What’s this Mr. Holder, you are asking people to respect the office which you hold? Why don’t you begin by respecting the office yourself? You are the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. Why don’t you see to it that our laws are enforced? Take your buddy for instance, that guy over in the Oval Office who, perhaps, might not even be eligible to hold the office he does, why don’t you investigate that? Or the fact that under your watch guns were run to Mexican drug cartels, resulting in the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, why hasn’t THAT been investigated? Then there is the fact that there are currently millions of illegal aliens running free in this country when our laws make their being here a crime. Instead of talking about immigration reform, why don’t we hear about immigration law enforcement? I mean, you are the chief law enforcement officer, aren’t you? You want my respect sir, you are going to have to earn it by doing your job!

Which leads me to the whole purpose for this rant, people wanting respect, but not willing to give it in return, or not earning it in the first place. As the title of this article implies, you aren’t entitled to a damn thing in this life, other than the chance to live free of governmental interference while seeking to improve yourself. If you choose not to improve yourself, or to work, then you alone must suffer the consequences of your actions, not place the burden upon society to sustain your pathetic existence.

There is this mistaken belief which is held by many people in this country that simply because you exist you are entitled to things when the truth is that you aren’t entitled to a damn thing unless you have earned it. If there is one thing is this world that I despise, it is laziness, be it physical or mental. I absolutely loathe people who expect something without having put forth any effort whatsoever to earn it.

There is one thing about this country which set us apart from others, the ability of the people to speak whatever is on their minds. That is guaranteed by the First Amendment as long as by our speaking out does not endanger the public safety, or slander another’s name or reputation. Yet if I were to say that the actions of our current, or past presidents, are treasonable and justify their serving time in prison, I am called unpatriotic, I am told I do not respect my country, or the presidency. As I said, everything has to be earned in this world, including respect. If the actions of a president show me that they do not respect their office, or their oath to the Constitution, then by God they are not going to get any respect from me! Teddy Roosevelt once said, “To announce that there must be no criticism of the president… is morally treasonable to the American public.” Just as I spoke of regarding the comments made by the Attorney General, if the person holding an office does not respect that office, why should I respect it, or the person holding it?

This whole concept of people wanting respect, without having earned it has been eating at me for a long time. Everyone seems to want respect, but they are unwilling to show any in return for those who may have opposing viewpoints. For instance, this whole issue of gay marriage, if you speak out against it you are called homophobic or told that you are denying others their God-given rights. When the truth is that I don’t believe that government should even get involved in it at all.

I don’t believe that homosexuality is normal, I think it is abnormal behavior. But I am not going to judge you should you choose that lifestyle. I fall far from the perfection of Christ and it is not my place to judge. I should, however, be allowed to openly speak as to why I feel the way I do without being targeted for harassment by anyone else due to my beliefs. As I said, respect is a two way street. You respect me and my beliefs, and I’ll respect you and yours. I may not like what you choose to do, but as long as you don’t bother me in the enjoyment of my rights I will leave you alone.

And this idea of respect goes for the work environment as well. I will turn 55 next month and yet I see kids nearly half my age unwilling to do what is required of them to earn their pay. Yet they say they want a raise and better benefits? Why don’t they begin by earning what they get now? If you want to be respected, and given a higher salary, then you should first EARN that respect before asking for more pay or better benefits.

But that is part of what is wrong in this country, everybody thinks they are entitled to something without having first earned it. This goes for your opinions as well. If you spout off at the mouth about something the you obviously know nothing about, do not be surprised when someone, who has taken the time to educate themselves as to the facts, shoots down your argument and makes you look like a fool. If you want your opinions to be taken seriously, and given the respect you think they deserve, then first learn the facts before opening your mouths. It’s that simple. Believe me, over the course of my years writing I have been taught that lesson numerous times. It takes an adult though to learn from the humiliation of having your thoughts and ideas systematically dismantled, and then learning from it. Instead, most people I know would resort to emotional outbursts instead of going back and seeing if they, in fact, had been wrong in the first place.

If you want my respect there are a few simple things you need to do before I’ll give it to you. First you must not lie to me, you must also keep your promises should you make them. Next, you must not tell me it is my responsibility to give a portion of what I earn to give to anyone, be it a group, or an individual, who is less fortunate than I. If I want to donate my time or money that is a different story, but don’t tax me to subsidize others. And finally, you must let me do as I please as long as my doing so does not hurt anyone else…and this is a big one.

For instance, I, along with millions of other gun owners, have owned guns all our lives. We like them, plain and simple. Our right to keep them is guaranteed by the Second Amendment. So, just because some nut job takes a gun and goes out and shoots dozen of innocent people you DO NOT have the right to deprive me of my right to keep any type gun I wish. I just heard today that as many as 50 people were injured when someone with a car drove in to a crowd of parade goers in Damascus Virginia. By your logic we should pass a ban on those type cars now simply because one was used to hurt innocent people.

I, honestly, don’t care what you do with your life. I don’t care if you are gay, choose to be a bum or a drug addict, or if you choose to apply yourself and succeed beyond your wildest dreams. I really don’t care. I only care about living my life the way I choose without anyone else telling me what I can or cannot do. You want my respect, allow me to do that and you shall have it. On the other hand, cross me, deny me my rights, continue to vote for people who will deny me my rights and you will become my worst enemy. It’s that simple. As the band Bad Company once sang, “I am just a simple man trying to be free.”

But it is hard to be free in a country where the law of the land has been perverted to plunder from those who work, to give to those who won’t; when the people who come to this country think that they are entitled to things they have never earned; when those who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and defend our rights, work continuously to take them from us.

And that is why I have so little respect for most people in this country, they are too concerned with their own petty lives to take the time to see how badly we have screwed things up in this country. I know there are others out there who feel as I do, the remnants of a lost age. Maybe we are dinosaurs, relics from a time gone past. Maybe when we are gone you can have your Utopian society where all are equal and all reap the benefits and are given the respect they claim they deserve. But, as long as I live and breathe I will fight for what I see to be good, and honest, and right. You may not like that, but you better learn to respect it, because one day we will be on opposing sides of a conflict, and if you don’t have the virtue to stand for what you believe in, YOU WILL LOSE.

In 1989 Justice William Brennan offered the following ruling, “If there is a bedrock principle of the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” I know that what I am about to say may offend some, while turning others away. I don’t care, I feel that what I am about to say NEEDS to be said. In fact, I think it is long overdue that I do say it. So steel yourself for Neal’s thoughts on why America is so screwed up.

To begin we must go back in time a bit. Normally I would be taking us back to the mid 1770′s for a discussion of the period when our system of government was established. Not this time. This time I am going back much further, to when the early settlers came to this continent, and the reason they came. Unlike the immigrants to this country today, who seek only the benefits this country has to offer them, the first people to settle this great nation came here for one purpose only, to seek religious freedom.

In 1620 the first settlers to Plymouth Colony drafted the Mayflower Compact, the first governing document written in America. It begins by saying, “IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith…”

Like it or not, that is why they came, for the Glory of God and the advancement of the Christian Faith. Not for riches or the chance to simply start anew in some unsettled territory. They came here to establish religious communities that would live their lives according to the principles contained in the Bible.

Years later the Massachusetts Bay Colony Records would state, “To the end the body of commons may be preserved of honest and good men it was ordered and agreed that, for the time to come, no man shall be admitted to the freedom of this body politic, but such as are members of the churches within the limits of the same.”

Many years later, in a 1780 letter to Elbridge Gerry, Samuel Adams would write, “If men of wisdom and knowledge, of moderation and temperance, of patience, fortitude and perseverance, of sobriety and true republican simplicity of manners, of zeal for the honour of the Supreme Being and the welfare of the commonwealth; if men possessed of these other excellent qualities are chosen to fill the seats of government, we may expect that our affairs will rest on a solid and permanent foundation.”

