Do You Even Know What Freedom Is?

“Let me tell you something, let me tell you true
What’s right for me might not be right for you
Well, you live your way, I’ll live mine
And I hope that your happy all the time”

~Ronnie Van Zant~
(I’m A Country Boy)

Why is it that people cannot leave others to live their lives as they see fit? People don’t seem to realize that the ability to live as one pleases is at the very core of what people pretend they have in America today; Freedom. Yet the America we live in today is filled with groups trying to force their views; their beliefs; their lifestyles on those who wish to live their lives in freedom.

When Thomas Paine said that government was a necessary evil all those years ago, what he meant was that for government to exist the people must surrender a bit of their sovereignty so that government can enforce the laws it acts upon them. By surrendering even that small portion of their sovereignty, people become less free than they would be if there was no government at all.

But Paine also said that government is a necessary evil. Why would anyone say that something which limits your freedom is necessary? The answer to that is simple; it is because of our nature as human beings; we need something, or someone to keep our actions in check so they do not threaten the lives or the rights of others.

In Federalist 71 James Madison explained this principle thusly, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” That should be self-explanatory, but all one has to do to bring the point home is look at the crime blotter in your local paper; thefts, murders, rapes, and all manner of other crimes are which people commit against each other. If we cannot control our own actions, then it becomes necessary for some agent to intervene and control us. So, as Madison said, if men were angels we wouldn’t need government; and for that matter we wouldn’t need cops either.

But what happens when a government, particularly one such as ours which was designed to safeguard and secure the liberty of those it represents, begins to enact laws which restrict that very liberty? Does it matter that it is done with the best of intentions when the end result is the same as if it had been done to enslave us intentionally? The end result remains the loss of our liberty.

I could honestly care less if every one of you was willing to surrender every one of your rights for the promise of a free home, free food, and security…as long as you don’t take any of my rights away in obtaining those things. If you want to live your lives as slaves without any rights, that’s find; just don’t ask me to join you in servitude.

Therein lies the problem though; our system is one in which the laws that our government passes do not only apply to those who agree with them, they apply to all. Therefore, if you are part of a group that petitions, or lobbies government to enact a law which benefits your cause at the cost of the rights, or the earnings of others, you are using the coercive force of government to your benefit at the cost of the rights or earnings of others.

Freedom means each of us is entitled to live our lives as we see fit; make our own choices and do whatever we want with ourselves and our possessions…as long as we respect the equal right of others to do the same. The moment you begin forcing your views, your beliefs, your ideologies upon those who disagree with you, you have crossed the line from exercising your rights to abusing them.

As an example, I can choose not to own a gun, or I can choose to own 100 guns; that is within my rights as protected by the 2nd Amendment. You might consider it silly for a person to own 100 guns, but I think it is silly for a woman to own 100 pairs of shoes or 100 purses. Who or what am I hurting by owning 100 guns other than the balance in my bank account? Yet the moment I take one of those guns and use it to harm another, (Except in the defense of myself and my property), I abuse that right and SHOULD be punished.

Freedom of speech, we all have it and it too can either be exercised or abused. I am free to speak my mind to the same extent you are; but the moment either of us say untruthful things which bring harm to a person’s reputation then we have crossed the line from exercising a right to abusing it. There is nothing about the right to freedom of speech which denies one person the ability to exercise it simply because another person does not like what is being said. Yet society has deemed certain things to be acceptable and others to be considered politically incorrect simply because someone else finds what is being said offensive.

You know what I find offensive? I find our government offensive when it acts beyond its authorized powers. I find the people of this country offensive when they vote for candidates who make promises which the Constitution does not authorize them to keep. I find lazy people who seek to make others subsidize their existence, or do their job for them, offensive.

Freedom is not defined or limited by what society finds acceptable. Freedom IS limited or restricted when society deems certain actions which harm no one other than the person doing them unlawful. If you understood the nature of crimes you would know that at the core of something being defined as a crime is the principle that the actions of one bring harm to another or violate the rights of another. How is it a crime if one person decides to come home after a hard day’s work and partake of some marijuana to relax and help them fall asleep? Yet in many States it is a crime to be found in possession of, or using marijuana.

In some States it is a crime to own a certain type firearm, where in the neighboring State it is perfectly legal to own that exact same weapon. Tell me we are all equal in our rights…I dare you!

How are we free when our government tells us we must inject our children with poisons before they can attend public indoctrination centers, (schools), yet we are not free to publicize and promote the virtues of holistic methods of healing disease such as cancer, diabetes, and others? The Food and Drug Administration works hand in hand with the pharmaceutical companies to deny and restrict any serious data regarding the benefits of natural cures, yet they will allow these same drug companies to go out and synthesize what can be found in naturally occurring substances and sell it to the people at huge profits.

How can anyone claim to be free when they work close to 5 months out of the year just to pay the taxes they will end up paying to government? That’s like being a slave to government for 5 months of your earnings. And even then that is not enough, our government has to borrow vast sums of money just to keep itself in operation and to provide all the things people expect out of it. And who do you think is on the hook for that debt? Why us, and our posterity. If that isn’t being in shackles to debt I don’t know what is.

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why such a concerted effort has been mounted to discredit and punish those who seek to live off the grid? What is it about people who seek to come as close to absolute freedom that others gang up upon them and seek to punish them?

