before moving on with the remainder of my discussion. The second thing this individual said this morning is even more ridiculous than the fact that he called our right to keep and bear arms a ‘2nd Amendment right.’ He then went on to say that what Biden was doing was grounds for impeachment.

First of all, the first gun law dates back to 1934, and every gun law since has been upheld and enforced by both Republicans and Democrats; so what makes what Groper Joe is doing any different from what past presidents have done? Is it because what Groper Joe is attempting to do is worse than what past presidents have done? If that is the case, then I suppose you wouldn’t mind if I hacked off your hand; because after all, it isn’t as bad as if I wanted to hack off your arm? Evil is evil, and bad is bad; and if you’re only now beginning to protest against violations upon your natural rights, then you’re either late to the party, or doing it because it is the ‘other’ team that is infringing upon your rights.

What I find ridiculous about that comment is that this individual expects the entity which has written every gun control law on the books to impeach a president for doing what they have been doing since 1934. Congress may as well vote to impeach themselves if that is the case; for they are no less guilty of infringing upon our rights as Groper Joe is. But that is not the worst part of what this individual implies; the worst is that he is seeking to utilize the system which has deprived him of his rights to restore those rights; which shows he doesn’t truly understand that the system cannot take his rights from him; that it is only through our compliance with these laws, and our obedience to the system, that we have lost them in the first place.

I frequently hear members of the so-called patriot community who talk about supporting and defending our military and law enforcement. I could agree with that if those two entities existed to secure our rightful liberty; but as it stands they are merely the enforcing arms of tyrants; jack booted thugs who enforce laws the deprive us of our rights and liberty; much like the Redcoats did during the Revolution.

I am constantly getting these phone calls from groups asking if I’d be willing to contribute to their cause, which is supporting our law enforcement officers. I tell every one of them that the moment these law enforcement officers start arresting lawmakers for passing laws that violate our rights I’ll contribute; but so long as they continue to enforce the laws that infringe upon those rights, they can kiss my ass!

All this leads, in a roundabout way, to my final point; what good is the right to keep and bear arms if people are unwilling to use it for its intended purposes? As I’ve already mentioned, the Declaration of Independence says that government are instituted to secure our rights, but it also says, “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.”

Now maybe my knowledge of history is deficient, but I can’t recall one instance in which tyrants have surrendered their power just because the people asked them to; it always took force to depose them. In theory, our right to keep and bear arms was of such importance because it provides us with the means of having the means of rising up against tyrants; equal in all ways to the force at the disposal of any tyrants that might arise to oppress us.

What I’m about to say may strike a nerve with some, but I believe it has to be said. What good is the right to keep and bear arms if those who retain that right lack the spine to exercise that right for its intended purpose?

As James Wilson said, any government that seeks not to secure and enlarge the exercise of our natural rights is not a legitimate government; and I think the government we have today would fall into that category. So why do so many, even among the conservatives, support it; think that it can be fixed and our rights restored, when history has proven time and time again that governments never relinquish their power unless forced to do so by the governed.

Even John Adams, one of the first presidents to directly assault the rights of the people, said, “Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it.”

Voting has never restored your liberty, nor will it ever do so as long as your government does not fear you. This wonderful document you call the constitution gives government all these wonderful powers; among them being the power to punish those who violate the laws it enacts. Yet it lacks one crucial power to be a constitution for a legitimate government; that being the power to punish those who infringe upon our rights and seek to deprive us of our liberty.

Had the people undertaken a study of how and why our constitution was written, that would make sense; for why would men who wanted to enlarge the power of government include wording in their plan which allowed for the governed to punish them if they became TOO POWERFUL?

So the constitution does not provide the means for us to punish those who govern in our stead; yet that power still exists; as the Declaration of Independence clearly states that government derives its authority from the consent of the governed. If we refuse to consent, if we resist the laws the deprive us of our rights and liberty, then they are the criminals when they seek to punish us for doing so, not us. But that takes courage; something that is sorely lacking in this country as far as I’m concerned.

