A Thesis on Sovereignty, Delegated Powers and Government In General

It would appear that the general consensus among people is that if the government passes a law the people are obligated to obey it. I’m sorry, but nothing could be further from the truth than that belief. To understand why that is true, one must delve back into history when man made his first appearance on Planet Earth.

For the purpose of our discussion it really makes no difference whether one believes that man was created by God, or if he evolved out of something that had crawled out of some primordial sludge; our only concern for now is that at some point in the past mankind showed up on Planet Earth.

At this early stage in man’s history there were no rules, there were no laws, and there was certainly no government to tax and regulate his existence; he was free to do whatever he pleased, and to suffer the consequences of whatever choices he made. In short, at this stage of man’s history he had perfect unrestrained liberty. As a side note, I have often wondered how many people today could survive for more than a week under those conditions; but that’s beside the point for the purpose of our discussion.

The problem with this state of existence is that man was no alone on the planet; there were other men, there were other creatures that posed a threat to his existence, and even Mother Nature herself seemed, at times, intent upon eradicating him as a species; and sometimes I wish she’d been successful, but that too is irrelevant to our discussion.

At some point in man’s history it was discovered that there was strength in numbers; meaning that if men joined together into groups they were better able to defend themselves against common threats. Now you can call these groupings tribes or communities, but they became the first civil and political societies.

I say they became political societies because there had to be some means of organizing the tribe, or community, and direct the individuals within it to serve the common good of all; if not there would have been chaos among them. Now this political system could have been very rudimentary; such as the tribal elder chosen for his age and wisdom, it could have been a tribal council chosen for their particular skill sets and knowledge, or it could have been a pure democracy where the entire tribe got together and argued/debated a course of action and came to a consensus; the fact is that some form of political society existed among them.

Thomas Paine, in his book The Rights of Man, explains this phenomenon as follows, “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.”

Now these political societies could have existed/thrived in one of two ways. Some tribes may have been agricultural based; meaning they were, for the most part, farmers of some sort. Others may have been hunter/gatherers; meaning they hunted the wild beasts and foraged for whatever else they required to survive. The other way tribes may have grown and prospered was by conquering and plundering other tribes. Even those who conquered and plundered were subject to being conquered and plundered if another, larger tribe attempted to do to them what they did to others.

So, in the one instance the members of a tribe enjoyed relative peace and freedom, (so long as they weren’t being conquered or plundered), while in the other there existed a constant state of war against peace and freedom; for their entire system was based upon taking from others what was did not belong to them. Those who were most likely to become victims found that they may be required to take up arms; as primitive as they may have been, and defend what was rightfully theirs.

This establishes a fundamental principle upon which all societies are founded, “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.” (Source: Frederic Bastiat-The Law, 1850)

So far I’ve only discussed the earliest forms of civil and political societies, not those relating to nations, or empires. The history of the world shows that many of the mightiest nations, or empires, gained their stature by conquering, plundering, and assimilating those they had conquered into their empires. The Romans did it, the Greeks under Alexander the Great did it, the Turks during the reign of the Ottoman Empire did it, just to name a few.

Sometimes peace and stability were brought to otherwise warring regions, and the weight of subjugation was hardly felt; other times the heavy hand of their conquerors pervaded throughout their society; totally eliminating their culture and their beliefs. In either case though, the people were not free to decide for themselves how they would be ruled/governed; they were forced to accept a system not of their own choosing.

It is at this point that I’d like to introduce another passage from Paine’s book, The Rights of Man; describing this phenomenon, “All power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must either be delegated or assumed. There are no other sources. All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either.”

Everything I’ve stated so far provides us with two fundamental principles. The first is that we can either be governed by those we choose ourselves, or we can have government, or rule, imposed upon us by others. The second and equally important principle is that government can either respect and protect the rights and liberty of the governed, or it can seek to undermine it; subjugate the governed under the iron hand of despotism.

The history of the world shows us one other important thing; empires, and forms of government, are never permanent structures or institutions. Which brings us to another principle outlined by Paine in his book, “If any generation of men ever possessed the right of dictating the mode by which the world should be governed for ever, it was the first generation that existed; and if that generation did it not, no succeeding generation can show any authority for doing it, nor can set any up.”