I’m telling you right now, and I don’t care if you believe me, were any of our Founding Fathers alive today they would be absolutely flabbergasted at the amount of governmental interference in our freedom that we put up with without revolting. FLABBERGASTED!!!

But since most people cannot begin to understand how our Founders would feel about us today, I will share this little quote from John Adams with you in the hopes that you begin to understand the depths of your failure as Americans to uphold the standard of freedom our Founders fought for, “Posterity! You will never know, how much it cost the present Generation, to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good Use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it.”

I certainly hope your proud of yourselves!

Posted in General | Leave a comment

You Could Say That I’m A Bit Angry

I don’t think people realize how truly angry I get sometimes. I’m sure some have witnessed momentary outbursts of anger, but nobody has seen what I keep corked up inside me. There have been days that I have prayed that a meteor the size of Texas would strike the Earth and end all life on this planet; simply because I have been so angry because people continue to put their faith and trust in a system of government that is hell bent on turning every man, woman and child into a slave.

How many people reading this routinely attend sporting events, or watch them on television? If you do, you’ll notice that at the beginning of every one of these sporting events someone is chosen to come out and sing our national anthem; the Star Spangled Banner. At the end of that song there is a line that asks, “Oh say does that Star Spangled Banner yet wave O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

I wonder how many people know the history behind that song; the Star Spangled Banner. I’m willing to bet that a great many believe it was written during the time of our American Revolution; which only shows that most are incapable of any kind of critical thought. Had they been able to think they would have realized that we did not yet have an American Flag to wave in 1776, so how could someone write a song dedicated to it?

The Star Spangled Banner was written by Francis Scott Key, a lawyer who had sought to have a friend released from British custody during the War of 1812. Key was under guard on a ship in Chesapeake Bay when the British began an artillery barrage against Fort McHenry that lasted for 25 hours. Key would later write about the attack, “It seemed as though mother earth had opened and was vomiting shot and shell in a sheet of fire and brimstone.” When darkness came the sky was filled with red flashes erupting into the night sky. When dawn came he was sure that he would see the British flag flying over the Fort, signifying a British victory. Instead he saw the Stars and Bars flying high, signifying America had held on to Fort McHenry. This inspired him to write his thoughts on paper, which was later distributed to newspapers under the title, Defence of Fort McHenry. It was only later that it was put to music and became our national anthem.

So, when you attend one of these sporting events, or watch them on TV, and you see that person singing our national anthem, what’s the first thought that passes through your mind? Do you get the chills if someone does a particularly good job of singing it? Does your chest swell with patriotic pride? Do you your eyes moisten up when you hear them sing?

You want to know what I think when I hear someone singing that song? This may come as a shock, but I think to myself, “Just shut up already! What the hell are you singing for; this hasn’t been the land of the free and the home of the brave for a long time?” That’s what I think when I hear someone sing that song.

Oh Neal, where is your patriotism? My patriotism is fine, how about yours? The problem lies in how one defines patriotism. I see all these people flying their American Flags, displaying bumper stickers that say ‘God Bless America’ or ‘Support the Troops’ and think to myself, is that the extent of your patriotism; repeating useless catch phrases that have no substance? Do you want to know what patriotism means to me? To me patriotism means saying, “Give me liberty or give me death” and meaning it. The understanding of, and defense of their liberty is the gauge by which I measure a person’s patriotism.

If I was to put on a wig, make up, and a dress I could pretend that I am a woman; but that wouldn’t make me one; unless my name was Bruce Jenner that is. Just as I could do all those things, people can display all the flags and bumper stickers, and repeat all these inane little sayings; but that does not make them patriots.

Patriotism is not standing for your country or government no matter what it does; it is standing for the values and principles that your country was founded upon. A true patriot would not allow their government to deprive them of the right to retreat into their homes and be free from the prying eyes and ears of the NSA just to keep them safe from the boogeyman terrorists. A true patriot would not allow their government to pass laws which restricted what type gun they may own, when they can carry them, and place limits upon when one can use them in the defense of their life, family, and possessions, simply because they fear some lunatic going on a shooting spree. A true patriot would not stand behind their country’s military when it is being used as the enforcing arm of corporate and banking interests rather than the defenders of our home and our liberty. A true patriot would not blindly support law enforcement when law enforcement officers routinely enforce unconstitutional laws upon the slaves of this country.

In a speech delivered to the Virginia Ratification Assembly on June 5, 1788, Patrick Henry said a great many things the people of this country seem to have forgotten; or forsaken. For instance, Henry said the following about what we should expect out of government, “You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.” Does that sound like the things the candidates running for office campaign upon, or do they make you promises to do things which are not among the specific powers given our government by the Constitution, or which deprive you of the liberty Henry spoke of?

Then Henry went on to say, “Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings-give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else…”

How many of you would be willing to give up all the services your government currently provides for you if it would just give you back your liberty? I can’t speak for the country as a whole, but I’m betting that out of the people I come into contact with on a daily basis I think I could count the answer to that question with the fingers on one hand. And that leads me to the final quote from Mr. Henry’s address to the Virginia Assembly, “But I am fearful I have lived long enough to become an fellow: Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man, may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old fashioned: If so, I am contented to be so: I say, the time has been when every pore of my heart beat for American liberty, and which, I believe, had a counterpart in the breast of every true American.”

