Neal's Soapbox

Why is it that an overwhelming majority of the people in this country are functionally illiterate when it comes to the three primary documents which established America: The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? How can these people claim to be making informed decisions at the polls when they do not know the purpose for which their government was created, the powers delegated to each specific branch, and their duty to act as a check upon the assumption of undelegated powers by government?

Without that knowledge you might as well put on a blindfold when you vote, for all you’re doing is playing a game of pin the tail on the donkey; without that knowledge you are playing a game of Russian Roulette with your rights – the very thing government is supposed to be instituted to protect.

These documents are made up of words, and if the people reading them are deficient in reading comprehension skills then those documents are merely a jumble of words that they cannot make heads or tails of. As author Allan Moore wrote in his graphic novel, V For Vendetta, “Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.”

Words only offer the means to meaning, for that meaning, and therefore the truth, to be understood one must be able to make sense of the both the words and the syntax used by the authors of those documents if they are to come to an understanding of their intent. If people cannot perform that task effectively the founding documents may as well be written in ancient Greek for all the good they do.

Each of the 3 founding documents serves a distinct and separate purpose. The Declaration of Independence establishes the former British Colonies of British America as free and independent States; the Constitution outlines a system of government, specifying the shape it shall take and the powers that shall be delegated to each branch; and the Bill of Rights places an impenetrable barrier around certain rights which puts them beyond the reach of the legislative authority of the federal government.

I’m guessing that many of you have never given any thought to the fact that each of these 3 documents are merely words on a piece of parchment; that they were given life by the people. The Declaration of Independence would not have had any meaning had not the patriots of 1776 took up their arms and risked their lives defending those words.

The Constitution would have been nothing but a mere proposal for a system of government had the people of each sovereign state debated it and voted to accept it based upon certain promises regarding the powers it would give the government it was creating.

The Bill of Rights would never have come into existence had the people not demanded that one be added to the Constitution as a condition of their agreeing to the system of government outlined by the Constitution.

Those 3 documents were given life because of the support and understanding of those who participated in bringing to life the principles contained within each of them. They have suffered a horrible death because the people have not been taught to read, understand, and adhere to the principles contained within them.

It has gotten so bad in this country that the few who have devoted any amount of time to come to an understanding of what those documents say and mean are ridiculed and ignored because the truth has become so obscured that to most it sounds like the ramblings of a madman.

Actually, that is not far from the truth; for we are mad, we men and women who know and understand how our system of government was designed to work and see it being corrupted and our freedom being taken away from us by the laws are regulations coming out of this government. We are mad at the people of this country who vote time and time again for candidates from the two political parties without every stopping to compare what these candidates are campaigning upon are in compliance with the specific powers delegated to the federal government. We are mad as hell at those who bow down and worship at the altar of government; sacrificing their liberty as if it were some sort of religious ritual which would appease the gods of government and prove their loyalty to it.

And of course there are those who could care less one way or the other what happens in government. These creatures are despicable and deserve no place in a country that was founded by men and women who were willing to sacrifice their very lives to obtain one simple thing; freedom from a tyrant. If I have offended you, as my friend Jeff Bennett recently said, sofa king what!

I’ve heard almost every excuse in the book as to why people do not take the time to read, and come to an understanding of our founding documents. I’ve heard people say that they are confusing and that the words they used back then are hard to understand. I’m not the brightest light bulb in the room; I had to read, re-read, and re-read them multiple times before they began to make sense. But if you cared, you would put forth that same effort.

I have heard people say that they have lives to attend to, families to raise, and can’t devote the time I do to reading through ancient documents. You think those who wrote those documents didn’t have families? You think Abigail Adams would not have preferred that John stay home in Boston rather than running off to Philadelphia to play politics, or do you think she understood that the cause of liberty meant that sacrifices had to be made and that the cost was well worth the reward?

Knowledge will forever govern ignorance. Those are the words of James Madison, and from what I have seen most of the people in this country are woefully ignorant when it comes to understanding how their system of government was designed to function, and the principles it was founded upon. They blame government for the problems this country faces then turn right around and ask government to fix them.

They justify this insanity by saying it is the fault of the ‘other’ party for all our countries woes; that if we could only elect more Democrats, or more Republicans, than all will be well in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Well, when was the last time you saw a Republican or a Democrat controlled Congress repeal any law passed by the opposition? The Patriot Act has stood the test of time through both Republican and Democratic Congresses and administrations. The Affordable Care Act appears to be about to do the same. Those are just two examples of laws that never should have been enacted being left where they stood by BOTH parties; I haven’t even begun to mention the various agencies which never should have been erected by your benevolent ole Uncle Sam.

People far and wide are beginning to freak out; asking themselves how long this government shutdown is going to last. If the Constitution were being adhered to the agencies these people work for would probably be shut down permanently. But nobody dares look at it from that perspective because it would force them to re-evaluate their own beliefs as to what function their government should serve. So they go on about their lives playing the blame game, without ever realizing that they are just as much to blame as those they condemn.

I’ve been told I am unpatriotic because I do not support my government. You’re damned right I don’t support my government, not when it does not support the document which created it! I love my country and would die for it. I once took an oath to support and defend the Constitution – against all enemies – foreign and domestic. I view my government as my enemy because it has subverted and undermined the foundation upon which our system of government was built; turning it from one of limited power to one with almost absolute power.

It has done this right in front of the people of this country going back to its earliest years of operation, and the people, for the most part, sat back and did nothing to prevent further usurpations of power. The entire structure of government has been fundamentally altered with the States losing their say in the Senate as a check upon federal intrusion upon their sovereignty and independence. The Supreme Court, instead of applying the law has taken it upon itself to define what the law means; which in and of itself is a breach of their delegated authority. After all, they are part of the federal government and they did not ratify the Constitution, the people acting on behalf of their States did. It is to the opinions of those who ratified the Constitution that we should look to for an understanding of what the Constitution says and means.

But that again returns us to the fact that nobody wants to spend hours reading through the ratification debates. After all, the notes from Virginia’s Ratifying Assembly are over 450 pages long, and who has time to read through all that? I get complaints when my articles exceed 4 pages; how can I expect people to read 450 of them?

What this means is that America will continue to stray further and further from the founding principles, with the truth being treated with even more disdain by those on both sides of the political spectrum. Instead of learning what made America great to begin with, people will continue to fall for the false promises and lies of people seeking positions of authority within an entity that has morphed from servant to master; and until people face that fact nothing is going to get any better…absolutely nothing at all.

In the film The Adjustment Bureau, starring Matt Damon and Emily Blunt, there is a scene when David Norris, (Damon’s character), asks Agent Thompson of the Adjustment Bureau, “Whatever happened to free will?” Agent Thompson, played by Terrence Stamp, responds by saying, “You don’t have free will David, you have the appearance of free will. You have freewill over which toothpaste to use or which beverage to order at lunch, but humanity just isn’t mature enough to handle the important things.”

Whether it is intentional or accidental, Hollywood has a way of throwing the truth right in people’s faces and the movie audiences sit there oblivious to the fact that they have just been told the truth about their own pathetic existences. The above quote from the Adjustment Bureau is a perfect example; people think they are free but their government has enacted laws, imposed regulations, and requires permits or fees for almost every single thing they do in their lives. But tell them that they have a choice in electing who will make the very laws that enslave them and they rejoice in the illusion of freedom.

Honestly, it makes me want to puke!

Almost immediately after they pulled my son from my wife’s womb he was issued a Social Security Number; I literally filled the paperwork out for it in the waiting room while they prepared my wife for the recovery room after her C-Section. Did you know that there is another name for your Social Security Number? Your Social Security Number is also known as a Taxpayer Identification Number; marking you as a debt slave; meaning your life and your labor are owned by the government – you are cattle to be milked to pay off the debt your government incurs to provide all those wonderful services you demand of it.
I hear people talk about subjects sometimes and the things they say absolutely boggle my mind because of the width and breadth of their ignorance of the subject they are discussing. Take for instance the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, people think that it granted rights to the slaves which had just been given their freedom by the 13th Amendment.

Wrong answer!

What the 14th Amendment did was to expand slavery to every citizen across the vast expanse of the United States; with government being the slave master. I wonder how many of these people showcasing their knowledge and brilliance have ever actually read the damned thing. I bet they haven’t, for if they had they would know that in Clause 4 it states, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

If you notice, it does not say government debt, it says PUBLIC DEBT; meaning it is OUR responsibility to pay it off – including whatever interest has accumulated upon it. At the moment the interest payments alone stand at $343 billion; more money than I’ll ever see in my lifetime, that’s for sure. According to statistics our national debt is so high that each taxpaying citizen is on the hook for $179,226 of it.

But you know how the old saying goes; out of sight, out of mind; as long as people don’t see the debt, as long as they are not directly affected by it, they ignore the fact that their government is, and has been spending more money than it takes in from taxes for a very, Very, VERY long time; and soon the bubble is going to burst and the whole house of cards will come tumbling down around them.

When that time comes the Republicans will blame the Democrats and the Democrats will blame the Republicans, and no one will even stop to think that it was the people of this country who allowed it to happen because they kept asking their government to do things for them that it was never intended be the job of government to do.

People have been so conditioned, (maybe indoctrinated is a better word), into believing that it is their patriotic duty to pay their taxes that they cannot see that the power to tax is the power to destroy. I didn’t say that, the Supreme Court did in 1819 in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland.

During the very first administration under the newly ratified Constitution, the Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, wanted to create a national bank that could monitor and control our nation’s system of credit, and loan money to the government beyond that which it collected from taxes. Sound familiar?

Thomas Jefferson opposed the creation of a national bank, arguing, “To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, ‘to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.’ For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union.”

It truly is a sad testimony of our educational system that what most people know about the document outlining the government of this country can be condensed into one or two chapters in a Civics book. Yet people graduate from high school believing that they are knowledgeable on the subject; and they vote according to their understanding of what they were taught in school.

I have a folder on my computer that is dedicated exclusively to the Constitution; which includes Madison’s Notes on the Constitution, the complete Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, the notes taken during the debates of the State Ratifying Assemblies, and various speeches and editorials given in support of, and opposition to the Constitution. There are 290 documents in that folder; much more information than could be squeezed into 2 chapters in a Civics textbook. Yet I sometimes feel as if I have but scratched the surface; that the truth is still there waiting for me to find it. But when I tell people that they are ignorant regarding their system of government and it is as if I have called their mother a whore.

I don’t mean to specifically criticize Trump supporters, or Trump himself for that matter; yet he did choose Make America Great Again as his campaign slogan. How can those who support him expect to make America great again if they refuse to adhere to the principles and beliefs which made it great the first time?

Albert Einstein is attributed with saying two things which accurately describe the situation in America. The first of these quotes states, “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” The second quotes states, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.”

