Imagine you are sitting peacefully in your home watching television and you hear a knock at the door. You get up to see who’s there and when you open the door you see 2 law enforcement officers standing there asking if they could speak to you for a moment. They ask if they could come inside your home and speak to you, but you say you would prefer that they remained outside and stated their business from outside your home. They tell you sorry, but they have a Form 2, signed by a judge, from the Ministry of Health, and that they are going to enter your home and speak to you against your will; no warrant, no probable cause that you are guilty of having committed a crime.
Once inside your home the officers tell you that you have been identified as having come into contact with someone who has been identified as being infected with the Covid virus and that you are going to have to go with the officers to a hospital to be tested for it. You refuse, saying they have no right, no authority to remove you from your home without your consent unless you are guilty of having committed a crime. They refuse to listen to your arguments; eventually physically removing you, or your entire family, from your home against your will; handcuffing you and treating you as if you had just robbed a band or killed someone.
Let’s examine this scenario for a minute to see if you can identify how many ways this is inherently wrong; inherently evil. Have you ever heard of the Castle Doctrine; the belief that a man’s home is their castle, and that they have the right to use force, even deadly force, to defend it?
Before I get to that, let me first mention that while the Colonies were beginning their war for independence each of them was also in the process of drafting constitutions that would establish systems of government for each Colony/State. Each of these Colonies had, either are a preamble to their constitution, or in the body therein, a list of certain rights that were enjoyed by the people; and which government could not, under any circumstances, violate.
Pennsylvania wrote the following into their constitution in 1776, “That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”
That sentiment dates back before the war for independence, as stated by something Samuel Adams wrote for the Committee of Correspondence for the town of Boston, “Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can–Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature.”
Ironically, right about the same time that England imposed the Stamp Tax upon the Colonies, Sir William Blackstone wrote an epic treatise entitled Commentaries on the Laws of England, in which he writes, “And the law of England has so particular and tender a regard to the immunity of a man’s house, that it stiles it his castle, and will never suffer it to be violated with immunity: agreeing herein with the sentiments of ancient Rome, as expressed in the works of Tully; quid enim sanctius, quid omni religione munitius, quam domus uniusquisque civium? For this reason no doors can in general be broken open to execute any civil process; though, in criminal causes, the public safety supersedes the private. Hence also in part arises the animadversion of the law upon eaves-droppers, nuisancers, and incendiaries: and to this principle it must be assigned, that a man may assemble people together lawfully without danger of raising a riot, rout, or unlawful assembly, in order to protect and defend his house; which he is not permitted to do in any other case.” (My emphasis)
Let’s begin with the first emphasized passage, “For this reason no doors can in general be broken open to execute any civil process; though, in criminal causes, the public safety supersedes the private.” Who gets to determine what is and what isn’t in the public safety? If a person is sitting in their house, minding their own business, does the fact that they’ve ‘possibly’ come into contact with someone who has contracted a virus constitute a danger to public safety?
I’m serious as a heart attack when I say this, have we become a nation of such frightened little sissies that a virus is enough to constitute a threat to the public safety? My God, I’d hate to see what would happen if some truly serious pandemic were to break loose in America; or across the globe for that matter. Yes Covid may be easily spread, yes it may be killing people, but so does the flu, so does pneumonia, so do heart attacks and strokes; yet we haven’t seen such drastic measures taken to prevent the spread of those causes of death. Ooops, I better keep my mouth shut, lest I give government any more ideas on how to violate our liberty.
You cannot avoid germs, viruses, or bacteria; they are a part of life. If you are so frightened by them, you should try to build up your immune system so that it can do what it was designed to do; fight illness; not lock yourself away in your home, or wear a mask all day long; where the perfect environment for germs and other bad things can breed and enter into your body.
Most importantly, nothing, and I mean nothing in the world justifies the violation of our most basic rights; unless the accused is suspected of killing, harming, or stealing from another; and only then when due process of law has been followed. The fact that you ‘may’ have come into contact with someone who has contracted a disease is NOT sufficient justification for anyone’s rights to be violated. END OF STORY!!!
I can neither confirm nor deny this, but I have heard that new ‘mobile testing units’ have been built, which are basically trucks with boxes in the bed, that can go door to door and test people for the Covid virus; and haul them off to quarantine if the test positive. My God people, have we been reduced to stray dogs and cats to be rounded up by Animal Control?