If you’ll note, Henry ended that statement by saying ‘…every true American…’ I believe that what he meant is that true Americans would defend their liberty to the death against any and all who would seek to deprive them of it; not willingly acquiesce to laws which stripped them of that liberty. You can call yourselves Americans, you can even call yourselves patriots; but saying it doesn’t make it so. I could call myself a millionaire but that doesn’t mean I am one.

Patriotism is measured by deeds and actions, not by catchy phrases and bumper stickers.

But Neal, we’re free; aren’t we? Well, are you? True liberty, as defined by Locke, is stated as being “…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.”

Using that as your definition of freedom, are you truly free? Can you make improvements upon your home without first having to obtain a permit from government? Can you carry a firearm on your person for your own private defense without first obtaining a permit; even though the 2nd Amendment makes no mention of requiring a permit to ‘carry’ arms? Are you free to speak your mind without governmental or societal limitations upon what you say; simply because others find your words hateful or offensive?

Are you free to take every penny you earn at your job and spend it as you see fit, or are you taxed and your money spent upon programs which are either unconstitutional, or which you disagree with? Can you drive freely through the streets of your town without paying registration fees which ‘permit’ you to operate that vehicle? Can you keep your home that you have purchased with your hard earned money without paying the ransom known as property taxes? Can you hunt or fish without first obtaining a license from government?

What was that about you saying you are free? Oh, I suppose you meant you are free to watch ESPN or some Reality TV show; or you are free to eat chicken or steak for dinner; or that you can dress up nicely or wear a pair of tattered old jeans; you know the really important things in life. (And if you don’t recognize sarcasm; that was a perfect example of it)

I’m angry because no matter how I word it, no matter how much evidence I provide to people, they refuse to accept that they are no longer free; and they still trust in and support the system which enslaves them.

I’d be willing to bet that if there were some kind of magic switch I could flip and people would suddenly see things the way I do, there would be such a run on rope that hardware stores across the nation could not keep up with the demand for it. If people could see things from my point of view the trees and lampposts across the nation would be decorated with the swaying bodies of those who have forsaken their oaths of office to support and defend our Constitution; and by proxy, our liberty.

But that’s why I am angry, because people don’t see the truth that is hidden behind the thin veneer of lies that the media and our elected representatives tell them. People are either too lazy, or too stupid, to seek out the truth; and by virtue of this they are kept in a perpetual state of slavery; both as it pertains to the loss of their liberty, and their work being held as collateral on our government’s inability to live within its means.

As long as people have a roof over their heads, food to eat, and entertainment that’s all that matters to them. It does not matter to them that they have lost their most precious possession; their liberty. The Roman poet Juvenal once said, “Give them bread and circuses and they will never revolt.” No truer a statement was ever made!

I could care less if people flocked up to receive whatever benefits the government promised them, even if they did so with full knowledge that in return for those benefits they would surrender their freedom. But the thing is the laws our government passes affect me as well, and I am not okay with surrendering my freedom for a few paltry benefits. I am not okay with the money I earn losing its spending power because those who control our nation’s monetary system keep flooding our economy with cash to keep it afloat; and if you want the definition of inflation, that’s it right there. If you don’t believe me, Google it for yourselves and you’ll find, “a persistent, substantial rise in the general level of prices related to an increase in the volume of money and resulting in the loss of value of currency.”

You can call yourselves whatever you want; Americans, patriots, or just plain good citizens, but don’t try to convince me that any of those phrases apply to you when you willingly support a system which enslaves you and deprives ME of my liberty. I know the truth, and I ain’t falling for your b.s.

Yet it is a sad commentary on what people believe to be a patriot or an American even when they condemn and ridicule those of us who stand for the same values and beliefs that our Founders did. It’s just as Charles A. Beard said, “You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence.”

You can say whatever you want about me, and what I believe in; I honestly don’t care. But I will leave you with one final thought. Thomas Jefferson once liked something so much he incorporated it into his own personal seal. The thing that Jefferson liked was the saying, “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.” If that truly is the case, I wonder what Jefferson would have felt about a society that willingly submitted to tyrants?

Ponder that, will you?

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Choose Wisely Which Side You Take

In the beginning there was man; and man was free. This freedom that was bestowed upon man came not as the gift of a benevolent government, as there was yet no government to grant man this gift. This state of freedom that man lived under allowed him to make whatever choices he wanted in life; but it also came with the burden of accepting sole responsibility for whatever choices he made.

If there was one thing I wish I could get people to understand it would be that governments do not provide people with freedom, they take freedom from people; and this is true even when government is good. As Thomas Paine once said, “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.”

I often hear people use the term constitutional rights, which is a misnomer if I ever heard one. Our rights are not given to us by our Constitution; the Constitution merely protects them from infringement by the government it establishes. Our rights predate our system of government; that is they existed before government existed.

I wish I could get people to understand the relationship between government and the people; how one is master and the other servant. People today falsely believe that our government is all powerful, and whatever laws it passes must be obeyed. To understand the wrongness of this belief one must understand what sovereignty is.

Sovereignty, depending upon which dictionary you use, is defined as the supreme or ultimate political authority in a nation; or to put it in simpler terms, the font from which all political authority is derived. Our Founders believed that sovereignty is held by the people, not government.

When discussing law, particularly as it applies to rulings handed down by the courts, there is a term that people need to be familiar with; that being a landmark case. A landmark case is one of such importance that it establishes a precedent for how things are done. In 1793 the Supreme Court of the United States heard one such landmark case; Chisholm v Georgia. In their ruling the SCOTUS declared, “…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.”

