Where Has The Spirit of Resistance Gone?

April of 1775 is the day historians say that the American Revolution began, when the militiamen of Boston squared off against the Redcoats at Lexington and Concord when they attempted to confiscate their privately owned firearms. The leader of those militiamen, Captain John Parker, is quoted as saying, “Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”

Although that may have been the first actual combat engagement between the two opposing sides, I’m inclined to agree with John Adams, who said, “As to the history of the revolution, my ideas may be peculiar, perhaps singular. What do we mean by the Revolution? The war? That was no part of the revolution; it was only an effect and consequence of it. The revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected … before a drop of blood was shed.” (Source: letter to Thomas Jefferson, Aug. 24, 1815)

The revolution, as Adams says, was in the minds of the people; in the fact that they chose not to submit meekly to tyranny; that they were willing to do whatever was required to protect and defend their God-given rights as freemen. When the word went out that the King’s men were on their way to confiscate their arms they did not hesitate to grab their own guns and show up, in masse, to prevent the King’s law enforcers from confiscating them.

We, well at least most Americans, view them as patriots and heroes. Now let’s say SWAT, or maybe the DEA or ATF were to send in swarms of their so-called law enforcers into a section of some city or town to arrest someone and confiscate their privately owned firearms only to be met by a large group of armed citizens, how would people today react to those who stood up to these law enforcement officers; especially if they opened fire upon them and killed a half a dozen of them?

I’ll tell you how people would react, they would be shocked and outraged at these lawbreakers, and they would be condemned by the public and the media for their actions. Yet aren’t the two scenarios EXACTLY the same, private citizens standing up against what they considered to by tyranny? Did the Colonists wait for the legal system to hear their case against the Redcoats; did they wait until the process had been completed, and then accept whatever decision was rendered by the judge? No, they saw that their rights were being violated and they picked up their guns to defend those rights.

In literary terms I am now at a fork in the road. I can choose to go one way and make this article entirely about the 2nd Amendment, or I can go the other way and speak about the spirit of resistance to tyranny that is vital if people wish to remain free. I think I’ll choose the latter, but with the caveat that this is why we have a 2nd Amendment; so that the people can be ready, at all times, to rise up and fight tyranny wherever it may raise its ugly head.

It is why Patrick Henry admonished his fellow Virginians when he said, “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?”

It is why Joseph Story said, “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

But it is that spirit of resistance to tyranny that I wish to speak on today. In a letter to Abigail Adams, Thomas Jefferson writes, “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere.”

The thing about tyranny is that if people do not know the legitimate powers of their government, how are they to recognize it when our government becomes tyrannical? If people don’t know what their rights are, how are they to recognize when those rights are being taken away from them? And possibly even more important, how are people to remain free when they care more about partisan loyalty than they do limiting their government to its specifically listed powers and defending their rights?

We have been conditioned to be so passive and unresponsive when our government exceeds its authority or when our rights are being violated. Is it because those in power often claim that to preserve the public safety our rights must be curtailed to a certain extent; that it is all in the public good? I believe it was Daniel Webster who said, “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.”

In 1785 James Madison would write, “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.”

There is a lot of meaning in that paragraph, and I don’t think people recognize the implications of what he said. First of all he said it is proper to take alarm at the FIRST experiment upon our liberties. Today people consider it improper if anyone resists the laws passed by government; they have been conditioned to accept that government is omnipotent and that if it passes a law, it is the duty of every law abiding citizen to obey it.

He then goes on to say that it is not the right, it is the DUTY of every citizen to resist laws that violate their liberty. How many people have you heard about who have actually resisted the laws being passed which violate their rights; and if you do hear about them, how are they portrayed?

Well, Edward Snowden is living in exile because he stood up for what was right and told you the extent to which your government routinely spies upon you. Among a freedom loving people that alone should have been sufficient to cause an uprising, but it didn’t.

Then there was the mass murder by our government of men, women and children at a small compound in Texas commonly referred to as Waco. All these people wanted was to be left alone to live their lives as they saw fit, but the government wouldn’t let them. They resisted, and they were killed, and the people watched their Nightly News and called them a cult and said they got what they deserved.

But Madison continues by saying that the freemen did not wait until usurped power had ‘…strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents.’ He then says that they saw the consequences of that principle and denied the very principle itself; that government can usurp, (or assume for those of you unfamiliar with the word usurp) powers that are not legitimately granted government.

I’m willing to bet that over 99% of the people who turn out to vote in elections believe that government can, and should exercise power that goes beyond those specifically listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. I’d also be willing to bet that the only time people complain about the unconstitutional exercise of power is when the ‘other’ party is exercising it.

How many of you Trump supporters complained about Obama when he was attempting to push his Affordable Care Act through Congress, yet applauded your man when he sought, not to repeal it, but to rewrite it in a manner which reflected a more conservative position? Does it not matter that government becoming involved in the management of health care is NOT among its enumerated powers? Of course it doesn’t, your party allegiance is ALL that matters.

How many of you reading this are ready to put your lives on the line defending the principle that “…whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”

All one has to do is to look at how people react when a homeowner exercises their right to shoot and kill an intruder in their home to see the extent to which people are willing to submit to the authority of their government. If you feel that a private citizen has no right to shoot an intruder, that they should instead dial 911 and await the police, then you have been conditioned into surrendering your fundamental right to defend your life, your property, and your very liberty against any and all who threaten these things.

If you feel that a private citizen cannot, and should not use force to defend their home and possessions, then you are highly unlikely to believe that people have the right to use that same force against their government when it abuses its authority.

Yet that is EXACTLY what the American Revolution was; a people who used force against those who sought to establish an absolute tyranny over them. We call those men patriots and Founding Fathers, yet we call people today who exercise those same principles as rebels, criminals and domestic terrorists.

The fact that you submit willingly to so many laws that violate your most basic rights, the fact that you participate in choosing who will rule over you only goes to show the extent to which you have been conditioned to submit to a system that enslaves you.

To once again quote Daniel Webster, “There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.” A free people do not have masters, they have representatives who are elected to act on their behalf and constrained by a written law which limits what can be done on behalf of those they represent.

In 1775 Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty or give me death.” Today people may as well say, “Give me football, Facebook and beer and you can have my liberty.”

People say I’m subversive, that I’m trying to incite a revolution or overthrow the government. Well, I am trying to incite a revolution, but not in the manner that you are thinking. I am not trying to cause people to pick up their guns and begin shooting at people, (although it may end up coming to that); what I am doing is simply trying to get people to see how far their government has strayed beyond its legitimate authority, and how it is restricting the very liberty it was established to protect. I am trying to incite a revolution in your thinking; that’s all. As Morpheus repeatedly told Neo, “I’m trying to free your mind.”

Unfortunately, as long as people believe that candidates from their party are better than the candidates from the other party, as long as people support government no matter how far outside its legitimate authority it goes, there can be no hope that America can return to a truly constitutional government. If we continue believing as we do then the only path is the path forward to the eventual loss of all your rights.

In case you weren’t aware, John Adams once had a message for y’all, ” Posterity! You will never know, how much it cost the present Generation, to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good Use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it.”

While Adams may have sought to admonish those of the future to fight to keep the liberty they were fighting to secure for them, his cousin Sam had words for the people of his time that ring as true today as they did when he spoke them in Philadelphia in1776, “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 country was established by those who were willing to resist the laws being passed by their government, it is now occupied by people who refuse to even recognize that their government has become far more tyrannical than the one our Founders fought to free themselves from.

The last time a truly freedom loving people sought to free themselves from the grip of tyrants was in 1860 when the Southern States seceded and formed the Confederacy; and look how people today view them. What that shows me is that people today have little to no understanding of what real freedom is, and that they are content to be slaves.

The truth is out there for all those who are inclined to seek it out. But, as Samuel Johnson once said:

And until that changes Americans will continue the slow slide into tyranny and oppression…

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Herein Lies the Problem

The other day a friend posted a graphic on Facebook showing the 4 types of people you will meet in your life. There are those who try to teach people that they are slaves; and the means to free them from that bondage. There are the slave-masters; those who seek to keep people in bondage to them. There are those who don’t know they are slaves; which typically consists of a majority of the people. Finally, there are those who prefer slavery over freedom; most likely because it alleviates them of any responsibility for their own actions.

Now I don’t know how many of my readers are Christian, but the Bible is filled with times that prophets tried to warn people of the consequences of their actions. Although these prophets did not come up with their prophecies themselves, (being that they were merely the mouthpieces of God), they did predict, often, dire consequences if the people did not change their ways. And more often than not their warnings went unheeded and the people paid the price for not listening to them.

I’m certainly not a prophet; at least as far as me hearing the voice of God in my head telling me what to say; but I do believe that I fall into the category of those who try to warn people of the impending consequences of their actions. And, like the prophets of old, my words go pretty much unheeded.

Although I will probably never find out how you answer this, I’d still like to pose a question to you: “What would you define the United States of America as being.” As I said, I have no idea how you answer that question, but I’m certain that some of you may have said that the United States is the 50 States of the Union. Technically, and geographically, that answer is correct; but I believe the United States is much more than a simple land mass you can point to on a map or a globe.

It is my belief that the United States is a group of people, a rather large group of people, who war united together by common beliefs and values. In the recent Marvel Universe film Thor: Ragnarok, there is a scene when Thor has to destroy his home planet Asgard to save his people. Heimdall, the gatekeeper for the Bifrost, tells Thor that Asgard is not a place, it is a people. I feel the same way about America; it is not a place, it is a people holding similar beliefs and values.

In Federalist No. 2, John Jay writes, “With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.”

If you had spent as much time as I have reading the writings of our Founding Fathers you would have seen the word Providence quite frequently in reference to both the cause they were fighting for and in regards to the blessings of Life and Liberty that they enjoyed. Providence is often defined as the protective hand of God over a people.

The Bible is filled with the record of what happens when a people disobey the laws, or commandments handed down to them by God; He withdraws His protective hand and the people usually end up suffering all manner of hardships. Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

Now you do not have to believe in God to live in this country, but you must accept that most of those who founded this country did, and it was basic Christian principles that led them to establish a country based upon individual liberty; and that when we begin to stray from the principles held by our Founders there are bound to be serious consequences.

You see, Jefferson also said, “Time indeed changes manners and notions, and so far we must expect institutions to bend to them. But time produces also corruption of principles, and against this it is the duty of good citizens to be ever on the watch, and if the gangrene is to prevail at last, let the day be kept off as long as possible.” (Source: letter to Judge Spencer Roane, 1821)

We, as Americans, have forsaken the principles that made this country great; which made this country the one those living in other countries wanted to come to for the freedom and opportunity it provided. I hardly recognize this country anymore; and if the values held by most people today are what it means to be American, I’m ashamed to call myself one.

Not only do most people not know what the values and principles of our Founders were, they don’t care to learn. To a majority, the beliefs, or more precisely, the platforms of their respective political parties are of greater concern than the thoughts of a bunch of guys who have been dead for over two centuries. It does not matter how many time we change leaders; switching between Democrats and Republicans, it is only by returning to the values and principles held by those who established our country that we can hope to make America great again.

Many of you have probably never heard the name Richard Price, but he was a leading British philosopher and preacher during the time when America was seeking its independence. Price is quoted as saying, “In America, every inhabitant has in his house (as part of his furniture) a book on law and government, to enable him to understand his civil rights; a musket to enable him to defend those rights; and a Bible to enable him to understand his religion.”