Fast forward two centuries and look where we are today. Sure we still have churches but the members are not of the same caliber and quality of those who came here in our nation’s earliest years. I know that may upset you, especially if you are a devout churchgoer. If it does, let me ask you a question. Do you not believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and that it contains the principles upon which you should adhere to in your lives? Then how can you, in clear conscience, support any candidate, or political party, which espouses ideas that are contrary to what are found in the Bible? Yet time and time again I see Americans, who claim to be Christian, voting for candidates who run on platforms that go against the teachings found in the Bible.

This country was founded by, honest hard working, men and women who asked nothing of government other than the chance to live their lives in freedom from unnecessary burdens, and the right to live their lives free to worship as they pleased. And for awhile it worked as our country grew and prospered. Sure there were hiccups along the way, but for the most part we were a nation of God-fearing people and in return we received God’s blessings upon us.

Look where we are today, a nation whose immigrants come here to find jobs, or to establish religious conclaves that are in opposition to the Christian heritage that founded this nation. We have allowed a small, but vocal minority to restrict our ability to freely worship. In fact, Church is something many do every week, but the religious teachings of the Bible are not the founding, and guiding, principles upon which people live their lives. Sure, there are exceptions to this, but they are not in the majority.

Let me ask you, why is it that our children cannot pray in school? The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” If Congress cannot pass a law which prohibits the free exercise of religion, why then cannot our children pray in school?

Ah, you say the Supreme Court has said it violates the wall of separation between church and state. Thomas Jefferson did not trust the Supreme Court, not at all. In fact, of them he said, “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Did you know that former Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black once said that, “Our Constitution was not written in the sands to be washed away by each wave of new judges blowing by each successive political wind.”

There is something that has always bothered me about the Supreme Court. Political pundits often muse over the thought that should a number of Justices retire in the same year, it would give a sitting president a chance to alter the political makeup of the court. If these judges rule on the basis of law only, why should it matter in their selection which political party controls the White House? All this talk of the justices possibly overturning Roe v Wade, for instance, if the court ruled in constitutional for a woman to obtain an abortion, then how can succeeding court overturn that ruling? Which ruling then would be based upon law, and which upon the common sentiments of the people?

With that thought in mind, let me present you with two Supreme Court rulings from very early on in our nation’s existence. The first was in 1844, in the case of Vidal v. Girard’s Executors. The Court ruled, ” Why may not the Bible and especially the New Testament be read and taught as a divine revelation in school? Where else can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the New Testament?”

The second comes from the Courts ruling on the case of Church of the Holy Trinity vs. U.S., “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian…this is a Christian nation.”

Are we, or have we become something else? Or are we as Christ spoke of in Matthew 15:8-9, “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”

In Luke, Chapter 6, Christ asks, “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” This country was founded by God-fearing men, our system of government was built by men who wanted to ensure that we would retain the right to freely worship. In a speech given at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Patrick Henry declared, “Show me that age and country where the rights and the liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequence loss of liberty?”

What was it Sam Adams said, “If men of wisdom and knowledge, of moderation and temperance, of patience, fortitude and perseverance, of sobriety and true republican simplicity of manners, of zeal for the honour of the Supreme Being and the welfare of the commonwealth; if men possessed of these other excellent qualities are chosen to fill the seats of government, we may expect that our affairs will rest on a solid and permanent foundation.”

Adams also said, “[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.” It falls upon us to know the nature and character of the people we choose to hold the highest seats of power in this country. In that way they are akin to a mirror which reflects the overall state of our union. If we are corrupt, they will reflect that in their choice of laws to pass and respect for our rights. It’s that simple.

If we want to fix our government, to return it to the purpose for which it was intended, we must first get our own homes in order. In Matthew 7, Christ said, “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”
In a speech before the Virginia Ratifying Convention, James Madison asked, “Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks — no form of government can render us secure. To suppose liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.”

George Washington once said, “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.”

Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson, in A Summary View of the Rights of British America, stated, “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.”

Are we witnessing God’s justice? Are His blessings being withheld from us because we have forsaken His eternal laws? I can’t answer that question with 100% certainty, but if I were a betting man, I would say the answer is yes.

So, if we want to restore America to her former glory, we must first start with ourselves.

And this is why I have struggled with this, because I know many of you want a quick fix, something you can do, and be done with. You don’t want to hear that YOU must do some work, or burden a share of the responsibility for what is wrong with this country. Nonetheless, here it is. Now it’s up to you to do something about it.

Besides, I grew up being taught that honesty is the best policy, so I think it’s time I be brutally honest and if you can’t handle what I have to say, tough. I saw something on Facebook the other day which I find fitting, it said, “The days of walking on pins and needles are over. The days of worrying about feelings have ended. It’s time to step on some toes and take our country back.” And if it is your toes I happen to step on in the process then maybe it is because you needed it.

Then again I could just quote from Patrick Henry, “This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.”

Why this sudden urge to speak what’s on my mind, and take the chance of pissing a whole bunch of people off? I’ll tell you why. I watch the news, (not that I trust those lying lapdogs to tell the truth), but I hear them mention these opinion polls regarding public sentiments about the issues and what I see pisses me off. So I think it is way past time I return the favor. For instance, after the Sandy Hook shooting it was reported that 90% of Americans were in favor of stricter gun control laws. Just the other day I got an e-mail update from CNN which said, “A new CNN/Time/ORC International Poll indicates four in 10 Americans say they are willing to give up some civil liberties to fight terrorism, and suggests worries about terrorism have edged up after the Boston Marathon bombings.”

Do you want to know what crosses my mind when I hear shit like that? The first thing I find myself asking is this, “Can the people of this country actually be that stupid?” For those of you who may fall into the category of those who support restrictions upon our rights simply to make you feel safer there is something Ben Franklin said which you may want to consider, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” In fact, I would go further and say that those who would willingly sacrifice their rights do not deserve to call themselves Americans. A true American would not stand idly by while their unalienable rights were infringed upon, let alone actively support any such infringements. A true American would understand the nature of their rights and realize that there is no power on Earth that has the authority to deprive them anyone of their rights.

I am so tired of having to repeat myself about the nature of our rights and how it is our governments job to protect them, and that means from the wishes of the majority just as well. But it appears that a great many people in this country are obtuse, [slow to understand], which reminds me of a scene in the movie Gods & Generals when Major Thomas (Stonewall) Jackson tells his students, “But since you seem unable to grasp these principles..I’m forced to conclude that I must repeat this lesson tomorrow, word for word..”

You may remember me saying that on 3 separate occasions I raised my right hand and swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. But it is not just the Constitution that I am upholding, it is the set of ideals and beliefs which were held by the men who drafted it. It is these ideals, or principles, upon which our nation was founded, and it is due to the fact that people have abandoned these principles that our nation is now going to hell.

Our Founders put their lives and their fortunes on the line to bequeath to us a nation founded upon individual rights and liberty. As John Quincy Adams once said, “Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.” In all sincerity I ask of those reading this, what have YOU done to support the principles upon which this great nation was founded? Or have you become nothing but a mere parasite that offers nothing in return for all that this country has to offer you?

You people think America owes you something, that I owe you something. Your wrong, Neither America, nor I owe you a damn thing other than the opportunity to succeed. You know, Teddy Roosevelt once said something that I try to live by, and which all Americans should try to. Roosevelt said, “If an American is to amount to anything he must rely upon himself, and not upon the State; he must take pride in his own work, instead of sitting idle to envy the luck of others. He must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can, and accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs.”

That, my friends, is the perfect definition of self-reliance, one of those principles I was speaking of earlier. Our Founders didn’t establish a system of government to babysit us, to provide us with sustenance when we fall upon hard times. Our government was established to ensure we had all the opportunity to achieve success as long as we worked hard for it. It was not established to provide us anything but the opportunity. As Ben Franklin said, “The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.” So, if you aren’t willing to put forth any effort, to break a sweat, then you don’t deserve success, or a comfortable lifestyle. If you think otherwise you are a parasite who wishes to survive at the expense of those who do work. And if you support candidates who support your beliefs then you are undermining the principles upon which this country was founded.