Now I can almost picture people sitting there scratching their heads, saying, “This history lesson is all well and good, but what’s it got to do with today’s current situation?” Well it does, as you have to lay a foundation before you can build a structure; and what I’ve shared with you so far has laid down a few fundamental principles upon which the remainder of my discussion will rest upon.

As I’ve already stated, many of these empires or nations increased their stature and wealth by conquering and plundering others. There have been times when many of these empires/nations existed at the same time; and such was the case when the first European settlers began arriving in the Americas. France, England and Spain all sought to carve America up like you would a pumpkin pie after Thanksgiving dinner; with each seeking to get the biggest piece for their empire.

Those early settlers who came to live in the wilderness of America did not just apply for a passport, hop in a plane or cruise ship, and say, “Hey, this looks like a nice tract of land to build a home.” Oh, no, they had to obtain a charter from their respective sovereign, or King, granting them permission to settle a Colony in the New World; one that would remain subject to the government of their native country.

For the purpose of our discussion I’m limit my thoughts to those whose charters were granted by the King of England. The first such charter was granted to those who established the British Colony of Jamestown in 1607. The next came when the Pilgrims, as we have taken to calling them, settled at Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1620. Soon Colonies were springing up all along the eastern seaboard of what would become the United States.

Fishermen, industrialists, bankers and merchants came predominantly to the Northeastern Colonies, while those more agriculturally inclined flocked to the Southern Colonies due to the fact that the climate and soil were better for growing crops. Roughly 200 years later this difference in both beliefs and economies would drive a wedge between the people and erupt into civil war; but I’m getting way ahead of myself.

Now there are a few things about these Colonies that you need to understand before we continue. The first is, regardless of their individual beliefs, or the difference in economies, they were all subject to the jurisdiction of the sovereign ruler who had originally granted them the charter to establish that Colony; meaning they were British SUBJECTS.

The second, and probably most important point is, each Colony was an independent entity. What I mean by that is that those living in the Massachusetts Colony had no authority to intervene and tell those living within the Virginia or Pennsylvania Colonies how they must live, or govern themselves. Each Colony was therefore, for all intents and purposes, an independent sovereign entity, capable of its own internal governance; with the only common binding force being that they were all subject to British rule.

Now there are many reasons why the peace between Great Britain and her Colonies was shattered, one of which was taxation, while another was Great Britain’s refusal to allow them to expand their land holdings westward. Whatever their reasons may have been, they felt that the laws being imposed upon them by their government had become unbearable, and they therefore declared their independence from it.

I won’t go into the war for independence, and how it was fought and won. What I want to stress here is another fundamental principle; that being that when government becomes unbearable it is the right of the government to sever the ties that had bound them to it. That principle was carved in stone in America’s founding document, the Declaration of Independence, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

During this push to obtain independence two key things occurred. The first was that each Colony sought to establish for itself a system of government that could effectively manage its own internal affairs should they win their struggle for independence; if they didn’t it would be a moot point, as the leaders of this revolution would most likely be hung.

Secondly the Continental Congress sought to establish some central body capable of managing the war effort. Instead of each Colony working independently, fighting in an unorganized and chaotic fashion, they sought to put into place a central hub by which the disjointed forces of each Colony could be brought under control for the overall benefit of all of them. This led to the drafting of our country’s first constitution, The Articles of Confederation.

The Articles of Confederation did not consolidate the Colonies/States into a single indivisible entity; in fact quite the opposite was true. Article II of that document clearly states, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

Now I have heard from some that any attempt to dissolve the Union is a violation of both the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation. The justification for that point of view is based upon the fact that the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, establishing a ‘more perfect union’ and that under the Articles of Confederation the Union was to be perpetual. I would like to take a few minutes to address that, and show that it is based upon flawed logic. However, to do so I must spend a moment or two discussing the concept of delegated power.

The whole concept behind the American Revolution was that no King, no system of government had the right, or authority, to bind the governed to it for all eternity; that whenever government became destructive of the ends for which it was established, it was the right and duty of the PEOPLE to shake off that form of government and establish a better one. That comes directly from the Declaration of Independence, so they aren’t my thoughts; they are the thoughts and beliefs of those who signed and fought for the principles outlined in that document.

This lays down another fundamental principle; that the power to establish and tear down systems of government rests in the hands of the people; meaning their will is superior to that of any system of government; that the will of government cannot override the will of those who established it. Thomas Paine laid out that principle in clear terms when he wrote, “It has been thought a considerable advance towards establishing the principles of Freedom to say that Government is a compact between those who govern and those who are governed; but this cannot be true, because it is putting the effect before the cause; for as man must have existed before governments existed, there necessarily was a time when governments did not exist, and consequently there could originally exist no governors to form such a compact with.