You see, those we call our Founders did not allow themselves to be led around by the noses; their thoughts and beliefs manipulated by those seeking to control them. Instead, they spent a great deal of time studying politics, philosophy and religion; forming their own opinions based upon a careful examination of differing ideas and ideologies.

How unlike Americans today who, once they establish their own beliefs, refuse to look at any information which threatens those beliefs. How many of you reading this have had your opinions on the history of this country, or its system of government formed by what you were taught in a textbook in school rather than a serious study of the events and the thoughts of those who participated in those events?

Yet people say that they are informed; or worse, that they don’t care enough to waste time studying what people from the past thought and said. With attitudes like that people may as well accept that they are not thinking, they are being told what to think by others who are revising and perverting the truth to fit the agenda of undermining all that America once stood for.

If being American means adhering to and defending the principles and values of those who established this country, then America, for all intents and purposes, is dead. Yes, the geographical land mass still exists, and it is still occupied by people who call themselves Americans, but the vital spirit which gave this country life is all but dead in most people; and those few in whom it still burns brightly are condemned and ridiculed for clinging to values that have no place in the modern world we live in.

It’s just as historian Charles A. Beard said, “You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence.”

America cannot, and will not be fixed by expecting government to do it for the people; government is the problem and America won’t be fixed until the people of this country fix themselves and what they believe the purpose of their system of government is. America will not be fixed by one man, as many who support Donald Trump like to think; it will be fixed when we place the preservation of our liberty and the concept of a truly limited government at the top of our list of priorities in life; above even our very lives. After all, did not Patrick Henry say, “Give me liberty or give me DEATH“? (My emphasis)

Our 6th President, John Quincy Adams, once said, “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” The only problem with that is that the principles for which people today vote for are not the ones held by those who established our system of government in the first place; and therein rests the problem.

Although the context may be different, the sentiments spoken of by former President Reagan are as true today as they were when he first spoke the following words, “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

Either you see that or you don’t; either you are blind to the fact that you are a slave, or you enjoy slavery. Just don’t ask me to join you. In fact, I will fight against you to my last dying breath if that’s what it takes to truly make America great again.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

The Genius of Thomas Jefferson

As most of you know I am quickly approaching sixty years of age; June 28th to be exact. As someone who is soon to become an official senior citizen, I have seen 11 Presidents come and go. I don’t remember Eisenhower; I was too young at the time, I do remember Kennedy, or at least the Cuban Missile Crisis and his assassination and how the nation mourned his passing.

One thing about him I did not know, until later that is, is that in 1962 he hosted a dinner at the White House for 49 winners of the Nobel Prize. Nobel Prize winners are supposed to be leaders in their respective fields who have made great breakthroughs in areas such as world peace, science, or literature. So I can imagine that having 49 Nobel Prize winners in your presence at one time would be pretty awe inspiring; even for a President of the United States.

Yet did you know that President Kennedy, in an address to these Nobel Prize winners, stated the following, “I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.” I don’t know about you, but as it pertains to intellect and accomplishments I think that is probably the highest praise a person could ever get.

I don’t think people actually realize what a vast treasure trove of information is at their fingertips if they would only do a web search for the writings of Thomas Jefferson. Just out of curiosity I just did a quick Google search on the writings of Thomas Jefferson and it came back with 1.6 million responses. So there is absolutely no excuse for anyone who wants to know what the man President Kennedy praised so highly thought about things like our rights; the purpose for government, and what we can/should do when our government becomes tyrannical; or even what tyrannical means for that matter.

There is an old saying that goes something like this, “If you want the truth, get it straight from the horse’s mouth.” What this means is that if you want to get the facts, go to the person who said something, or was there when an event happened. In our legal system 2nd and 3rd hand testimony is often not allowed; being considered hearsay. So why is it that people are content to take what amounts to be hearsay a hundred times removed from the actual events as the truth? What I’m referring to is the founding of our country and the establishment of our system of government. Why is it that they trust scholars, or publishers who lived hundreds of years after our country was founded to tell them the truth about the events they write about, yet shun the writings of those men who actually participated in those events?

Are you aware that in 1969 the Supreme Court held, “The values of the Framers of the Constitution must be applied in any case construing the Constitution. Inferences from the text and history of the Constitution should be given great weight in discerning the original understanding and in determining the intentions of those who ratified the constitution. The precedential value of cases and commentators tends to increase, therefore, in proportion to their proximity to the adoption of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any other amendments.” (Source: Powell v. McCormack)

What that means is that the closer you get to the time the actual drafting and ratifying of our Constitution you get, the closer you get to the truth. However, there is a quote by a man named Samuel Johnson which states, “Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it.” I agree with that sentiment wholeheartedly. I think people are content to live in a bubble of ignorance; or at least a bubble of false truths which have been propagated upon them by those proclaiming to be educators.

Yet being the public service minded kind of guy that I am, I feel it is my duty to try and provide you with the truth so you don’t have to waste a precious moment of your time looking for it. Now whether or not you read or accept that truth is entirely up to you; as the old saying goes, “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.” Well I can bring the truth to you, but I can’t make you think; that’s on you.

If I were able to provide a grad for our educational system, I would give it a big fat F; at least in regards to how truthfully and how thoroughly they cover civics and history. The average graduate coming out of our high schools these days is effectively unaware of the history and system of government of their own country; which is quite sad if you ask me.

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

A selection of essays, respecting the settlement and geography of America; the history of the late revolution and of the most remarkable characters and events that distinguished it, and a compendium of the principles of the federal and provincial governments, should be the principal school book in the United States. These are interesting objects to every man; they call home the minds of youth and fix them upon the interests of their own country, and they assist in forming attachments to it, as well as in enlarging the understanding.”

James Madison is often referred to as the Father of our Constitution. If that is, in fact, the case, then Thomas Jefferson may very well be the Father of our country, as it was for the words contained within his Declaration of Independence that those who joined the Continental Army fought. I don’t know about you, but it would seem like common sense to know what those men fought for so we would not revert back to the same kind of tyranny that they risked so much to free themselves from. But then again, I have found that common sense isn’t so common these days.

When I read the Declaration of Independence two things happen. First I get kind of choked up at the eloquence and truths contained in the opening paragraphs of Jefferson’s masterpiece. Secondly, I become angry because I see how we, due to our ignorance and apathy, are allowing our government to become far worse than the one our Founders fought a war to free themselves from.

I have quoted, time and time again, from the Declaration of Independence; so many times that you should have it memorized by now. So instead of repeating myself, I will take what Jefferson wrote and reduce it to simple bullet statements to summarize the principles America was founded upon.

First, is that all men are created equal. Now by that I don’t believe Jefferson meant that all men are born into equal positions in life, only that they are equal as to their capability to enjoy Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. While some may argue that due to the fact that slavery existed at the time Jefferson was a hypocrite. I’ll bet you didn’t know that in his original draft Jefferson condemned slavery; laying it at the feet of the King of England. I’ll bet you also didn’t know that Jefferson was among the first to seek to end the importation of slaves into Virginia. Your politically correct history books don’t teach you that, but those are truths you can look up on your own if you feel inclined to do so.

Next Jefferson states that our rights come from our Creator. If our rights come from our Creator, or God if you will, then how can any man, or group of men, seek to limit them without committing a crime against God Himself? And how can a people claim to be God-fearing, yet sit back and allow those rights to be stripped away from them?

As previously mentioned, these fundamental rights are, Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. You know, Ben Franklin is purported to have said, “Our constitution gives you the right to pursue happiness, you have to catch it yourself.” People today mistakenly believe that it is the purpose of government to ensure that everyone is equally happy and equal in status and position in life. What Jefferson meant, at least what I believe he meant based upon other things he said, is that people should be free to pursue happiness without the aid or interference of government; but that the obtaining of that happiness rests solely upon those who seek it.

For instance, in a letter to Joseph Milligan, Jefferson states, “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.”

Then, in a letter to M.L. Hommande, Jefferson wrote, “The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.” I think those two quotes prove beyond a doubt what Jefferson meant when he said we are entitled to the right to pursue happiness; it wasn’t a guarantee of happiness, only the right to be free to seek it on our own without the help or hindrance of others.

The next point Jefferson brings up is that governments are instituted to secure these rights. I think that point should be self-explanatory, but to ensure that it is understood I will provide further clarification. In his Lectures on Law, James Wilson writes, “Government … should be formed to secure and enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government which has not this in view as its principal object is not a government of the legitimate kind.” Therefore a legitimate government is one in which the rights of the governed are protected by the laws passed by government. On the flip side, an illegitimate government is one which, by the passing of laws, undermines or restricts the rights of those it governs.

The final point Jefferson makes in his opening statement is that whenever any government fails to serve the purpose for which it was intended it is not only the right, it is the DUTY of the people to alter or abolish it and institute a government that will secure those rights for them.

Jefferson then goes on to say, “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.” He then proceeds to list the offenses committed by the King of England which led the Colonists to sever the ties which bound them to him.

This is where I would like to divert from what Jefferson said and created my own list of grievances, or offenses if you will, which our government today is guilty of. Maybe then you will see why I can no longer, in good conscience, support this government in any form; regardless of whether it is predominantly Republican or Democrat.

So here are just a few of the offenses I would include if I were to re-write the Declaration of Independence to fit modern times; and for clarification, when I say IT I am referring to the federal government:

-It has erected a multitude of agencies and sent swarms of agents to harass, fine, imprison and kill those who violate the laws it passes.

-It has disregarded the law which governs how much power it will exercise on our behalf; taking upon itself the ability to grant itself new powers which exceed its legitimate authority.

– It sent armies into those States who sought only to exercise their right to withdraw from a voluntary union of States; thereby placing its will as being superior to the will of those who created it.

-It has erected a multitude of courts that seek not to provide justice to the people, but to enforce the laws passed by government.
-It has given the power to coin and regulate our nation’s currency to a privately owned banking cartel that uses that power for their own selfish interests.

-It has erected and maintained standing armies; not for the defense of America from foreign invaders, but for the expansion of empire and the protection of American business interests.

-It has accumulated a massive and unsustainable debt which is beyond the ability of the American taxpayer to ever pay off.

– It has meddled in the internal affairs of other nations, going so far as orchestrating coups to topple leaders who were not friendly towards American business interests.

-It has violate the right of the people to retreat into their homes and be free from its prying eyes and ears without a warrant being issued providing due cause.

-It has passed laws which limit the right of the people to keep and bear arms, yet at the same time the very arms the people are restricted from owning are carried by agents of the government in the enforcement of their laws.

– It has taken control of lands exceeding those specified by the Constitution for the maintenance of forts and naval yards and an area ten square miles for the seat of government.

– It has fined, prosecuted, and murdered those who sought to limit its authority to those specifically enumerated by the Constitution, or simply sought to live their lives free of its interference.

And these are just a few of the offenses our government is guilty of. After stating the offenses which led our Founders to seek a separation from England, Jefferson states “In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

I don’t know how many of you have ever written a President, or your representative in Congress, but having done so I can guarantee you that 9 times out of 10 you will be lucky if you get a form letter in response. I once sent the exact same letter to the President, the Attorney General, my representatives in Congress, and to every member of the Supreme Court on the issue of gun control. The only response I got was from Justice Stephen Bryer, and all he said was thank you for your well thought out letter. None of them every justified our government’s stance on gun control and how it violates the 2nd Amendment.

I would say that my humble petitions have been ignored. I would also say that a government that ignores the limits imposed upon it and routinely violates the rights of those it governs is unfit to exist. There is a saying in Latin which states, “Qui tacet conserntiret” meaning, your silence implies your consent. I would take that a step further, by your participating in choosing those who would hold the various positions of power within our government, you are consenting to whatever laws it passes.