Our nation’s Founders fought to ensure that our natural rights would be protected by the system of government they would establish, not see them trampled upon. Do you even understand the concept of a natural right? A natural right is a right that is inherent, [basic; part of the very nature of something, and therefore permanently characteristic of it.] A natural right is something that cannot be taken away by laws written by men. Samuel Adams defined our natural rights as, “First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.”

I suppose the best way to explain a natural right is thusly; imagine yourself alone on an island, with no one else but yourself to provide for your needs. You would be free to hunt and forage for food, or you would be free to do nothing and starve. But the choice is yours and no one will provide for you if you choose to be lazy. You are also free to do whatever you wish, but once again, if you choose to do something foolish and hurt yourself, then you alone are responsible for the consequences of your actions.

Now, imagine that someone else comes to live on your island. That persons natural rights would be the same as yours. He can hunt, forage and do whatever he pleases. Yet he cannot take from you if he does not work to find food. He cannot do anything which physically threatens you, or your property. If he did you would be perfectly justified in using whatever force you deem necessary to protect your life, your liberty, and your property. That is the nature of society and the basis of our civil rights, which are founded upon our natural rights. That is the purpose for which government was instituted, to protect those rights, not to destroy them.

Yet today in America we have a vast number of people who do not wish to exercise their rights, or accept the responsibility, or consequences, for the choices they make in life. They seek to place blame upon society for their mistakes, and shift the burden of responsibility to others for their laziness, or the stupid decisions they may make. That is not the principle upon which this country was founded.

Sure there is the concept of charity, of giving freely to others less fortunate, but charity is a voluntary choice. Under the concept of natural rights charity cannot be mandated. In fact our Founders felt very strongly that it was not within the scope of our government’s powers to appropriate funds for charity.

In a 1794 speech before the House of Representatives, James Madison declared that “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” In fact, Ben Franklin warned “When people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” But what do we see today, people voting for the candidates who make the most convincing sounding promises to ‘DO THINGS FOR THEM.’

Thomas Jefferson, in his first inaugural address, summed up what I would like to see as the founding principle upon which our government operated, “A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”

Yet good luck seeing that happen with a nation filled with people who are so eager to surrender their rights for a little security, or who believe that it is the duty of the government to tax the rich to support the less fortunate through government programs and subsidies.

I hear all these people espouse their beliefs as to what the function of government should be and I have to ask myself, how far would these people be willing to go to defend those beliefs? Sure, they would be more than willing to have the government enforce these violations upon our rights, but would they be willing to place their own safety, their own lives on the lines to defend those beliefs? I highly doubt it! For the most part these people are cowards who look to others to do their dirty work. They are the same type people who want to see us disarmed so we can’t exercise our right to protect what is ours, yet they will call upon, and expect others to come to their aid, fully armed and ready to lay their lives on the line defending them. These people who refuse to accept any responsibility for their own safety and well being sicken me to no end. I have a word for them, I call them pussies!

Yet when our Founders took those first steps towards independence, and our system of government based upon the preservation of our rights, they realized they would be placing their lives on the line. When those present in the Continental Congress affixed their signatures to the Declaration of Independence Ben Franklin stated, “We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
Years later Benjamin Rush would reminisce to John Adams, “Do you recollect the pensive and awful silence which pervaded the house when we were called up one after another, to the table of the President of Congress to subscribe what was believed by many at that time to be our own death warrants?”

Years later, James Wilson, signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and an original Justice to the Supreme Court under Presidnet George Washington, would say, “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 principle object is not a government of the legitimate kind.”

The primary purpose for our governments existence is to preserve our rights. It is for this purpose that laws were to be written. Yet that is not the reason laws are now currently written. In fact, in 1850 Frederic Bastiat explained exactly what is currently happening in America, “The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! ”

That is what has happened in this country, the law, [i.e. the Constitution and the Bill of Rights], which was written to protect our rights, and our ability to freely exercise those rights has been perverted, making it a crime to do what is our right under the principle of natural law.
Now, getting to the crux of the matter. I believe in these principles, and am ready to fight for them. Are you equally as willing to fight for what you believe in? I am not asking if you are willing to let your elected official pass a law which infringes upon my natural rights. I am asking if YOU are willing to come directly to me and attempt to deprive me of my rights.

There are many of us who have had just about enough of the people of this country who do not understand the concept of rights, and therefore have pushed to have OUR rights infringed upon. We are getting sick and tired of having our rights infringed upon simply because you feel threatened or offended by us exercising them.

Our country was founded on these principles, brave men fought and died so that we may enjoy them, and if you don’t like it you can get the hell out and move somewhere where the citizens have no rights. But until you do, leave us the hell alone, or you may not like the consequences of your choices.

In concluding I would like to submit to you an adaptation of a letter written in 1320 Scotland and submitted to the Pope, commonly known as the Declaration of Arbroath. It states, “For as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under tyrannical dominion. It is not in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honors that we are fighting, but for freedom, for that alone, which no honest man gives up with life itself.”

Samuel Adams once said, “The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks.” A good number of us take that duty seriously and we have had just about enough of you gutless bastards who continue to ask your elected representatives to violate the law they are there to uphold and to try and do what you don’t have the courage to attempt to do yourselves.

The Founders who bequeathed these rights to us did not actively seek a fight, and neither are we, but just like they weren’t, we won’t run and hide should one come. So why don’t you please just leave us, and our rights, alone before you find that you have underestimated our resolve and bit off more than you could chew? Because if you recall that oath I mentioned says all enemies, foreign and domestic. If it does come to a fight because you won’t leave us alone YOU will be considered our enemy…and we will show you no mercy and we won’t take prisoners.

When I first read it I thought it was a logical argument so I tried researching the quote to find out exactly when and where Mr. Obama said it. What I discovered is that the quote was taken out of context because the full quote says, “We should not judge Muslims solely by actions of a few, but rather by the inaction of the majority in the face of unspeakable evil.”

Yet still, the idea that we should not judge anyone according to the actions of a few is valid. It seems government at all levels is trying to deprive law abiding citizens of the right to keep and bear certain type arms just because they happened to be the weapon of choice for a few whack jobs who used them to commit horrific crimes. Using the governments logic, why haven’t they passed a ban on assault 767 aircraft? After all, the attacks of 9/11 killed far more people in a single event than have been killed by AR-15′s or Bushmasters in a single event. Sure that sounds ridiculous, but so does the government wanting to ban a particular class of weapon because a few nut jobs used them on a shooting spree.

For crying out loud, people, if so inclined, are going to find a way to kill other people no matter what kind of bans the government imposes, or background checks they perform. Look at the recent attacks in Boston, there were no firearms involved in the initial bombings at the Boston Marathon. Are we now going to ban pressure cookers, ball bearings and nails, or perform background checks on anyone buying those items?

And one other thing. Why is it that whenever something like this happens the authorities try to tie the perpetrators of these crimes to some group? It seemed like almost immediately after the bombings at the Boston Marathon they were chomping at the bit to accuse members of the Tea Party, militias, or some other group whose ideology was based on adherence to the constitution for what happened. Even after they couldn’t prove that they sought a way to tie the accused to Al Qaeda or some other terrorist organization. These days it seems like anytime someone commits a crime the authorities try to tie the perpetrator to some group so that they can claim to enact more laws to protect everyone from terrorism. Why can’t we just admit that there are bad people who are going to do bad things and not let the government tie them to any group that they happen to dislike?

I know I am not the only one who is asking these questions but it seems like way too many people aren’t. Doesn’t it seem just a bit odd to you that every time someone does something they don’t seek to find out why, instead they seek to deprive others of their rights just because of the actions of one person? Doesn’t that bother you at all? It certainly bothers me. Say some idiot goes off the deep end and drives his SUV into a crowd, killing dozens of people. Do you think the government is going to propose a ban on SUV’s, or require background checks on anyone who wishes to purchase one? No, they are going to try and find out what caused this person to do such a terrible thing. Yet why is it that whenever someone commits a crime with a gun they IMMEDIATELY call for tighter restrictions on guns, and who can own them?