I often wonder what people think making America great means. I mean, is it the unemployment figures, the closing numbers at the end of a day of trading at Wall Street, is it how safe and secure people feel from internal and external threats? I mean, how would YOU describe a great America?

Is it the fulfillment of the platform of the Democratic or Republican parties? Well, we’ve tried that and if Trump needs to make America great AGAIN it would seem logical to conclude that those tactics haven’t succeeded in making America great. Now I may be wrong, but that sure sounds like we are exhibiting behavior that Einstein described as the symptoms of insanity.

America achieved is independence because of men who valued liberty above all other things. Having read extensively through the speeches and documents from the Revolutionary War period I can safely make the claim that not one of those we call the Founders were worried about whether or not the economy was doing good, whether their government was providing them with comfort, safety and security, or whether their government was keeping the world safe from terrorists. What they cared about was liberty; being free from the arbitrary will of a government that imposed restrictions upon their ability to LIVE; to be free to make their own choices in life.

The Declaration of Independence lists 3 rights which all men can call their own; Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The Declaration of Independence also states that the preservation of those 3 rights is the purpose for which governments are instituted. Yet how much of that liberty have the people of this country let slip through their fingers just so that they can go to sleep at night knowing that their government is taking care of them.

For crying out loud people, we created a government, not a babysitting service!

While Thomas Jefferson remains my favorite Founder, I don’t think there was a man alive during that period who more staunchly defended liberty than Patrick Henry. It was Patrick Henry who told King George III, “Give me liberty or give me death.” It was Patrick Henry who told his fellow Virginians, “If this be treason…make the most of it.” Patrick Henry was not one to mince words; he was not concerned with whether or not what he said conformed to political correctness; Patrick Henry spoke his mind and if people were offended by it, too bad.

It’s funny how catch phrases have a way of catching people’s attention; while they ignore the substance and context in which they were spoken. But I shouldn’t be so surprised; after all, that is why they call the CATCH phrases; because they CATCH your attention. Henry is best known for his catch phrase, “Give me liberty or give me death.” Yet I wonder how many people have found a quiet spot in their home and read the entire speech from which that quote was taken.

If you really want to know how to make America great again, you NEED to read that speech. America did not become great because our government passed some law saying, “America shall now be a great nation.” America became great because the people were free of interference in their lives by their government; it became great because liberty was in abundance.

It’s quite telling that the staunchest defender of liberty refused to attend the convention which produced our constitution; saying he smelled a rat in Philadelphia. It also comes as no surprise that Henry was among the staunchest critics of the proposed Constitution, saying, “It is said eight States have adopted this plan. I declare that if twelve States and a half had adopted it, I would, with manly firmness, and in spite of an erring world, reject it. You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.”

Shortly after saying that Henry also bemoaned the fact that he saw the spirit of liberty fading in America, to be replaced with the desire for a strong centralized government that could provide safety, security, and comfort for the people of this country. Henry stated those sentiments as follows, “But 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.”

I wonder what he’d have to say about us Americans now?

America was made great because the people loved and enjoyed an abundance of freedom; which is simply another word for liberty. Liberty and law are like two sides of a see saw; when there is an abundance of one, there is very little of the other. If we have an abundance of liberty there are very few laws telling us what we can and cannot do. On the other hand, if there are laws governing every aspect of our lives, we have very little liberty; or as Terrence Stamp might have said about it in the Adjustment Bureau; the illusion of liberty.

America was made great by the people of this country; not by anything their government did for them. If you want to make America great you need to change your way of thinking as to how that can be accomplished. Instead of asking government to do it for you, you need to take the bull by the horns and begin making it great yourself; you need to tell government to stay the hell out of your way and let you be free.

America was made great because there were more people like Patrick Henry than there were those who relied upon Uncle Sam to take care of their every need. America will only be made great again if more people start thinking and acting like Patrick Henry, and not a bunch of slaves who bow down and kiss the feet of their masters and rejoice in selecting a new one every 4 years.

And, as a public service, allow me to reproduce Patrick Henry’s entire speech to the Virginia Assembly in 1775. You know, just so you can get an idea of what kind of person you need to become if you truly care about making America great again.

So, without further ado, I present to you Patrick Henry’s famous speech of March 23, 1775:

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

The other day at work I mentioned to someone that there ought to be national holidays honoring John Wilkes Booth; the man who assassinated Abraham Lincoln, and Aaron Burr; the man who shot Alexander Hamilton in a duel. I was told that talk like that would get me put on a government watch list. As corrupt as our government is, I think it is the duty of every patriot to be on at least one watch list. I’m pretty sure I’m already on two of them; possibly more.

Some of you may know this, but I served in the military for 13 years; getting out when the Air Force offered incentive bonuses for E-5’s and E-6’s to separate or face possible RIF’s, (Reduction in Force), or mandatory cross training into another career field. When I was stationed at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida I met a guy and we became best buddies. After I got out we remained in contact for years…until 9/11 that is. Upon separating my friend went to work for the TSA, (Transportation Safety Administration), working at the airports in the D.C. area.

After 9/11 I began writing articles critical of the TSA’s blatant violations of the 4th Amendment. One day I got an angry e-mail from my friend, telling me to cease and desist contacting him with my, as he called them, unpatriotic rants; I guess he fell for the whole ‘Either you’re with us, or you are with the terrorists’ bullshit. Anyway, my friend basically ended our friendship because he believed my rants to be unpatriotic.

Oh, one other thing he said; he also mentioned that he had submitted my name to his superiors as a potential threat; meaning he turned me in as a possible domestic terrorist – all because I was defending the 4th Amendment. I suppose he forgot that at one point he had taken an oath to support and defend it also; I suppose a paycheck and a misguided sense of what it means to be a patriot is more important to him than the rights his employer is guilty of violating.

That’s one watchlist I’m probably on. Then there is the time I was returning from a vacation to the Philippines to visit my wife’s family in Cebu. One of my wife’s sisters is married to a guy who makes amazing belt buckles which are shaped like guns; everything from revolvers to semi-automatic with moving slides. These belt buckles are about the size of a can of dipping snuff; Copenhagen or Skoal. Well he gave me one that was a perfect replica of a snub nosed .357 magnum; complete with revolving cylinder.

I placed this item into my carry-on luggage because I wanted to make absolutely sure it did not get lost coming back to the States. I went through 5 screening stations at the International Airport in Manila; only having them ask to see it one time before allowing me to continue. Then, when I got to the final screening station some dickweed TSA agent confiscated it; saying that according to TSA Regulations, no images or replicas of firearms were allowed on international flights.

I told this dumbass that it was a belt buckle, and what was I going to do, hijack a plane with a belt buckle? Apparently common sense had no affect on this guy, because he took it anyway. So I rolled up my sleeve and showed him a tattoo on my left arm and said, “Are you going to amputate my arm too you stupid motherfucker?” Sorry for the language, but I was really angry. Anyway, the guy reaches into a drawer and pulls out a form with the official seal of the Department of Homeland Security on it and tells me I must fill it out before being allowed to board the plane. So I’m sure that little incident also landed me on a watchlist as well. And the tattoo I showed him?

After I made reference to my thoughts about national holidays for Booth and Burr on Facebook, someone posted the following:

I’m sure there are a few of those categories that I fall under; most likely justifying me being put onto the watchlists of a couple other government entities as well. What does it say about the patriotism of people when they fear being placed on a watchlist which is being compiled by a bunch of criminals who violate the Constitution in almost everything they do?

Were our Founding Fathers concerned with whether or not what they said might be sufficient grounds to justify their government focusing its attention upon them, and their activities? Were our Founders fearful that what they said might be considered as treasonous? I don’t think so, in fact Patrick Henry once said, “If this be treason…make the most of it.”

I have often wondered how many people in this country fear speaking out simply because if they do they will lose friends, or lose their job because they have offended people. I remember a year or so ago the company I work for held a workplace violence seminar after the news had reported on someone bringing a gun to work and opening fire upon his co-workers. Since the plant I work for runs multiple shifts they had more than one of these seminars; and I was scheduled to attend the afternoon one.

When I showed up for work I was told that during the morning seminar someone had approached the speakers and mentioned that he was fearful for his life because of…you guessed it…me! Supposedly this guy felt that because I write so fervently about my right to keep and bear arms that I posed a threat to his safety; that I was going to bring a gun to work and start blasting away.

Anyway, after my seminar had ended I approached the speakers, (One was a cop or a sheriff and the other was some sort of specialist for the government whose area of expertise was terrorism and workplace threat assessment). I told them that I had heard that someone had mentioned that they feared for their life because there was some gun nut threatening to shoot the place up; to which they said, “Yes, and we’re taking the threat seriously. We will be working with your company to identify and minimize the threat.”

I then shocked them by saying, “Allow me to save you some effort, I’m that guy.” I explained that the things I write are not threats about my anger with my co-workers, or could they be construed in any way to pose a threat to my co-workers. I told them that I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment; to the extent that I think requiring a permit to exercise a constitutionally protected right is utter bullshit…but that I was NOT a threat to anyone at work; unless of course they punch me in the face, which would require that I pay them back in kind.

Both speakers thanked me for coming forward and said that apparently my pro-gun stance had offended this person, and that because he apparently is anti-gun, any discussion revolving around guns, and our right to keep and bear them was to be considered as a threat to him personally. And that was the end of that. The funny thing is, a couple months after this happened I ran into the guy who turned me in at a local Sam’s Club. He said hi, but I just kept going; I didn’t even acknowledge his presence. You know, when I was growing up we had a word for people like that; we called them pussies.
I’ve lost track of the times I’ve been told to tone down my rhetoric because people were complaining about what I say; saying that my words offended them. I suppose I’m going to offend a few more with what I’m about to say, but the British actor Stephen Fry once said something about how people these days are always complaining about being offended by the things other people do or say. Fry’s comments were, “It’s now very common to hear people say, ‘I’m rather offended by that.’ As if that gives them certain rights. It’s actually nothing more… than a whine. ‘I find that offensive.’ It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. ‘I am offended by that.’ Well, so fucking what.”

Our Founding Fathers valued liberty above all else; including whether or not what they said or wrote offended someone. In fact, it is said that John Hancock signed the Declaration of Independence with his big signature just so that jolly old King George could read it without having to put on his eyeglasses.

I’m sure that some of you were taught about the shootout at Lexington and Concord when the British Redcoats attempted to confiscate the arms the Colonists had stored there. I’m sure people remember the story of Paul Revere’s famous ride where he cried, “The British are coming, the British are coming!” But did you also know that, aside from being tasked with confiscating the weapons stored at Lexington and Concord the Redcoats were also tasked with serving arrest warrants for John Hancock and Samuel Adams for their subversive activities?

Do you think they were bothered by this – that they were frightened out of their wits because their names had come to the attention of a tyrant and those charged with enforcing his laws upon the people? Well, if they were anything like me, I think they probably took great pride in the fact that a tyrant was so afraid of them that he issued warrants for their arrest.