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.”

This idea that the sovereignty in America rested with the people would later be upheld by the Supreme Court in their decision on the case of Chisholm v. Georgia, “…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.”

Each of us, as sovereign independent people, have the right to rule our lives as we best see fit; restrained only by the equal rights of others. This right includes the right to defend our lives, our property, and our liberty against attacks; from whomever those attacks may come – including our government. The preservation of these rights are the ends that are referenced to in the Declaration of Independence, and when government no longer serves those ends it is our right to abolish that form of government.

Now we must return to a principle I have already mentioned, found in Paine’s book, The Rights of Man, “All power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must either be delegated or assumed. There are no other sources. All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either.”

Now if we truly are the sovereigns in this country, it means that our government was established by our will; it’s powers being granted it through the process known as delegation. What exactly does the word delegate mean? Well the dictionary defines delegate as: to entrust (a task or responsibility) to another person, typically one who is less senior than oneself.

Again we see the concept of the sovereignty of the people, for if a task is delegated to someone less senior to than the person assigning the task, it must mean that the person doing the delegating is superior to the person the task is delegated to. Therefore, as each of us is independently sovereign, the only way government can hold any power over us is if we, and by we, I mean each and every one of us agrees to being governed by it. Otherwise it becomes the tyranny of the many over the few; which is what all democracies become.

Now that I’ve got that topic covered, let’s get back to the argument that the Union was indivisible. The cornerstone of that belief is found in Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, where it states, “… and the Union shall be perpetual…” Unfortunately that is taken out of context, for there is wording both before and after that which proves that it does not mean that, no matter what, the Union shall remain in perpetuity.

Prior to that snippet regarding a perpetual Union we read, “And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State…” That could be taken as a qualifying clause; meaning that for the Union to remain perpetual all the States must abide by each and every word found in the Articles of Confederation; and if any State violated the wording of that document it could be considered a breach of contract; thereby becoming null and void for all the parties who had agreed to it.

The wording after that snippet about perpetuity is also revealing, stating, “… nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”

Now this is where the concept of delegated powers and the hierarchy of sovereignty comes into play. If we are to believe in the principle that the people are truly the sovereigns of this country, then during the Revolution they exercised their sovereign will when they drafted their State Constitutions, establishing systems of government for each State.

Once the Revolution ended, and independence was gained, each State became an independent sovereign political entity, consisting of sovereign and independent people living within them. The Treaty of Paris which officially ended hostilities between Great Britain and the U.S. recognized each State as being an independent entity, “His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent State…”

You see, we were not the UNITED, INDIVISIBLE States, we were independent and sovereign States; joined together in a loose confederation for their mutual assistance and security, “The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.”

So, the true sovereigns, the people, had established systems of government to handle the day to day affairs of their respective independent and sovereign States. These States, acting in their sovereign political capacity, had agreed to join a confederation for their common needs and defense. The people did not make that decision; their agents in the State governments did. Therefore the act of joining, or establishing a confederacy was the act of States as political entities forming a union, of sorts, which would act upon them as political entities, while the State governments acted upon the lives and welfare of their citizens. This, by the way, is a perfect example of a truly federal form of government.

So, if this Union, or Confederacy, were to experience any problems, the mode of correcting them must conform to the process outlined within the document that the States had agreed to – The Articles of Confederation. This means that all alterations to the powers of the Confederacy must be “…agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.” That, in turn, brings us to the Constitution, and the mode by which it was adopted.

In 1786 a convention was held in Annapolis, Maryland, in an effort to find a way to solve the problems of the Congress being unable to regulate trade and to raise revenue for its operation and to pay the debts of the Union. I won’t go into the many reasons why those problems existed; just let it be said that they were created by those who turned around and exploited them; using them as justification for the need of a much stronger system of government.

Anyways, the Annapolis Convention failed to achieve much of anything other than the calling for a more general convention to be held the following spring in the city of Philadelphia. This would give the States plenty of time to choose the delegates they would send, or decide whether or not to send any at all; the option Rhode Island chose, by the way; as they sent no delegates to the convention that produced the Constitution.