Which leads me to the purpose of this article. I’ve been kind of hesitant to write for awhile because, for one thing, I felt like I’ve pretty much said about all I can say about the Constitution, rights, and the abuses of power by our government. I mean honestly, if you haven’t gotten it by now you simply aren’t going to. But there’s something else that has been simmering in the back of my mind that was summed up very nicely in an article by Paul Rosenberg. Before I discuss what it said I need to preface it with a few comments.

I remember when Ron Paul really came to the forefront as a champion for liberty. Sure he had been in the background for years, but it was with the birth of the Tea Party movement, before it was hijacked by the GOP, that his message really started to take off. Everyone was looking to him as if he alone could save America from itself. Sure there were those who realized the problem was much bigger, but they looked to him to lead us, someone we could rally behind.

Since then I have heard about all sorts of ‘movements’ to help restore America to her former greatness. There are those who are fervent believers in power of the Tenth Amendment and State’s rights. There are those who think that if we can gather enough people and visit the offices of our members of Congress we can force them to adhere to the limits imposed upon them by the Constitution. Honestly, I have heard about all kinds of movements but they all seem to have one thing in common, they do not involve much risk on the part of those participating in the movement.

Now let me quote something from the article by Mr. Rosenberg. He states, “A lot of good people have latched on to one grand possibility after another, waiting for a good guy to save the day, and it just doesn’t happen. Thousands of hours of reading, writing and waiting are burned with each new “great light” who comes along with a promise to run the system in the “right” way, and give us liberty and truth. (Or whatever.) Lots of decent folks grab on to one pleasant dream after another, only to end up right back where they started…but poorer in time, energy and finances.”

Don’t get me wrong, I fall into this category as well. I spend countless hours reading and writing, trying to get others to think and to take action, but have I taken action? No, and I would bet that neither have many of those who are reading this.

Which leads us to the crux of Mr. Rosenberg’s article, “If you want things to get better, then YOU will have to make them better. YOU will have to stand up and take the arrows, yourself. Liberty, at this stage of human development, requires risk and pain.”

In 1785 James Madison wrote something called a Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments. In it he stated, “The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overlap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.”

Anyone who is honest with themselves will be forced to admit that our government has overstepped its authority in so many areas, passed so many laws which infringe upon our rights, that it falls into the category described by Mr. Madison, and therefore they are tyrants. If that is the case, if all we do is whine and complain, but do nothing to resist these unconstitutional laws, then we are slaves. Like it or not, it is that simple. Yeah, the truth is hard to take, but it that doesn’t make it any less true.

You see Madison immediately went on to say, “Because 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 free men 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.” In short, they had courage and they stood up against tyranny. Sure, they petitioned their sovereign for a redress of grievances, they wrote articles and pamphlets, but when it was clear that none of these were going to affect change, they stood their ground and said NO MORE!

It seems like everyone, including myself, have been waiting for someone to make the first move, to take that stand so that we can rally behind them. As long as we wait around for someone else to do it the government is going to continue to grow bigger, and more powerful, and our rights will continue to be restricted, and we will grow less able to make that stand should it come at all.

While we sit here and write, or disagree over these attacks upon our rights, our government’s failure to enforce immigration law, or the continued growth of the national debt and the uncontrolled spending of Congress, our government IS growing bigger and more powerful. Witness all the ammunition being bought up by various government agencies. Witness the militarization of the Department of Homeland Security, and their integration into local law enforcement.

Many of you may not recall the early years of the old Soviet Union when Communism first assumed power. Joseph Stalin was brutal in eliminating anyone who posed a threat to his regime. It has been estimated that 1.5 million people were detained and over 600,000 executed just because the government felt they were a threat to ‘national security.’

Why did people go along with their friends and family members being hauled away and executed? You may as well be asking yourself the same question. Stalin gave us the answer, he said, “The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened.” Sound familiar? Although we have not had the purges yet, the framework is now in place to carry them out and all our government needs is to either feel threatened by we the people, or some national emergency, either real or staged, to implement such measures.

You say that won’t, can’t happen here in America, we have the Constitution which controls the actions of our government and we the people wouldn’t let that happen? Is that so? How many Americans do you honestly think have ever read the Constitution, or even know what powers it grants government? If they did they would have thrown George W. Bush into prison for signing the Patriot Act, they would have thrown Barack Obama into prison for signing the Affordable Care Act, they would have…Well, you get the picture.

Not, it could, and it IS happening here in America, right before your very eyes and you choose not to see it. It is THAT simple! You know, back in 1788 Thomas Jefferson warned us that “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” He said that was the natural progress which implies that there isn’t much we can do to stop it from happening. It could be stopped, but the first step in stopping a problem is for people to admit that there IS a problem. To do that people must first understand how something was supposed to work if they are to be able to see that it isn’t working as designed. And folks, our government is NOT operating as designed! The men and women who sit in those hallowed halls of power have prostituted themselves to the highest bidder and do not give a rats ass about you and I, no matter how sincere they may sound in their speeches. Their ONLY concern is to please those who fund their campaigns and ensure they are re-elected.

No folks, if we want to fix what is wrong with this country we need to stop looking to the broken system to fix it. We must be the ones that fix it by no longer accepting their tyrannical laws as binding upon us as sovereign individuals. And that takes courage. One person alone will not make a difference, neither will one hundred, or one thousand. It will take MILLIONS of Americans saying to government, “THAT LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO ME AND I WILL NOT OBEY!”

Do you see that happening? I don’t, at least not in the numbers sufficient the effect change. For those of you who are looking for a leader, or at least an example to follow, you really ought to listen to a speech given by Mike Vanderboegh at the CCDL Gun Rights Rally on 4/20/2013. You can Google Mike Vanderboegh Ardent Opponent to Tyranny and you will find it. I urge you to listen to what Mike says. And while you’re at it, Google The Good Guys Are Not Coming To Save Us by Paul Rosenberg as well.

If we want our country back, and control over our government by adherence to Constitutional mandate, then we are, first going to have to take it back, and then we are going to have to impose that mandate upon our officials ourselves. Expecting government to obey the law of the land by the goodness of their own heart is folly and akin to letting the fox guard the henhouse.

And again, that will take courage on our part to stand up to them. We must realize that the consequences of remaining silent are far worse than any possible consequences that may come if we choose to stand up and fight tyranny.

Allow me to add one personal thought. At the moment I am writing this there is a distinct possibility that in the next few days the employees where I work may go on strike. They, and the union which represents them, believe they are getting a raw deal from management in the current contract proposal. I am not here to discuss the contents of the proposal but I would like to say that I find it disturbing that employees of a company will listen to every rumor, research the minutest of details regarding this matter, and then be willing to go on strike and suffer the loss of income, all to fight against perceived injustices by their employer…YET THEY REFUSE TO PUT FORTH THAT SAME EFFORT TO SAVE THEIR COUNTRY!!! That, my friends, sickens me!

No my friends, unless we the people decide that we want our country back and are willing to pay whatever price is necessary to achieve that goal, we will never succeed. Our Founders where, of all things, men of action.

In 1775 Patrick Henry delivered a stirring speech which needs be read again by those of us who value our liberty above all else in this world. Mr. Henry said, “Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free² if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending²if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight!”

You tell me, how closely does what Mr. Henry describe parallel our current situation? All you have to do is replace the British with our current government, and those armadas with the growth, and militarization of Homeland Security and you have America today. How many petitions for redress must we file against these tyrants before we realize that they DO NOT CARE WHAT WE THINK?

Now I do not go so far as to say we must take up arms and go to war, but there are other ways of fighting. But again, nothing will happen unless we stand united and work as one to fight this evil that is destroying the land of the free. What we need now is the second part of that statement, the home of the brave.

Samuel Adams once said, “[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.” Have we as Americans become just as corrupt, in morals and principles, as our government, or are we willing to stand up for what we believe in and hold dear to our hearts. That is the question I am asking of all of us, including myself. If not, then this country is doomed for a fate that I dare not consider.