Our nation was founded by those who resisted tyranny, not by those who consented to it, or by those who participated in choosing who would tyrannize them. As Lysander Spooner so effectively said, “A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.”

Either your government, (for I refuse to call it mine anymore) chooses to obey the law which governs its actions and seeks to secure and enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members, or it doesn’t. Either our government is of a legitimate kind or it isn’t. Either you consent to being a slave to government or you recognize that you are a slave and you begin resisting the laws that enslave you.

Although Jefferson never actually said this, the following graphic sums up everything I’ve attempted to say in the last 6 pages. I’ll leave it to you to decide what you’re going to do about it…

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Isn’t That What Patriots Do?

I find it rather hilarious that someone had the audacity to tell me I need to start writing on current events instead of repackaging the same old message over and over again. While I won’t deny I’ve been saying basically the same thing in my recent articles, I find it funny that this person would tell me I need to stop repeating the same thing, yet they keep falling for the same old bullshit lies fed to them by those seeking political office.

Isn’t that what politicians do; repackage the same tired old political party rhetoric in a shiny new box; attach a catchy slogan to it, and the voters turn out by the millions to support them? While I’m not saying that, deep down in their hearts, some of these people don’t have America’s best interests at heart, what I’m saying is that if you are unaware of what caused a problem how can you be expected to solve the problem?

So, what typically happens is that people vote for the candidates who have the most convincing sounding arguments as to how to fix all this country’s problems; yet in reality they are only making matters worse. Americans sure love their wars don’t they; almost as much as they love their football. After all, we are at war with almost everything; aren’t we? We have a war on poverty, a war on crime, a war on drugs, and of course, a war on terrorism.

How much money, how many resources, how many bureaucracies, how many years have we been fighting these things; yet have we been able to declare victory; that poverty has been eradicated, that these things we have been fighting no longer pose a threat to us? For crying out loud, I’m nearing 60 now and the War on Poverty was declared in 1964 by President Lyndon Johnson. But the answer to almost all of our problems always seems to be, push more money towards the problem and maybe it will go away.

Well, that’s worked our real well, hasn’t it; with a national debt that is expected to reach 150% of our nation’s Gross Domestic Product within many of our lifetimes. Our national debt currently sits at $21.15 trillion; that’s TRILLION; 21 plus twelve zeroes. Our federal deficit, the difference between how much money the government takes in from taxes and how much it spends, is $6 Trillion. And I haven’t even begun to talk about unfunded liabilities yet. Unfunded liabilities are future obligations our government is mandated to pay, yet for which there is no money currently available; things like Social Security and Medicare. The unfunded liabilities this country is going to have to cough up the money to fund sits at an astronomical $113 TRILLION.

But hey, let’s start another war, let’s build up our military to Cold War era size, let’s cut taxes while continuing to spend the insane amount of money we’ve been spending; the American people will just have to tighten their belts and live off an even smaller amount of their pay; which continues to lose its spending power because more and more money is being printed which devalues the currency already in circulation.

But that’s okay, the Democrats are going to fix everything by making the rich pay for all their programs, and the Republicans are going to drain the swamp and restore our government; not even knowing who and what lives in that swamp they talk about draining.

Like I said, don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that most people actually want to see America fall, it’s just that most fail to understand what it is that made America great to begin with; therefore they are easily misled by those who only seek one thing; more power for themselves and less freedom for you and I.

You see, freedom, or liberty to use the correct word, is something they do not want you and I to have as it diminishes our need for them. A truly free people don’t need government, they merely tolerate it as long as it performs the tasks it was established to perform; that and nothing more. It is when a people become dependent upon government that they become enslaved to it; no longer knowing what freedom is, or exercising it.

Government does not want a people who are capable of seeing them for what they truly are; a criminal cabal consisting of people who have sold their souls for power and dominion over us; we the people. Do you think it is a coincidence that government, at both the federal and State levels has taken over our educational system? They don’t want a people who are truly capable of thinking; rather they want to dictate to us WHAT to think. Orwell must be rolling over in his grave now, seeing the state of our educational system. History is being revised right before our very eyes and people sit back and do nothing about it for fear of crossing the boundary between what is acceptable speech and that which is politically incorrect.

We have gone from a nation that valued and cherished the truth and liberty to a nation that only values comfort, security, self-gratification and the quest for more entertainment. Anything that threatens those things is to be shunned or denounced as seditious, a danger to national security and the American way of life.

But what is the American way of life if it is not the ability to speak one’s mind without fear of censorship? What is the American way of life if it is not the ability to live your life as you choose without anyone telling you what you can and cannot do? What is the American way of life if it is not the freedom to retreat into your home and be free of the prying eyes and ears of your government? What is the American way of life if it is not LIBERTY, not slavery by a thousand rules and regulations which manage every aspect of your life?

I think some people equate liberty with anarchy; the total abandonment of any and all rules which protect people from the actions of others. That is not true; liberty has at its core the rule of nature over it which states that no man shall harm another in his life, his possessions and his liberty. In other words liberty means to live and let live.

But liberty, and I mean absolute and total liberty demands that you and you alone accept complete responsibility for yourself; and that is something that scares the hell out of most people. Just as an example; if someone were to break into your home while you were sleeping, how would you react? Would you dial 911 and wait for agents of the government, (law enforcement) to come rescue you, or would you pick up a gun and protect what is rightfully yours. How you answer that simple question says a lot about how much you understand what it means to be truly free.

A free person would not expect, or ask another free person to come to their rescue, to come save them from the acts of another who sought to deprive them of their life, their property, or their liberty. A free person would handle things on their own; only calling upon the powers that be to report that a crime had been prevented and that they can come and pick up the body for disposal.

Locke speaks of this state of freedom, this state of being able to defend oneself against the actions of others in his Second Treatise, “And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave.”

But Locke doesn’t stop there, he continues by saying, “This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else.”

If I had any say in the matter I would require that every school across this vast country of ours be required to give a class on Locke’s Second Treatise prior to the students being allowed to graduate from high school; and preferably before their young minds had been poisoned by all the other politically correct Socialist garbage they are being indoctrinated with. But I wouldn’t stop there; I would require that a comprehensive and thorough class be taught on the principles which led our Founders to establish a Republic rather than a democracy or a monarchy. But like I said, the government prefers an ignorant people because an ignorant people pose no threat to their power over us.

Even as bad as America is today, our Founders left us with a remedy should we have the courage to exercise it. This remedy is found in the document which established the 13 States as free and independent sovereignties; the Declaration of Independence. After talking to people I get the distinct impression that they believe our Founding Documents are things of the past meant for those who lived in the past, and are not fit for modern day America.

Sure, the Declaration of Independence was written as a means for the Colonies to declare to the world that they refused to be British subjects any more, but it is more than that; much more. The Declaration of Independence is a universal statement on many things; from the origin of our rights to the relationship between government and those who are governed. The Declaration of Independence is the foundation upon which our system of government was supposedly built upon. The truths contained in the Declaration of Independence have no expiration date; they do not become less valid today than they were in 1776 simply because the people no longer care what those words say.

The Declaration of Independence begins with the following words, “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

It does not say, “When in 1765, King George III…”, it merely states that in the course of human events; meaning anytime something should occur; both past, present, and future. Jefferson, although he gave specific reasons later, only states that when it becomes necessary for a people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with one another. You can call me stupid if you wish, but I take that to mean that at any time a people have the right to sever the political bonds which connected them to another group of people; in essence, to secede.

But Jefferson didn’t stop there, he went on to explain the purpose for which governments are established, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”

Again, call me stupid if you want, but I don’t believe that a majority of any country has the right to demand that the minority, however small it may be, acquiesce to the laws enacted on behalf of the majority; especially if those laws restrict the very rights Jefferson said governments were instituted to secure: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. If you honestly believe that is the case then what you believe is that it is acceptable for a majority to tyrannize the minority. Yet at the same time most of you condemn slavery. Yet isn’t that exactly what you are making of those few who cherish their liberty when you demand that your government violate their rights as well as yours? Aren’t you making slaves of those whose political views you disagree with?

Then Jefferson goes on to explain the remedy for when a system of government becomes oppressive, “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.”

He then explains that government should not be toppled for minor and trivial reasons, but that “…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Not only is it our right to abolish a system of government that has become destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is our DUTY; that is if you care anything at all about the liberty government was established to secure.

I may be wrong, but Jefferson’s words sound strikingly similar to those written by Locke years before Jefferson put quill to parchment to write his Declaration of Independence, “…whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence. Whensoever therefore the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society; and either by ambition, fear, folly or corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society.”

But no Neal, that’s treasonous talk there! Is it? Is it treasonous to say that our government no longer serves the purpose for which it was established? Well, to quote Patrick Henry, “If this be treason…then make the most of it.”

Our Founders knew that their actions were considered treasonous, yet all they cared about was securing the liberty they felt was their God-given right. They then went on to establish a system of government they hoped would ensure that the liberty it was designed to protect would endure through the ages. But Ben Franklin gave a warning on the final day of the convention which produced our constitution, saying, “…I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administered; and 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. ”

People constantly say that our government is corrupt. Well whose fault is that? Who elects these people? Who returns to their TV’s and their Facebook the moment the election results are tallied, only to voice their opinions when someone attacks ‘their candidate’? Who ignores the laws their government passes which destroy the very liberty government was supposed to be preserving? Who says nothing while they are being taxed to death to support an unsustainable debt?

Who worships at the altar of government rather than the altar of liberty?

Yet I’m the crazy one because I think that there is no solution to be found at the voting booth; that by supporting government run by either Republicans or Democrats is only going to make things worse. I’m the lunatic, the rabble rouser, the threat to peace and security because I’m asking you to stand up against these laws which violate your most basic rights.

Well, Orwell was right, in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act; especially when you have been indoctrinated to not accept the truth by your schoolteachers, the news media and those who you put your faith and trust into to do what’s right in government.

In 1944, before a crowd of almost 1.5 million people in New York’s Central Park, Judge Billings Learned Hand delivered a speech in which he said, “I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it.”

A century and a half earlier, the great orator Patrick Henry stood up on the floor of the Virginia Ratifying Assembly and spoke the following words, “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.” Of course Henry was referring to the dangers posed by the proposed Constitution to the liberty they had so recently secured for themselves.

Liberty never actually dies, it can be abandoned, it can be forsaken, but all it requires for its survival is that people place it first and foremost on their lists of priority, and that they be willing to die defending it. Those who squared off against the Redcoats at Lexington and Concord understood this. Those who faced the continued onslaughts by the British at Bunker Hill understood it as well. And those who braved the cold winter at Valley Forge knew that they were fighting for more than themselves; that they were fighting for the liberty of all those who were too timid, or unable to fight for it themselves.

In respect for all that they sacrificed I can do no less. So, I will keep plugging away, keep repeating the same old message until it sinks in to your thick skulls and you stop worshipping at the altar of big government and hoist the banner of liberty so American can once again be truly be the land of the free and the home of the brave. After all, isn’t that what patriots do?

Posted in General | Leave a comment

As The Old Saying Goes (You Can’t Argue With Stupid)

In the year 1615, Galileo Galilei wrote an essay entitled Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina in which he said, “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” Yet here we are…

You cannot imagine the sense of frustration, and yes, sometimes anger, I often feel when I hear the things that come out of some people’s mouth in regards to politics and government. I can understand that some people might be ignorant; what I can’t understand is why they choose to continue believing lies when confronted with the truth.