It’s not just our right to keep and bear arms that is under attack, it is every value and belief that once made this country great that is under attack. Anything that was once considered good, honest, and virtuous has come under attack; and if we do not wake up, and STAND UP NOW, it will be too late; if it isn’t too late already.

The Democrats are a lost cause as far as I’m concerned; they wouldn’t have been welcome in the homes, churches, and taverns of Colonial America; they would have been among those who may have found their businesses destroyed, and their persons tarred and feathered for their loyalty to the Crown.

It is to the so-called conservatives that I address my remaining thoughts. You claim to stand for traditional American values, yet you sit back and let your government run rampant over your rights and liberty; thinking that if you could have just kept Trump in office for 4 more years everything would have been okay. YOU need to wake up to the fact that your government is evil; it is endowed with far too much power, and that you may have to get your hands dirty/bloody, if you want to restore America to her former greatness.

You also need to realize that any system of government, regardless of which party controls it, that has the power to deprive you of your unalienable rights and liberty is TOO POWERFUL; and will always be a threat to your freedom. As Spooner said, “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

You need to get that through your thick heads, it is not the Democrats who are your enemies, it is a system that allows for people like the Democrats to exercise power over you; and believe me, the Republicans are no less guilty of violating your rights; they just do it wrapped in a flag and calling it patriotism.

This country, at least as it was envisioned by those who fought for its independence, is nearing its end; and what survives won’t be a fun place to live. The only chance we have is if enough of us rise up and say, in a united voice, NO MORE: WE WILL NO LONGER COMPLY!
Some of us may die if that happens, but it is a small price to pay if we can secure liberty to our posterity; for as Jefferson said, “…the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.”

That may sound seditious, and even grounds for my words to fall victim to the cancel culture society. If so, I fret not, for I know that where Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Jefferson alive today, they’d be saying the same things I am: Get off your asses and stand up for your liberty before it’s too late!

I fear that people are about to learn a painful lesson; a lesson in which they will be forced to choose sides between submission or freedom; good vs. evil. And if, perchance, you are Christian, you may want to choose wisely; your soul may depend upon the choice you make.

Yesterday morning I awoke to find that Herr Zuckerberg’s Facebook Fact Checkers had slapped me with, yet another, 3 day jail sentence; this time for violating their Community Standards regarding posting information that contradicts what the medical professionals are saying about the efficacy and safety of the Covid vaccine. Here is part of the notice Facebook posted when they notified me my account had been suspended for 3 days:

What I found interesting is that the post that landed me in Facebook jail for 3 days was posted two months ago on December 8th. I guess those poor fact checkers are overworked because of all us bad people trying to share things that contradict the ‘official’ narrative. Be that as it may, I figured now might be a good time to discuss the freedom of speech; since Facebook has deemed it necessary to restrict mine once again.

I fully understand that Facebook users sign an agreement when opening an account, and that there are certain limitations upon what they can post; such as pornography. However, that being said, the standards keep changing and the standards that I agreed to when I opened my account are not the same as the standards someone opening an account there today are agreeing to.

I could understand having to update their standards if people began posting truly obnoxious or intentionally offensive material; but that is not the case. What they are doing is limiting the ability of people to post any information that is deemed politically incorrect, or that which disagrees with the narrative being provided by ‘officials’ or the mainstream media. There is only one word to describe what Facebook is doing; that being censorship.

Whether the information Facebook is blocking is, or isn’t accurate, what Facebook is doing is assuming the role of nanny by limiting what its users see by denying the free speech of those who do not support the mainstream narrative regarding a plethora of subjects. For instance I was warned once, and my photo taken down, after I had posted a photo of Jews being herded into boxcars during the holocaust.

It is not just Facebook that is doing this either. The company I used to work for before I retired had annual training its employees had to undergo, and we were told not to discuss things that others might find offensive. I cannot count the times I was called into Human Resources, and warned that my political speech was deemed offensive by others.