I have spoken many times about what might possibly happen were men like Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson alive today; right here in 2018. Do you think they would be hiding in their homes, quaking in their boots because they were afraid that what they did or said might land them on a watchlist maintained by Homeland Security? Do you think they would sit back and meekly obey whatever tyrannical laws their government forced upon them?
No, I think that if those men were alive today they would be just like me; blogging and offending those who bow down in obedience to tyrants. I don’t think Patrick Henry would be telling us we must make better choices at the voting booth, I think he would be saying, “What the hell are you people waiting for; we revolted for far less than what you submit to without a whimper of complaint?”

In 1788, when the constitution was merely a proposal for a system of government, Patrick Henry stood before his fellow Virginians at their State Ratifying Assembly, and declared, “Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings-give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else.” I wonder what he would say to the people of America today; people who are more concerned with choosing candidates who can provide for their comfort and security than they are with preserving the precious jewel of liberty.

But then again, I don’t have to wonder what he would say, because he said it himself immediately he said the abovementioned quote, “But 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.”

You see, the key word in those comments is HAD; Henry believed that at one point the pore of every heart in America beat for liberty; but that he no longer felt that way because they were considering adopting a system of government which was designed in such a manner so as to destroy that liberty.
If you were to be brutally honest with yourself you would see that Henry’s fears were well founded; for the spirit of liberty has, for the most part, died in America. People claim to love it, to cherish it, then they turn around and bow down at the altar of the very entity that has annihilated it. People claim to love liberty, then turn around and tell others that they support those who enforce tyranny upon the peasants…oops, I meant people.

Most people wouldn’t recognize liberty if it came up and introduced itself to them. In fact, most people would slam the door in liberty’s face if it came knocking on their doors. Most people don’t want liberty; they want to be taken care of, protected, have their government provide benefits and subsidies for them. The last thing they want is to have to accept complete and absolute responsibility for their lives, their safety and their security. Most people would rather give up their rights for the promise of these things, and if you ask me, that means most people prefer comfortable servitude over the animating cost of defending their liberty.

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

Our Founders did not fear that what they said or did offended people, or whether it drew the attention of their oppressors; they cared about one thing…LIBERTY; and they were ready to die defending it; unlike the pussified patriots today who ask permission from their masters to exercise their fundamental rights, and who place their oppressors up on pedestals; screaming, “Let’s Make America Great Again.”

If you really want to make America great again you can begin by learning why your government was established; what purposes it was created to serve. Then, and only when you have done that, you can begin by speaking out against every infringement upon your liberty; without regard for whether it offended others or landed you on some government run watchlist.

But that requires balls; and in a country were transgenderism is considered normal, it comes as no surprise that balls are in short supply.

Oh, did I just offend you? Ever stop to ask yourself whether or not that just MIGHT be your conscience trying to tell you something?

I know for a fact that I’m on at least 2 of them; probably more. Let them watch me, it means I’m doing my job as a Patriot exposing the corruption and tyranny of my government. As Patrick Henry said, “If this be treason…make the most of it.” I consider it a badge of honor to be considered a criminal by those who are the real criminals in this country; our government. So let them watch me, add me to their lists. I bet if Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, and Samuel Adams were alive today their names would be on those lists too. So if I’m on their lists, I’m right where I belong…among past and present patriots.

I think deep down inside, everyone wants to be treated fairly. Have you ever stopped to ask yourself if there is a word that describes just that; being treated fairly? Well there is, and that word is justice. I’m sure you’ve heard the word justice before, but did you know that there are two kinds of justice; distributive and commutative?

Distributive justice is explained as follows, “…that virtue whose object is to distribute rewards and punishments to each one according to his merits, observing a just proportion by comparing one person or fact with another, so that neither equal persons have unequal things, nor unequal persons things equal.”

Commutative justice is that “… whose object it is to render to every one what belongs to him, as nearly as may be, or that which governs contracts. To render commutative justice, the judge must make an equality between the parties, that no one may be a gainer by another’s loss.”

The preamble to our constitution states that one of the purposes for which our government was to serve was to ‘establish justice’, which is followed shortly thereafter by another of its purposes, ‘to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.’ Therefore, is it not logical to conclude that if government is not securing the blessings of liberty to those it governs, that justice IS NOT being served?

If government implies the power of making laws, then does it not make sense that the purpose of the laws our government enacts should serve the purposes of establishing justice and securing our liberty; and if government does not do these things then government IS NOT doing its job?

Now I want you to read something that was written back in 1850 by a Frenchman by the name of Frederic Bastiat, “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!”

Bastiat then goes on to say, “Life, faculties, production–in other words, individuality, liberty, property—this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

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.”

How is it that people say that they believe in justice, then turn around and support a system of government that denies them the justice they claim to love? My friend Bart Stewart uses a term to describe the contorted justification people use to support positions that are, more often than not, contradictory. He calls it mental gymnastics; a term that I think fits like a glove.

A perfect example of this mental gymnastics is how some people say that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment; and then these same people declare their support for the murder of unborn children simply because pregnancy is an inconvenience?

When our Constitution was being argued by the various states there were those who felt that it did not go far enough in providing justice and securing liberty for the people. Those who opposed its ratification on these grounds demanded that a Bill of Rights be added to it to place an impenetrable barrier around those rights which government could not, under any circumstances, violate.

In his opinion in the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, Justice Robert H. Jackson held, “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

My rights are independent of yours and neither of us can infringe upon the rights of each other without committing the grossest of crimes; for to deprive a person of their inherent rights is nothing less than an effort to enslave them to your will. Therefore, if I cannot violate your rights, then I cannot ask my government to do it for me; nor can you ask it to do it for you. To say otherwise is to say that you care nothing for justice; to render to every one what belongs to him. My rights are mine and yours belong to your, and for justice to exist we must all mutually respect and defend the rights of others.

Yet fear is a powerful motive and it often leads to a lack of concern for the rights of others. How many rights have we sacrificed due to our fear of something? Well, we have numerous laws which restrict our right to keep and bear arms; simply because we are afraid of becoming the victim of a gun related crime. We have surrendered our right to privacy because we are afraid of becoming a victim of a terrorist attack. We have surrendered our right to freedom of speech and expression because we fear ideas and beliefs which run contrary to our own.

You know what I think people are truly fearful of; liberty, that’s what I think people fear the most. I think people do not want to accept responsibility for their own lives, for their own sustenance, for their own comfort, and for their own security. I think people want a nanny, (in the form of government) who will take care of them and provide for their every need. I sometimes wonder when people are going to start asking that government tuck them into their beds and night and read them a bedtime story. Who knows, maybe government will read them a story about when liberty flourished in America; but I’m not holding my breath about that one.

In a speech to the Virginia Ratifying Assembly, James Madison declared, “It is sufficiently obvious, hat persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted. These rights cannot be separated.”

What is property but that which each of us can lay claim to as being our own? My home is mine, not yours. My income is mine, not yours. My thoughts and beliefs are mine, not yours. My right to defend all of the above is mine, not yours. Any effort to deny me the full enjoyment of my property is a violation of my liberty, and therefore is an INJUSTICE.

A large percentage of the American people believe that government is justified in taxing the people of this country to provide benefits to others; be those benefits be in the form of social service programs or be they in the form of grants or subsidies. Yet is that not simply the taking of one person, or groups money, and giving it away to others? If I were to walk up to someone and pull out a gun and demand that they give me half the money in their wallet or purse, then turn around and donate the money I’d taken to someone in need, I’d still be accused of theft. To use Bart’s phrase, what kind of mental gymnastics do people use to justify their belief that simply because it is government that is doing it, it is acceptable?

Thomas Jefferson didn’t believe government was justified in doing it, and he said so in a letter to Joseph Milligan in 1816, “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

In the 1860’s Lysander Spooner was more blunt in his thoughts on the subject, “The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: Your money, or your life…The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the road side and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber…Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful ‘sovereign,’ on account of the ‘protection’ he affords you.”

The thing about it is that your elected representatives aren’t the ones who come to your home and demand that you pay tribute to them for the services they provide; they have an army of enforcers who do it for them. The IRS ensures that the slaves, oops, I meant people of America pay their taxes. The DEA ensures that people do not take any substance that the government has decreed to be illegal. The FDA decides what medicines you can take to treat illness. The BATF has an army of its own to ensure that the laws regarding alcohol and firearms are obeyed by the people. And then there are the local cops and county sheriffs who also aid and assist in the enforcement of all these laws which have but one purpose; deny people the liberty which is rightfully theirs.

I have nothing against law enforcement – as long as it confines itself to ensuring that justice is served and my liberty is defended. But the moment that law enforcement becomes the tip of the spear, (thanks to Michael Gaddy for that analogy) in the enforcement of unconstitutional laws, they lose my support for their actions.

Thomas Jefferson once said that law is often but the tyrants will, especially when it violates the rights of the individual. Well if my rights are being violated, regardless of the mental gymnastics being used to justify these laws, then those enforcing the law are just as guilty of being tyrants as are those who wrote the laws – or the people who demanded that these laws be written to keep them safe.

The thing people seem unable to understand is that their government has, at their disposal, all manner of enforcing mechanisms to ensure that we the people obey the laws they pass. But where is our enforcing mechanism to ensure that government adheres to the law which governs their actions? I’m not talking about the voting booth; where we vote them out of office if we don’t like the job they’ve been doing; I’m talking about where is our means of obtaining justice for the law that they are guilty of violating; i.e. the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

Twice during the Virginia Ratifying Assembly, Patrick Henry spoke out against this fatal flaw within the Constitution. On June 5, 1788 Henry declared, “The Honorable Gentleman who presides, told us, that to prevent abuses in our Government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. Oh, Sir, we should have fine times indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people. Your arms wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical; no longer democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? ”

Then on June 7, 1788 Henry said, “…there is no real actual punishment for the grossest maladministration. They may go without punishment, though they commit the most outrageous violation on our immunities. That paper may tell me they will be punished. I ask, by what law? They must make the law — for there is no existing law to do it. What — will they make a law to punish themselves? This, Sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility — and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves.”

Our entire justice system, if you can truly call it that, is designed to uphold the laws which our government passes. Yet let me remind you that Jefferson did say that the law is often but the tyrants will, especially when it violates the rights of the individual.

You tell me what law enforcement agency would not throw you out on your ass, or possibly lock you up for psychiatric evaluation if you were to walk in and tell them that you would like for them to arrest your Congressman, Senator, or the President even, for their violation of the Constitution. What judge would hear the case if, by some miracle, the police were to arrest an elected official for violating their oath to support and defend the Constitution?

On his 1975 solo album, rock singer Ted Nugent has a song entitled Stormtroopin in which Derek St Holmes sings, “Where’s the justice, where’s the law? Raise your healthy voice.” Where is the justice when the entire government, both Republicans and Democrats enact laws which deny you the liberty government was instituted to secure? Where is the justice when the entire system which is supposed to ensure that justice is served has become a system designed to give validity to tyranny, and is upheld in our various courts of law?