This ruling confirms the belief that all political power and authority in America comes from the people, and that government is merely an agent working on behalf of the people to perform certain specific functions. I could now delve into the subject of why the Preamble to our Constitution does not say, “We the States…” instead of “We the People..” but that would take up too much time. Instead I will focus on the fact that our Founders believed that it was through the joint sovereignty of the people that the Constitution became validated; or in this instance, ratified. It was by our sovereign authority that government came into existence; and it is only by our good grace that government continues to hold any authority over us.

You might believe that government, once established, cannot be undone; that no matter how bad it becomes we are stuck with it. That is not the case, and I can prove it. Our Declaration of Independence clearly states, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…” Does that not sound to you like the people, the true sovereigns, have the right to dismantle government if it ceases to perform the functions it was created to perform?

If, as Jefferson declared, governments are established to secure our rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, then do we not, as sovereigns, have the right to resist any law which limits the very things government was established to protect? Well then, what are we waiting for; permission from government?

Are people so naive that they believe a government which has proven time and time again that it cares nothing about the rights of the people it governs is going to up and grow a conscience and declare that the people now have the authority to resist the laws it passes? That is why Paine said that government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil. But when government becomes oppressive, and seeks to deprive the liberty which it was established to protect, it then becomes an intolerable one.

But government is also something else; a bully. Government can, and will use force to compel obedience to the laws it passes. When law enforcement does not understand, or care about the Constitutional limitations upon governmental powers, or the rights government was established to secure, then they become nothing more than enforcers for a government that has become the antithesis of what our Founders had fought to secure for themselves and their posterity.

Let me ask you something. If someone came up to you and began punching you in the face, would you ask them permission before you could defend yourself, or strike back? Whose permission are you waiting for before you begin to stand up for the rights your government has deprived you of; or do your rights mean little to you as long as government creates more jobs, provides you with more benefits, and keeps you safe?

In the past I have used a specific quote from the 16th American Jurisprudence, but it wasn’t until yesterday that I read the full quote. I now provide it for your edification:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since it’s unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Such an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follows that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it.

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Any court, government or government officer who acts in violation of, in opposition or contradiction to the foregoing, by his, or her, own actions, commits treason and invokes the self-executing Sections 3 and 4 of the 14th Amendment and vacates his, or her, office. It is the duty of every lawful American Citizen to oppose all enemies of this Nation, foreign and DOMESTIC.

If we as sovereigns established our government, and did so for specific purposes, then when that government oversteps the limits upon its authority, or seeks to deprive us of the things which it was established to protect, then not only is it our right, it is our DUTY to oppose that government. I don’t care if the crimes government commits are performed by Republicans or Democrats; if they violate the Constitution or Bill of Rights, I oppose government, and all those who enforce these unconstitutional laws upon the people.

Famed physicist Albert Einstein once said, “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” That is how I view all those who blindly accept whatever laws our government passes without ever questioning or resisting them.

George Washington once declared that the Constitution was the guide which he would never abandon. Whether or not his actions stood up to his words is another story altogether, but the sentiment is one which we should all apply when discussing who is best qualified to hold a particular office in government. If that person proves, by their campaign promises, that they have no understanding of, or desire to conform to the Constitutional limitations upon the office they seek, then they are not worthy to hold that office, and do not deserve our support.

Yet me, and many like me, are viewed as enemies of the State, or dangers to society, simply because we understand that government was instituted for certain purposes, and that when government oversteps its just authority it is our right and our duty to resist the laws they pass.

All one has to do is but watch how people freak out when there is any mention of a possible government shutdown whenever there is a budget crisis in Congress. People have become so dependent upon government that they have forgotten that government was never intended to be the provider of all these benefits they now rely upon from it. Just look at Trump and his promise to create all these jobs. Yet former President James Garfield once said, “It is no part of the functions of the National Government to find employment for the people, and if we were to appropriate a hundred millions for his purpose, we should only be taxing 40 millions of people to keep a few thousand employed.”

Then of course there is this, from a speech given by James Madison, who is considered to be the Father of our Constitution, “If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress… Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude
contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”
Yet these are all things people have come to expect out of government, and that is why nothing will ever change until the people change their expectations from government. As long as people ignore the violations of their rights as long as the benefits keep flowing, nothing is going to change.
If America truly wants to become great again it must start by asking itself what government was established to do in the first place, then it must demand that those who hold elective office conform to the limits the Constitution imposes upon them.

Freedom is never free; it always comes with a cost. If our government was established to secure that freedom for each of us, then it is our duty to ensure that government fulfills the purpose for which it was established; that is of course unless you mind seeing your rights further diminished.

There will come a point, if we haven’t already passed it, when government becomes too powerful to oppose and our rights be determined by whatever government deems we are allowed to have. Patrick Henry once delivered a speech in which he said, “Give me liberty or give me death.” How many people today would be willing to offer up their life in defense of their liberty? Or, would they rather live without liberty as long as the government provided them with all their needs and kept them entertained?

Our Founders were willing to risk all that they had for their freedom from the King of England; who was far less oppressive than our current government is. You must make a choice; what is it you truly want in life, comfort and servitude, or liberty and the responsibility of defending it?