I can’t say that I’m any expert on the subject, but I’ve done some reading on Cognitive Dissonance; the psychological stress that occurs when someone is introduced to information that conflicts with existing beliefs. Some studies say that Cognitive Dissonance can be so overwhelming that people would prefer to go on believing lies than to fact the monumental task of completely rethinking their positions on a subject.

You know what I think? I think that is just a psychological justification for mental laziness. Twenty-five years ago I was just as ignorant and uninformed as the average voter in this country. I didn’t become informed overnight; it was a journey of small steps that led me from one truth to another; and a journey in which the final destination is not yet within sight.

Were there times when the things I learned caused me to question my own beliefs? You’re damned right there were; and I was faced with the choice of either following the facts to wherever they led, or giving up and to keep on believing the lies I had been taught/told. I think it is a measure of a person’s integrity as to how well they handle facts which contradict their existing beliefs. If one cannot, or refuses to base their beliefs and opinions upon fact, then that says…well, I’ll let you guess what that says about that person’s character and integrity.

I often get the impression that people think I’m a rabble rouser, a troublemaker; someone who likes to say things just to stir up the shit; get a reaction. While that may be a part of why I do what I do; it is but a small part of it. The reason I do this; sit behind this keyboard every day, is because, as Walter P. Kurtz said in Apocalypse Now, “I cannot abide the stench of lies.” It simply is not within my ability to sit back while I hear people spouting off at the mouth when they don’t know what the hell they are talking about.

But, what gets me even more upset than hearing people say things I know to be false is hearing people say that they simply don’t care, or have the time to spend seeking out the truth. Yet these same people can spend hours glued to their televisions, or posting inane comments and meme’s to Facebook or Twitter.

While there is some argument over who actually said this, someone once said that people get the government they deserve. While the author of that quote may be in question, there is no questioning the fact that on the final day of the Constitutional Convention, a letter written by Ben Franklin was read to the delegates that stated, “In these Sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administered; and 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.” (My emphasis)

When one is in possession of the truth; when one has the courage to speak and defend the truth amidst an ocean of lies, then that person cannot be corrupted. But, when an entire nation, or at least a majority of it, shuns the truth, or actively hides from it, then they are easily corrupted and they get the government they deserve.

The problem with this is that, in a system such as ours, when it becomes corrupted it affects everyone; including those who have taken the time to seek out the truth. If I could sign a waiver saying that I exempt myself from the laws being passed by your government, and from the taxes it imposes upon me, then I’d have no problems with how ignorant people chose to be. Unfortunately, the laws you acquiesce to also affect me; and that’s simply tyranny and oppression disguised as democracy.

It boggles my mind how some people can say that they love freedom, then turn around and support things which restrict the freedom of those whose views they disagree with. Have you ever heard the old philosophical question about whether a glass half filled with water is half full or half empty? Does it matter which you say it is; the truth is that if it is half full then it is also half empty.

If you deny some people their unalienable rights, then you cannot say that liberty and freedom are absolute; the truth is that liberty and freedom are somewhere in between being absolute and totally non-existent. Therefore, if the opposite of freedom is slavery, then the extent to which our rights have been restricted is also the extent to which we are slaves.

Thomas Jefferson once said that “The law is often but the tyrants will, especially when it violates the rights of the individual.” Does it matter whether the laws which restrict our rights come cloaked under the banner of legal authority; such as laws passed by our government, or if they come under the socially accepted rules such as political correctness? If a person’s rights are restricted, either by written law, or by rules imposed upon them by society, it is tyranny and oppression; the only difference being those who are doing the tyrannizing and oppressing. It matters little to those who are being oppressed if their oppressors are society, or if they are the government; they are still seeing their rights violated.

People in this country, regardless of how many facts are presented which prove otherwise, think that America is a democracy; that all it takes for something to be acceptable is the will of a majority of the people. You want to know what democracy is; democracy is 9 people getting into a boat, and then when they have rowed half-way across the ocean 5 of them decide to drill a hole in the bottom so that the boat sinks; killing the 4 unwilling victims…that’s democracy in action for you. In a democracy the rights of the minority are always subject to the will of the majority; and that’s why our Founders established a Republic; to secure and defend the rights of any minority.

My personal philosophy is that, you leave me free to live my life the way I choose and I’ll leave you free to do the same. That’s liberty; where I don’t impose my views upon you and you don’t impose your views upon me. I don’t have to agree with what you say any more than you have to agree with what I say; but when either of us tells the other that they cannot do or say something simply because the other dislikes it, that’s when tyranny steps into the picture. It does not matter if that tyranny comes under the form of political correctness, or if one of us requests that our government pass a law which restricts the rights of the other; the end result is the same; a deprivation of constitutionally protected rights.

The problem in America today is that for what most people believe is the function of government to work requires that the rights of others be violated. If people want safety and security then the right of one group of people to keep and bear arms must be restricted. For people to be safe against the big bad terrorists then the freedom from warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures must be sacrificed. If one wants their freedom from offensive or hurtful things protected, then the freedom of speech of others must be sacrificed. If you think that governments job is to care for the poor and those in need, then the wealth of those who aren’t in need must be taken from them to fund the programs which you support.

See where I’m going with this? No matter what you believe in, what you support, somewhere along the line the liberty of others is being compromised to implement your beliefs; and as the cartoon character Popeye so often said, “I’ve had all that I can stands, and I can’t stands no more!”

You can call me whatever names you want; rebel, unpatriotic, uncaring, racist, sexist, homophobic, but all that I really am is a tired old man who simply wants to be left alone to live his life as he sees fit. Apparently, that is just too much to ask though…

A tipping point is coming to America when those who cherish their liberty will have been pushed into a corner where their only choices will be to either submit to tyranny or fight back. Our Founders were faced with the same dilemma and those chose to resist the unlawful violations of their rights by their government. When that time comes I am sure there will those who call those who stand up for their rights traitors and rebels; but our Founders were called the same by those who remained loyal to the Crown; yet it did not deter them from standing up for what they knew was a just cause; nor will it deter those who you are pushing into a corner due to your ignorance and apathy.

Well I have a couple quotes I want to share for you when you are faced with deciding whether or not to side with your government, or side with those defending their liberty. First off, Samuel Langhorne Clemens, aka Mark Twain, once said, “Patriotism is loyalty to your country at all times, and your government when it deserves it.”

Then there is this, from author Howard Zinn, “If patriotism were defined, not as blind obedience to government, not as submissive worship to flags and anthems, but rather as love of one’s country, one’s fellow citizens (all over the world), as loyalty to the principles of justice and democracy, then patriotism would require us to disobey our government, when it violated those principles.”

Finally, there is this, from author Henry David Thoreau, “If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.”

Y’all won’t even accept that your government no longer adheres to the restrictions imposed upon it by the document which created it; how are you going to accept the fact that your government hasn’t been legitimate for over 150 years? If you can’t take that first step and admit that, from top to bottom, your government is corrupt, then how are you going to accept the fact that you can’t fix that level of corruption at the voting booth?

But then most people will keep on doing what they have been; asking the government to fix problems they are responsible for creating; and as my friend Louis Turner so brilliantly stated…

Posted in General | Leave a comment

To Quote Yosemite Sam

When I was stationed in Spain in the 80’s I worked in a power plant; pulling 12 hour shifts. Unless there was maintenance going on the only thing to do was perform hourly checks on the generators and sit in the office and read. I never really kept track of how many books I read in the 3 years I was assigned there, but I’m guessing it was at least a couple hundred.

It was during this period of my life that I stumbled across the Jason Bourne books by Robert Ludlum. Although Hollywood has turned Bourne into a successful franchise, you really have to read the books to truly appreciate the character. The story centers around a man, Jason Bourne, aka David Webb, who is sent undercover to draw out the assassin Carlos the Jackal, but in the process loses his memory and struggles to regain the knowledge of who and what he is. Ludlum does a masterful job of creating a character who has lost his own past and struggles to untangle the web of lies to uncover the truth about who he is and what he stands for.

The reason I bring this up is because I believe America is suffering from a kind of amnesia; we have forgotten, or lost our sense of who and what we stand for as a people. I know history is probably one of the dryest subjects a person can study, but I find it fascinating, as it peels away the lies I have been taught; slowly revealing the truth…and as the old saying goes, the truth will set you free.

History, at least to me, is more than just the study of dates and events, it is the study of cause and effect and the thoughts of those who participated in making that history. But above all else, history is a search for the truth. I suppose one could live their entire life, content to believe the version of history they had been taught in school; but I’m not among those who accept what they have been taught is the truth until I can verify it for myself.

Doesn’t it make sense that if you want to know what really happened you should read what those alive at the time the event occured said rather than what some historian a hundred or so years later thinks happened? That, to me is just common sense; but unfortunately common sense is all too uncommon these days; so most will go on believing what their history books taught them rather than spending the time required to seek out the truth.

It is at this point that I would like to interject my first quote; this one from the dvd Warriors of Honor, about the religious beliefs of Robert E. Lee and Thomas ‘Stonewall’ Jackson. Early on in the film the producers introduce a quote from an anonymous source which states, “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.”

I think that is rather profound; if I do say so myself. How easy do you think it would be for a government of limited powers to assume almost unlimited powers when the people of a country are totally ignorant of how that system of government was designed to operate, or have been lied to as to the powers that government was supposed to wield? How willing do you think a people would be to surrender their rights in the name of public safety when they don’t know the origin or nature of those rights?

Yet, amazingly, I encounter people who can’t give a detailed explanation of either, but still consider themselves to be making informed decisions when they go to the polls to select who will fill the various seats of power within our government. They base this on what; the fact that they watched a couple debates on TV or compared what the candidates say against their own personal beliefs? Does it never cross people’s minds to compare what these candidates are promising to do if elected against what the Constitution and Bill of Rights actually say?

Sometimes I get the distinct impression that people think their government grants them their rights. How can that be, as Thomas Paine once wrote, “It has been thought a considerable advance towards establishing the principles of Freedom to say that Government is a compact between those who govern and those who are governed; but this cannot be true, because it is putting the effect before the cause; for as man must have existed before governments existed, there necessarily was a time when governments did not exist, and consequently there could originally exist no governors to form such a compact with.” If these people truly believe that their rights flow from government, are they saying that prior to the establishment of government they had no rights whatsoever?

Our rights come from us as part of mankinds status in nature. Can man pass a law that tells an animal that it cannot forage for food, where it must live, and how and when it can defend itself? Well, I suppose man could try, but good luck enforcing it without first capturing the animal and depriving it of its freedom.

Continuing with the writings of Thomas Paine we read, “Man did not enter into society to become worse than he was before, nor to have fewer rights than he had before, but to have those rights better secured. His natural rights are the foundation of all his civil rights. But in order to pursue this distinction with more precision, it will be necessary to mark the different qualities of natural and civil rights.

A few words will explain this. Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the natural rights of others. Civil rights are those which appertain to man in right of his being a member of society. Every civil right has for its foundation some natural right pre-existing in the individual, but to the enjoyment of which his individual power is not, in all cases, sufficiently competent. Of this kind are all those which relate to security and protection.”

Paine is/was not the only one to think this way, the English jurist John Locke also wrote, “IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and controul of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.

The great and chief end, therefore, of men’s uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property. To which in the state of nature there are many things wanting.” (Source: Second Treatise on Civil Governments, Chapter 9)

Our Founders, or at least most of them, believed that the primary purpose of government should be to secure and preserve the liberty, or rights, of those it governed. Jefferson stated it thusly in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Patrick Henry said, “You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.”

James Wilson declared, “Government … should be formed to secure and enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government which has not this in view as its principal object is not a government of the legitimate kind.” I could provide more quotes stating similar sentiments, but I think you get the picture.