For instance, one time I found myself in a discussion with another employee over the true cause of the misnamed Civil War. This person believed that Abraham Lincoln was a knight in shining armor for the black slaves, and no matter how hard I tried I could not convince them that what they believed was factually incorrect. So that evening I printed out a passage from Lincoln’s 4th debate with Stephen Douglas, held at Charleston, Illinois on September 18, 1858. I gave that information to the person to show that Lincoln held beliefs that, today, would be deemed racist.

The following day there was a notice on the bulletin board for me to go see HR. I immediately knew why, and when I went in my fears were confirmed; I had been turned in for distributing racist material. I was told that I simply could not hand out, incendiary material such as what I had given out. I told the guy in HR that what he was holding were not my beliefs; they were from historical records as those belonging to Abraham Lincoln, and that I only brought them in to show this individual that Lincoln was not the hero he has been made out to be.

I was then told that it did not matter if they weren’t my words, that they were the words of someone from our past; I could not be allowed to bring in material that offended others. When I asked if he would then demand that all employees speak English while on plant property, because Punjabi and Spanish offended me, he had the gall to say that he couldn’t; that it would be a violation of their freedom of speech. So I said, “I guess the only thing you guys will censor then is the truth” and then stormed out of the office.

Oh, in case you’re wondering what Lincoln quote caused all this ruckus, it was this one:

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.

Are those words offensive? You’re damned right they are; but they are also historical truth, and sometimes history is ugly. Yet that does not mean we should hide it from people so as not to offend them. If people are so thin skinned that the truth offends them, then the problem is not those who share the truth; it is those who have not been taught how to deal with the truth.

I’m going to be about as straightforward as I can about this; there are two categories of people in this country. First there are those who base their opinions and beliefs upon a careful examination of facts and evidence and there are those who are given their opinions and beliefs by others in positions of authority, (parents, teachers, government officials, and the news media), and who react emotionally when confronted with any evidence that contradicts the opinions that have been spoon fed to them.

It is unfortunate that the vast majority of people in this country fall into the latter category; those whose opinions are not their own; they have been carefully crafted for them by controlling what information the people have access to when forming those opinions. I mean it is so bloody simple people; if someone controls the information being provided to you, then they, by default, control what opinions you form based upon that information. How anyone cannot see this is beyond my ability to comprehend.

As a quick example, just look at the news coverage in the period leading up to, and including, a presidential election; what do you see? You’ll see news anchors touting our wonderful democracy, or saying things like, ‘democracy in action.’ So what happens; the viewers believe we have a democracy; and anyone who tries to prove otherwise is met with resistance, or they are bombarded with insults; things such as, “Oh, you must hate this country” or “America, love it or leave it.”

How exactly do those arguments support the position that America is a democracy? That’s just it, they don’t; they are an emotional fallback position for those whose opinions cannot be substantiated by fact. I ran into the same type behavior when I told people I would not vote for Obama or Hillary. It didn’t matter that I could show people were their campaign promises were in direct violation of the constitution, or my rights; I was a racist or a sexist. There is no logic in people’s arguments supporting their opinions because logic was not used in forming them in the first place!

What has all this got to do with the freedom of speech? Hang on, I’m getting to it. What do you think would be the easiest way to control a large group of people; an entire country? Do you think it would be to march in troops and begin ordering them to do things that restricted their freedom? I mean, that would probably work, but you would be met with resistance at the sudden loss of the people’s freedom, and much blood would probably be spilled in the process.

However, if you were to gain access to the flow of information; starve the people of the truth, while only providing them with the information you want them to hear, you can gradually begin to convince them that what you are doing is among the legitimate functions of government; that it is in the people’s own best interests to comply with these laws.