Winston Churchill once said, “If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is 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 to live as slaves.” He may have been talking about fighting against the Nazis and the threat they imposed upon England, but the sentiment is the same in regards to anyone, or anything which threatens your liberty. There will come a time when Americans will once again be faced with the decision of standing up to tyranny, or living as slaves to an overtly oppressive government.

If I am still alive when that time comes I have one quote which pretty much tells you which side I will take, “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.”

I hope you choose which side you will take wisely…

Posted in General | Leave a comment

All It Takes Is 1 Out Of 12

“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!”
~Frederic Bastiat~

I recall when I was taking writing courses, for my high school diploma and then later for college credits, that my instructors would tell me that all formal or official type writing begins with an opening statement. This opening statement is similar in nature to the opening arguments provided by both prosecution and defense attorneys in a criminal trial where the lawyers give an overview of what they hope to prove by the evidence they will provide for the jurors to consider. These opening statements declare the intent of the words that will follow them.

With that in mind, the Preamble to the Constitution is merely an opening statement; a declaration of the reasons why the Constitution itself was being written. It grants no powers in and of itself; a fact affirmed by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in his book, Commentaries on the Constitution, “The preamble never can be resorted to, to enlarge the powers confided to the general government, or any of its departments. It cannot confer any power per se; it can never amount, by implication, to an enlargement of any power expressly given. It can never be the legitimate source of any implied power, when otherwise withdrawn from the constitution. Its true office is to expound the nature, and extent, and application of the powers actually conferred by the constitution, and not substantively to create them.”

Time and time again I have repeated the fact that our government was established to represent two bodies; the great body of the people of this country and the States as sovereign entities. Our government was bestowed with certain specific powers and anything our government does beyond those powers is usurpation. These are incontrovertible facts and I don’t know why I have to keep repeating them over and over for people to grasp them as the truths they are.

Yet ignore these facts the people do…in droves. Then when someone such as myself comes along and tells them that the things our government is doing violate the law, and that we are not bound to obey these unconstitutional statutes, I am told that I have lost my mind, that government is omnipotent and it is our responsibility to obey whatever laws they pass.

If I am the one who has lost his mind, explain to me why Thomas Jefferson, author of our Declaration of Independence and the third person to become President of the United States would say things which support my views?

In response to the States so-called responsibility to blindly follow the laws passed by our government, Jefferson had this to say, “Resolved, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government . . . . and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.” (Source: Kentucky Resolutions)

In regards to the people, and their rights, Jefferson then said this, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. 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.” (Source: Letter to Francis Gilmore, 1816)

Why is it that so many people willingly accept that their government can do the things it does when there is no justification for their acts in the very document which created our form of government? Why is it that so many people acquiesce to these laws which violate their most sacred rights without even a whimper of protest? To top it all off, these people then call people like me nutcases and radicals who are a danger to society.

The legal part of our government, the part that the Constitution authorizes, consists of only 546 people; that is if you include the Supreme Court Justices, as well as the President, Vice-President and Congress. Not a whole lot of people really. So if they were to pass a law that the people do not like, what’s to stop the people from simply telling the government to stick their law where the sun don’t shine?

A part of that answer is that they have at their disposal a great many men with guns. I find it ludicrous that the people of this country want to restrict and deprive the people of America of their constitutionally protected right to own guns, but they allow their government own whatever type of weaponry it wants. That right shows me that people DO NOT know why the 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights; for if they did they would not want their government to have bigger and better guns than the people did.

So we have armies of people with guns whose sole job is to enforce the laws our government passes. There is an army devoted to fighting the illegal drugs which find their way into America; the DEA. There is an army that fights the illegal transport and sale of liquor and guns; The BATF. There are the FBI and the US Marshalls. Then there is our actual military, who although the Posse Comitatus prohibits them from being used in a law enforcement capacity, wouldn’t stop our government from calling them out to engage the people to keep the peace. And let us not forget our local LEO’s, who are just ‘doing their job’. The problem is, their job is to protect us and our rights; not be enforcers for an out of control government.

Our government is not going to relinquish the power it has accumulated, nor will it restore the rights it has deprived us of. Working within the system, and by system I mean at the voting booths, is not going to fix this problem. There are but 3 ways that we can begin to fix this problem. There could be an outright revolution where are government is overthrown and replaced by one which adheres to the Constitution. This should be the last resort, when all else has failed. We are not there yet, but if we don’t change course in America we soon will be.

The second method by which we can begin to limit our government’s authority is by re-asserting the sovereignty of the individual States. This is the principle I mentioned moments ago with the quote from Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions. If the people would place more emphasis on electing men and women to their State governments who understood the relationship between the federal government and the States, and knew what powers were to be held by both, then maybe the States could simply tell the government to take a hike when it attempted to enforce and unjust or unconstitutional law within their borders.

Of course this is conditional on the fact that the States once again become self-sustaining entities and severe their dependence on federal funding. What good does it do for a State to say no to federal encroachment of their authority if all the federal government has to do is say, “Okay, if you don’t enforce this law we are going to cut off funding for roads and education?” If the States are slaves to their dependence on the flow of federal funds then the States are hardly in any position to stand up for their rights as sovereign entities. That leaves us with one final method of fighting tyranny; jury nullification.

What happens if someone resists the law; even when they feel the law violates their rights as human beings? Quick answer is that they are arrested; that is if they aren’t killed resisting arrest. Once a person is arrested they find themselves participants in our marvelous system of justice. I use the word marvelous as a truthful representation and as a sarcastic reference to the corrupt state our justice system is currently in.