If I might ask, what do you think is the foremost right of all living creatures? I don’t know how you would answer that question, but for me the answer is obvious; the right of self-preservation, or self-defense. What good are all the other rights you enjoy if you are dead? Therefore, the right of preserving, or defending your life, and all your other rights, is first and foremost among all your rights.

Samuel Adams that beleif as follows, “Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can–Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature.”

There is a crucial point I need to make here; our Founders did not believe that our right to defend our lives, our liberty and our property was restricted to defending it against other men; it was their belief that it was all encompassing; meaning that we have the right to defend these things against any man, or group of men; including our own government. Is that not the very right they exercised when they resisted the laws being passed by Parliament which violated their rights; and what they did when they declared themselves to be free of British rule?

And how might a people defend their rights if they have sacrificed the only means they have of defending them to those that would oppress them? Our Founders tried diplomacy to restore the rigths they had lost when Parliament began passing laws which violated them. But when diplomacy failed, they were left with but one recourse; the use of arms to regain their liberty.

Although I’m no fan of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, he got it right when he said the following, “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” (Source: Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States)

Why any liberty loving individual would accept a law as being just that restricts that right in even the slightest degree is beyond my ability to understand. Yet time and time again I hear otherwise intelligent people calling upon their government to pass laws that do just that; restrict their right to keep and bear arms.

If, as our Founders felt, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was so that we the people could raise up an armed force equivalent or superior to any our government might raise to oppress us, why would anyone seek to surrender the ability to do so; unless they cared more for comfort and security than they do liberty.

Noah Webster expounded upon this very principle when he wrote, “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.” (Source: An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (1787)

I have no idea how many laws there are on the books, both at the State and federal level, which place certain weapons beyond the ability of private citizens to own; not to mention laws making the use of those guns we are allowed to own a crime under certain circumstances. What good, might I ask have those laws been in curbing crime?

How many laws does a criminal break when they bring a weapon into a public place and randomly begin shooting innocent people? Yet you think just one more law will prevent men from committing acts of atrocity? By the very act of them taking a firearm into a public place and opening fire upon innocent people they have proven that they have no regard for the law; and you think one more law will do the trick and put an end to these rampage shootings?

Nonetheless, our government is more than willing to oblige the public outcry for stricter gun control laws; as it weakens our ability to resist the tyranny they impose upon us. How, might I ask, are you to stand up against tyrants, (should the time come) when you have surrendered your right to keep and bear arms…with bows and arrows against a fully militarized standing army? Good luck with that! As Patrick Henry so aptly said, “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?”

Those who are pushing for stricter gun laws have made their ultimate goal quite clear, the total disarmament of the American people. For instance, the former mayor of San Antonio Texas states, “There is little sense in gun registration. What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament . . . . Domestic disarmament entails the removal of arms from private hands…”

Then of course there is the Wicked Witch of the West, Dianne Feinstein, who on 60 Minutes stated, ” If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them … “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in,” I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”

Let us not forget Mr. Make America Great Again who said, “Take the guns first then give them due process second.”

But it was the former Attorney General, Janet Reno, who stated it most pithily, “Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.”

These people will not give up, they will keep chipping away at the 2nd Amendment until the right to keep and bear arms is completely abolished; making us slaves to our government. As George Mason so effectively said, “… to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

And if you don’t believe Mr. Mason, there are always the words of Mao Tse Tung, “Every good Communist should know that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, and that gun must remain firmly in the hands of the state.”

We have a 2nd Amendment not so we can hunt; not so we can target shoot; not so we can defend our homes against criminals. We have a 2nd Amendment so that we can protect all our other rights against our government–and you want to just up and give that right away? As Richard Henry Lee said, “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”

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

In 1878 the Arkansas courts held, “To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” If you’ll note they specifically say war arm, which is equivalent to the term ‘assault rifle’ today.

And finally, in 1859 the Texas courts held, “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” (Source: Cockrum v. State)

Our American Revolution began when the British tried to disarm the Colonists at Lexington and Concord. Those brave farmers and businessmen who stood toe to toe against soldiers from the mightiest army on the planet knew the importance of their right to keep and bear arms; a memory that was not forgotten when a Bill of Rights was called for.

Yet people today have forgotten why we have a 2nd Amendment, and therefore tolerate all manner of laws which violate it. Well, as the philosopher George Santayana once said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

You can push for the disarmament of the American people, if that’s what you want. To you we have but one thing to say: Remember what King Leonidas told the emissary of King Xerxes when the Spartans were told to surrender their arms…Come and take them!

Thomas Jefferson once said that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants, and if you try to take our guns, believe me, there will be blood spilled; and it won’t be all ours. And when the dust settles, either you will still have those who are ready and willing to defend your rights, or you will be slaves.

Posted in General | 2 Comments

Y’all Just Don’t Get It, Do You?

I’d be willing to bet that, at some point or another, almost every American has at least seen a few minutes of a NASCAR race. It doesn’t matter if you are a fan or if you just happened to see one while in the waiting room at your auto dealership’s maintenance department while your vehicle was being worked on; if someone mentions NASCAR you are likely to get a mental image of those brightly colored cars zipping around a track.

Awhile back I wrote an article entitled Why Government is Like Football. Well, government is also a lot like NASCAR. For example, NASCAR is highly competitive with people vying to be the first to cross the checkered flag. Aren’t political campaigns also highly competitive; with candidates saying whatever they can to diminish the appeal of their opponents, or the other party; while boosting support for their own campaign?

But that’s not the main reason I say NASCAR is like government; it is because of something entirely different. Have you ever taken a close look at the cars they drive, or the fire retardant uniforms they wear; they are all emblazoned with the names of their corporate sponsors. The thing is, NASCAR, and those who participate in the actual racing of the cars, are not ashamed to display who funds and finances their car and the costs associated with travelling across the country; going from race to race.

On the flip side, politicians, although there is a certain amount of transparency in regards to who contributes towards their campaigns, like to keep hidden the face that they are whores for corporate sponsors and most likely don’t give a damn about what’s in the best interest of the people or the States. All politicians care about is power, and the ability to retain that power; even if it means selling their souls and selling out the people who voted for them.

Do you think these NASCAR drivers, especially the rookies, could afford the cost of a car, the team required to maintain that car, and the costs associated with travelling across the country to participate in these races if they did not have funding from corporate sponsors? Me neither.

Have you ever stopped to think about how much a political campaign costs? According to an article in the New York Times, the average cost of a campaign to get elected to the House of Representatives is $1.6 million. While that’s chump change in politics, I doubt that most of us have a cool million and a half laying around to throw away on the chance we could convince the average Tom, Dick and Jane to vote for us.
But then when we begin talking about seats in the Senate the cost goes up dramatically. Instead of running about $1.5 million to run a campaign it costs about $10.4 million to get elected to the Senate; and the number skyrockets up to $3 billion if you want a chance at the big house; the Oval Office.

While it is true that a lot of money comes from individual donations from those who believe in a candidate, that is only a drop in the bucket compared to the money that flows from big name corporations into the campaign coffers of those seeking office. Although federal law prohibits corporations from directly contributing to the campaigns of politicians, there are always loopholes in the system that lets them get around that obstacle. Political Action Committees, or PAC’s, are allowed to donate, and those PAC’s wouldn’t be donating millions of dollars if they didn’t expect some kind of a return on their investment. I don’t know about you, but I don’t care how much I liked a candidate, I’m not going to send them a check for upwards of $20 million; as did the Paloma Partners did to the campaign of Hillary Clinton.

Now I’m not singling Ms. Clinton out; all of them get money from PAC’s who invest in the campaigns of those most likely to work towards passing laws that somehow benefit them. Not to mention the lobbyists who roam the halls of Congress wooing Senators and members of the House. To say that those you elect actually represent you shows a degree of naivety and innocence that borders on stupidity.

Sure, these people will try and do things which benefit their constituents; like working to get a big company to open a plant in your home state; thereby creating thousands of jobs; but is it the job of our government to create jobs for the people? Is it the job of our government to make America a wealthy, or an economic powerhouse?
Not according to Patrick Henry, “You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.”

Then there is something James Garfield, the 20th President of the United States said in a letter to B. A. Hinsdale in 1874, “It is no part of the functions of the National Government to find employment for the people, and if we were to appropriate a hundred millions for his purpose, we should only be taxing 40 millions of people to keep a few thousand employed.”

In fact, 5 years earlier, in a letter to H. N. Eldridge, Garfield said, “The chief duty of government is to keep the peace and stand out of the sunshine of the people.” Now I may be mistaken, but that sounds very similar to something Thomas Jefferson once said, “The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.” (Source: Letter to M.L. Hommande, 1787)

I am hoping that anyone who graduated high school and took even the most rudimentary of Civics classes has heard the term, separation of powers. The term separation of powers refers to the wall built within the Constitution which divides the powers of the 3 branches of our government and keeps them from interfering with the functions of the others.

For instance, it is not the responsibility of the President to enact law; the job of the Executive is to faithfully execute the laws which have been passed by Congress; or to veto those they feel violate the intent of the Constitution. Congress is the lawmaking body in our government, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Notice it does not say some legislative authority, it says ALL LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY. That means that ONLY Congress can pass laws. Sure, the President can veto a bill sent to him, but then Congress, if they have sufficient numbers, can overturn that veto if they feel the law needs to be passed.

In a representative form of government such as ours, it is worth the time and effort to ask who Congress is supposed to be representing. When the delegates to the Constitutional Convention deliberated on the structure Congress should take, I don’t recall reading how any of them suggested that the Congress consist of one branch to represent the great body of the people, another to represent the individual States, and another to represent business and banking interests.

No, Congress was to be the elected voice of the people and the States, not business and banking interests. Yet, if you are honest with yourself, isn’t that what it has become? How did this come about; this transformation of our government from one which represented the constituent bodies which created government to one which represents privately owned and operated business and banking interests?

Well, it’s a long convoluted story, but it begins with one Alexander Hamilton who felt that the power of government should be used to make America a mighty empire; the very thing Patrick Henry said was NOT the reason for which government should exist.

From the moment Hamilton was appointed to the position of Secretary of the Treasury he worked tirelessly to give a private bank control over our nation’s currency, all while he sought to use the power of government to pass laws and impose protective tariffs which benefitted American business interests.

It’s interesting to note that it was Hamilton’s policies which led to the formation of the original Democratic Party, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who favored a strict interpretation of the powers given government by the Constitution over Hamilton’s loose interpretation; filled with all manner of implied powers.

Today we all expect the federal government to fund all kinds of internal improvements to our nation’s infrastructure; such as road and highway repair. How many times have you heard candidates speak out about how this bill or that would create jobs; all the while improving the infrastructure of America? Well, in 1817 President James Madison vetoed such a bill. It might open your eyes if you were to read a portion of Madison’s veto message, so I’ll include it here if you are interested:

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

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

“The power to regulate commerce among the several States” can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce without a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.

To refer the power in question to the clause “to provide for common defense and general welfare” would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them…

The thing is, most of these business and banking interests were centered in the Northern States, with the South being primarily agricultural and not needing any support, or subsidies from government. Yet the tariffs being imposed by government which benefitted these Northern interests were primarily shouldered by the Southern States; upwards of 45% at times. When our Founders sought their independence from Great Britain, one of their slogans was “taxation without representation.”

That may as well have been the slogan for the South in the years leading up to the Civil War. I’ve mentioned before the Nullification Crisis, but you would do well to delve into that in greater detail if you want to understand how the power of taxation was being used to benefit Northern business interests at the cost of oppressive taxation upon the South.