The second mode of controlling people may take longer, but it will be less bloody overall, and the people will enslave themselves; and thank you for it! Then, if you do this, you can shame the people into obedience by inventing names for those who do not comply. Most people have this innate need to be a part of a group; of society, and they will not do anything that threatens their position in society; such as bringing controversial material for people to read at work. (wink) It takes the rare individual to stand alone among the indoctrinated and proclaim, I WILL NOT BE A SLAVE! Patrick Henry was such a man; for he said, “I KNOW NOT WHAT COURSE OTHERS MAY TAKE; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.” (My emphasis)

A few short years later, the same Patrick Henry would say this regarding the proposed constitution, “I am fearful I have lived long enough to become an fellow: Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man, may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old fashioned: If so, I am contented to be so: I say, the time has been when every pore of my heart beat for American liberty, and which, I believe, had a counterpart in the breast of every true American.”

That second quote was uttered two hundred thirty three years ago; giving the government proposed by the constitution plenty of time to gradually hide the truth from the governed as to the reasons for its existence; plenty of time to condition the people into accepting their own servitude; while offering them the choice of slave masters once every two years in things called elections.

Today people believe they are debating the facts; thinking critically; and having free elections, but what is happening is they are trapped in a cage in which the information they have access to is being spoon fed to them to prevent them from seeing the walls of the prison that surrounds them.

The problem arises when a kink in the Matrix occurs and people learn the truth for themselves; opening their eyes to the fact that their government is evil; that it enslaves them; that it was, in fact, designed to enslave them. The system cannot, will not allow that truth to spread like a virus throughout the population. I know the Matrix trilogy are Hollywood movies, but they provide the perfect analogy for reality.

The Matrix is a system of control by which people are enslaved. Neo, Morpheus, Trinity, and all the others are those who have discovered the truth and seek to free the minds of those still enslaved to the system; such as how I am trying to free your minds right now. There is a saying, and I don’t know who said it, that goes something like “The truth will be out.” What that means is that you cannot hide the truth forever; it will find a way to reveal itself to those willing to accept it.

The problem is, the truth is the enemy of those who seek to control/enslave you. They may allow for a few stragglers, a few rabble rousers to run free; but if they become too powerful, draw too much attention to the system, then they will find that they become ‘victims’; either of the system, or a society that cannot allow for their illusions to be shattered by those speaking the truth.

It almost gets to the point where censorship is self regulating; you don’t even need any external controls on free speech; society will attack those who speak it of their own accord; just to protect the lie they have swallowed hook, line and sinker.

I want you to read a few quotes, then I’ll wrap things up with my final thoughts. The first quote comes from Ben Franklin’s Silence Dogwood Letters and reads, “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”

The next quote comes from a speech George Washington gave to the officers of the Continental Army on March 17, 1783, “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

The final quote comes from author George Orwell, who tried to warn us of an overbearing and all powerful government in his novel 1984, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear.”

Freedom of speech, both yours and mine, is under attack; for whatever weapons are being used to silence me could very well be turned around and used to silence you someday. So, when I defend my right to say things that are controversial, offensive, and politically incorrect, I am also defending your right to speak freely as well.

I don’t have to agree with the things you say; I don’t even have to like them. Yet I will defend your right to say them to my last breath; for that is what freedom of speech is all about. If you can’t handle the truth, if the truth threatens your beliefs and opinions, then the problem is not me, or the information I am providing; the problem is you; because you cannot defend those beliefs with facts.

When I was growing up we used to have a saying, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me.” It is a sad commentary on the people of today that words do harm them; that they are such a bunch of thin-skinned pussies that they seek to silence anyone who says something counter to what they’ve been indoctrinated into believing.

If someone says something that threatens I beliefs, I do not call the PC Police and seek to have their voice silenced; I research what they say, and if it is proven that they are wrong; I confront them with the evidence which proves them wrong. If, however, my investigation proves them right, a change my beliefs to conform to what the facts tell me. It’s called intellectual integrity people; you ought to try it out sometime; you might learn something…In the meantime:

Throughout my life I have been drawn to stories about those who rebelled against authority; against the system. My earliest recollection was when I first saw the movie Robin Hood, starring Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland. Even now, six decades later, I still find that I enjoy stories where people buck the system – rebel against the established authority.