Now let’s get to the second passage from Blackstone’s quote, “that a man may assemble people together lawfully without danger of raising a riot, rout, or unlawful assembly, in order to protect and defend his house; which he is not permitted to do in any other case.”
Think about what the means, if that is at all possible; I know thinking is something you’re not accustomed to doing. What that means is that, if you feel your home is in danger, you may assemble as many friends and neighbors as you feel is necessary to ward off the threat. It’s kind of like taking Neighborhood Watch to the next level; maybe Neighborhood Defense, or Neighborhood Protection.
In fact, a person should not even have to call upon their friends or neighbors if their home or property was being threatened; people should rise up and defend it of their own volition; for the time may come when THEIR homes were threatened, and then they would hope that their friends and neighbors would come to THEIR assistance. It’s like if you see someone getting beaten up; do you go to their aid, or do you pass by without helping the victim? What if the victim was you; wouldn’t you want someone to come to YOUR aid?
A perfect example of this principle in action was the Bundy Standoff against agents of the Bureau of Land Management in 2014. Agents of the BLM came to the Bundy Ranch for the purpose of collecting grazing fees that the government claimed the Bundy’s owed the government; (which is pure bullshit, but maybe the topic for another rant).
Alone, faced with armed agents, the Bundy’s probably stood little chance of defending their rights. However, other ranchers, as well as patriots across the country, came to Nevada to provide defense for the rights of the Bundy Family. These patriots did not arrive with placards, signs and bullhorns, they came with guns of their own; and they threatened to use them if the BLM did not back off.
THAT is how patriots are supposed to respond to tyranny; not say yessir, I will follow your orders, obey the law, hand you my rights under the guise of keeping me safe, or in accordance with what some legislators have deemed to be law. What happened in 2014 in Nevada, and what should be happening every time cops try to enforce some law that violates your rights, is the same thing that happened in the towns of Lexington and Concord in April of 1775; armed patriots standing up to tyrants.
You don’t even have to be armed if there are enough of you standing up for the rights of all people; overwhelming numbers could be enough to make the jack booted enforcers of tyranny back off. Imagine what would happen if cops were found to be violating the rights of an individual, and hundreds of angry citizens swarmed them and threatened to beat them to a pulp if they didn’t stop violating that person’s rights. Not that it would ever happen; not in today’s climate of obedience and servitude; but boy wouldn’t it be glorious if it did!
Ever since 9/11 the law enforcement community has become increasingly militarized; viewing the public, (even the law abiding part of it), as the enemy to be herded around and controlled. As long as you do not violate any of the laws, or question their authority over you, you are pretty much safe. But try to exercise your rights, especially when those rights have been infringed upon by laws and ordinances, and you’ll quickly learn what they think about your freedom – as you’re laying face down on the asphalt; probably with taser barbs in your back, or bullet holes in your body.
I’ve read that, since 9/11, law enforcement has either been trained directly by, or in accordance to the guidelines established by the Israeli Mossad in dealing with the Palestinians. I’m not saying there aren’t good cops out there, but they are vastly outnumbered, and constrained from speaking out by the system they are a part of. Those who speak out against corruption, against the abuses of power by their fellow officers, face the risk of losing their jobs, or being reprimanded by higher ups. Hell, look at what happened to Serpico; his call for back up, or assistance went unheeded, and he was shot in the face by a suspect; all because he had spoken out against corruption in the NYPD.
Evil protects itself, and the sooner people realize that simple fact the quicker they will be on the road to learning that their entire system of governance is evil; that it no longer serves the purpose of securing and defending their rights and liberty. Cops, government agents, the courts and prison systems are all but extensions of the system that enslave us all. Don’t rock the boat and you will be left alone; as long as you pay your taxes and don’t break any of the systems rules. Break any of those rules however, try to be free of its oppressive control, and the whole system comes after you with a vengeance.
There is a simple fact that the people in this country have either forgotten, or never been taught; all political power in America emanates from the people. This was upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1793 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.”
I find it interesting that what the court said sounds strikingly similar to what John Locke wrote 100 years earlier in his Second Treatise, “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 upon the will of any other man.”