Now if you’ll notice the word delegates is a derivative of the word delegate; meaning those chosen to attend this convention were subordinate to those who sent them. These delegates had no power of their own to act as they wished; they were given specific instructions as to what they were being sent to Philadelphia to accomplish, and anything beyond that should have been considered a violation of their delegated authority. The only authority given these delegates was to come up with proposals for amendments, or alterations to the Articles of Confederation; which would then be read and considered by the Congress, and then submitted to the State Legislatures for their individual consideration.

Well we all know that isn’t what happened. Even before the convention started James Madison had in mind to trash the Articles of Confederation and to establish an entirely new system based upon his own personal ideas as to the best form of government for the Union. This is proven beyond a shadow of doubt by the fact that the week before the convention began Madison sent a letter to George Washington, stating, “Having been lately led to revolve the subject which is to undergo the discussion of the Convention, and formed in my mind some outlines of a new system, I take the liberty of submitting them without apology, to your eye.

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

This proves that Madison, and many others who were of like mind, had no intention of adhering to the specifically delegated authority given them by their superiors by their respective State Legislatures.

Now if I were writing a book instead of an essay, I could go into great detail the debates of the convention that produced the constitution; how they argued over representation, the various proposals for this system of government, and many other aspects which eventually led to the drafting of the constitution. But for brevity’s sake I’ll refrain from doing so.

So, not only did these delegates disregard the instructions given them by their States, the demanded that their final document be ratified by means other than those outlined by Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation.

Yes, the Congress did debate it, but they either showed a lack of courage, or they were primarily composed of men who supported this new plan, and they sent it off to the States along with instructions for them to call for State Ratifying Conventions instead of letting the State Legislatures decide the issue for them.

At this point in time it must be made clear that the constitution had no authority, it was merely a proposal for a new system of government to replace the existing one. The only binding authority in existence at that time came from the Articles of Confederation; and they were being violated by the process which would ultimately replace them.

By this breach of the Articles of Confederation, the entire document, including the clause stating that the Union shall be perpetual, became null and void. For if one clause of the document was not binding then none of it was. The Constitution says that it was established to form a more perfect Union, but it makes no mention of the Union being perpetual. If the Articles of Confederation, which did say the Union shall be perpetual, was voided, then the perpetuity was voided along with the rest of it when it was replaced by the Constitution.

Besides, we seem to forget that the ultimate political power, the true sovereignty, rested with the people; who could at any time, of their own volition, nullify any document establishing a system of government and return to the status they held prior to the adoption of that system of government.

Men much wiser than me have written much about the fact that no group of men have the right to bind their posterity to any system of government, and I’d like to share a few of their thoughts with you.

In The Rights of Man Thomas Paine writes, “If any generation of men ever possessed the right of dictating the mode by which the world should be governed for ever, it was the first generation that existed; and if that generation did it not, no succeeding generation can show any authority for doing it, nor can set any up.”

While the Constitution was being argued Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to James Madison that must have sent Madison into seizures when he read it; as Madison was one of the primary movers and shakers behind the Constitution. In his letter Jefferson stated, “The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof.—I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’: that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it.”

What Jefferson was basically telling Madison was, that once those who had established a system of government had passed away, those under that system could be free to make the choice of either abandoning it, or remaining under its jurisdiction and authority; meaning all of Madison’s hard work to see his Constitution come to fruition might be futile once he died. So yeah, Madison must have damned near had a stroke when he read those words from Jefferson.

Almost 100 years after the adoption of the Constitution Lysander Spooner would write something very similar to the sentiments expressed by Jefferson, “And yet we have what purports, or professes, or is claimed, to be a contract—the Constitution—made eighty years ago, by men who are now all dead, and who never had any power to bind us, but which (it is claimed) has nevertheless bound three generations of men, consisting of many millions, and which (it is claimed) will be binding upon all the millions that are to come; but which nobody ever signed, sealed, delivered, witnessed, or acknowledged; and which few persons, compared with the whole number that are claimed to be bound by it, have ever read, or even seen, or ever will read, or see.”

There we have the words of 3 men, all of whom were far wiser than I could ever hope to be, each saying that no generation of men have the authority to bind their posterity to any system of government; that each generation is free to choose for itself how it shall be governed.

The only reason our government continues to exist, continues to exercise authority and jurisdiction over us, is because the people of this country consent to being governed by it; which brings us to the topic of what people expect from government.