One would also do well to spend a few hours of your time looking to see how government subsidized the railroad industry as it spread its tentacles westward; giving huge tracts of land and large sums of money to railroad companies as they laid their track towards the Pacific.

I don’t mean to make this about the Civil War, but how would you feel if upwards of 45% of your income was being taken from you and then being given to those who were already rich; and upon which you got nothing in return? Wouldn’t you revolt against such outright theft?

Regardless of how you personally feel about the Civil War, there is one thing that is undeniable about its outcome; that being that it forever put an end to the belief that the so-called Union was a voluntary banding together of the States for their own mutual benefit. Post Civil War America is a country that consists of States that are but mere subsidiaries of the national government. Think of it this way McDonalds or WalMart are huge corporations; right? Each corporation has its own headquarters where all the major decisions are made as to store layout, what to sell, and what prices to charge. Yet each store is independent from the others. Well, think of your State as but a franchise of the main corporation; which is located in Washington D.C.

You, the American taxpayer, are but a corporate employee who works for the national government. They have passed all these laws which tell you everything from how much water your toilet can use per flush to what you are allowed to put into your body to fight disease; often at the urging of those who finance the campaigns of these corrupt politicians you continually vote for.

Is that the nature of a free man; one who has every aspect of their life micromanaged by government? Is this the limited government instituted by our Founders in 1789; one which engages in unconstitutional wars; most likely to keep the books of the military industrial complex in the black? Is America still the land of the free when your rights are often subject to the whim and caprice of an uneducated and emotional majority?

Does it matter whether tyranny comes knocking on your door wearing the costume of an elephant or a donkey; and by that I mean Republican or Democrat? Either you see that our government is not the one that first went into operation in 1789 or you don’t. Either you support tyrants or you oppose them. In this there is no middle ground.

I could honestly care less if you supported Trump, Hillary, Bernie, or anyone else for that matter; one individual is not going to change anything in our government, no matter how much integrity they have. Trump talks about draining the swamp; well Washington D.C. IS THE SWAMP, and to end the corruption it has to be torn down and rebuilt upon the original blueprint; the Constitution. But for that to work the people must forsake this idiotic loyalty to political parties and use the Constitution and Bill of Rights as the sole determining factor when deciding which candidate to vote for. And I simply don’t see that happening in sufficient numbers to stop the progression of America from a Republic to a corpocracy; one in which all political decisions are made by corporations, and which benefit those corporations.
During the Revolution, General George Washington, in an address to his men, stated, “The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves.” I’m a bit more blunt, “America, you have a choice to make. Get educated and learn how your government has betrayed you, or get on your knees and admit that you’re already a slave.”

And, as the old saying goes; the ball is now in your court.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

A Little Clarification

After I sent out yesterday’s article I was told that, overall it was good but that it became a bit confusing towards the end when I mentioned the 14th Amendment and how it made slaves of us all. So, being the nice guy that I am, I thought I’d clarify what I meant by that statement. However for me to be able to do that effectively I must go back in time to when our Founders first gained their independence from Great Britain.

To truly understand how the 14th Amendment irrevocably altered the relationship between the people of America and their government one must first understand the relationship between the two entities prior to the forced ratification of the 14th Amendment.

Prior to the Revolution the people living in the Colonies were subjects of the Crown; meaning that their government was their sovereign. Understanding what being a sovereign or having sovereignty means is crucial if you want to understand how the 14th Amendment made slaves of us all.

Sovereignty is defined many ways, but the simplest definition is that sovereignty is the font from which all political authority flows. If you are a sovereign there is no one with more political authority than you; and the only laws you are required to obey are the ones you consent to of your own free will.

After the Revolution the people were no longer subjects under the rule of the British Crown; so what were they? They became sovereign and independent people; a fact which was affirmed later by the Supreme Court, “At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.” (Source: Chisholm v. Georgia, 1793)

As a sovereign no man, or woman, can tell another how they must live their lives; what rules they must obey, what they can say, what they can put into their bodies, etc. etc. To do so would be to lower their status from sovereign to subject; making them a slave to whomever makes the rules they must obey.

As sovereigns the people of the various 13 States owed their citizenship, not to America, but to the State wherein they resided. There were citizens of Massachusetts, citizens of Virginia, so on and so forth. Each State, by the sovereign authority of the people inhabiting it had created a system of government to manage the internal affairs of their State; passing whatever laws they deemed were in the best interests of the State itself; not the union of the 13 States.

When the federal government was created, via the ratification of the Constitution, certain sovereign powers were granted the government by the States, having been agreed to by the understanding that only those powers would be exercised on their behalf.

The government did not create itself; this fact is explained by Thomas Paine as follows, “Government is a compact between those who govern and those who are governed; but this cannot be true, because it is putting the effect before the cause; for as man must have existed before governments existed, there necessarily was a time when governments did not exist, and consequently there could originally exist no governors to form such a compact with.

The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.”

The people living in 1787 did not just gather together and slap an ad hoc government together off the top of their heads, they sent delegates to a convention, (regardless of whether they overstepped their authority or not) who produced a written constitution; outlining the form this government should take and the powers it should hold.

It is imperative to note that at this point in time the constitution was merely a proposal for a system of government; it had no legal authority whatsoever. It was only when the true sovereigns, the people, gathered together and voted to accept the system of government outlined by the Constitution that the government was given life and authority.

You must understand that when this happened what actually occurred was that the people, as both sovereigns and citizens of their respective States, consented to surrendering a portion of their sovereignty to a federal government for certain specific purposes, and those purposes only.

For any law passed by the federal government to have any authority over us it must be in accordance to the powers originally delegated to it by those who agreed to accept this system of government. I say that because, once the Constitution went into effect it became the Supreme Law of the Land; binding upon both the people AND the government. This also was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1866, “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.” (Source: Ex parte Milligan)

Do you think, as wise as our Founders were, that they would create a system of government which, no matter how evil and oppressive it became, that the people would be forever obligated to obey the laws it passed? No, they would not have condemned future generations to subjugation and servitude to tyrants; not after all they had risked to free themselves from a tyrant.

In fact, in some of the State Ratification documents they declared that it was the right of a State to withdraw their consent for this government should it become tyrannical and oppressive. In the Virginia Ratifying Document it states, “We the Delegates of the People of Virginia … Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression…” New York’s ratifying document contained similar wording, “That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness…”

Neither of those statements lay down any specific guidelines as to how oppressive the government must become before they revoked their consent to it; only that it was their right to do so whenever they felt it was in the best interests of the State, or the people to do so.

Is that not what the 11 States of the Confederacy did; revoke their consent to being governed by a system that they felt was tyrannizing and oppressing them? Does it matter what reasons they gave? The fact is that it was the right of a single State, or a group of States to leave the Union at the time of their choosing should staying in the Union become detrimental to their well being as sovereign States.

Secession had been considered many times prior to the Civil War. It was spoken of by many Northern States in opposition to the policies of President Jefferson, and it was spoken of again by the North in opposition to the War of 1812 under President James Madison. It was only when the South actually did it that the federal government was faced with a decision; let them secede in peace; as was their right, or use force to compel them into remaining in the Union. Abraham Lincoln chose Option B and raised an army to invade the sovereign territory of a foreign country. You see, that’s what the seceded Southern States became when they banded together in the Confederacy; a sovereign and independent nation unto themselves; distinct and separate from the United States.

That is how the South viewed the invasion of their country, and it is how most of the world viewed it as well. In an 1861 edition of the London Times an editorial was printed which stated, “[T]he contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces. These opinions…are the general opinions of the English nation.”

Sure the South fired first at Fort Sumter, but wouldn’t we fire upon any nation’s soldiers who attempted to occupy a military fortification on our sovereign soil? Lincoln knew that by attempting to resupply Fort Sumter with troops and supplies that he was invading and occupying the soil of a sovereign State; and that in so doing he was likely to garner a confrontation of a military nature; making it look like the South drew first blood. Yet the fact remains that it was Lincoln who invaded them, and they were only defending their land from foreign invaders.

This, America’s Second War for Independence, waged for 4 bloody years; with over half a million lives lost and untold millions of dollars in damage to the infrastructure and economy of the South. After the South lost the government, led by the radical Republicans, of whom Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner treated the South like occupied territories; passing all manner of law to subjugate and humiliate them. It was so bad that President Andrew Johnson called it a bill of attainder against nine millions of people at once.

Before the South was allowed to resume their rightful status as States; with full representation in Congress, one of the things they were forced to agree to was the ratification of the 14th Amendment.

Are you aware that if someone holds a gun to your head and sign a contract that it is not legally binding because you were under duress when you signed it? So, how can a Constitutional Amendment be binding if certain States were under duress when they were forced to accept it?

Yet we have, what purports to be a Constitutional Amendment granting citizenship to the recently freed slaves, and it is accepted by all to be legally binding as part and parcel of the Constitution; as if the Constitution had been effective at restricting our government from overstepping its authority and subjugating the South in the first place.

Yet is that what the 14th Amendment did; grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves; or was their some ulterior motive for it? Well, let’s take a look at what it actually says. Here is the text for the entire 14th Amendment, and I’m betting you didn’t know there was more than one clause in it too:

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
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. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Sounds innocent enough; right? Unfortunately for you it isn’t; and that’s because most people don’t think and speak like lawyers; using legal terminology which has specific and distinctly separate meanings than do the same words when used by the general public.

One of the key points is in the use of the word jurisdiction. Jurisdiction implies power; a superior and an inferior; or a ruler and a subject. If, as the Supreme Court held way back in 1793, that all sovereignty belongs to the people, then the people are the ones with jurisdiction over our government, and government is inferior to our authority. However, if the roles were to be reversed, government would become our superior, our master, and we would be subject to whatever laws it decides are necessary for the general welfare of the country.

Have you ever heard the saying, “Read the fine print before you sign something”? Well that applies just as much to citizenship as it does to any contract you agree to. If you do not read, and understand what you are reading, does that nullify a contract you willingly agreed to sign? Not in a court of law it doesn’t; ignorance is no excuse; that’s on you. The same is true when you accept that you are a citizen of the United States, and not the State wherein you reside. Once you assume the title of U.S. Citizen you become subject to the complete and absolute jurisdiction of the government of the United States. Unfortunately, as the 14th Amendment clearly states, you no longer have unalienable rights, you have privileges; and privileges can be revoked or rescinded.

You see, there are two types of persons in legal terminology. There are individuals, or natural person born with inherent and unalienable rights; possessed with the sovereignty that goes along with it, and there is the legal person; a corporate entity. By agreeing to become a United States Citizen you are relinquishing your natural born status and assuming the status of a corporate entity subject to the rules of any and all contracts entered into by all parties.

By agreeing to become a United States Citizen you are accepting that the federal government has full and total jurisdiction over you, and your property. Effectively you have agreed to become a serf working on the federal plantation. So, instead of granting slaves their rights, the 14th Amendment made slaves of all those who agree to the status of United States Citizens.

The courts across America no longer recognize the Constitution as an organic act between the independent sovereigns of America creating a system of government with limited power. Rather, they view it as a contract between corporations; granting government exclusive jurisdiction over the subjects; We the people. All of this thanks to the 14th Amendment.

But unfortunately there is more. As a sovereign citizen you are obligated only for the debt you incur as an individual; meaning whatever loans you take out and whatever you charge on your credit cards. However, thanks to the 14th Amendment, you are now on the hook to pay off the debt incurred by the federal government; which keeps growing at the rate of about $3.8 billion per day; that’s billion with a capital B!