Where’s the justice indeed.

In 1785 James Madison wrote something that contained the following passage, “The preservation of a free government requires, not merely that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained, but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of the people.

The rulers who are guilty of such encroachment exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are tyrants. The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them and are slaves.”

He immediately followed with this, “It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties–we hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle.”

Today the average American cares little to nothing for justice or liberty; all the care about is comfort and security. Well, when comfort and security come at the cost of liberty and justice, slavery often is the price that is paid; and if you ask me, the time when Americans are forced to pay the piper for their ignorance and apathy quickly approaches.

Tytler did say that, “Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.” If you want my honest opinion, we are in the final stages of that cycle now, and when the end does come people are going to be shaking their heads wondering what the hell just happened.

But that’s okay, it isn’t here yet, so you can go back to your Facebook, your football, your video games, and your online shopping at QVC – all is well in the land of the free and the home of the brave. And if you believe that I have some property on the Moon I’m interested in selling.

Not a week goes by that I do not hear of, or read about, some monument dedicated to a Confederate hero being torn down, all because people believe that the Confederacy fought to perpetuate the institution of slavery in America. I doubt that I will have much success, but I hope that after reading this that some of you might understand the real cause of the, so-called, Civil War; and that it was NOT about freeing the slaves.

In 1864 Confederate General Patrick Cleburne wrote a letter to his fellow officers, stating, “Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late. We can give but a faint idea when we say it means the loss of all we now hold most sacred — slaves and all other personal property, lands, homesteads, liberty, justice, safety, pride, manhood. It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision.”

Now since Cleburne was a general fighting for the Confederacy, his thoughts may be biased towards their cause, yet does that not sound exactly like how people today view those who fought for the Confederacy; they are derided and thought to be either racist or traitors? Well allow me to provide some facts that prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the South did not fight a war just so they could keep their slaves.

I have heard some people say that the monument to Thomas Jefferson should be torn down because he too owned slaves. Are you aware that Jefferson condemned slavery from the earliest years of our nation’s history? Are you aware that in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence he condemned slavery, and laid the cause for it at the feet of King George III?

In the original draft of the Declaration of Independence Jefferson wrote, “…he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce…”

Jefferson’s wording was stricken out by the other members of the Committee of Five because they felt that had they remained it might prevent the remaining Southern States from adopting the Declaration of Independence. Nonetheless Jefferson was correct, as at the time Great Britain was responsible for almost all of the slave trade coming into America.

Let’s put slavery aside for a moment and discuss the condition America found herself in at the end of the American Revolution. The Northern States were the centers of business, banking and commerce, while the South was, for the most part, an agricultural economy. The South produced raw materials such as cotton, rice and indigo, which were then made into goods manufactured in Northern businesses.

When George Washington was elected as our first President under the newly ratified Constitution he chose his former aide de camp, Alexander Hamilton as his Secretary of the Treasury. Hamilton favored a mercantile economy; that is one in which the federal government both aides and protects the business interests of the country against foreign competition.

To foster the growth of our economy Alexander Hamilton proposed that protective tariffs be imposed upon imported goods entering the United States; while at the same time handing out bounties, or subsidies, to help foster the growth of the young American economy. (Sound familiar?)

President George Washington; was of like mind and agreed with Hamilton, so he supported the plans proposed by his Secretary of the Treasury. Jefferson, serving as Secretary of State, opposed these plans, saying they were not in compliance with the powers given Congress by the Constitution. It is said that some of the arguments during President Washington’s cabinet meetings were epic; with Jefferson and Hamilton screaming at each other while President Washington looked on in dismay.

Before the Constitution was even adopted Alexander Hamilton wrote, “If the government be adopted, it is probable general Washington will be the President of the United States. This will insure a wise choice of men to administer the government and a good administration. A good administration will conciliate the confidence and affection of the people and perhaps enable the government to acquire more consistency than the proposed constitution seems to promise for so great a Country. It may then triumph altogether over the state governments and reduce them to an intire subordination, dividing the larger states into smaller districts. The organs of the general government may also acquire additional strength.” (Source: Alexander Hamilton-Conjectures on the Constitution-1787) It would seem that Hamilton was already scheming to reduce the authority and sovereignty of the States and consolidate them into a single indivisible Union under a federal head.

Nonetheless, Jefferson saw the writing on the wall; the fact that Hamilton had Washington’s support; so he resigned as Secretary of State and returned to his home State of Virginia – leaving Washington and Hamilton to implement their plans for a government which favored and supported business and manufacturing.

I don’t think people understand the significance of protective tariffs, and how they affected the antebellum South. As the South did not produce much in the way of manufactured goods they were forced to either purchase them from sources outside the U.S. or buy them from manufacturers in the North. With protective tariffs the cost of purchasing those goods from foreign suppliers went up dramatically; sometimes as much as 45%. On the other hand, if the South wished to purchase them from the North, shipping costs were added onto them, raising the price for the purchasers of those goods.

Of course the North, being much closer to the points of manufacture for these goods, did not have to pay the increased prices that the South did. On top of that, all the profits; both from the sale of Northern goods, or the revenue collected from the tariffs, were being spent in the North to build up Northern infrastructure and support Northern business and industry. To put it in simple terms, the South was being raped of its wealth.

Now one might ask, why didn’t the South’s representatives in Congress do something to stop them from suffering under the unfair tariffs which placed such a heavy burden upon them; and you are wise to ask that question. Did you know that during the debates leading up to ratification that Patrick Henry warned that this exact scenario would occur? Mr. Henry is quoted as saying, “When oppressions may take place, our representatives may tell us, We contended for your interest, but we could not carry our point, because the representatives from Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, etc., were against us. Thus, sir, you may see there is no real responsibility.”

As our country grew the immigrants flocked to where the opportunities were; which was primarily in the North were all the jobs were being created. The South had its labor force; as reprehensible as it was, so the North grew in both size, and in the degree of representation in Congress – making it difficult for the South to obtain fair representation in the passage of laws.

In 1828 United States Senator Thomas Hart Benton gave a speech in which he said, “I feel for the sad changes, which have taken place in the South, during the last fifty years. Before the Revolution, it was the seat of wealth, as well as hospitality. Money, and all it commanded, abounded there. But how is it now? All this is reversed. Wealth has fled from the South, and settled in regions north of the Potomac; and this in the face of the fact, that the South, in four staples alone, has exported produce, since the Revolution, to the value of eight hundred millions, of dollars; and the North has exported comparatively nothing….Under Federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue….Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourths, of the annual expense of supporting the Federal Government; and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing, or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of government expenditures. That expenditure flows in an opposite direction—it flows northwardly, in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappears from the South and rises up in the North…taking from the South, and returning nothing to it.”

How would you feel if you lived in a State such as California or Florida and all the tax dollars being collected from your State were being spent on internal improvements of, say, Michigan? I think you might feel that you were not obtaining fair and equal representation in your government; at least that is how I would feel.

In fact, prior to the onset of the Civil War the Vice President of the United States declared, “The North had adopted a system of revenue and disbursements in which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed upon the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the North… the South, as the great exporting portion of the Union, has in reality paid vastly more than her due proportion of the revenue.” (Source: The Clay/Calhoun Compromise of 1850)

Up until the election of 1860 the South had felt that they had one thing going in their favor; all of the Presidents had, for the most part, been Southern Democrats. This meant that they had someone on their side in the Oval Office who could at least put the brakes on the laws being sent to the President by Congress; thereby protecting the interests of the Southern States.

That all changed when Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, won the 1860 Presidential election. With the election of a Republican the South felt that it was left with two choices; either accept the fact that they are about to get screwed, or choose to exercise their right to withdraw from a voluntary union of States and establish their own system of government which would better serve their interests. After all, doesn’t the Declaration of Independence say that this is the right of the people, “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.”

The South did not declare war upon the Union, they simply withdrew from it. It was Abraham Lincoln who declared war when he raised an army of 75,000 to invade the South. It was Abraham Lincoln who instigated that war when he sent Union soldiers into the sovereign soil of South Carolina to resupply Fort Sumter. All the South wanted was to be left in peace so that they could manage their own internal affairs in a manner which best suited their needs. Abraham Lincoln denied them that right; thereby throwing down the fundamental principle America was founded upon, the right to self determination.

If the freeing of all those held in servitude was his goal for initiating war, why didn’t Lincoln say so from the very beginning? Yet in his Inaugural Address not only did Lincoln say that he had no desire or inclination to interfere with slavery, he also said he supported the ratification of a constitutional amendment that would have made slavery permanent in the United States? (Read his first Inaugural Address if you don’t believe me)

The first major battle of the Civil War occurred right outside our nation’s capital, in Manassas, Virginia. Known as the Battle of Bull Run, the people of the North flocked to the hillsides surrounding the battlefield to see the ‘rebels’ crushed by the army of the North, putting a quick end to this rebellion. They were shocked when the tide turned and the Union soldiers were sent scampering back to D.C. with their tails between their legs.

It is said that Stonewall Jackson wanted to chase them into Washington D.C. and end the war right then and there, but President Jefferson Davis denied his requests to pursue the fleeing Northern Army. I it also said that Jefferson Davis later regretted that decision. But I get off topic…

Lincoln’s reasons for initiating this war are best explained through his own words, taken from an 1862 letter to Horace Greeley, “I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.”

If slavery was not the cause of the Civil War, then what was? As I have proven, the North was benefitting mightily from the revenue being collected from taxes that were paid by the South. If the South were to be allowed to secede, that revenue would dry up and the government would find itself unable to fund its operations.

Numerous newspaper articles attest to this as being the true cause of the war. For instance, in 1861 the New Orleans Daily Crescent published an editorial, stating, “They (the South) know that it is their import trade that draws from the peoples pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interest. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the union.” Of course that is a Southern newspaper, and therefore probably biased towards the South. So let’s see what Northern newspapers had to say about it.

-In one single blow our foreign commerce may be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruin. Let the South adopt the free trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow. (The Chicago Daily Times, December 10, 1860)

-The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing… it is very clear that the South gains by this process and we lose. No…we must not let the South go. (The Union Democrat Manchester, New Hampshire, February 19, 1861)

-… either the (federal) revenue from duties (protective tariff) must be collected in the ports of the rebel states or the ports be closed to importations from abroad… If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe… (The New York Evening Post, March 1861)

It is clear from these editorials that taxes and funding were the primary causes which led the North to bind the South to the Union against their will, not slavery. Yet there were those in the North who felt the South should be allowed to leave in peace. Horace Greeley, (the same Horace Greeley to whom Lincoln wrote regarding his justification for the war), published an editorial in which he states, “Whenever a considerable section of our Union is resolved to go out of the Union, we shall resist all coercive measures to keep them in. We hope never to live in a Republic when one section is pinned to another by bayonets. Those who would rush on carnage to defeat the separation demanded by the popular vote of the Southern people would clearly place themselves in the wrong.”