That my friends is the question upon which the fate of this nation rests…

It has been two hundred thirty years since Washington said that and were he alive today he would be deeply saddened by what he would see. In fact, were he alive today Washington might very well declare, “The current state of our Empire shows an utter lack of understanding of the nature of the rights of mankind and the purpose for which government is instituted.”

In one of his many commentaries, Samuel Adams wrote, “The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.”

How can a people do, as Mr. Adams suggests, when they exhibit a complete lack of understanding as to the nature of their rights, and the purpose for which their government was instituted? Our schools are supposed to prepare our children for life by giving them a broad based education and instilling them with the ability to reason. Instead they are pumping them full of facts and teaching them NOT to question authority. In an 1823 letter to Hugh Taylor, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “It is the duty of every good citizen to use all the opportunities which occur to him, for preserving documents relating to the history of our country.”

Noah Webster, whose name graces Webster’s Dictionary, once said, “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.” How can our children do this if they aren’t taught these things in our schools? I see entire generations of Americans who can’t recite a single passage from any of our founding documents, let alone understand why they were written, or what they intended.

I suppose that is why I am here, to repeat time and time again the things you should have been taught in school in the hope that someday it will sink in. I know you get tired of hearing it, but believe me, I get tired of repeating myself, so that makes us even in my books. It is a massive undertaking to try and undo years of indoctrination, of being fed lies, and having the truth withheld from you. It is made even more difficult because many of you simply do not care to educate yourselves. Then there are those who, when they do take the time to read these missives, disregard what I have to say as the ramblings of a conspiracy theorist. Yet persist I must as I care far too much about what the future holds for me and my family, regardless of whether you care or not.

Before I go any further I would like to ask each of you a question, and I would appreciate it if you would take a few moments to ponder this in your heads before you continue reading. What, do you suppose, is the purpose for which government exists?

If you answered to pass laws, in a sense you would be correct. But then let me ask you another question. For what purpose was our government given the power to pass laws?

One of the lesser known Founding Fathers, James Wilson, provides us with a hint as to the purpose for which our government was established, “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.”

If you will recall, I opened with a quote from George Washington in which he said, “…the Treasures of knowledge, acquired by the labours of Philosophers, Sages and Legislatures, through a long succession of years, are laid open for our use, and their collected wisdom may be happily applied in the Establishment of our forms of Government…”

If you recall your World History, pretty soon after the Americans had established their system of government France underwent a violent revolution. During this time a man named Frederic Bastiat wrote a little something entitled The Law. Bastiat’s booklet explains the purpose for which the law exists and how it can be perverted. It should be taught in our schools, but it isn’t. It wasn’t until a couple years ago that I even found out about its existence, but since then I have read, and re-read it many times. It is chocked full of information, which if you have an open, and willing mind, will enlighten you as to why our country is so screwed up.

Instead of taking each quote and discussing it separately, I will provide the applicable quotes and then discuss them afterwards. So here is the opening part of The Law, by Frederic Bastiat:

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

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

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

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

But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.

That is a lot to absorb, especially when it contradicts all you have ever been taught. You may want to stop for a moment and re-read that, and maybe even take a few minutes considering what it implies before you continue reading. That is, of course, if you even care at all about what I’m trying to get across.

In short, what Bastiat said is thusly stated, the purpose of the law is to protect the individual, and the rights of the individual, and that when the law is used in direct opposition to that purpose it has been perverted. And what is the function of government but to write laws which further that purpose. So, if the government writes laws which diminish, or infringe upon any of our rights, government itself has become perverted. Is that really so difficult to understand?

When our nation was considering whether to accept or reject the Constitution, the drafters of that document faced stiff opposition from those who felt it granted the government far too many powers, or left it open for the government to grow into an oppressive and tyrannical one. In an address before the Virginia delegates who were considering whether to ratify, or reject the Constitution James Madison made the following statement, “It is sufficiently obvious, that persons now and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted. These rights cannot well be separated. The personal right to acquire property, which is a natural right, gives to property, when acquired, a right to protection, as a social right.”

As I previously stated, Washington believed that at the time our nation was founded we had at our access the thoughts of many Sages and Philosophers who more fully understood the nature of rights than anytime prior in the history of the world. One of these great thinkers was John Locke, whose Treatises on Civil Government were to play a major role in forming the thought processes of men like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. From his Second Treatise, Chapter 18, I quote, “Whenever the power that is put in any hands for the government of the people, and the protection of our properties, is applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass or subdue them to the arbitrary and irregular commands of those that have it; there it presently becomes tyranny, whether those that thus use it are one or many.”
In Chapter 2 of said treatise, Locke also stated, “To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions, and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending on the will of any other man.”

In his Notes on Virginia, 1782, Thomas Jefferson stated, “The legitimate power of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others.” Although Jefferson was discussing the right to worship as one pleases, or not worship at all, the premise applies to all rights. If there is no victim then there is no crime, and no law may be passed which violates the rights of the people when there is no victim because of their exercising a right.

If you so desire, you may go out and buy one hundred cars or trucks, that is your right. However, the moment you have to start parking any of those cars or trucks on my property, you have infringed upon my property and your actions will have become punishable under the law. The same goes for guns, I can own as many, and of whatever type, I desire and it is a right which is protected by the Second Amendment. However, the moment I use one of those guns to forcibly deprive you of life or property, I will have violated YOUR rights and my actions will have become subject to punishment under the law. However, if you decide that I have something that you want and you decide to come take it from me, I have every right to defend myself, my family, and my property…with force, without being subject to penalty under the law. That is what Bastiat meant when he said, “And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.”

Currently our federal government, and many state governments, are enacting laws which further restrict the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns. This is all due to the actions of one individual who abused his rights, and violated numerous laws already. Do you think that one more law would have stopped the Sandy Hook shooter? If you do, then you are a fool.

Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warned us about the consequences of the majority acting to deprive individuals of their rights. Jefferson stated, “The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.” While Madison expanded upon that by saying, “There is no maxim in my opinion which is more liable to be misapplied, and which therefore needs elucidation than the current one that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong…. In fact it is only reestablishing under another name and a more specious form, force as the measure of right….”

Our Founders believed that our rights were inherent, (involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit), and unalienable, (impossible to take away or give up).

The primary purpose of government is to protect, and expand, our rights. The purpose of law is to protect an individual in the exercising of their rights, and to punish those who abuse their rights, or attempt to deprive others of exercising their rights. If government does not do this, then it is failing in its primary purpose. If government enacts laws which restrict individuals, or groups, from freely exercising a right, it has perverted the law and has become tyrannical. It is that simple, yet so many find this simple concept so very hard to understand.
And don’t get me wrong, this paper is not focusing entirely upon the fact that currently government is attempting to enact laws which infringe upon the Second Amendment, it is about ALL our rights.

Since 9/11 our government has taken the 4th Amendment and shredded it. With the passage of the Patriot Act and the growth of Homeland Security and the TSA we no longer have any Fourth Amendment rights. Most of you reading this don’t even know what the Fourth Amendment says, so let me enlighten you. The Fourth Amendment says, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
You tell me, when the government can, and does, monitor your phone conversations, your e-mails, your Facebook posts, your bank transactions, and the TSA subjects you to full body scans or intrusive pat downs so that you can board a plane, do you still believe that your right to be secure in your person, houses, papers and effects are intact? Where is the probable cause in patting down elderly women and children before they board a plane? Is every man woman and child in this country a suspected terrorist, and therefore the government has probable cause to violate our right to be secure in our homes and our possessions?

As I have said a thousand times before, you cannot deprive one of their rights because of the actions of another, it is simply not the way our system of government was established, and how our Founders viewed unalienable rights.

And the same thing applies to your income. Although all your taxes are now used to help pay off the federal debt, the income tax was instituted to fund the operations of government. Can the government, legally, deprive you of a portion of your earnings and give it to anyone else in the form of subsidies or benefits?