I think that deep down inside of me there is something in my DNA, some defect if you will, that causes me to rebel; as I’ve never been one who fit in; followed orders. I rebelled against the rules my parents set down for me; I rebelled against the rules established by the schools I attended; I rebelled against the Uniform Code of Military Justice, (UCMJ), while in the military, and I rebelled against company policy by speaking my mind openly; often offending co-workers because what I was saying was not politically correct.

Simply stated, I just don’t like having others tell me what to do; aside from my wife that is. There is just something about others telling me I have to do this, I have to do that; I can’t do this, I can’t do that, that grates on my nerves; causing me to disregard what they say and do whatever I want to do anyways. I’m not saying that it hasn’t gotten me into trouble, it has; but I’ve always seemed to slip out the other side relatively unscathed. So, as far as I’m concerned I don’t see any reason to change my behavior now; even when I’m surrounded by conformists who wouldn’t know what it meant to be an individual if it came up and bit them in the ass.

Make no mistake about it, I am an individual; capable of choosing for himself what he thinks is best for him. Oh, don’t get me wrong, sometimes I choose wrong, but when I do I’m also man enough to accept responsibility for my own blunders. I’ve never been one to blame others, blame society, for their own mistakes. As the old saying goes, you bought it, you pay for it; I accept full responsibility for my decisions, which also means I believe that each individual should be allowed to make those decisions without outside interference or coercion; which to me is what liberty is all about.

When I look around me today, especially today with the hordes of people covering their faces because those within the system tells them that they must do so to protect themselves from Covid, I often wonder how many of them would have sided with the Redcoats during the American Revolution. Some of them probably would have done so because they honestly believe that government has the authority to tell people what to do in ‘all cases whatsoever.’ Others, I think, probably would because the simply lack the courage to stand apart from the crowd; rock the boat so to speak.

That has never been a problem for me. I’m not saying courage courses through my veins, it’s simply that I enjoy rocking the boat; stirring up the shit. I absolutely hate being told I must conform to what others think is best for me, or society in general. I believe that as long as I do not cause anyone any physical harm; steal from them what is rightfully theirs, or deprive them of their rights that I should be allowed to do whatever I please.

A day or so ago I mentioned that most people agree that slavery is evil. Yet I wonder, if I were to ask people to define slavery for me, could they do it? I wonder if I did ask them, if their answer would be, “A black man who is forced to work on a plantation for someone else without pay.” Seriously, I don’t think people actually know what slavery is.

To put it as simply as possible, slavery is the loss of freewill. A slave is someone who has lost, or had taken from them, the ability to make their own decisions as to how they shall be allowed to act. The purpose of laws, of governments, is to ensure that people are free to make their own decisions in life; live according to their own will so long as they do not deprive others of their lives, property, or rights. Once law, or government, crosses over that boundary, it becomes tyrannical; and it is the duty of every liberty loving individual to oppose/resist it.

Slavery is at the opposite end of the spectrum from liberty; one grants you the freedom to live your life as you see fit, while the other has others telling you how you must live. So how can you say that you hate slavery, yet allow others to tell you how you must live your life? You can’t say that you hate slavery and then turn around and obey laws willingly that deprive you of your own freedom; you simply can’t. Even worse, people condemn those who owned slaves during the era prior to the American Civil War, yet they seem hell bent upon imposing slavery upon the people of America today.

I just don’t get it; have people today lost all sense of reasoning and logic? Do people today prefer being told what they can and cannot do with their persons and their property so long as they have food to eat and a plethora of options as to how they will keep themselves entertained? Are people that willing to sacrifice their freedom for the promise of comfort and security? Yeah, I know; stupid questions; for apparently people are!