If you are a citizen of the United States, what is the United States? Now that sounds like a ridiculous comment coming from someone who should know better; but hold on a minute and I’ll explain why I ask. Do you think the United States is the boundary of all 50 States comprising a single entity? If so, you’d be wrong; at least from a legal standpoint.

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, the United States is defined as: territory over which sovereignty of the United states extends. If that is true, then what is the United States? Well, the Constitution grants our government to occupy land comprising ten square miles where it may exercise full jurisdiction. We know this land to be Washington, District of Columbia, or Washington D.C. for short. That, and that alone is where our government has absolute jurisdiction.

Yet by claiming the status of United States Citizen, you are accepting that the governments jurisdiction reaches beyond the boundaries of Washington D.C. and touches you as a citizen living in any of the 50 States. You are relinquishing your status as a free and sovereign citizen and accepting that you are a subject of the government.

This is what the 14th Amendment did; it created a nation of willing slaves; who unless they know better, and take the legal steps to free themselves, will live and die as slaves to a government that cares only that they keep the economy, and taxes flowing.

There is much more to it than this; I have only parted the curtain enough for you to get a glimpse into the fraud that has been perpetrated against us all. Unfortunately, I think that even this small amount of information I have provided will leave most confused, or shaking their heads saying, “Neal finally went off the deep end.”

You can believe whatever you want, it won’t change how I feel. I know that it took me a long time to accept this; but once I did it was as if a burden had been removed from my shoulders, as I was no longer bound to pledge my allegiance or loyalty to a government that was no longer legitimate. If you can but see that then you will see why I harp so much on the two party paradigm; for it does not matter who is in control of government when government overall is corrupt and seeks to enslave you. If you can at least accept that you are on the right path and all else will follow if you but pursue the facts to where they lead you.

But, if you can’t accept that, might I ask a favor of you? Close your eyes and listen closely. If you do, you may just be able to hear the sound of the chains which bind you in servitude.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

A Day of Infamy

On March 4, 1789 the legislative authority given to the Congress by the Articles of Confederation was transferred to the government established by the Constitution. The Congress under the Articles of Confederation did not create the government we had today, it was created by men. It was them submitted to other groups of men, (within the various sovereign States) for their approval; on the condition that the government being created would exercise ONLY those powers they were promised it would exercise.

As such it was not a contract between government and men; it was a contract between the men of sovereign States with each other to accept a government of limited nature with certain specific powers. This government, (being but a creation of men), could not decide for itself the extent of its own power; that would be like a child telling its parents the rules they must obey. In 1798 Thomas Jefferson affirmed this when he wrote, “…that the government created by this compact [the Constitution for the United States] was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers…” (Source: Kentucky Resolutions)

Yet if parents do not exercise their parental authority and discipline their child when he/she violates their rules, that child will end up causing them problems later in life. Such is the same with our government; if we as the true political sovereigns do not expect, or demand that our government adhere strictly to those limited powers given it, it will become this monster that knows no limits and violates our rights with impunity.

Patrick Henry saw this as a great flaw in the system being proposed; that there was no means by which the government being proposed could be constrained by the people should it ever exceed its powers and violate the liberty it was designed to protect. Numerous times in the Virginia Ratifying Assembly Henry would rise up and speak out against this fatal flaw:

– My great objection to this Government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging war against tyrants.

– 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.

– Shew me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty?

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

Obviously Henry’s warnings went in one ear and out the other, as Virginia agreed to accept the form of government outlined by the Constitution; as did the remaining States for that matter; even though there were those in some of them who voiced similar concerns.

Yet here we are today with a government that oversteps the limits imposed upon it by the Constitution daily without any punishment whatsoever. An intellectually honest person would be forced to conclude that maybe Patrick Henry was on to something that others could not see in their rush to accept a system of government that was flawed from the get go.

Before I continue with my own thoughts I would like to toss in a quote from Lysander Spooner that echoes, or predates what I am feeling now, “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

I have had numerous discussions or arguments if you prefer, with people who have told me that the Constitution is old and outdated and no longer applies to the modern world we live in. When I agree with them they become quite shocked; until I throw in the little caveat that if the Constitution needs to be abolished, then so does the system of government it established.

That is when they hold up their hands and say, “Just wait a minute there Neal, we NEED government.” Is that so? I don’t NEED government. If you need it then it is because you either rely upon the benefits it provides you or because you need something with the authority to impose your will, or agenda, upon those who otherwise would not give you a moment of their time.

So, either you are a slave to government because of your dependency upon it, or you wish it to make a tyrannical use of its power to impose your will upon those who otherwise would not consent to your beliefs. There can be no other explanations; either you are a slave or you are a petty tyrant; which one is it?

Now I don’t particularly care that much for James Wilson, (for things he later did to pervert the intent of the Constitution), but he did once write, “Government … should be formed to secure and enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government which has not this in view as its principal object is not a government of the legitimate kind.”

Now there is a key word in that statement that most of you probably skipped over without even noticing; that keyword being MEMBERS; as in plural. Some of you may be thinking that by members he was speaking of the mass of the people; but you would be wrong. You see, our government was established not only to be the legislative voice of the people, but of the States as well. Why else would those who drafted our Constitution create a Senate where the voice of the States could be exercised in determining what laws went into effect?

There is not a soul alive today who has lived under a legitimate form of government, (and I’ll get to that briefly), but there also isn’t a soul alive today who has seen our Congress be truly representative of those it was originally designed to represent–that is of course unless you are 105 yrs old. You see, in 1913 the 17th Amendment was ratified, transferring the power of electing United States Senators from the States to the people; thereby shutting the States out of the legislative process.

So much for checks and balances…

To understand how we got from Point A to Point B we must travel back in time to when our government was first being put into operation and ask ourselves; why was this system of government chosen to replace the one established by the Articles of Confederation. In deciding whether a government is good or bad one must first know why that system government exists; its purpose. John Adams stated that question thusly, “We ought to consider what is the end of government, before we determine which is the best form.” (Source: Thoughts on Government, 1776)

There were those, and I’m not saying I agree with them, who felt that the Congress established by the Articles of Confederation was weak and ineffective in its ability to levy and collect taxes and to regulate commerce between the States. These men felt that, without a stronger unifying central government the Union would splinter into a bunch of States squabbling with each other and become easy prey for outside influences; such as Britain or France, to invade and gain control over.

Now there may, or may not have been some validity to their claims; but I’m not here to discuss what might have happened, I’m here to discuss what did happen. So, in the year 1787 a convention was held in which amendments to the Articles of Confederation were to be suggested for the States to consider. But that’s not what occurred. Instead, these delegates overstepped the authority given them by their State Legislatures and came up with an entirely new system of government; outlined by a written constitution.

To give this new form of government the strength they felt it would need the delegates required that the States surrender a portion of their sovereignty, or political authority, to this system of government. How much sovereignty, and whether this new system of government left the States as part of a confederation, (a loose union of states held together by the voluntary consent of all) or whether it created a consolidation of the States into an unbreakable bond was one of the biggest concerns of those who opposed the Constitution; as well as the lack of a Bill of Rights protecting the rights of the people and the States.

A war of words ensued in which both sides voiced their arguments in the hopes of swaying the masses towards their position. We all know how it turned out; as the Constitution was ratified and the system of government it outlined went into effect. I suppose the only question is; which side of the argument has history proven to have been the most truthful? If you want my honest opinion, those who opposed the Constitution have been vindicated by history; as our system of government has turned out to be exactly what they warned it would; overgrown, tyrannical and destructive of the liberty it was supposed to protect.

But how did that happen?

From the moment our system of government went into operation there were those selected to positions within it, led by Alexander Hamilton, who sought to expand the powers given the government by finding hidden or implied powers within the specifically enumerated powers. I can’t go into too much detail; otherwise this would become too long, but for instance, the Commerce Clause has been the source of much misery; such as the extent to which government regulates private industry today. Had the Constitution been strictly adhered to there would be no interference by the federal government in the operation of private industry.

Now some may see these rules and regulations as being beneficial to society, but I see them as a means for government to expand its power and control over our lives. If you let someone else make all your decisions for you, and control every aspect of your life, then you are a slave to whomever, or whatever makes those rules and regulations. That’s how I see it.

However, for a long time there was a resistance to the expansion of federal authority in the Democratic Party. Yes the Democrats; just not the liberal progressive Democrats you know today. The Democratic Party was founded by followers of the Jeffersonian/Madison line of thought that our government was bestowed with certain specific powers, and that when it overstepped those powers the States had the right to nullify them by simply refusing to obey any law passed which exceeded governments legitimate authority.

But just as a child keeps testing the limits of its boundaries government kept testing the limits imposed upon it. You see, this is where our Founders dislike of democracies comes into play. If one portion of the country, especially a portion where a majority of the people are the beneficiaries of unconstitutional laws, while another portion suffers under them, then that is the democratic process in its full glory. Our system was designed to be a system of laws, not of men; another John Adams quote; and without the law to constrain one group from violating the rights, or oppressing another group, then there is tyranny.

Alexander Hamilton, and his Republicans, felt that the power of government should be used to expand and protect U.S. business interests. Unfortunately for the South, which was primarily agricultural, that meant that they were taxed upwards of 40% to fund the programs which benefitted Northern business interests.

In the 1830’s a crisis arose in which South Carolina almost seceded from the Union due to these taxes, or tariffs being imposed upon them. One would do well to research the Nullification Crisis; both its causes and what eventually caused the crisis to pass without any disunion of the States.

You see, at the same time there was a growing movement in the North to end the further spread of slavery into new States. While I’m not condoning slavery in any way, I am saying that at the time without a constitutional amendment abolishing it, slavery was perfectly legal in the early to mid 1800’s. Many in the North held slaves, and many in the North had profited mightily from the importation of those poor souls who were brought into America to be sold into bondage. So slavery cannot, I repeat CANNOT be laid at the feet of the South; it was a crime that could have been ended had the drafters of our Constitution including wording to forbid its continuance as an institution…but they didn’t, so slavery was, although immoral, perfectly legal at the time.

What the drafters of the Constitution did do is include wording in the Constitution which allowed for slaves to be counted towards deciding how many seats in the House of Representatives a slave owning State could hold; the Three Fifths Clause.

Although slavery itself was evil, the States that practiced it were among those who felt that government should be held to the specific powers listed by the Constitution; those and nothing more. If newly admitted States were not allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to practice slavery, then the political authority of those wishing to restrain the growth of government would be diminished drastically.

If you want to condemn slavery, fine condemn it; but blame the New England ship owners who brought those people to America to be slaves as well. Blame the drafters of the Constitution for not abolishing it altogether; preferring instead to present a system of government that stood a chance of being accepted over one which would have been flat out rejected by some States.

As distasteful as the idea of slavery is, it was a fact and it was perfectly legal at the period of our nation’s history currently under discussion. To say that the Civil War was fought to end slavery is a flat out lie, and it also proves that you know absolutely nothing about the powers given our government. The Civil War was fought because certain States felt that by remaining in the Union they would be forced to subjugate themselves to a government which was detrimental to their interests; so they chose to secede. However Abraham Lincoln denied their ability to secede, believing that the union consented to by all States was perpetual and unbreakable. He then proceeded to use musket, bayonet, and cannon to enforce his belief upon the South.

That is the cause of the Civil War, not slavery, not tariffs, nothing other than a government seeking to retain control over a people who wished to be free of that government. Now secession on the other hand, can be attributed to either tariffs or interference in the institution of slavery, but the war itself was fought by a government that sought to subjugate and control a portion of the Union that sought to free itself from a government that had grown tyrannical to them.