Can I come into your home and demand that you give up a portion of your pay to pay for something that I want, or feel that I need or deserve? No you say. Then if I cannot do it, neither can my government take from me to distribute to others. The money they take from us in the form of taxes must benefit the whole, not a select few.

Thomas Jefferson once said, “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

James Madison also said, “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.”

Even Alexander Hamilton, who felt the government should be much stronger than Jefferson and Madison imagined, himself said, “If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare… The powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.”

So you tell me, is your right to enjoy the fruits of your labor, (your paycheck), being infringed upon to benefit others? That is a perversion of the law and a violation of your rights. Jefferson also said, “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

But that is what people want today, a government that does not leave them free to enjoy their lives, and which forces them to deal with the consequences of their decisions. Instead people want a nanny to watch over and protect them, to make laws which prohibit others from living as freemen. And you know there is no middle ground in this, either you are free or you are a slave.

I don’t know who said this, it has been attributed to Jefferson, but I have not found any reference to it in his writings. But whoever said it knew what they were talking about. The quote says, “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.” Think about that the next time the thought crosses your mind that you want government to pass just one more law which makes you feel just a wee bit safer and more secure.

I don’t know about you, but I would rather die defending my rights than to live without them. I guess that’s what separates me, and a few enlightened others, from the rest of you sheeple who think that government is doing such a stand up job of upholding the Constitution and protecting your rights.

I now return you to your previously scheduled programming…

The problem is this, many people who have seen this film are going to think that they have been told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, when in fact they would probably have gotten just as much truth had they watched Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, because both movies are fiction. Sure the creators of these films take events that actually happened and use them to fit their story, but they twist and manipulate the truth in such a manner as it creates a false image of the people involved in the events in which they participated.

If you have not seen the film yet, it shows Lincoln as being torn between his desire to bring an end to the Civil War, and his desire to bring an end to the institution of slavery and grant slaves their freedom. Who am I to say what thoughts and feelings rested inside the man that was Abraham Lincoln? I can, however, read the things he said and form an opinion which may help me get an idea of how he felt regarding the issue of slavery, and more specifically, the African people. Unfortunately, with this film, the things I have learned about Abraham Lincoln do not mesh with the vision of the man portrayed in the film.

In response to Senator Stephen Douglass after one of their presidential debates, Lincoln states, “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the black and white races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality…I have never said anything to the contrary.”

Once elected, in his first Inaugural Address Lincoln stated, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

Furthermore, in 1862 Lincoln wrote the following in a letter to Horace Greeley, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

In fact, all through his time as president Lincoln worked towards the colonization of freed slaves to anywhere but land within the United States. Lincoln may have been opposed to slavery, but it appears he only disliked it because it would populate the United States with black people. Now I’m not saying he was racist, but his own comments prove he felt that black people were of an inferior nature than whites.
Now this next quote is a bit long, but it shows that during his presidency Lincoln still considered the act of colonizing Africans to land outside the continental United States. It comes from his Second Annual Message to Congress, dated December 1, 1862, “Applications have been made to me by many free Americans of African descent to favor their emigration, with a view to such colonization as was contemplated in recent acts of Congress. Other parties, at home and abroad–some from interested motives, others upon patriotic considerations, and still others influenced by philanthropic sentiments–have suggested similar measures, while, on the other hand, several of the Spanish American Republics have protested against the sending of such colonies to their respective territories. Under these circumstances I have declined to move any such colony to any state without first obtaining the consent of its government, with an agreement on its part to receive and protect such emigrants in all the rights of freemen; and I have at the same time offered to the several States situated within the Tropics, or having colonies there, to negotiate with them, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, to favor the voluntary emigration of persons of that class to their respective territories, upon conditions which shall be equal, just, and humane. Liberia and Hayti are as yet the only countries to which colonists of African descent from here could go with certainty of being received and adopted as citizens; and I regret to say such persons contemplating colonization do not seem so willing to migrate to those countries as to some others, nor so willing as I think their interest demands. I believe, however, opinion among them in this respect is improving, and that ere long there will be an augmented and considerable migration to both these countries from the United States.”

Do these quotes made by the real life Abraham Lincoln sound like the man Daniel Day Lewis portrayed in Spielberg’s film? Yet millions of people are going to watch this film and think that they are viewing an accurate portrayal of the man, and of history. So, in effect, Hollywood is re-writing history and the people who view this film are being indoctrinated into believing a lie.

Since when have I become a movie critic? I am criticizing this film because of the fact that people who go see it are thinking they are being told the truth and are, in fact, having their thoughts shaped for them by some revisionist bullshit artists who pass themselves off as historians.

The problem is that too many people would rather go sit through a two-hour film and think that they are being educated, instead of picking up a book, or doing some research as to what the truth actually is. This problem is not confined solely to biographical films such as the one under discussion, it also is characteristic of the people in this country when it comes to choosing political candidates, or to which political party they will affiliate themselves with. Instead of researching facts, the people will rely upon 30 second sound bites, or unashamedly biased debates in which pre-chosen candidates are given to the people for their consideration, while depriving other candidates an equal chance to voice their opinions.

It truly is a shame that so few are willing to think for themselves, and will allow themselves to be led around like a herd of sheep by the lies they are told by the news media, their elected officials, and yes, by Hollywood. Is it any wonder our country is so messed up.

Well, that’s all I have to say about the matter. I’ll get off my soapbox now and let you get back to your lives as nothing I say will make a damn bit of difference in your vision of history. So go on, rejoin the flock, there is nothing for you to learn here.

Anyone who knows anything at all about firearms with removable magazines would realize that this woman has absolutely no idea what she is talking about. She obviously has no clue that these magazines can be reloaded and used again. Yet she is involved in making decisions on the legality of these high capacity magazines when she doesn’t have the slightest idea what she’s talking about? Doesn’t the fact that there are elected officials passing laws when they don’t know the first thing about the subject matter bother any of you? It sure bothers me.

These legislators, be they at the state or federal level, are supposed to make laws which are in the best interest of the people they represent. How can they do this when they are so pathetically uninformed in regards to the subject matter they are passing laws about? But it gets worse, much worse.

In a speech given on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Rand Paul said the following, “For goodness sakes, a 600 page bill and I got it this morning. Not one member of the Senate will read this bill before we vote on it.” These people are voting on bills, which are then becoming law, which they HAVE NOT EVEN READ! Does THAT bother you? It should!

In 2001, after the events of September 11, the Patriot Act was introduced on October 23, 2001 and passed the following day with 357 ayes in the House and 98 in the Senate. More than likely that is 455 people who voted in favor of a bill which trampled upon the First, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments, and gave birth to the ever increasing powers of the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA. Do you think any of them actually read it before betraying their oaths of office to preserve our rights?

Representative Bobby Scott, (D-VA), had this to say about the manner in which the Patriot Act was introduced, “I think it is appropriate to comment on the process by which the bill is coming to us. This is not the bill that was reported and deliberated on in the Committee on the Judiciary. It came to us late on the floor. No one has really had an opportunity to look at the bill to see what is in it since we have been out of our offices.”

Representative John Conyers also voiced his displeasure by saying, “…we are now debating at this hour of night, with only two copies of the bill that we are being asked to vote on available to Members on this side of the aisle.”

I guess the fact that they did not have time to read the bill did not matter to them, as they passed it by an overwhelming majority in both the House and the Senate. It didn’t appear to bother most of the American public as well as they were all in a patriotic frenzy and would most likely would have sold their souls to the devil if they could protect themselves from another terrorist attack similar to what happened on 9/11.
I tried to warn people about what this bill would lead to back when it was introduced and I was told I was un-American and sided with the terrorists. Now look at how Homeland Security is buying up millions of rounds of ammunition, buying armored patrol vehicles, and the TSA has reduced our 4th Amendment right to be secure in our persons and property to ashes. Oh, but who the hell is going to listen to a nobody like Neal Ross? No one it appears. But I’m not done yet.