Going back to the Declaration of Independence we read, “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…”

That outlines the purpose for which just and enduring governments are established among men. Frederic Bastiat wrote something very similar 3/4 century later, “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.”

There we see that the primary function of government is to secure our rights and our liberty; and we must now ask ourselves if our government has served that purpose faithfully, or if it has forsaken its true purpose and sought to subjugate and oppress us. In pondering this we must also ask, if our government has become tyrannical, if it has subjugated and oppressed us, how was that possible?

If the Constitution established this system, then shouldn’t that document have provided ample safeguards against the government’s ability to infringe upon and violate the rights and liberty of the people and the States? If it has failed in that regard, then Spooner was 100% correct when he said, “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

The question then falls upon you; how much longer are you going to support a system that denies that it was established to secure your rights and liberty; how much longer are you going to submit to, (to steal a line from the Declaration of Independence), a system that has exhibited a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce you under absolute Despotism, it is your right, it is your duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for your future security.

You say it is your patriotic duty to support and defend the Constitution, the government, and the laws the government created by that document enacts. But when is the government itself going to support and defend that document, and if it won’t, then when are the people going to alter or abolish this system and establish one that will secure to us the blessings of liberty?

You call yourselves patriots, I call you willing slaves who choose a new master every so often. You may want to read some Mark Twain if you think you’re a patriot, for Twain once wrote, “A patriot is one who loves his country all the time, and his government when it deserves it.” Your only obligation is to support, defend, and obey those laws that protect and defend your rights and liberty; all others are unconstitutional and the only power they have over you is by your own consent to them.

You may call me a radical, a subversive because I refuse to support government, or participate in making it better by voting. I’m no radical, no extremist; I’m defending your rights and liberty as much as I’m defending my own; you should be grateful that there are people like me around, for without us you’d have lost all your freedoms by now.

I only want government to do that which it was supposed to do according to the Declaration of Independence; that and nothing more. I only want government to handle the few basic things required to manage the affairs and interactions between the States, and to stay out of my fucking life!

My rights are mine and government has no authority to infringe upon them. My liberty is mine, which means I can do whatever I want so long as I do not violate the rights of others. When government, and those who support it, cannot hold themselves to those beliefs, then they become the enemies to liberty; they become the means by which tyranny rises and prevails.

Jefferson once said that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Well enough of our blood has been spilled by tyrants; in their wars, in the streets at the hands of the jack booted thugs who enforce their laws, and if you keep pushing the true patriots are going to, one day, push back and it will be the blood of tyrants that flows freely in the gutters across America.

Keep that in mind. If you, regardless of whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, support even the minutest infringement upon our rights, our liberty, you are an enemy to all that this country once stood for, and you will, either in this life, or the one that follows be held accountable. As Jefferson wrote, “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (Source: A Summary View of the Rights of British America, 1774)

There is one thing you people don’t understand. We, the true patriots who adhere to the beliefs I’ve outlined here, do not fear your wrath, your judgment, and we certainly don’t care about what you think about us. What we do care about is whether we are defending God’s gift of liberty; for that is how we will be judged in the end. Whether we win or lose, if we remain true to our cause is all that matters. So, what cause do YOU support? What would you die for?

Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty or give me death.” What will be your battle cry, “Give me the right to plunder and oppress others, or kill the bastards when they resist”?

You may want to ask yourself that question, for the time is coming when it will be asked for you…

Oh, and if you think this was too long, too complex, I have a couple of last things to say. You’re lucky I didn’t go into the fact that, after 9/11, the Constitution was suspended and you’ve been living under an unconstitutional shadow government which will continue to exist as long as we at war against global terrorism.

The other thing is, how long do you expect me to write at kindergarten level when, by now, you should have advanced far enough in your learning to be at least at high school level, if not ready to enter into a college level discussion of these subjects?

So, if what I’m saying is too complex for you, then it’s your fault for not applying yourself, doing some homework, and researching these subjects on your own without me having to spoon feed you every bit of information. That’s not thinking, that’s being told what to think. I’ve never asked that you accept my word on anything; I’ve always hoped you would research the fact for yourself, and grow beyond the point where you needed me to educate you.

So if you can’t understand what I’ve discussed here, that’s on you, not me…

About Br'er Rabbit

I'm just one person out of millions of others. The only thing different about me is that I don't walk around with my head up my ass.
This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.