Do you know what a bootlicker is? A bootlicker is a derogatory term to describe someone who is servile; one who bows down and worships those who deprive them of their liberty. If one were to look in a thesaurus for the term bootlicker one might find alternative definitions such as brown noser, ass kisser, or a lackey; which is defined as a servile follower. Now if you were to look for the word servile in the dictionary one would see that it is defined as: of or pertaining to a slave.
Keep those definitions in mind as you read the following…
In 1776 fifty-six men affixed their signatures to the Declaration of Independence, which was much more than just a document telling the British that they no longer wanted to be ruled by them, it also contained their thoughts and beliefs on where their rights came from and the purpose for which government should serve; which was to secure those rights.
Those fifty-six men risked more than just their status in society when they signed that document; they placed their lives on the line in defense of the principles contained in the following words, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
Those are the principles which gave birth to America as a free and independent country; and it is upon those principles that we should all base all our decisions regarding whom we support for political office and what laws we allow them to pass on our behalf.
I bet a lot of you weren’t aware that those weren’t Jefferson’s original words though; his original draft of the Declaration of Independence was edited pretty radically by the Committee of Five before it was introduced to the Congress as a whole. I may be alone in thinking this, but I actually prefer Jefferson’s original wording, as it leaves little room for doubt as to what he meant.
So here, for your enlightenment, is what Jefferson originally submitted to the Committee of Five for their consideration, “We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
Not only did Jefferson believe that all men were created equal, he also believed we were all equally independent; a fact that the Committee of Five felt was not worth including in their final draft. More importantly, in Jefferson’s original draft he not only identified the rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, he also said that the preservation of those rights was among the rights bestowed upon us by our Creator.
Do you truly understand the significance of that? What that means is that it is my right, whether you agree with it or not, to defend my right to life and liberty against ALL who would threaten those rights. As my rights are mine, just as your rights are yours, no one can deprive you of them without violating the principles Jefferson laid down as what America stood for.
Furthermore, Jefferson declared that the purpose for which governments are instituted among men is to secure those rights for us; not to destroy them such as our government has done. Jefferson was not the only one who felt that this was the purpose for which all governments should exist. In his 1791 book The Rights of Man, Thomas Paine writes, “Man did not enter into society to become worse than he was before, nor to have fewer rights than he had before, but to have those rights better secured.”
Yet there was another thing that Jefferson said in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence that was edited by the Committee of Five. In the original draft Jefferson wrote, “…but when a long train of abuses & usurpations, begun at a distinguished period, & pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to subject them to arbitrary power it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government…”
That passage was changed to read, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government…” Not a huge change grammatically, but the significance is monumental. There is a huge difference between absolute despotism and mere arbitrary power; and if you have any understanding at all of what powers the Constitution was supposed to delegate to your government you would be forced to admit that it has become arbitrary.
Arbitrary is defined as: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason our system. If we truly have a system which is based upon the assumption that the Constitution is a law that supposedly binds our government to certain specific functions, and by the establishment of a Bill of Rights places restrictions upon the government’s ability to deprive us of our rights; either by law or by judicial decree, then one cannot help but see that almost everything they do is arbitrary.
In his Second Treatise on Civil Government John Locke writes, “As usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to.” Therefore, if the Constitution and Bill of Rights places limits and restrictions upon the power delegated to government, any acts taken by them which go beyond their delegated authority, or which infringe upon ANY of the rights found within the Bill of Rights, is both arbitrary and tyrannical.
And do you happen to recall what the Declaration of Independence said about such a government? That’s right, it was our right…OUR DUTY to throw off such a government and replace it with one that better serves the ends for which it was instituted.
But what do most people in this country do? Why, they bow down and kiss its ass…worship at the altar of big government; pleading for more benefits, more comfort, and more security…anything but more liberty. Yet when someone like me says we should be resisting governments abuse of power and its infringement upon our rights, I am told I am a danger to society, a domestic terrorist, or some other nonsense. Well I’d rather be labeled as a danger to tyrants than be labeled as someone that kisses their asses. As Jefferson said in a letter to Abigail Adams, “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere.”
Now I want you to think long and hard about something. There are 546 people in the government as outlined by the Constitution; a President, a Vice-President, 9 justices on the Supreme Court, 100 Senators and 435 members in the House of Representatives; totaling 546 people. There are roughly 327 million of us; what power do 546 people have that could possibly make us obey the laws they pass should we refuse to do so? None, that’s what power they have.
Therefore, we obey the laws either because we consent to them, or because the threat of violence by law enforcement is always there, hanging over our heads should we choose to disobey the laws they pass.
For there to be a crime there must be a victim; that is universally accepted as being true. A crime is not committed unless the life, liberty or property of another is threatened by an individual or group. In 1816 Thomas Jefferson defined liberty as, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” If I do, or say something that brings no harm to the life, liberty or property of others, how can it be considered a crime according to the true meaning of the word?
The truth is, those who enact laws that create victimless crimes are the true criminals, for they are, in essence, passing laws that restrict the liberty of the people they whose rights they are supposed to secure and protect. That is why Jefferson added the following to his comments on liberty, “I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”
Now if you recall, Jefferson said in his original draft of the Declaration that it was the right of each and every one of us to defend our lives, our liberty, and our pursuit of happiness. Therefore, if government is passing laws that restrict our right to those things, isn’t it our right to defend those rights against our government?
If you recall, there are but 546 people in our government. Do you see any of them out arresting people and issuing fines and citations? Of course not, they sit in their comfortable offices writing the laws that are enforced by…who? Why, law enforcement.
I’m not saying society does not require some form of law enforcement to protect and defend the lives, liberty and property of the people. What I am saying is that when they enforce laws that violate our rights or deprive us of our property, they are no better than the criminals they are supposed to protect us from.
I want you to read something, and pay very close attention to what the author says. In 1850 Frederic Bastiat wrote, “What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.
Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?
If every person has the right to defend—even by force—his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right—its reason for existing, its lawfulness—is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force—for the same reason—cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.”
Therefore, if government is supposed to enact laws that better secure our rights, but instead writes laws that restrict and violate those rights, and if those sworn to enforce the law do so without every questioning whether the laws they are enforcing are in accordance with the purpose for which governments are instituted among men, ARE THEY NOT TYRANTS AS WELL?
The problem with the whole system – both those who write the laws and those who enforce them – can be summed up by the opening paragraph of Bastiat’s book, “The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!”
Those who write the laws, those who enforce them, and those who apply them in courts of IN-justice are all part of a system that is designed to deprive you of your liberty; and if you can’t see that then you’re either stupid or you’ve chosen to hide from the truth.
It doesn’t matter who you vote for; not if the laws being enacted by government and enforced by law enforcement infringe upon your rights; they are all equally guilty of being tyrants; as the graphic below explains quite well…
And I hate to say it, but only a boot licking ass kisser would lend their support to anyone, or any group of people, who threaten their liberty. But as Patrick Henry bemoaned in 1788, “I am fearful I have lived long enough to become an fellow: Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man, may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old fashioned: If so, I am contented to be so: I say, the time has been when every pore of my heart beat for American liberty, and which, I believe, had a counterpart in the breast of every true American.”
Maybe comfort and security are of more importance to you than your freedom. If that be the case, then let the words of Samuel Adams be a curse upon you and your name, “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”