There is also the fact that back in March of 2010, in regards to the heated debate over Obamacare, the then Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, made the following ridiculous statement, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.”

I was not alone when I tried to warn people about any plan for a government run health care system. In fact, I recall trying to warn people about the dangers of such a system back when Hillary Clinton was First Lady and tried to push for just such a program. But again, nobody listened to me because I am just a pissant that spouts all these conspiracy theories and anti-government propaganda.

Well it seems that American employers, numbering in the tens of thousands, began throwing workers off their health care plans while opting to pay the fine for not offering health care for their employees…just as I predicted would happen. Also, thousands of employers are also reducing the hours of their employees to less than 30 hours a week so as not to have to provide them with any insurance or other benefits…also just as I warned would happen.

Well, we are finding out what was in the bill, just as Nancy Pelosi said we would, and people, even the Democrats who stood behind it, aren’t liking what they see. Just the other day in Senate Finance Committee hearings, Senator Max Baucus said, “…how could this happen? I’m hearing from my constituents that they and their families have been left out in the cold and are without health care because the Exchanges are not accepting them!”

So it seems we have a government that is populated by people who don’t have the slightest idea about the subject matter they are legislating upon, and even if they do they aren’t reading the laws they pass. And you, as Americans, are okay with this? Why aren’t you marching on Washington D.C. and demanding that these imbeciles step down?

The problem is that, although these people in the various positions in our state and federal government may be incompetent, or corrupt, you people in the general public are ignorant and apathetic. Combine the two and you get a recipe for disaster. Our Founding Fathers tried to warn us about this type thing, but just as no one listens to me, nobody listened to them either.

In Federalist 62, James Madison wrote, “It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what is will be tomorrow.”

In a letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The instability of our laws is really an immense evil. I think it would be well to provide in our constitutions that there shall always be a twelvemonth between the ingrossing of a bill and pissing it: that it should then be offered to it’s passage without changing a word: and that if circumstances should be thought to require a speedier passage, it should take two thirds of both houses instead of a bare majority.”

But that just won’t do will it? It seems any time there is a crisis of any kind our legislators use it as an opportunity to enact laws which they tell us are in our best interests, but almost always seem to end up depriving us of more of our rights and our liberty.

In 1787 Anti-Federalist Federal Farmer wrote, “It is natural for men, who wish to hasten the adoption of a measure, to tell us now is the crisis―now is the critical moment which must be seized, or all will be lost: and to shut the door against free enquiry, whenever conscious the thing presented has defects in it, which time and investigation will probably discover.”

Daniel Webster once warned, “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.”

But just like all my other warnings in the past, this will go in one ear, and out the other, of most of the people who read it. Because the sad fact is that if people accept what I am saying it would mean that they would have to accept some, if not most, of the responsibility for all that is wrong in this country.

To explain what I mean by that statement allow me to use the following quote. I have seen it numerous times on the internet and although it may not have been said by the Czechs as it is claimed to be, the fact remains that the logic provided herein is accurate. Although it is written in regards to Barack Obama, it could just as easily have been said about any of the members of Congress, or members of your state governments.

The quote states:

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting an inexperienced man like him with the Presidency.

It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama Presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their President.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America.

Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

The Republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their President.”

So, it matters not that those who represent us are not informed enough about the laws they write or vote upon, or that they do not even bother to read them before voting on them, the problem is that the public tolerates such behavior from their elected representatives without throwing them out of office and into disgrace. That is the problem in this country, and until THAT can be fixed, nothing else will.

Listen, I am not the brightest kid on the block. That may come as a surprise to many, but it’s the truth. I do however feel passionate about the subject matter I write about, and I think it is that which separates me from the mindless mass of humanity to whom these missives are written for. I feel that people simply do not care enough to take the time to educate themselves, they would rather ‘go with the flow’ and not rock the boat. If it were any different I would be seeing a change in people’s attitudes, but unfortunately I don’t.

A good friend of mine, Carl, recently wrote me concerning this very subject. In his e mail he told me, “Sometimes the stupidity goes well beyond ignorance and apathy, Neal. There is also well-entrenched immediate self-interest involved in most conscious and subliminal decision-making. Some people don’t really understand what makes them tick, while others are fully and culpably aware of what monumental hypocrites they themselves really are. Still others can’t see the whole panoramic picture of the economic/political landscape, especially the historical aspect. Hence, that old saw which states that those who can’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it endlessly.”

He went on to say, “When I read your articles of this nature, I sympathize with you, Neal, but I’m here to tell you that long-term freedom and liberty will ALWAYS take a back seat to short-term profits, regardless how obviously ethereal and transient those profits are. The vast majority of people only worry about today and maybe tomorrow morning, but damn few of them have what it takes to see any of the possible final “down the road” results of decisions made today.”

I see Carl’s viewpoint, but it still boggles my mind that people can choose to be so ignorant when it comes to matters of such grave importance. Have we become such an easily misled and foolish people that we choose ignorance over knowledge? If so, then there is no use in my further wasting my time upon the people of this country who deserve every last bit of suffering that is coming.
But, there is one quote from The Crisis Papers by Thomas Paine that keeps me going. Paine writes, “…for though the flame of liberty may sometimes cease to shine, the coal can never expire.” It is that one quote that gives me hope that maybe, just maybe, something I say may get through to those who need to hear it most. That is why I continue to write, even though, for the most part, my words fall upon deaf ears.

You have to understand, those who would see men tyrannized, oppressed, or enslaved, are, by nature, evil. Oppression of any kind goes against nature and God’s will, that all men be free to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I have a t-shirt that I sometimes wear that says, “It’s not about right versus left, conservative versus liberal, it’s about liberty versus tyranny and oppression.”

Unfortunately people misunderstand what is meant by liberal and conservative. They associate those two words with the two current political parties. However, I associate being conservative as legislating by strict adherence to the Constitution, and liberal as one who disregards the limits imposed upon government by the Constitution. If you look at it from that perspective, BOTH political parties are liberal, as neither of them adhere to the limits imposed upon them by the Constitution, and they both are equally guilty of infringing upon our rights.
I know people get tired of hearing me repeat the same worn out old message about the Constitution and our rights, but everything that is wrong in this country can be directly attributed to the fact that our government has strayed from the principles contained in that document, and that we the people are guilty of allowing the government to get away with it.

As I said, men who would see us enslaved are evil by nature, and they learn from their mistakes. We, on the other hand, keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again because we refuse to study, and learn, from history.

For instance, take the Civil War, or the War Against States Rights, as I have taken to calling it. The Southern States were well within their right to secede from the Union as it was the States that ratified the Constitution which CREATED the federal government.

It was commonly accepted that the powers of the federal government were few and defined, as explained by James Madison in Federalist 45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

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

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.”

Paine went on to say, “A government on the principles on which constitutional governments arising out of society are established, cannot have the right of altering itself. If it had, it would be arbitrary. It might make itself what it pleased; and wherever such a right is set up, it shows there is no constitution.”

Therefore, the Southern States exercised their right to dissolve the bond which tied them to the Union and establish their own system of government which they felt would best protect their rights. Yet the federal government, under Abraham Lincoln, declared that they, were in fact, rebels, and took the nation to war to prevent them from forming their confederacy. This is the truth about history that you have not been taught. In the process of doing so Lincoln destroyed the concept of States Rights, and at the same time infringed upon the liberty of the people, and the press, of speaking out against his policies.

As I said, evil learns from its mistakes. After the Civil War the 14th Amendment was ratified which created U.S. citizenship. Prior to that people were citizens of the states wherein they resided, not of the United States. Then the 16th Amendment was ratified, granting the government the power to tax the income of the people. Then, the 17th Amendment was ratified, taking away the States power in the operations of the federal government by removing their power to select, and recall, representatives in the Senate.

By those three actions the States lost all say in the operation of the government, and much of their sovereign power, while the people became slaves who worked, and were taxed, to fund the government and pay its debts. That is the truth about what the Civil War cost us, not to mention the 620,000 lives lost in a war to prevent federal tyranny.