I truly believe that if time travel were a reality, and I was to travel back to 1775-76 and then bring Patrick Henry; Thomas Jefferson; or Samuel Adams back to 2021 and let them walk around; see what laws people submit to without any resistance, they would say this cannot be the country whose independence they were fighting for. I think it would boggle their minds that so many people would sit idly by while so much of their freedom was taken from them; and the whole time support those who were taking it from them.

I honestly don’t know what lies just beyond the horizon for the people of this country; but I can almost guarantee that it won’t be pretty, and it certainly won’t be pleasant. It could be stopped; it could be prevented – if people wanted freedom bad enough. But they don’t; they want comfort and security, and they want to force it upon those who do want their freedom from a system that cannot tolerate dissent; that cannot tolerate individuals.

Why do you think they call people like me law breakers? It is because those who control the system cannot take the risk that individualism catches on; that liberty catches on. They cannot risk that people will see how happy others can be once they are free of the systems laws; the systems control. So they come up with names for us, insults really, designed to keep the weak minded in line; to shun them into conformity and keep our numbers to a minimum.

A long time ago the author Mark Twain said, “In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”

Please America, if you have any decency left in you, any integrity at all, stop calling yourselves patriots if you vote, if you support the system, and if you think that to regain your rights you must elect the right people into office to repeal the laws that have taken those rights away. If you believe in any of those things, you’re not patriots; you’re slaves begging their masters for something that is rightfully yours to begin with.

Rights do not require permission, and a patriot, or a freeman, does not ask permission to exercise them; nor do they obey the laws that tells they can’t exercise them. A free man, a lover of liberty, would do as Patrick Henry did; stand up and proclaim to the world, “I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

“In times of tyranny and injustice, when law oppresses the
people, the outlaw takes his place in history.”
~Robin Hood~
(Ridley Scott version)

If you want my honest opinion on the matter, nothing in the world would be more ridiculous than to believe that a people who had just fought a long and costly war for their freedom would then turn around and establish a system of government which was designed to take that freedom right back from them.

Yet then again, some criminals often gain their freedom after serving time for their crime, only to turn around and get caught committing another crime, which lands them right back to prison; which proves that maybe, just maybe, people become accustomed to a way of life, and when offered a chance at something different, something better, they reject it and go back to what they’ve become comfortable with.

What is it in human nature that causes man to abandon liberty for bondage; to forsake the blessings of being able to live their lives according to the dictates of their hearts, for the cold comfort of being told what others think is in their best interests? People will tell you that slavery is evil, yet the slave has no say in his condition he was placed into bondage against his will. People today rally behind, and vote for, their own slave masters; their only concern being that those masters are of their own choosing. So who is worse off, a slave who was placed into bondage against their will, or an entire people who submit to slavery when, to regain their freedom, all they would have to do is stop supporting the system that enslaves them.

So what is it that causes men to submit to their own subjugation and oppression willingly? Is it ignorance? Is it cowardice; the fear of having to accept responsibility for your own wants and needs? Or, is it a little of both?

I hear from some that they think I’m a danger to society, a threat to them and they system they seem to worship. The truth is, I’m no threat to anyone who leaves me free to live my life according to the dictates of my own heart. I may not agree with the life choices others may make, but so long as they don’t force their views upon me, it doesn’t affect me how they live their lives. I live by the mantra, “Live and let live.” All I truly want is to be left alone; not having your, or someone else’s opinions forced upon me; shoved down my throat against my will. Is that honestly too much to ask?

I would like for you to read something before I continue, written by Alexander Hamilton and published under the pseudonym of Publius in 1788, “Government implies the power of making laws. It is essential to the idea of a law, that it be attended with a sanction; or, in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience. If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation.”

I can almost picture people reading that, and then shaking their heads, saying, “That makes sense.” I’d be willing to bet that people never stopped to think about the fact that government derives its authority by their consent; that it was established by them to serve certain purposes; and that for it to be just the laws it passes must serve the purpose for which governments are established.