If I am free, truly free, no man can take from me what is not theirs to take, nor can they impose rules or guidelines upon how I MUST live my life. If they do, then they have declared war against my freedom, and it is within my rights to fight back, using whatever force is necessary to preserve my freedom. In this state of perfect freedom, or liberty, there is but one law to guide my actions, or the actions of others; that being the Law of Nature. Locke states the following about this Law of Nature, “But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.”
Therefore, this Law of Nature is there to protect the life, health, liberty and possessions of each of us equally. Now I know that some people will say, “Well there you go Neal, if the Law of Nature says that we can be punished for putting the health of others in danger by not obeying the rules established to deal with Covid, what are you bitching about?” Well, if that’s the case, the flu threatens my health, why don’t we go into lockdown every flu season? If you can answer that question for me, then maybe I’ll consider having an intelligent debate with you. Until then, keep your comments to yourself.
Getting back to the state of perfect freedom; in such a state the individual is at risk from those who are stronger, or groups who might seek to harm them or deprive them of life, liberty or property. For the longest time I did not understand what Bastiat meant when he wrote, “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.”
However, one day, in a moment of clarity, an epiphany you might say, I understood it. What Bastiat means is that Life, Liberty and Property existed before the first written law ever came into existence; and that the purpose of the LAW is to preserve and protect those rights. Men wrote laws to protect their rights; but unfortunately people today believe that laws were written; constitutions were written; bills of rights were written, granting man those rights.
No, our rights came first, and governments therefore can do one of two things; they can either ensure that those rights are protected, or they can pass laws that limit and restrict them. The question each of you reading this must ask yourself is, what purpose does your government serve; does it seek to protect your rights, or does it seek to limit and restrict them.
If, as the Supreme Court held in 1793, each of us is individually sovereign, then none of us have the right to take from others for our own benefit, or for the benefit of those we deem more worthy, (read needy), of what we have worked for. If each of us is individually sovereign, then none of us have the right to tell others that they cannot exercise this right or that right.
And now this is where I’m going to upset a few people. Locke then goes on to say, “And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. … This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.”
I know that is long, and it may be hard to understand; but read it as many times as required so that it sinks into your consciousness. If I am a sovereign, I have the right to defend my life, my liberty and my property against ALL intrusions. That means if you try to take away my life, my liberty or my property, I have the right to kill you; as you are the aggressor and have declared war upon Natural Law and my Natural Rights.
Now we come to the Declaration of Independence, the cornerstone upon which our country was established. Everything that has happened since that document was written and adopted can be put into one of two categories; either it was done in accordance with the principles enshrined therein, or it was done in opposition to those principles. Those principles are, “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 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.”
There are 3 important principle outlined in that statement:
1) All men are created equal with certain unalienable (unable to be taken away or surrendered by those possessing them) rights.
2) That governments are established by the ‘consent of the people’ for the purpose of securing those rights.
3) That when government no longer serves that purpose, we the people can get rid of it
Now you may think that ‘We the People’ support these things our government is doing to keep us safe. Well, is not the term ‘We the People’ all inclusive; meaning ALL the people? I certainly do not consent to what government is doing; and I know many others who don’t consent either. So, are we to give up our rights just because the majority of the people are okay with giving theirs up?
We the People established and ordained a Constitution creating this system of government, (and even that’s a farce, because each and every PERSON did not participate in drafting or ratifying it). So, in theory, a constitution was written on behalf of ‘We the People’ by men who ‘supposedly’ had our best interests, (meaning the preservation of our liberty) in mind when they wrote it, (which is total bullshit if you would just read the history behind how the Constitution came into existence).
So if, as the Supreme Court would later say in 1793, we are all equal in our sovereignty, now come we were not all equally given the chance to add our thoughts regarding how this system of government should be formed; what powers it shall be delegated with?
More importantly, have you ever formally consented to the authority granted this government by the Constitution; and I’m speaking about the specific powers found within the document itself; not any implied or necessary powers for the general welfare. Have you ever voted in favor of, or in opposition to that document? If no, then by what authority does that government hold any power over you; just because it’s been in existence 230 some odd years? Well hell, slavery had been in existence in America for 245 years before it was finally abolished; did that make slavery moral for those 245 years?
You might think that you are not well enough informed/educated to be commenting or making judgments regarding things of such a complicated nature. If so, then what makes you think you are qualified to make an informed decision at the polls?