The evil that would see us enslaved had accomplished their goal by making the States subservient entities to the federal government, not co-equal sovereigns. Yet there was still one obstacle which evil faced that could pose a threat to their plans, that being an educated and informed public.

If you had studied history you would know that the 16th and 17th Amendments were ratified in 1913. Funny thing that the Federal Reserve Act was ALSO passed in 1913, granting a privately owned bank the authority to print our nation’s currency, and regulate its value.
Then two years later, those that would see us enslaved began buying up all the news media in an effort to control what you are told on the news. From the Congressional Records, a statement by Oscar Calloway, “In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interest, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press. … They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.”

Two former executives from CBS News affirmed the fact that they manipulate the news. Former president Richard Salent said, “Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have.”

And Richard M. Cohen, a senior producer of CBS political news, stated, “We are going to impose our agenda on the coverage by dealing with issues and subjects that we choose to deal with.”

It has been said that at this time there are 1,500 newspapers, 1,100 magazines, 9,000 radio stations, 1,500 TV stations, and 2,400 publishers, and they are all owned by 3 corporations. That seems to me like there IS a great amount of control over what we are told, allowed to read, and know about what is going on in this country. Not to mention that the government has a great deal of say, via the Dept. of Education, over what is taught in our schools.

Columnist Lew Rockwell, whom I don’t always agree with, nailed it when he said, “It isn’t a coincidence that governments everywhere want to educate children. Government education, in turn, is supposed to be evidence of the state’s goodness and its concern for our well-being. The real explanation is less flattering. If the government’s propaganda can take root as children grow up, those kids will be no threat to the state apparatus. They’ll fasten the chains to their own ankles.”

So, if you still think that you have been taught the truth about history, about the principles upon which this nation was founded, and are told the TRUTH when you watch the news, you may want to reevaluate your position and begin doing some research on your own.

You think I learned all these things in a public school, [center for indoctrination], or by watching NBC Nightly News? No, I began reading the writings of the men who established this great nation and found that what they said was in direct opposition to the things I had been taught, and was being told by my government and the network news agencies.

People, the truth is out there, but you have to care enough to go out and find it. I am not saying that you must devote all your time, as I do, to reading about history and political theory, but to ignore it so you can claim ignorance, or be entertained by what’s on TV every night, you should be ashamed to call yourselves Americans.

I fully realize that it is difficult to admit that everything you have been taught may have been a lie designed to indoctrinate you into slavery and servitude, but isn’t it better to know the truth? As Patrick Henry said in 1775, “For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.”

If you love your country, if you value your liberty, you must take the time to educate yourself. If you do not, then there is no hope for the future of this country as the government will continue to play to your emotions and lead you into slavery. As my friend Carl so clearly said, you may not know what makes you tick, but those in power do, and they are using your emotional responses against you and to deprive you of your God-given inherent and unalienable rights.

For God and Country

I know that there are some who feel that I am too radical, that I pose a threat to them, and to what they believe to be the American Dream. Is it radical to tell people the truth? Didn’t Orwell say that in times of universal deceit telling the truth was a revolutionary act? Yet I continue to hear from some that I must hate my country because of all the bad things I write about it.

Editor and journalist H.L. Mencken once said, “The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.”

Even more now with the election of our nation’s first African American president, (although he is half white), anytime I criticize him I am called racist. Before, when I was criticizing George W. Bush I was called a terrorist. It seems that one is not to criticize the president because to do so means that you hate your country. Rubbish!

Former president Theodore Roosevelt had this to say about it, “Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.”
Former Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas once asked, “Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us?”

Yet now, from the time we enter school, we are taught to bow to authority, to respect and blindly obey it. To question authority is considered a crime and consequently we have a nation full of sheep who refuse to stand up for their most basic rights.

Yet these same people will joyfully celebrate July 4th with barbecues and parties, not even understanding that they are celebrating an act of treason. Yes, I said treason! Do they not realize that by signing the Declaration of Independence those men were committing treason against their government? Why else would Ben Franklin say, after affixing his signature to that document, “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

We the people, of this once great nation, have sat back and rested on our laurels, proclaimed ourselves to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, all the while our government has been overstepping its legal authority and trampling upon our rights.

In 1785 James Madison wrote a little something called a Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments. Although it was primarily written to prevent a statewide tax, or assessment, to benefit Christian ministers, it contains ideas that we can apply to our current situation in America. For instance, Madison declared, “Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on 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 free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it.”

We have not done that, avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We have sat back while government has amassed all this power and now that it is this huge beast that we must contend with, we ask ourselves what are we going to do about it?

There is something I would like you to read, especially those who are of the belief that our government is one of unlimited powers to do what serves the public interest. It comes from Supreme Court Justice Chase in the case of Calder v. Bull, (1798), “I cannot subscribe to the omnipotence of a state legislature, or that it is absolute and without control; although its authority should not be expressly restrained by the Constitution, or fundamental law, of the state. The nature, and ends of legislative power will limit the exercise of it. This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free Republican governments, that no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require, nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit. There are acts which the Federal, or State, Legislature cannot do, without exceeding their authority. There are certain vital principles in our free Republican governments, which will determine and overrule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power; as to authorize manifest injustice by positive law; or to take away that security for personal liberty, or private property, for the protection whereof the government was established. An Act of the legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority. The obligation of a law in governments established on express compact, and on republican principles, must be determined by the nature of the power, on which it is founded. A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. A law that punishes a citizen for an innocent action, or, in other words, for an act, which, when done, was in violation of no existing law; a law that destroys, or impairs, the lawful private contracts of citizens; a law that makes a man a judge in his own cause; or a law that takes property from A and gives it to B. It is against all reason and justice for a people to intrust a Legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it. The genius, the nature and the spirit, of our State Government, amount to a prohibition of such acts of legislation; and the general principles of law and reason forbid them. The legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and punish; they may declare new crimes, and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; they may command what is right, and prohibit what is wrong; but they cannot change innocence into guilt; or punish innocence as a crime; or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract; or the right of private property. To maintain that our Federal, or State, Legislature possesses such powers, if they had not been expressly restrained, would, in my opinion, be a political heresy altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments.”

Our nation’s Founders, and all those brave souls who gave up their lives so that we could live as free men, must be weeping tears of sadness over what we have allowed to happen to the gift they fought and died for. There are times that I am ashamed to call myself an American, if being one means that I will sit by like a mouse and watch all I cherish come to ruin.

When I was in the fifth grade I had to memorize, and recite, Patrick Henry’s immortal Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death speech. In the world we live in today, when our kids are being taught that those who perpetrated the Boston Tea Party were terrorists, I am certain that Patrick Henry’s speech has no place in the classroom. Yet I want you all to read it now, and substitute the British for our own government. Think about how all these laws to fight terror have infringed upon your rights. Think about the growth of Homeland Security while your right to keep and bear arms is under attack like never before. But most of all THINK.

And now, the immortal words of Patrick Henry:

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

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

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

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable²and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace²but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Saying something like that today would place oneself at serious risk of the government coming after them. But in 1954, in his Almanac of Liberty, Justice William O. Douglas said, “The right to revolt has sources deep in our history.”

Former Prime Minister of England, Winston Churchill, once said, “Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves.”

I do not seek to fight and I have no desire to die, yet I will do both if the alternative is the complete loss of all my rights…in other words, slavery. In 1979, and twice upon re-enlisting, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Right now everywhere I look I see enemies of the Constitution. I see them on the news, I see them in political office, I see them in officers of the law who enforce unconstitutional laws, I see them in the Courts, and I see them in the people who vote for these traitors.
All I know is that I feel a, sometimes, overwhelming sense of weariness and sadness at what I witness in this country. I wish people would pull their heads out of their asses and see how royally their own government is giving them the shaft. I wish more would grow a set of balls and stand up to the tyranny instead of meekly obeying these laws which infringe upon their God given rights. But I don’t see these things, not in numbers enough to stave off what I now see as almost inevitable, and may God have mercy on our country when it comes.