One of the many reasons listed in our Declaration of Independence for the Colonists seeking freedom from their government was that their government had often deprived the people of a trial by jury. Why would trial by jury be so important to them? Well, in answer to that, let’s look to what Thomas Jefferson had to say years later, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

How could trial by jury keep our government from overstepping its authority? The answer is quite simple really. It takes 12 jurors to render a verdict of guilty to enforce the law, does it not? If just one of those people disagrees with the law itself, believing that the law violates an individual’s rights, they can, and should, find the defendant innocent. That, my friends is jury nullification; the ability of a jury to stop the enforcement of unjust laws upon the people; thereby limiting the authority of the government over the people. Imagine if jurors across the nation started doing that in droves. The beauty of jury nullification is that it takes but one person, a single individual who cares about the constitutional limitations upon government and the preservation of our liberty to halt tyranny; one person out of twelve.

How many people do you know, who when they get a jury duty notice bemoan the fact and try their best to get out of it? Me, I WANT to serve on a jury, and pray that if I do the trial is one in which an unjust law is the offense which the defendant is accused of violating. Watch how fast I hang that jury and allow that individual to walk free…WATCH ME!

But jury nullification takes two things to work. First, one has to have a thorough understanding of the original powers given our government and the nature of a person’s unalienable rights. Secondly it takes courage to stand before 11 of your peers and not back down when they are all aligned against you.

You see, when a person serves as a juror, and before they retire for debate over the case, the judge tells them what the law is and the conditions upon which they must deliberate. That is the perversion of our system; as judges do not want jurors capable of critical thinking who will question both the facts and the law a person is charged with violating. Judges are but mere puppets of the system itself; a system which seeks to keep us in line and under its thumb.

You want to get out of jury duty; show up when you get your notice wearing a T-shirt with two words on it; JURY NULLIFICATION. I guarantee that you WILL NOT be selected to serve on a jury.

Yet jury nullification is exactly what Jefferson hinted at in his abovementioned quote. American Jurisprudence is an encyclopedia of sorts of law and legal principles. As such it is not legally binding and cannot be used in a court as statutory evidence either for or against the prosecution or defense. Yet it gives us an idea of certain things that are known as legal maxims; truths that are unchanging over the course of time. In the 16th American Jurisprudence it states, “Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” (My emphasis)

Which now brings us to the quote by Bastiat which sits at the top of this commentary, “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!”

If the law becomes perverted and the tool used to oppress the liberty of the people it was supposed to protect; and if the judges are part of that system of control who seek to ensure that the law, as written by government, is upheld in their courtrooms, then it is the DUTY of jurors to find those charged with violating unconstitutional laws innocent.

If we, or at least our forefathers, created government, and if they bestowed government with certain powers, what does it say about us that we submit to unconstitutional laws and infringements of our rights? What does it say about us that, as jurors we would send a person to prison whose sole crime was they violated a law which was instituted by criminals who had violated the Supreme Law of the Land by enacting that law?

In 1775 Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to William Small in which he posed the following question, “Can it be believed that a grateful people will suffer [individuals] to be consigned to execution, whose sole crime has been the developing and asserting their rights?” Were Jefferson to ask that question today, I fear the answer would be yes.

Yet Jefferson also believed in the motto that resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. It is our duty, our responsibility, to take every measure possible to restrict our government from encroaching upon unauthorized power, and to limit their ability to enforce unjust laws upon the people. This includes our civic duty to serve as jurors, and more importantly, to render innocent verdicts when one is accused of violating an unconstitutional law.

John Adams stated it thusly, “Therefore, the jury have the power of deciding an issue upon a general verdict. And, if they have, is it not an absurdity to suppose that the law would oblige them to find a verdict according to the direction of the court, against their own opinion, judgment, and conscience? … [I]s a juror to give his verdict generally, according to [the judge’s] direction, or even to find the fact specially, and submit the law to the court? Every man, of any feeling or conscience, will answer, no. It is not only his right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”

Former Supreme Court Justice William C. Goodle once stated, “Jury Nullification encourages participation in the judicial process, which in turn furthers the legitimization of the legal system. Jury Nullification also serves to inject community values and standards into the administration of our laws. Ordinary citizens are given the chance to infuse community values into the judicial process in the interests of fairness and justice and at the same time provide a signal to lawmakers that they have drifted too far from the Democratic will… History is replete with examples that Jury Nullification serves as a corrective “veto” power of the people over both legislative and judicial rigidity and tyranny.”

Then there is this, from the case of United States v. Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, (1969), “If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence.”

We have the power to resist unconstitutional laws, if only we would become educated as to the original intent of our Founders when they established our system of government. If we, as jurors, would render innocent verdicts against those charged with violating unconstitutional laws it would render our government powerless to enforce those laws upon us. THAT is the power of jury nullification. If they sought to deprive us of the right of trial by jury then they would show their true nature and maybe, just maybe people would realize that I’ve been telling the truth all these years; that their government does not care about them, or their liberty.

And now one final question. If our Constitution is indeed the Supreme Law of the Land, why have we not seen a single elected representative; be they a Congressman or President, brought up on charges of violating it? Why have not they been held accountable for the untold number of breeches of federal authority into areas it was never intended our federal government exercise any authority or jurisdiction?