We all know the South lost the Civil War, but is that all that was lost; the cause of a few unruly rebels who sought to tear the Union asunder? If they, [The South], were in fact committing treason against the Union, why were none of them hung for it? Could it be that those in the North knew that should they go to trial that the verdict might actually condemn the North; for secession was still widely held to be constitutional? In fact, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Salmon P. Chase, said as much regarding the capture of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, “If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion…”

Slavery was not the cause of the Civil War. In fact, the freeing of slaves did not enter into the picture until the war had raged on for nearly two years. Lincoln may have realized that after the war ended the public, and the world for that matter, might turn its attention to him and his justification for waging a war which cost well over half a million lives. He probably knew that the world would not speak kindly of his legacy if it viewed the war from the perspective of a government attempting to bind one portion of the country to it against their will. Besides, prior to the issuance of his Emancipation Proclamation the Union Army was, for lack of better terminology, getting its ass kicked by the Confederacy. They had lost the both the first and second Battles of Bull Run, had lost numerous men at Antietam; which resulted in a stalemate for both sides; and had suffered the most lopsided defeat in U.S. military history at Fredericksburg. Lincoln knew that if the death toll continued, he would be viewed as a tyrant unless he could give the North the moral high ground; so he decided to issue the Emancipation Proclamation; which in and of itself was a farce.

The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the States where the Union Army had not yet asserted control; it was null and void in areas held by the Union Army, in loyal Border States like Kentucky, and it did not apply at all to any Northern State. Read it yourself if you don’t believe me; (I’m tired of doing ALL your research for you)

Before he became our nation’s 28th President, Woodrow Wilson was a scholar, serving as Chair of Jurisprudence and Political Economy at Princeton University. While serving at that position Wilson wrote a History of the American People, a 5 volume set covering the history of America. Found within his epic work is the following, “It was necessary to put the South at a moral disadvantage by transforming the contest from a war waged against states fighting for their independence into a war waged against states fighting for the maintenance and extension of slavery…and the world, it might be hoped, would see it as a moral war, not a political; and the sympathy of nations would begin to run for the North, not for the South.”

That is why the war suddenly went from one to keep the Union together to one which was fought to free the slaves. I’ll bet you didn’t know that after Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation that over 10,000 Union soldiers deserted; saying they were not fighting a war to free the slaves. I’ll bet you didn’t know that in New York, riots occurred and freed slaves were attacked by conscripts who did not want to fight for the freedom of black men.
Of course you didn’t know any of these things, because the history books have been written by the victors of that conflict; and to tell the truth would paint them in a bad light. So you have been lied to, and you have fallen for that lie. Had you been told the truth there is a very good chance that Lincoln would not have a monument in Washington D.C. dedicated to him, nor would his face be found staring down upon you at Mount Rushmore.

Now I’m going to throw something out here for y’all to think about. It seems that, after studying history for the past couple decades, that justice has a way of ensuring that it is served. Both the man who implemented the policies which set the stage for the Civil War; Alexander Hamilton, and the man responsible for waging that war; Abraham Lincoln felt the hand of justice upon them. Hamilton felt it when Aaron Burr shot him on a dueling field in New Jersey, and Lincoln felt it at Ford’s theater when John Wilkes Booth felled him with an assassin’s bullet. If you want my honest opinion on it, we should have national holidays dedicated to both Burr and Booth; but that’s just me.

One thing is certain, the outcome of the Civil War did far more than defeat the South, it abolished everything our country once stood for, and we have been living under an illegitimate system of government ever since. As Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall declared in 1987, “While the Union survived the Civil War, the Constitution did not. In its place arose…the Fourteenth Amendment.”

The South may have lost, the North may have written the history of that war. But I’d be willing to bet my life upon one thing, had Thomas Jefferson, had Patrick Henry, had Samuel Adams been alive in 1861, they would have been on the side of the Confederacy. They understood tyranny and recognized it whatever disguise it presented itself; and Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant. I will not honor him, nor his legacy…an illegitimate government that enslaves the people of this country to its arbitrary will. What we live under today is the legacy of two men; Hamilton and Lincoln; and if you don’t believe that you have not understood a single thing you have just read.

You can bow down and worship this government if you so choose, but not me; I will forever be a rebel; and if you don’t like it you can kiss my ass!

When people discuss politics today it is typically from either a Republican or a Democratic viewpoint. Rarely do I see the Constitution come up in any political discussion in America; either among the people or on the news. That just boggles my mind; the fact that the document which created our system of government is never brought up in political debates.

I can’t speak for every person living in this country, I can only speak for the people I have spoken to regarding the current state of affairs in this country; but it seems to me that the Constitution is insignificant when it comes to their deciding who to vote for, and why they are voting for that particular candidate.

Ten years ago I thought I had a fairly decent grasp of what the Constitution says; and more importantly, what it means. Today I feel as if I am back to square one; having uncovered a multitude of new documents from the period which saw America transform herself from a Confederacy to a Republic.

I don’t know what it is about me that causes me to be this way, but I could spend every waking moment reading through the arguments both for and against the ratification of the Constitution, and the various State Ratifying Assemblies – that stuff just fascinates me. I fully understand that most people find that type reading boring; hell I found it boring back when I was forced to sit down and listen to dry lectures on the material in high school.

According to polling statistics there are 252 million people living in this country who are old enough to vote. Let’s just, for arguments sake, say that 3/4 of them have NEVER read the Constitution. That means that out of 252 million only 63 million people have read the document which created their system of government. Yet a large percentage of these people vote; with many believing that they shouldn’t be required to understand the system of government they are voting people into.

Let’s take this another step further. Out of the 63 million that may, let’s say that 3/4 of them have never seen or picked up a copy of the Federalist Papers; the marketing campaign ran by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay to generate support for the Constitution among the people of New York. So now, instead of having 63 million semi-informed voters we have 15.75 million informed voters.

Now, as is the case with almost every political debate, there are always two sides to an argument. Therefore, if the authors of the Federalist Papers were arguing in favor of ratification of the Constitution, there must have been an argument being made opposing ratification. Those who opposed the ratification of the Constitution comprised some of the leading figures of the American Revolution; including Patrick Henry whose immortal words, “Give me liberty or give me death” sparked the hearts and minds of many towards the cause of American Independence. That deduction reduces the number of informed voting age Americans from over 15 million to under 4 million.

I fully support freedom of speech and the right of the people to form opinions on a wide range of issues; but for the love of God, if your opinions have no basis in fact then please consider educating yourself as to the facts on an issue you are so fond of expounding upon!

When it comes to making a decision of who will represent you in our system of government, or what powers that government is going to exercise on your behalf, whose word are you going to take in regards to what are, and what aren’t the legitimate powers granted our government? Are you going to trust the news media; the people who may, or may not be seeking to exercise absolute dominion over you? Are you going to trust the author of some high school civics text book?

Let me tell you something – trust no one; including me. Did you know that during the convention which produced the Constitution James Madison took notes; which were published after his death in 1836? Did you know that those notes are easily found on the internet? So, using my standard deduction I am betting that of the 4 million who may or may not have read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers that only 1 million people have sought out that much knowledge regarding the establishing of their system of government.

Madison’s notes contain a very telling look at the various plans proposed for a system of government in America; including everything from Alexander Hamilton’s proposal for a monarchy to James Madison’s belief that the States should be reduced to mere appendages to a highly centralized federal head.
But, I’m not quite done yet. All the aforementioned reference material is good if you want an understanding of how the Constitution came into existence, and what arguments were being made both in support of and in opposition to it. Yet if you really want to know what type of government we have, what powers it was given, and the relationship between it and the States, then you MUST read the debates of the State Assemblies who actually ratified the Constitution.

It was by their consent to the Constitution that life was given that document. Madison himself said the Constitution, “…was nothing more than the draft of a plan, nothing but a dead letter until life and validity were breathed into it by the voice of the people, speaking through the several State Conventions.”

To truly, and I mean TRULY understand what type of government we have, and what powers it was granted, we MUST know what those who ultimately voted to adopt it were told it would have during the State Ratifying Assemblies. You can listen to what politicians, Supreme Court Justices, the news media, and your teachers say about it; but if you want the truth then you need to look to the State Conventions; for it is based upon the promises made to them regarding what powers this system of government would exercise that the decision to adopt the proposed plan was made.

So, using my continuing reduction of 3/4 of the voting age people, that leaves us with 250,000 Americans who may or may not really know what the Constitution means.

How far along on this progression of knowledge are you? Are you among those who have NEVER read the Constitution? Are you among those who have read it, but don’t care what it says? Are you among those who have read it, but haven’t read any of the arguments both for and against it?

No matter where you find yourself along this progression, I’m betting that you all believe you are making informed decisions at the polls. The truth is, you’re not making informed decisions, you are making decisions based upon a controlled system, the limits of which are defined by those who fear the day that you finally break free of their grasp and begin seeking out the truth for yourself.

Why do you think it is that a comprehensive and thorough education regarding the history and ratification of the document which outlines our system of government is not being taught to your children; and which you yourselves probably didn’t receive either? Awhile back I saw a cartoon which explained this perfectly. I need not discuss the characters in the cartoon, only the caption; which read, “Those in power will never teach you the information you need to overthrow them.”

They want you ignorant, they want you content to argue and bicker over small issues or political party differences because as long as you are arguing over those things you won’t be focusing on the fact that both political parties are corrupt machines that produce candidates whose only allegiance is to a corrupt and broken system that enslaves the people.

The knowledge to break free of your chains of servitude is there, waiting for you to come looking for it. I have most of it saved to my computer and would be more than willing to share it with anyone who has the desire to spend hours reading through it. But therein lies the problem, the desire, for the most part, isn’t there. Hell, the debates from the Virginia Ratifying Convention consist of over 450 pages of notes…and that’s just one State!

Who is going to spend that much time reading something like that when there are TV shows to watch, video games to play, beer to drink, or whatever else it is that occupies the free time of most people.

Ten years ago I had barely scratched the surface of this material, yet I was told that I should be teaching 8th Grade Civics because I knew more than the instructor did. That was then and today I know far more than I did ten years ago. I personally know people who know far more than I do; and it is my goal to one day be as knowledgeable as they are.

Our country was founded by men who valued knowledge, valued a thorough and comprehensive understanding of, not only their system of government, but of all the types of government that have existed since the dawn of man. Today America is populated by a people who could care less what the legitimate powers their government is supposed to hold. They vote, not based upon what the law says are the powers given their government, but what they their opinions tell them are the powers they THINK government should be exercising – and there is an ocean of difference between thinking something and knowing without a doubt that it is based upon fact.