You must understand and accept that fact if there is any hope of you understanding how our system of government got from Point A to Point B!

To say that Lincoln fought to free the slaves goes against historical fact. Lincoln, at first did not care one way or the other about the institution of slavery. In fact, he supported the ratification of an amendment which would have made slavery permanent in the United States. (Google the Corwin Amendment) and then read the following from his Inaugural Address, “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution–which amendment, however, I have not seen–has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

How can you say that Lincoln fought a war to end slavery when he said he supported the ratification of an amendment making it a permanent and irrevocable institution in America? Then of course there is this, taken from his 1862 letter to editor 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.”

Those are not my words, they are the words of Abraham Lincoln; the man historians tell us fought a war to end slavery; and the words people today reject because they torpedo their belief that the North was fighting a just war to end slavery; not a war to hold one portion of the nation in bondage to another.

Woodrow Wilson, before becoming our 28th President was both a lawyer and an academic; serving as a professor of history and politics at Princeton University. In 1902 Wilson published a 5 volume set of books entitled, A History of the American People, in which he writes, “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 your history books tell you the lies they do about the Civil War; because to tell the truth would condemn Abraham Lincoln, and our government in general. To tell the truth about that conflict would begin to lift the veil of deception that has been pulled over your eyes and kept you from seeing that our government has become far worse than the one our Founders fought to free themselves from in 1776. In fact, it is not only far worse; it is wholly unconstitutional, crossing over into the region one could call criminal.

How can you say that a government which was based upon the consent of the people then turned around and denied those who revoked their consent for it, be legitimate? How can you say a government, that after it had defeated those seeking their independence from it, sought to impose military rule over them; denying them their right to form Republican forms of government within their States? How can you say that a government is legitimate when it demanded that they ratify an amendment to the Constitution before they were send representatives and be allowed to resume their positions in Congress?

Of course let us not forget all the violations of the Constitution Lincoln was guilty of DURING the war; the suspension of Habeas Corpus, the violation of the freedom of the press when he imprisoned editors who spoke out against his policies; the issuing of an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court because he ruled against Lincoln; and the invasion of Maryland to prevent their legislature from voting on the issue of secession…just to name a few.

And of course there was Lincoln’s support of any and all means to bring the South to its knees; including the burning down of the entire Shenandoah Valley, the path of destruction wrought between Savannah, Georgia to the ocean in which everything of any value was either torn down or burnt to the ground; not to mention the raping and pillaging that took place when Northern invaders came into Southern towns and communities.

Yeah, the Civil War was a just war alright…keep believing that and I’ll sell you some land I own on planet Mars.

The government we have today is a de facto government. Now I’m certain that some of you don’t know what a de facto government is, versus a de jure government. Something that is de facto is something that is true, but is not officially sanctioned. On the other hand, de jure is something that is in accordance with law. Our de jure government went out the window when the Lincoln sent troops into the South to compel them into adhering to the Union. That window was slammed shut when the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified.

We all know that the 13th Amendment abolished slavery; although there were two amendments prior to this 13th Amendment which could have been ratified. One was the proposed Corwin Amendment; which did the exact opposite of the 13th Amendment we know today, and the other would have prevented lawyers from holding positions in our government, or the Titles of Nobility, or TONA amendment; which is still technically pending; awaiting the ratification of 26 more states to become part of the Constitution.

But it is the next amendment to the Constitution I would like to discuss now; the 14th Amendment. You are taught that the 14th Amendment gave the slaves; which had been freed by the 13th Amendment their rights. Once again you have been taught a lie. The 14th Amendment made slaves of us all by making us all citizens of the United States; an entity that has total jurisdiction over us, our property; granting us not rights, but privileges.

That you still believe in, and put your support and trust in this system of government is proof positive that the lie has taken root; that there is no threat to the power being exercised over you without your consent; that you are a slave.

They say the truth will set you free; but that’s only true when people accept the truth, then act upon it. On December 8, 1941 President Franklin Delano Roosevelt delivered a speech in which he said that December 7th would become a date that would live in infamy in America; referring to the Japanese attack upon Pearl Harbor.

Infamy is defined as, the state of being well known for some bad quality or deed. In the hearts and minds of many Americans December 7, 1941 remains a day the lives in infamy, but in my opinion April 15, 1861 is another day of infamy in that it ushered in the mechanism by which all that our Founders had fought for, (i.e. Liberty), would be undone.

You can keep believing the lie; participating in the fraud, but I know better; and even though they may use force against me, I recognize our government for what it truly is; an unconstitutional entity that seeks to enslave an entire people. The sooner you recognize that fact too the sooner we can go about setting things right in America.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

The Lost Skill of Critical Thinking

Reading furnishes the mind only with materials of
knowledge; it is thinking which makes what we read ours.

~John Locke~

Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing
is not enough; we must do.

~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe~

It has been said that Thomas Edison, (You know, the guy who invented the incandescent light bulb), once said, “Five percent of the people think; ten percent of the people think they think; and the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think.” Whether Edison actually said that is up for debate, but the fact is that someone did; and I’m inclined to agree with them.

Now you may disagree with me on this, and it is your right to do so, but I believe the purpose of our educational system is to teach our children how to think. Unfortunately I think our educational system has been taken over by those who, instead of teaching our children how to think, are teaching them WHAT TO THINK.

When I was but a wee lad attending school I remember having to read books and write book reports on them. These book reports were not to be synopses of the plot; rather they were to be what I thought the author was attempting to say. I also remember having to write research papers where I would pick, or be given a subject, and then have to write an essay about that subject providing facts and evidence to support my stated position.

In order to complete these homework assignments I was required to think for myself; to evaluate facts and come to a conclusion based upon those facts. Not only that, but I was also required to learn how to research a subject; to seek out facts about it without having those facts spoon fed to me. To be able to do that effectively I was required to examine both sides of an argument with an open mind; something many people today are unwilling to do. I can’t speak for you, but I think that it’s basic common sense that if one closes their mind to facts which they find distasteful, or uncomfortable then any conclusion they come to will be either biased, or at a minimum, flawed.

That’s how it was when I went to school; even though later in life I found that much of what I had read in my textbooks was biased, or outright lies; especially those textbooks dedicated to providing me with an understanding of our nation’s history and its system of government. Thirty-three years later my son graduated from high school, and I can’t recall him ever having to read a book and write a book report on it, or have to do a research paper.

The thing I find disturbing about this is that a good number of people today fit into Edison’s 10% range; they actually think they are thinking; when in reality they are reciting the things they have been taught to think. Instead of being places where our children are taught to think, our schools have become places where our children are sent so that they can be indoctrinated.

What I find even more disturbing than that is that, once a person reaches a certain age they drop down from that 10% range Edison speaks of into the 85% range; they would rather die than even attempt to think; especially if thinking involves considering information which threatens their existing beliefs.

While I don’t consider myself particularly smart, I do consider myself to be one who is willing to examine a subject from all sides, and who is then able to form a conclusion based upon careful study of the facts. Have there been times when I formed a flawed conclusion? Of course there have; but when I encountered evidence which contradicted my conclusion I did not hang on to that conclusion as if it were a life preserver; I changed my conclusion to match what the facts stated.

I used to think America had a democracy…until I learned otherwise. I used to think our government could do all those things it was doing…until I learned otherwise. I used to believe in the system and that my vote mattered…until I learned otherwise. And I even used to believe the Civil War was fought to end slavery…UNTIL I LEARNED OTHERWISE!!!

In 1789 Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter in which he stated, “I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.” (My emphasis)

Now I may be asking too much of some people, but what point do you think Jefferson was trying to make when he said that? Do you think it is that one should not belong to any political party, or possibly any denomination of religion? Maybe, but I like to think that Jefferson was trying to say that one should think for themselves before aligning themselves with any party or organization which did their thinking for them.

The legendary martial artist Bruce Lee often spoke of how adhering to one particular style of martial arts limited the artist by confining them to the rules of that style. Lee studied all styles and considered both their strengths and their weaknesses. Lee was, for lack of a better term, open-minded.

If you want to be truly informed you cannot engage in any discussion about politics or government from the perspective of a Republican or a Democrat; you must broaden your horizons beyond political parties and look at it from the perspective of what our government is allowed to do, and what it is prohibited from doing. If you cannot do this you will never escape that 10% range; you will be foolishly believing that you are thinking, when you are actually nothing more than an automaton who is acting on the things they have been indoctrinated into accepting as fact.

If you cannot, or will not consider any information that threatens your precious beliefs, or think about things beyond the narrow horizons of what you actually think about, (sports, Facebook, Reality TV, etc. etc.) then you are nothing better than sheep being led around by the nose by those who are telling you what you should think, what you should and should not say or believe.

That is my biggest gripe with this whole political correctness concept. Regardless of what people might think, I have absolutely no qualms with people disagreeing with me. What I do take issue with is when people simply adhere to a belief without being able to support it with any facts, or when they attempt to silence me because my views contradict theirs or because my views are ‘offensive.’ That’s plain censorship, and if you think you are entitled to censor me because my thoughts are offensive, who’s to say that tomorrow someone might find YOUR thoughts offensive and seek to censor you?

That’s what people don’t get about freedom of speech; it means that others have the freedom to disagree with you, and provide evidence to back up their position. If you cannot provide any evidence to support your position, that’s on you, not them. You cannot silence others simply because you are too lazy or apathetic to go out and find the truth.

I have no idea what people think about me unless they come out and tell me face to face; which doesn’t happen very often. Maybe they fear confrontation, or maybe they fear having their beliefs torn to shreds by someone who is armed with more facts than they are…who knows? Do they think I’ll break into tears if my views are threatened, or that I’ll run off and turn them in for hurting my feelings, (as others have done to me)?

I actually enjoy a good debate; as long as the person debating me comes armed with facts and not feelings’ there simply is no debating people who are like that. It’s like Mark Twain said, “Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” And if you think I’m calling you stupid, then maybe you have a guilty conscience.

The whole point I’m trying to get at here is, stop letting others do your thinking for you; including me. After all, does it really matter if you are reading left-wing blogs and newspapers, or right wing blogs and newspapers; the opinions you are forming are based upon the bias of those whose words you are reading. Why don’t you go out and find out for yourselves what the Founders of this country felt about things like rights, the powers given government, war, taxes, debt, and a laundry list of other problems this country faces today?

Or are you content to be a sheep who is allowed to graze the open pastures, but is still a slave to those who control the flow of information you consume?

In closing I’d like to leave you with a rather lengthy quote from George Carlin on the subject matter I have been discussing. Some may find his use of profanity offensive, but it wouldn’t be George Carlin if he didn’t toss in a few curse words now and then. As the old saying goes, “It’s the thought that matters.” Open your minds and read, or as Morpheus constantly told Neo, “Open your mind.”

So, without any further ado, here are the brilliant thoughts of George Carlin:

Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice . . . you don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own,… and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought, and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying . . . lobbying, to get what they want . . . Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I’ll tell you what they don’t want . . . they don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that . . . that doesn’t help them. That’s against their interests. That’s right. They don’t want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly they’re getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fuckin’ years ago. They don’t want that. You know what they want? They want obedient workers . . . Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it, and now they’re coming for your Social Security money. They want your fuckin’ retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street, and you know something? They’ll get it . . . they’ll get it all from you sooner or later cause they own this fuckin’ place. It’s a big ‘Club’ and you ain’t in it. You and I are not in the big ‘Club’. By the way, it’s the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe.”

Posted in General | Leave a comment