After all, we are the true sovereigns of this country and our government is simply a group of employees who have been elected to perform certain specific functions. It is within our power to indict and prosecute them for their failure to uphold their oaths of office to support and defend the Constitution; that is if we should so choose to do so.

So, why haven’t we?

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Our Government is Evil

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.” ~Edmund Burke~

“…or that people ignore the fact that the evil exists.” ~Neal Ross~

There are a great many things which bother me with people today, but at the very top of that long list is the fact that very few people are willing to consider any facts which may shatter the illusion that the government we have is benevolent and has their best interests in mind. When people align themselves behind political parties, or more specifically, agendas, they become blind to the atrocities committed by their party and government as an entity.

Take for instance the endless push to find some proof that the election of Donald Trump was the result of Russian interference in the election process itself. Those on the left who oppose Trump push this as their mantra while the news media gives the story credence by their endless reporting on it.

It’s funny that at the end of the day on 9/11 we knew more about who committed those terrorist acts than we do now after 6 months of investigating the Trump/Russia connection. Yet a great many people still continue to believe that some connection exists, and that Hillary lost the election to Trump due to Russian interference in our election process. I don’t know if these people are simply sore losers or if they are truly upset that the possibility exists that our election process was tampered with by outsiders.

I’m going to play Devil’s Advocate for just a minute and pretend that I believe that Russia somehow hacked into the DNC servers and released damaging info on Hillary to Wikileaks that caused her to lose to Trump.

So what! You heard me, so what. First of all, if the info was so damaging, then maybe the Clinton camp should have kept their affairs above board in case they became public knowledge. Secondly, even if the means by which this info was released to the public was illegal, does that negate the fact that it was so incriminating that it caused enough voters to switch over and vote for Trump? If someone were to break into your house and discover evidence that your spouse was cheating on you, who would you be upset with more, the person who broke into your home or your spouse for cheating on you?

Finally, and this is what really gets me, America itself is not innocent in regards to our involvement in the internal politics of other countries. How many times has the U.S. sought to topple dictators who were unfriendly towards our business interests, or who was considered a threat to national security. If the claim that the Russians stole the election from Hillary is true, at least Russia allowed Americans to vote; how many times have we ousted duly elected leaders from other countries, on invaded them to topple dictators?

Going back in history we have the CIA led coup which saw the duly elected Prime Minister of Iran ousted from office, to be replaced by a more U.S. friendly Shah; who went on to brutalize his own people during his time in office. We have the failed Bay of Pigs fiasco where the CIA sought to oust Cuban President Fidel Castro. There is the Second Gulf War which saw the U.S. led invasion result in the overthrow of the administration of Saddam Hussein. There was the invasion of Panama to oust Manuel Noriega; who at one time was once a staunch ally of the United States. There was the U.S. involvement in the Arab Spring movement which led to the death of Libyan President Moamar Gaddafi. Then there is the continued U.S. support for Syrian rebels seeking to oust President Assad.

These are probably just the tip of the iceberg as it pertains to U.S. meddling in the internal politics of OTHER countries. What is clear is that the hands of the United States are certainly not clean when it comes to interfering with the internal politics of other nations. Yet Americans cry foul when there is the hint of Russian involvement in OUR internal politics.

You want the definition for hypocrisy; that’s it right there. But I’m not done yet; in fact I’ve barely gotten started. I mentioned 9/11 a few moments ago, and I did so intentionally to tie into what I’m about to say.

I can make no claims as to who orchestrated the events that transpired on September 1, 2001. What I can claim is that I believe the official story to have been concocted to lead us into war in the Gulf and the Draconian Police State designed, not to keep us safe from terrorism, but to control us and diminish our rights.

Just as American political leaders knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor, leaders in our government knew that something was going to happen on 9/11, and they either allowed it to happen or they facilitated it to benefit themselves and/or certain special interests. The amount of evidence which supports the idea that those towers came down, not due to the planes that struck them, but by controlled demolition is too strong to deny the possibility that 9/11 was pre-planned and carried out to enrage the American people and garner support for the U.S. led war on terror.

Yet when I tell people this the first thing that happens is that they pull out the old tin foil hat conspiracy theorist label and pin it on me. Then they inevitably say that our government isn’t capable of that kind of evil.

Really… you honestly believe that?

Have you ever heard of Operation Northwoods? Of course you haven’t. Operation Northwoods was a plan proposed by the Department of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff in which CIA operatives were to commit acts of terrorism against both American civilians and U.S. military targets, and then blame them on Cuba to justify a U.S. led invasion to topple Fidel Castro.

Although the Kennedy administration rejected the plan, the fact that there existed people in positions of leadership within our government who would come up that kind of a false flag event prove that the idea has at least once crossed their minds. Who is to say that the events on 9/11 were not a similar event orchestrated by certain people within our government to garner support for everything from the U.S. invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the passage of all these Draconian laws to fight terror?

Not enough to convince you? You still believe our government is not capable of committing such an evil act upon the people of this country. Let’s see what I can do to change your minds…

Ever hear of the Tuskegee Experiments? Between the years 1932-1972 the U.S. Department of Health conducted experiments on African-American men in Tuskegee Alabama to study the effects of syphilis on males. The men who underwent these studies were not told they had syphilis, nor were they given the cure when it was proven that penicillin would cure it. The subjects of these experiments were simply guinea pigs for the Dept. of Health. And in case you didn’t know, the Dept of Health is PART OF THE GOVERNMENT.