America will perish as a land based upon individual liberty if the people of this country do not pull their heads out of their asses and start caring about the damage their ignorance is doing to it. It may not happen this week, or the next, but it will happen; and when it does you will wish you had listened to people like me.

Our Founding Fathers did not wait until tyrants had obtained a stranglehold upon the government and reduced the people to serfs who keep the federal plantation running; they saw the danger in allowing tyrants to establish precedents and they rose up against it. We may have waited too long to halt the progression from liberty to tyranny, but to remain silent and simply watch it happen is not my style. So I will always be hear, cajoling, beseeching, and haranguing you until you stop trusting your government. For if there is one thing that I have learned, it is that the closer one gets to the truth, the less friends they will have. That is because most people don’t want to hear the truth; they are content to believe the lies that have been spoon fed to them throughout their lives. They are content to be slaves as long as they are comfortable slaves.

Maybe that’s what sets people like me apart from the rest of the herd; we value knowledge, we value the truth; and most of all, we value liberty. The rest of you…well one look at your Facebook posts give me a pretty good idea of what you value. And that is why, if you ask me, this country is screwed.

“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t
true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
~Soren Kikrkegaard~

I want to begin by saying I don’t think all of y’all are stupid. Sometimes it may come across that way, but I know you’re not stupid, it’s just that your heads have been packed full of so many lies and so much bullshit that there is no room in them for the truth.

The truth in America, I fear, is dying. If not dying, it is systematically being hidden and replaced by progressive books and articles which go around masquerading as the truth. People read these things then think that they are reading fact; when the truth is that they are being programmed – indoctrinated if you will – into believing things that are 180 degrees out of kilter with the truth.

A perfect example of this can be found when I made a trip to Barnes and Noble yesterday to look for books to add to my ever growing collection of research material. While I was browsing the shelf I found a book entitled We the People: A Progressive Reading of the Constitution for the Twenty First Century. For me, the dead giveaway was the use of the word progressive in the title; meaning that it was the authors interpretation of what the Constitution says and means; not anything supported by those involved in the process of writing and ratifying it.

I fully support freedom of speech; the right of people to say, and publish, whatever they want. The problem lies in the fact that people are going to buy this book and believe what is said inside it as the gospel truth; when most likely that isn’t the case.

While at the bookstore I shot a photo of the aforementioned book with my wife’s cell phone and posted it to Facebook; which led to an interesting conversation between two of my close friends. My friends began discussing how certain documents and historical records are becoming harder and harder to find, or gain access to. One of my friends told about a document he once obtained a copy of from the Library of Congress; he sent a screenshot of the document to a friend, who then contacted the Library of Congress to obtain a photocopy of it himself. The Library of Congress sent him a note saying the document was no longer available to the public.

This document did not contain the launch codes for our nuclear arsenal, it was merely a document from our nation’s past that the Library of Congress has decided the public no longer has access to. I have no idea what justification they used to determine that this document is no longer available for public viewing, but it causes one to wonder what else the government is guilty of hiding from us.

I, myself, have found it increasingly difficult to do web searches for source documents for specific quotes. A few years back I got burned when I used quotes attributed to Thomas Jefferson which, were in fact, made up. Someone had asked me for the source material for those quotes and while attempting to find it I discovered that the quotes were fraudulent. So now, whenever I can, I attempt to locate the source material for every quote I use.

I used to be able to enter the quote into a search engine and multiple webpages would be provided; each containing the source material for that quote. Now when I try that I find articles where that quote has been used, but not the actual source document from which it came. If I do find it, it is buried deep amongst the hundreds of pages of suggestions provided by the search engine.

Since I began saving source documents I have accumulated over 750 documents dating back to the very beginning of America’s history. I have a friend who has over 10,000 such documents, plus floor to ceiling bookshelves containing many books you can no longer find in bookstores.

I am not trying to brag about my collection of data, or his for that matter. What I am saying is that there is a world of information out there that people simply don’t know exists, or for that matter, care that it exists. Then, when idiots like this author Erwin Chemerinski writes a short book on the Constitution, filled with progressive propaganda, people buy it and believe what it has to say. After all, it is much easier to read a short book containing between 1-200 pages than it is to spend hours scouring old documents and speeches for what those who wrote and ratified the Constitution actually said it means.

It appears to me as if a concerted effort is underway to erase the truth about the entire history of this country; from its very founding, up through the Civil War, ending with how people view government today. George Orwell was almost prophetic when he wrote of his Ministry of Truth in his novel 1984, “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”

While that may sound like a conundrum, (a confusing or difficult concept), it is actually quite simple when you add in the following, “A nation that is ignorant of its past, is a nation that is ripe for deception and manipulation. Therefore, it is not what happened, but rather what people believe happened which determines the present actions of a nation.”

If someone, or group of men, can control what is being taught about the history of a country, or its system of government, it becomes easy for them to shift the public attention away from the truth and put them on the pathway to where they will surrender their freedom and unquestioningly obey whatever laws their government imposes upon them.

That is where we are as a country today when the overwhelming majority of its people simply don’t care about the truth, or reject it because it conflicts with WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN TAUGHT.

Dresden James once said something so accurate that it borders on genius, “When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.”

While I know I am not alone in my pursuit of the truth, I sometimes feel as if I am the only sane person in a lunatic asylum. Not only am I considered a raving madman by some, I am considered dangerous by others simply because I have chosen to learn what powers those who ratified the Constitution understood it would exercise over the States, and I speak out openly about each and every infraction of the limitations imposed upon government – regardless of which party commits them.

When I condemn the Democrats the Republicans applaud my words, but when I turn around and accuse the Republicans of the same crimes I am told, “Would you rather we had a Democrat in office?” No, I would rather we had nobody in that office if those seeking it do not intend to support and defend the very document which grants them any authority.

When I attempt to share the knowledge I have acquired I am, for the most part, ignored. Sometimes it is because of the cognitive dissonance which people experience when they encounter information which causes them to question their own belief systems. Other times it is simply because people just don’t care about what I have to say; instead choosing to focus their attention upon things that really don’t mean anything in the long run. And then there are those who feel threatened by what I say because they have no facts to back up their position.

Of the three groups, those who fear me are the most vocal in their opposition to what I say; using insults, threats, and slander against my integrity to call into question my integrity and truthfulness. Since they cannot refute the facts, they insult the messenger to draw attention away from the facts. But, as Orwell also said, “If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear.”

So I’m going to tell you something that most of you probably do not want to hear. If you vote, and you vote for any candidate who runs on a campaign that does not conform to what those who ratified the Constitution would be the powers exercised by this government, you are as much a part of the problem as are the corrupt politicians who have systematically destroyed the Republic established in 1787.

If you support this government in the passing of laws that are not among those specifically listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, you are part of the problem. If you support law enforcement when law enforcement enforces unconstitutional laws upon the people of this country, you are part of the problem.

There is a remedy for all that is wrong in this country, but it first requires that each and every one of us, or at least a significant majority of the people seek out the truth regarding both the purpose why their government was established, and the powers it was given. Then, and only then, can the people, en masse, tell the government that they will not obey any unconstitutional law; that those they elect for the positions of power within their State will not allow the federal government to encroach upon their power and sovereignty, and that the preservation of our liberty becomes the driving force in every law they pass.

But so long as the people keep voting for candidates who promise to do more for them to keep them safe, comfortable, secure and happy, then we will stay on the path we are until the government becomes so tyrannical that there can be no denying it, or the whole thing collapses because the government has borrowed us into insolvency.

Bigger is not always better; especially when it comes to what government does. More is not always better when it comes to what services the government provides. And the lesser of two evils is still evil.

If the American people truly want their country back, they are going to have to earn it back by exhibiting the same dedication to truth as did Patrick Henry when he said, “For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.” Then once the people have made that change in their attitudes, they must then find the courage to declare, “Give me liberty or give me death.”
Anything else is a waste of your time. Anything else is supporting the very enemies who seek to do away with your liberty. And, if I’m not mistaken, that is the very definition of treason; and far as I know, is still punishable by death.

I know that there are some of my friends, particularly on Facebook, who are ardent supporters of President Trump. Among them I think the majority only want what is best for America. Of course there are those who only voted for him to prevent Hillary from getting elected, but for the most part they are a minority. I have never sought to question their love of America; only their understanding of how our system of government was originally designed to function.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t entirely blame them for their ignorance; it was forced upon them by those who we put our faith into to provide us, and our children for that matter, with a good education – our public schools. That said, knowledge is readily attainable if one desires to seek it out. Also, one has to be willing to abandon all the garbage they have been taught so that their minds are open to the truth.

I am reminded of the story of a university professor who went to visit a famous Zen Master. While visiting the Zen master quietly began pouring tea into the professor’s cup. When he had filled it to the brim he continued to pour until tea began spilling over the side. The professor said, “Stop, my cup is full.” To which the Zen master said, “Exactly. That is you, your cup is full. How can I teach you about Zen unless you empty your cup?”

To me, that perfectly describes many people in this country. I think a good many of them are basically good, they basically want what is best for America but their minds are so full of lies and perverted interpretations of what purpose government is supposed to serve that they cannot make the best decision for what is truly good for America – they need to empty their cup and fill it to the brim with the truth.

For those of you who are avid Trump supporters, allow me to ask you a question. I know many of you voted for Trump for the simple reason to act as a ‘speed bump’ for the agenda of the left. Let’s just say that Trump actually is actively attempting to hinder the implementation of leftist, or Socialist, policies within our government. What’s your plan for when Trump is no longer President; after he’s completed his two terms – that’s assuming he gets elected for a second term?

When I was growing up I always heard the old saying, “Don’t put all your eggs in one basket”, which means, don’t risk everything on the success of one venture. I think that is what many Trump supporters have done; placed all their hopes and dreams upon the success, or failure, of Donald Trump to make America great again. Hell, I think that is what happens in EVERY presidential election; but I won’t go there right now. If you ask me, that is just kicking the can down the road; eventually you’re going to catch up to the can and have to deal with it, or kick it down the road, only to have to deal with it later.

To a one, almost every Trump supporter I know has said that since he self-funded his campaign he is not beholden to the special interests who have their claws into Congress and have controlled our government for years – if not decades. Let’s say that is true; who are you going to vote for in 2020; or 2024, assuming Trump is re-elected? Who is Trump going to pass the torch to so that they can carry on with the work he began? Mike Pence? I don’t think Pence has the ability to win an election for dog catcher; let alone the presidency. So who will you vote for?

See what I mean about putting all your eggs in one basket? I honestly don’t know what people are thinking. Do they think that if Trump truly is successful in making America great that it will STAY GREAT after he leaves office? Or do you even think that far down the road?

The way our system of government was designed, the success or failure of it; the measure of its integrity or corruption, rests entirely upon the people of this country. We the people, at least those who lived in 1787, voted to accept the constitution which was proposed to them to replace the Articles of Confederation – which was the law governing the existing government at the time.