Has anyone ever asked you, “Which came first; the chicken or the egg?” This paradox, or causality dilemma, stems from the fact that chickens come from eggs, yet eggs come from chickens; or more specifically, hens. That question could be considered one of life’s great mysteries. Yet it is no mystery if you apply that line of reasoning to man and governments; man clearly came first; therefore government must be a creation of man; which brings me right back to my opening comments, “Why would a people who just fought a war for their freedom turn around and establish a system of government designed to take that freedom away from them?”

That same line of thinking could also be applied when it comes to history. For instance, I might ask, “Which came first, the Declaration of Independence, or the constitution?” To answer that all one would have to do is look at the date each document was written; meaning the Declaration of Independence was written before the constitution. Therefore, for our system of government to be in accordance to the principles outlined by the Declaration of Independence it should exist to secure to the governed their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If, on the other hand, our system of government does not serve that purpose, we have forsaken the principles so many risked their lives for during the American Revolution.

Getting back to Hamilton’s quote for a minute, he said that the idea of a law is that it be accompanied by a sanction; a penalty or punishment for disobedience. That is all well and good if the law itself serves the function of preserving our rights and liberty. However, if it doesn’t, then what would you call such laws? Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “Law is often but the tyrants will, and always so when it violates the rights of an individual.” So if the law, in any way, shape, or form, violates our rights, it can only be described as tyrannical; having been enacted by tyrants.

Yet today we have ‘law enforcers’ who, due to the fact that they wear a uniform with a badge on it, and carry a gun, are vested with the power of forcing us to obey ‘the law’ with the threat of fines, jail time, and even death if we disobey. Yet if the laws they are enforcing are unjust, if they deprive us of our rights, does that not make them tyrants as well; no better than the Redcoats who were simply following the orders of King George III?

I find it disturbing that people seem to look upon their government, and those who enforce the laws it enacts, as good people who serve the overall public good. If that were the case, if they were truly serving the public good, they would only be passing, and enforcing, laws that better secured our rights; not stripped them from us.

Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of our Declaration of Independence, once wrote, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” If that is what liberty means, and if the preservation of that liberty is the purpose government is supposed to serve, than what justifies the multitude of laws that government has enacted which tell me what I can and cannot do; can and cannot own; can and cannot put into my body; and now, what I MUST put into my body, or wear on my face; all against my will?

All I want is my liberty back; yet the whole country, or at least the vast majority of it, seems intent upon enslaving me to their will. It wasn’t always this bad in America. I can remember growing up in an era when busybodies did not stick their noses into people’s business, telling them they can’t do this, they can’t do that. All that has come about was made possible, not because of government, but because of the fact that the document that created this system of government did not include better safeguards for our rights and liberty, AND it does not provide a means for us to punish government when it violates them.

Now if you’ll remember, Hamilton said that the idea of a law is that it be attended with a sanction; a punishment or penalty for those who violate it. Yet is not the constitution a law; written to establish a system of government for us? Does not Article 6, Clause 2 state that it is, in fact, the supreme law of the land? Then why does that document not provide us any means of punishing those in government when they violate our most sacred rights and liberty; riddle me that Batman!

There were some, who at the time the constitution was being debated by the people, who had the foresight to see its flaws, and tried to warn us as to how it would end up depriving us of our rights and liberty. Unfortunately, their words fell upon deaf ears and the constitution was adopted regardless of their dire warnings. Yet one of them, Patrick Henry, stated, “Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man, may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old fashioned: If so, I am contented to be so: I say, the time has been when every pore of my heart beat for American liberty, and which, I believe, had a counterpart in the breast of every true American.”

I could very well say the same, for as I said, I grew up in a time when liberty was still of value to people. I am almost certain that if my parents, or yours, my grandparents, or yours, were alive today to see the conditions under which we live, they would grab us by the shoulders and shake us, screaming, “What the hell is wrong with you?” Imagine what Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, and all the others who fought for their liberty would have to say.