People today think that they can just vote and then leave the governing to the government. They think that if government does something they don’t like then that’s either too bad, or they can write and complain about it. What if government doesn’t listen; what if it keeps doing things you don’t like; what then?
People also think that it only takes a majority for something to be accepted, to become the new normal, to become law. What about the rights of the minority the new norm, or these new laws violate; are they of no importance? What would you do, how would you feel, if YOU suddenly found that you had become a part of the minority whose rights were suddenly being stripped away from you? What if they passed a law banning football forever, or saying you MUST attend church every Sunday, or purchase a gun and learn how to use it safely and properly? Bet you wouldn’t like it, would you? Well maybe now you’ll begin to get an idea of how people like me feel.
Government exists to secure the rights of the people of this country, and that means EACH AND EVERY PERSON!!! Therefore, according to the Declaration of Independence, if government DOES NOT serve that purpose, it is our right and our DUTY to tear that government down and establish one that WILL secure our rights. That isn’t sedition, that isn’t treason; it is doing our sacred duty to ensure that our rights and liberty are properly secured.
You, as an individual, do not have the power to take anything from me, including my income, my property, or my liberty. If you do not have that power then you cannot hire or vote for someone to do it for you under the guise of ‘the law.’ My God people, Thomas Jefferson explained that clearly enough when he said the, “law is often but the tyrants will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” And the last time I checked, I am an individual, so when the laws violate MY rights, then that law is tyrannical, and it is my DUTY to resist it; to disobey both it, and those seeking to enforce it upon me.
How does all that ranting and raving tie into the scenario at the beginning of this commentary? Well that scenario has already taken place; both in Canada and the U.S.; particularly with the Contact Tracing program implemented in Southern California. And now they have mobile test units that can detect and detain you against your will; all under the guise of public safety.
Stores have been told that if they reopen before having been given permission by government, or if they don’t practice social distancing, or require the wearing of face masks, they will either be re-closed or have their business licenses revoked.
Listen, time and time again I’ve said that I am not saying that there isn’t a virus, and that this virus is not killing people. But the flu kills people every year too, and we have never come remotely close to the drastic steps taken over this Covid virus. I mean if public health/safety is the real reason behind these steps, then let’s go all out and shut the whole fucking country down every time the flu makes its way around. On the other hand, if we can’t do that, can we just consider that there just MIGHT BE something else going on; that this might be the biggest infringements of our rights we’ve ever seen in this country?
The way I see it stupidity and ignorance about our system of government is a health crisis; after all the health of our liberty is at stake here. So I think ‘mobile’ testing units should be sent to each and every home in America, and if those living inside those homes cannot pass a rudimentary civics test, then they should be hauled off and isolated so that they can no longer participate in electing ‘bad’ people to office.
HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM APPLES YOU MORONS?
You cannot deprive me, or anyone else for that matter, of our freedom to leave our homes, to operate a business so that we can earn a living, or prevent us from gathering together and sharing each other’s company. You cannot enter into our homes without our consent, unless you are in possession of a search warrant, signed by a judge, stating probable cause and the things to be either searched or seized.
You cannot deny me my rights nor my liberty, and if you, and this means either you as a private citizen, or you as a public servant, try to come into my home without my permission to test, or isolate me, I will consider that an act of war against my liberty, and I will react according to the law of nature.
If I die doing so, then so be it; at least I’ll finally be free of all the ignorance, apathy, overall stupidity, and oppressive laws I’ve been forced to endure for most of my life. Death is the ultimate freedom, and while I am not suicidal, I do not fear it; not when it comes defending something as precious as my liberty; for that is what makes a person a patriot; not voting, not paying their taxes on time; and most certainly not obeying every damned law those tyrannical cocksuckers impose upon you.
We have given them free reign for too long and they have become drunk on power. I say it’s past time that we the American people remind them who’s in charge here; I say it’s time for an intervention by us telling them that no, we will not wear a mask just because you say we must, we will not social distance, and we damn sure won’t be tested or take a vaccine because you tell us it’s the law.
Fuck the law! Fuck those who enforce these laws that violate my rights. As Bastiat said, “The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it!” Those who write, and those who enforce these laws are tyrants, and according to Jefferson, “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.”
So who are YOU going to obey; tyrants or God?