We the people, and I’m speaking generally here, accepted the government outlined by the Constitution based upon the promises made to the various State ratifying assemblies as to the specifics regarding what powers it would wield; the relationship between its sphere of authority and that of the State Legislatures, and the threat it may, or may not, have posed to our individual liberty.

Our system is supposed to be one which rests upon the premise of consent of the people. After all, we do elect those who make and enforce our laws, don’t we? I won’t go into the Supreme Court, which has transformed our limited government into a broad and general one with their interpretations of the Constitution; for that would take an entire article unto itself.

Therefore, if there are 320 plus million people in this country, they are responsible for determining the character and integrity of 535 elected officials. If our government is corrupt and evil, if Congress is corrupt and evil, it is because WE PUT THOSE PEOPLE THERE!!!

It is my firm held belief that our Constitution was either designed intentionally to produce the government we have today, or that it was written in such a way to get more people to accept it that it contained many loopholes that would allow it to eventually become the government we have today.

Yet it did not have to be like this; we were not destined to have a corrupt and despotic government. On the final day of the Constitutional Convention a speech was read to the delegates by James Wilson by Ben Franklin – Franklin was too infirm to stand and read it himself, so he asked Mr. Wilson to read it for him. In this speech Franklin wrote, “…I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.”

Upon leaving the convention after it had voted to adopt the final draft of the Constitution, Franklin reiterated those sentiments when a woman asked him what type of government they had produced. Franklin’s response was, “A Republic madam, if you can keep it.”

In both those instances Franklin places the responsibility for the character of our government squarely upon the people; meaning that the future of this country rests entirely upon the character, integrity, and knowledge levels of those who vote for those 535 people who represent them.

How can anyone tell me that they are making informed decisions when they vote when they cannot hold an intelligent debate over such things as the intent of the general welfare or necessary and proper clauses of the Constitution? How can anyone tell me that our government, as it exists today, is what was intended by those who wrote and ratified it when the States are no longer crucial and essential parts of the legislative process? How can anyone tell me that they are making informed decisions at the polls when they don’t know the intent of the 10th Amendment and how it was designed to limit the federal government’s ability to interfere in the affairs of the individual States?

America, your cups are full and you are making your decisions based upon lies you have been taught in school about why your government was established. Even if Trump truly is the savior you all claim he is, the continued erosion of your liberty will continue once he leaves office.

For our government to be truly good it requires that we, meaning ALL OF US, become informed as to WHY it was instituted in the first place. That means we are going to have to spend some time digging; seeking out what was said by the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists; what was said during the various State ratification assemblies as it pertains to what our government was supposed to do on our behalf.

Only then can we say that we are making informed decisions. But that, in and of itself, is not enough. Once we become informed, we MUST place the election of truly constitutional minded candidates in office above our concerns for those who make us campaign promises to give us things, or keep us safe and comfortable.

Liberty is not comfortable, it is not safe, it is not secure. If you equate liberty to absolute freedom, then if you are alone in a jungle you are absolutely free to do whatever you want…correct? But you are also entirely responsible for providing your own sustenance and protecting yourself from any threats you might encounter. There are no food stamp programs in the jungle, no 911 service to dial if you need assistance. You, and you alone are responsible for your survival.

Sounds harsh, right? But if you read through the writings of those who fought for America’s independence you will see that all of them spoke often, and forcefully about Liberty. You did not hear them complain that Great Britain did not provide them with enough safety and security; you heard them complain about Great Britain infringing upon their liberty.

Liberty scares the crap out of most people; because deep down inside I think they know that if it truly existed in America they would not last a week. They know that in a system based upon individual liberty that they, and they alone, would be responsible for their own sustenance and survival; and they are either too lazy or too scared to accept that responsibility.

Yet if our system functioned as it was intended that is exactly what would happen. People would either succeed or fail based upon their own skill and hard work; businesses would either succeed or fail based upon the quality of their product and the effective management by their CEO’s. In a truly constitutional government there would be no government subsidies; either for the private or business sector.

None of this will happen though unless there is a revolution in the way people see government. None of this will happen unless people empty their cups of the lies they have been taught and fill them with the truth. For myriad reasons I don’t see that happening. Either people are too busy to spend the time required to learn the truth; they are too apathetic to spend the time it would take to become informed, or they simply enjoy having government tax others so that it can take care of their every need – they don’t want to see a system instituted which would make them responsible for their own safety and survival.

Thomas Jefferson, upon being elected president in 1800, delivered an inaugural address where he defined what is meant by good government, “…a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government…”

If we want to make America truly great again we absolutely MUST return to that way of thinking. Otherwise we will keep repeating the same mistakes which got us to where we are right now. If Trump truly wanted to make America great again he would begin with abolishing the educational system that is indoctrinating our children into believing that government is all powerful; that its job is to care for their every need from cradle to grave.

But I don’t see that happening. All I see is our government growing bigger and bigger and our liberty shrinking by the day, while the debt that we, the American people, are ultimately responsible for paying off continues to grow. That’s what I see with Trump. In other words, more of politics as usual; just a different flavor.

And that is all I have to say on that…

Depending upon what you believe in, either God created man or man evolved out of the primordial sludge produced by the Big Bang. Sometime after that man created government. Man gave government certain powers and then turned around and placed restriction on government’s ability to legislate upon certain rights: (See both the Bill of Rights and the preamble to same.)

The Bill of Rights was supposed to be a wall that kept government away from the rights they protect. The Bill of Rights does not create those rights; it defends and protects rights which existed long before government did.

Before I continue I would like to ask you a simple question. Can I walk up to you and punch you in the face? Well I probably could, but you would be completely justified in defending your face and punching me in response. Okay, now that we’ve clarified that, can I hire someone to walk up to you and punch you in the face? Well if I can’t do that, I cannot elect someone to do it either; for in both cases I would be guilty of attempting to violate your rights.

Now what is government? Is it merely the clown who sits in the Oval Office? Is it Congress? Is it both? A just and lawful government is one which is in perfect harmony with the specifics of the document which created it; anything else is a perversion and borders on oppressive, if not outright tyrannical.

Our Constitution contains 3 Articles which discuss the 3 branches of our government; with each Article laying out the requirements for the positions it creates and the powers given to each branch. The remaining 4 Articles of the Constitution discuss other issues, such as the rights of the States and the process by which the Constitution can be altered, or amended.

When you read through the Constitution you will find that there is no mention of any powers being given to any agency created by those we have delegated the power to exercise on our behalf. There is a legal maxim which applies to both constitutional and administrative law that states, “Delegata potestas non potest delegrai”, meaning a delegated power cannot be further delegated.

It is the purpose of the President, once laws have been lawfully enacted, to ensure that they are carried out effectively and efficiently. The President cannot do this by himself, so he can created Cabinet level positions to carry out those functions. However, for these Cabinet level positions to be lawful they must be in accordance with the SPECIFIC powers given government in the original charter, or constitution, which created that government. Any powers that go beyond that are an assumption, or usurpation of unlawful authority.

If you cannot understand that simple point, there is no use in me going any further.

Yet how many agencies are there within the federal government whose job is to enforce laws and policies that the Constitution makes absolutely no mention of as being among the powers delegated to our government? I could list a few if you don’t mind: The DEA, the FBI, the BATF, the FCC, the CIA, the TSA, the EPA, the National Park Service, and of course my good friends at the NSA. Those are just a few of them; I could fill 5 pages of an article with the directory of the agencies and offices which have been created under the umbrella of Executive authority.

How many of these agencies have armed enforcers whose job is to make sure that we the cattle, ooops I meant people, obey the law? How many of them have the authority to use deadly force against our persons if we decide that the laws they are trying to enforce violate our rights? Oh, but if we respond in kind we are the bad guy.

Throughout the speeches given by Patrick Henry in opposition to the Constitution you will find references to federal sheriffs. At that time there was no real structured law enforcement community in America; not as we have it today. So Mr. Henry could only have been talking about federal agents whose job was to enforce the laws passed by the central government.

Even Thomas Jefferson lists these federal sheriffs as being among the reasons the Colonies sought their independence from England, “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.” (Source: Declaration of Independence)
Is it not, therefore, reasonable to assume that both Jefferson and Henry would consider agents of the DEA, BATF, FBI and all those others who can enforce, at gunpoint, the laws our government passes as federal sheriffs?

Yet is not the Constitution also a law; the SUPREME law of the land? I believe Article 6 of that document declares that to be true. I also believe that the Supreme Court held this to be the case, “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of men than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.” (Source: Ex parte Milligan, (1866)

If all political power is derived from the people, and if people are the ones who wrote and ratified the law giving certain representatives certain powers to exercise on our behalf, why is it that we have no agency at our disposal that can arrest, and kill if necessary, those who violate the law we have written which governs the actions of our government?

Now don’t get all huffy and bent out of shape about what I said. After all, John Adams said pretty much the same thing in his Defence of Constitutions, “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.” I like that reference to flea; as our government today is nothing more than a bunch of liberty sucking parasites; much like fleas themselves. But Adams did not stop there, he continued by saying, “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.” (My emphasis)

The point I am trying to get at is that government has, at its command, all manner of agencies who are dedicated to enforcing their laws upon us, but we are told we have nothing but the voting booth at our disposal; and that is entirely dependent upon the knowledge level of the voters, their concern for whether their government is adhering to its constitutional limitations, and their love of liberty. Having witnessed the general ignorance of the voting public I am not comfortable with placing my liberty in their hands, as most would willingly give theirs up for the promise of comfort and security.

Just look at how many of our rights our government violates with impunity. Now before I go a single step further I have to emphasize that the Supreme Court is PART of government; a very dangerous part as they are not under elective control – as though elective control has kept tyrants out of the other two branches! The Supreme Court is guilty of as much damage to your liberty and to limited government as are the two branches charged with creating and enforcing the law.

As I stated early on in this, the Bill of Rights was like a fence that protected the rights mentioned within it from ANY governmental intrusion. Yet the Supreme Court has taken upon itself to climb that fence and INTERPRET the intent; meaning they can hand down their decisions which restrict the rights protected by both the Bill of Rights AND the Declaration of Independence.

What do I mean by that? Well does not the Declaration of Independence say that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? Yet by their decision in Roe v Wade they upheld the belief that murder is legal.

I can be criminally prosecuted if I kill someone who has broken into my house and I am unable to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this person did not pose a danger to my life, or the lives of my family. Simply because I do not want that person in my house does not justify my killing them. But a woman can murder their unborn child simply because she does not want that child growing within her body – and the Supreme Court upheld that belief in their decision on Roe v Wade.

Estimates place the number at over 60 million abortions since the Supreme Court handed down their ruling on Roe v Wade; meaning there have been 60 million murders of innocent lives – all because the Supreme Court INTERPRETED what a life was; saying a woman had a right to her own body. If a woman has the right to decide what she wants in her body, why don’t I have the same right? Why does the federal government continue to criminalize and regulate what I can PUT into MINE? Everything from the recreation use of marijuana to certain holistic medicines have found themselves criminalized or restricted by the federal government.