I’ve had people tell me it is our patriotic duty to obey that law; that there would be chaos if we did not. Tell that to those who dumped the Tea in Boston Harbor, or who tarred and feathered tax collectors for trying to enforce the Kings Law upon them! If the law was just, if it sought to preserve and protect our rights and liberty, then most would willingly obey it. But when the law seeks to deprive us of those rights, it becomes tyrannical, and those who only seek what is rightfully theirs become criminals.

So what purpose should the law serve? Well, in 1850 a Frenchman by the name of Frederic Bastiat wrote something that might provide us with an answer:

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

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

Using that as your definition, am I to be considered a criminal for merely defending my rights, my liberty against those who would deprive me of them; regardless of whether they operate under the authority of ‘government’?

Government is my enemy; it is the enemy of every freedom loving person that draws breath. Government is never content with the power it has been given; it always seeks more. In 1576 Etienne de la Boetie wrote something that you should seek to understand, before it’s too late, “Similarly, the more tyrants pillage, the more they crave, the more they ruin and destroy — the more one yields to them, and obeys them — by that much do they become mightier and more formidable, the readier to annihilate and destroy. But if not one thing is yielded to them, if, without any violence they are simply not obeyed, they become naked and undone and as nothing, just as, when the root receives no nourishment, the branch withers and dies.”

Therein lies the answer if liberty is your primary pursuit in life. If enough people would simply stand up and say, “WE WILL NOT COMPLY” then government would lose its power. You see, there is a little secret that government does not want you to know…IT NEEDS YOU MORE THAN YOU NEED IT.

If enough people took away their consent, if enough people refused to comply, then government would wither and die. What could it do, arrest/kill us all? Who would it govern if it did; who would it plunder of their wealth via taxation if everyone was in jail or dead? Government needs you, and the fact that you submit to it, support it by voting, is the only thing keeping it alive.

Still, I can almost see people shaking their heads, saying that if we abolished government then there would be chaos. I’m not saying we have to abolish it; although that certainly wouldn’t bother me in the slightest. What I am saying is that those laws that restrict or deny us our rights and liberty should be disregarded; as if they had never been written.

If enough people would exercise their individual right of self-defense, there would soon be a shortage of those who sought to deprive us of our lives, our property, AND our liberty; and people would think twice before attempting to do so. I believe it was John Heinlein who once said, “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”

But that takes courage; courage on the part of those defending what is rightfully theirs. That kind of courage is almost non-existent today; people want the comfort and security of having others take care of them, provide for their wants and needs. So few today could stand up and say, “Give me liberty or give me death” and actually mean it. Yet it was people like that who founded this country, and this country is circling the drain because of people who submit to authority and worship the system that enslaves them.

America will never be great again until the number of those who love and are willing to defend liberty to the death, vastly outnumber those who submit to tyrants and the jack booted thugs who enforce their unjust laws upon the people. All one has to do is to go out into public and count the number of those wearing masks, and compare it to those who aren’t. You’ll quickly see that those who submit to tyranny far outnumber those who stand up for their liberty.

In closing I would like to leave you with one final quote that I believe accurately describes most people these days, “Poor, wretched, and stupid peoples, nations determined on your own misfortune and blind to your own good! You let yourselves be deprived before your own eyes of the best part of your revenues; your fields are plundered, your homes robbed, your family heirlooms taken away. You live in such a way that you cannot claim a single thing as your own; and it would seem that you consider yourselves lucky to be loaned your property, your families, and your very lives.”

If that touches your pride, hurts your feelings, or offends you in any way, don’t look at me; look into the mirror and ask yourself what it truly is you stand for – Liberty or bondage. Liberty is an individual attribute, and it will only be when enough ‘individuals’ love liberty enough to shake off the yoke of tyranny that binds them, that we will ever be free; and America will become great again.