If a woman can terminate a pregnancy; which is a naturally occurring event after sexual relations, then why is it a crime for someone to PUT naturally occurring substances INTO their bodies? Can you explain that to me? On top of all that, thanks to our buddies at the FDA pharmaceutical laboratories can concoct all manner of chemical products, receive approval from the FDA, and market them for public consumption – yet many, if not most of those chemicals are MORE harmful to the human body than are the naturally occurring alternatives.

That’s just one example of how your government has overstepped its authority, interpreted the Supreme Law of the Land, and restricted your liberty. What about the right to keep and bear arms? Do you not find it a little unsettling that the federal government has criminalized the private ownership of automatic weapons, yet those charged with ENFORCING THE LAW are authorized to carry them?

You have to understand, the Bill of Rights were, as the preamble to it says, declaratory and restrictive clauses imposed upon the powers of the government. If you think of my fence analogy, then the government should not have been able to climb that fence and place qualifications upon what is MEANT by arms; thereby limiting those the people could keep and bear.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to that the people could rise up a well regulated militia to defend themselves against tyranny in their government. Yet we have let tyrants arm themselves with the very weapons they have passed laws denying our right to own the same. I’d say they have shifted the balance of power heavily in their favor if it should ever come to an armed conflict against them; wouldn’t you?

All this is because people do not know WHY we have the 2nd Amendment. They think it is for hunting or personal self defense and that a sidearm or shotgun is sufficient for those purposes – and even some side arms are banned because they too carry more rounds than the government deems necessary, or they too can fire more than one round per pull of the trigger.

I am 100% behind penalizing anyone who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime. However, I am 100% opposed to penalizing law abiding people due to the actions of a few. The whole idea of liberty is that each person is to be judged according to their own actions. People today believe that society has the right to penalize everyone for the actions of a few. Don’t believe me; let’s see if I’m wrong.

Freedom of speech; it is protected by the 1st Amendment, is it not? Yet once again the Supreme Court has held that prayer in public schools violates it – not only prayer, but any discussion of the Bible in a classroom. Yet classes across the country ARE teaching our children about Islam, and to be tolerant of their beliefs. Is that not just a little bit hypocritical?

Freedom of speech refers to both the spoken and written word. If we being allowing government, or society for that matter, to determine what is and what is not allowed to be said we have opened Pandora’s Box and will see the right to say or write whatever we want limited by what others say is offensive or uncomfortable. We have already seen that in the tearing down of Civil War monuments dedicated to Confederate heroes – all because one group finds them offensive.

What’s next, words with more than 3 syllables because people are too uneducated to understand or pronounce them? What any attempt to censor speech or expression does is it puts the determination for what is true and what isn’t into the hands of the loudest portion of society. What I mean by that is that those who complain the most about what is being said, written, or displayed determine what is, and what is not allowed – i.e. POLITICAL CORRECTNESS!!!

I’m sorry, if the truth or ideas that conflict with your beliefs offend you, then crawl under a rock and hide from life. Open discussion, honest debate demands that there be no restrictions upon what people are allowed to say, so long as they remain civil about it. Freedom of speech is ONLY limited in cases of slander or libel; writing or printing falsehoods about another which cause harm to that person or their reputation.

That right there is probably my biggest gripe with the people of this country as it pertains to politics; they speak openly about the supposed criminal and unconstitutional acts of the party they disagree with, but when the other side speaks out against THEIR side, they become outraged. These double standards anger me beyond words, and cause me to wonder how shallow the supporters of these candidates are; all because they refuse to turn their gaze inward and see the crimes they support; simply because they are committed by THEIR side.

Just look at the growth of the surveillance apparatus which monitors and spies upon each and every one of us. The 4th Amendment declares that our privacy is protected and that for any searches and seizures to occur a warrant must be issued; stating probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and describing exactly what items are to be searched for and seized.

Now you tell me, if I live in California, and the NSA is spying upon my private conversations, or the Department of Homeland Security has, under authority of the Patriot Act, searched and seized my medical and financial records, or spied upon my electronic conversations, tell me, who swore that oath that there was ‘PROBABLE CAUSE’ to do these things? Did someone I know travel all the way to D.C. and appear before a FISA Court and say these things?

This surveillance apparatus was around when I joined the Air Force back in 1979, and it has only grown in size and capabilities since. It was greatly expanded after 9/11 and has been growing at a steady clip ever since. Bush may have started this, but Obama allowed it to grow unfettered; even though he campaigned on the promise of ensuring that no one’s rights were being violated. That is one of the reasons Edward Snowden made the decision he did to release that data to the public; because he truly thought Obama would curtail the electronic dragnet that was being cast out over the American people.

And for all you Trump supporters, have you asked yourselves if YOUR GUY is doing anything about curtailing this unconstitutional violation or our rights? I wouldn’t bet on it, especially considering that he said “Take the guns and give them due process later.” That doesn’t sound like Trump cares that much about our rights to me. But he’s your guy, and he’s a damned sight better than Hillary…right? Go ahead, keep believing that!

Before I wrap this up there is one more area which I would like to take a few moments discussing. While I don’t agree with our government having the ability to tax our income – in fact I don’t even believe the 16th Amendment, (giving government the ability to tax our wages), was legally ratified, I am going to go on pretending that it is a lawfully enacted power given our government.

Why does government impose taxes; be they tariffs, excise taxes, or a tax upon your pay? The short answer is to fund the operation of government. What if the things your government is doing is illegal; meaning they are not among the powers originally given government? Then isn’t the confiscation of your pay a form of theft?

That alone would anger me beyond words; that my money was being taken from me to fund an army that could then be used to enslave me. Way back in the 1800’s a guy named Lysander Spooner wrote about this very fact, stating, “If any man’s money can be taken by a so-called government, without his own personal consent, all his other rights are taken with it; for with his money the government can, and will, hire soldiers to stand over him, compel him to submit to its arbitrary will, and kill him if he resists.”

Are you so incapable of thought that you cannot see that this is exactly what has happened?

The taxing power of Congress is one which people take for granted; with paying your taxes being considered a person’s patriotic duty. Yet what is the taxing power for? In 1791 Thomas Jefferson explained that power as follows, “To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, ‘to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.’ For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union.”

If I were to ask you to pay taxes so that your government could establish a colony upon the planet Mars you would probably tell me that I was crazy, that the government was not authorized to do that. Then again some would probably support such a hair brained idea! Yet did you know that the government funds NASA? All those moon missions in the late 60’s and early 70’s; all those space shuttle missions, not to mention the Hubble Telescope… all funded by your tax dollars. Hmm, I don’t find any mention of space exploration as being among the powers given Congress; maybe you can find it in YOUR version of the Constitution, but I can’t find it in mine.

Also, how much money do you think the federal government simply gives away to other countries in the form of foreign aid? The projected budget for foreign aid for the year 2017 was $4 trillion. People, America is $21 trillion in debt, and we’re just giving money away to other countries? Besides, I did not vote, or I should say, I didn’t use to vote for representatives who gave money they stole from me to other countries. If the people of America want to help those countries then they can donate to the Red Cross or other aid organizations; but DAMMIT IT IS NOT WITHIN THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT TO TAX THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THEN TURN AROUND GIVE IT TO OTHER COUNTRIES!!!

And since we’re on the subject of giving money away, what about all these taxpayer funded programs which provide subsidies, grants, and entitlements to others? Liberty, and by that I mean rightful liberty, means that each of us has the right to seek success; based upon our own efforts and individual skills. It DOES NOT mean that if someone does not achieve success that the rest of society must be taxed to subsidize them!

Again, if you personally want to perform acts of charity to help those in need; fine, go for it. But for the government to take my tax dollars and give it in the form of subsidies, bailouts, grants, or any other form of tax funded entitlement, is pure theft. Those on the receiving end of that money did not sweat, they did not bleed, they did not wake up with aches and pains from the exertions of having earned that money; so why should they be entitled to one penny of it without my consent?

Again, to quote from Jefferson, “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

I can almost hear the Social Justice Warriors now, “That’s cold and heartless Neal.” Let me ask y’all something; how much money have YOU personally contributed towards help for those in need; either in the United States or some other country? Hmmm? Are you aware of the fact that since I got married I have sent over $65,000 to my wife’s family in the Philippines to help support them; in their times of need; to build them homes to live in, and in paying for their education?

Don’t tell me I’m cold hearted if you cannot match that claim!

Your government does so much that is unconstitutional that those you elect may as well have their pictures posted on the FBI’s most wanted list of criminals. Yet you, the obedient and subservient people of America bow down to it and worship it as your god. You fight and bicker amongst yourselves along political party lines; never, and I mean NEVER stopping to ask if those you elect are authorized to do the things they promise to do.

All the while they, and those who pull their strings, sit back and laugh at you. They have, quite masterfully I might add, created an elaborate illusion for which you fall for. Shakespeare once said that all the world’s a stage. Well politics in America is a stage as well.

In any play there are the actors that you see performing the play, but what you don’t see are those who hired the actors, those who wrote the script, and those who manage the theater where the play is performed.

When you go to the polls are you are doing is electing which actor best fits your criterion for whatever office they seek. The Republican and Democratic parties are merely hiring agencies which choose the most palatable actors to perform on their stage, and the bankers and corporate special interests are the ones writing the scripts they follow while on stage.

Listen I’m not saying there is absolutely no difference between the two political parties; there is. What I’m saying is that they use these differences to keep you focused on them rather than focusing your attention upon the fact that EVERYTHING your government does is illegal.

If Obamacare truly was unconstitutional, why did Trump seek to replace it with his own version of government run health care instead of seeking to repeal it altogether? If the NSA’s spying upon us is truly a violation of the 4th Amendment, then why has it not only continued, but expanded under every president?

See what I’m getting at. They keep your attention focused on the small things, while they whittle away at your freedom and create a debt so deep that we will NEVER be able to pay it off.

For crying out loud, there are only 535 duly elected officials in our government. There are well over 300 million of us. If 1/3 of this country, (roughly 100 million people), told the government to go to hell, that they were no longer going to comply with the laws government passes, what could government do about it?

That is the power that we hold; the power that THEY do not want you to know exists. Why do you think your schools don’t teach you the truth about the founding of this country? It is because they are government run; meaning they are indoctrination centers designed to produce obedient worker drones.
Yet people say that I’m the crazy one, the rebel. I say they are crazy because the refuse to accept the truth that is right in front of their faces; that they continue to bow down and lick the boots of those that have enslaved them.

Yes, I have said some pretty extreme things; I’ll admit that. All I ask is that, if you choose to respond, you be willing to provide evidence to back up your position–for you can be damned sure that I have evidence to back up mine!