Have you ever heard of Operation Sea Spray? Once again, I doubt you have. Operation Sea Spray was an experiment conducted by the United States Navy in 1950 where Serratia marcescens and Bacillus globigii bacteria were sprayed over the city of San Francisco to see how it affected the people of San Francisco.

Later, in Senate hearings, the military admitted that it had conducted up to 239 open air tests of biological agents within the United States; subjecting untold numbers of Americans to pathogens. Yet people laugh at me when I suggest that our government is doing similar experiments now; experiments which people see with their own eyes every day in the form of chemtrails.

How about Operation Top Hat, ever hear of that one? Operation Top Hat was a 1953 exercise conducted by the United States Army in which unsuspecting soldiers were exposed to biological and chemical agents to test methods of decontamination.

But that’s not all our military has done in the name of science and experimentation. For years the military conducted scores of tests on the effects of radiation on human beings. Purposefully infected radioactive food was fed to mentally disabled children or conscientious objectors in the military; radioactive radium rods were inserted into the nasal passages of schoolchildren to monitor the effects; and radioactive particles were intentionally released over both U.S. and Canadian cities to study the effects of radiation on human beings.

In 1986, years after these experiments ended, the United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce released a report which sums up what government had been doing; American Nuclear Guinea Pigs: Three Decades of Radiation Experiments on U.S. Citizens.

The of course there was MK Ultra; certainly you’ve at least heard of that one…haven’t you? MK Ultra was a CIA run program to study mind control. It used many methods to achieve its goals; including hypnosis, sensory deprivation, as well as the administering to unwitting subjects of the drug LSD. The Mel Gibson movie Conspiracy Theory is based upon the MK Ultra program; yet people see it and think it is pure fiction.

Project Bluebird and Project Artichoke were similar CIA run programs which tested the use of drugs and other methods to conduct interrogations. Yet lest people forget, the CIA is also PART OF THE GOVERNMENT.

People focus on issues like universal health care, illegal immigration, gay rights, abortion and all other manner of ‘issues’ when considering who to vote for. They refuse to even peer into the dark side of our government; which is its belief that we are subjects and guinea pigs to be used, tested upon, and controlled to achieve its goals.

Yet I am laughed at because I believe our government is capable of orchestrating 9/11 to manipulate the sentiments of the American people to support its desire to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and further its goal of a massive police state where the rights of the people are further diminished.

History proves that our government is not only capable of committing atrocities, but that it is willing to do so if it furthers their goals. Why is it so hard to believe that it would use a false flag event such as 9/11 to do the same? If you cannot accept that 9/11 may have been staged then I suppose you believe that the Bay of Tonkin event actually happened according to official reports, that the USS Maine sunk according to the official reasons given, and that the U.S. was surprised by the attack upon Pearl Harbor.

I don’t know about you, but a government that uses its people as guinea pigs, and one which actively seeks to deprive us of our liberty is NOT one that I care to throw my support behind. A government which would do things like that cannot be called benevolent and kind; it can only be called evil. And it doesn’t matter who sits behind the Resolute Desk, government will continue to be evil until we have the courage to admit that this kind of evil exists, and then to stand up and fight against it.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

I’m Not Going Away Anytime Soon

Coercion is defined as the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats; the use of power to impose one’s will on another. Rape, armed robbery, and blackmail are all scenarios in which a person may be coerced into doing something against their will. Yet those three things have something else in common as well; they are all crimes.

When one is coerced into doing something they would not normally choose to do, it is not so much the thing they are forced to do which makes coercion a crime; it is the loss of free will by the victim that makes any form of coercion such a heinous offense.

True, absolute freedom is defined by Locke as “…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.”

I understand that in establishing a form of government to govern over the people that those who are governed must surrender a bit of that freedom, or their sovereignty to use another word, for the government to be able to enforce the laws; that is a given. But the thing is that the government, especially one such as ours, can only exercise that power which is specifically granted it; anything beyond that is coercion.

Government can exercise power over those it governs by two means and two means only. In his book The Rights of Man, Thomas Paine states it thusly, “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.” Our government derives its power through consent.

Before I go any further I need to explain what a fundamental principle is, as I believe that there are many out there who do not truly understand what fundamental principles are. A fundamental principle is a truth or basic principle upon which other truths and principles are built upon. As our government is one which was created by man, it is logical to conclude that there must be some underlying fundamental principles upon which its power and authority rest.

The first principle is that our government derives its power and authority from the consent of the people. This principle is found in the document which gave birth to the United States as we know it; the Declaration of Independence, “…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Although it may have been drummed into your heads since you were children, we are not a democracy. A pure democracy is a form of governance where the people gather together to enact the laws which shall bind a political society. In a pure democracy all it takes for something to become law is a simple majority vote. We may elect our representatives by way of democratic elections, but even then the Electoral College buffers the effects of democracy on the election of our presidents.

What distinguishes us from a democracy is that we have elected representatives who enact laws on our behalf. Yet these representatives are not free to enact whatever laws they deem necessary; they are bound by certain laws which govern their actions. Were you to take the time to research these things you would find they describe, not a democracy, but a Republic; a system of government with elected representatives which are governed by the rule of law.

This law that governs the actions of our government is called a Constitution. Our Constitution is not a list of suggestions or recommendations it is a law which binds both our government, and those that government represents. Article 6 of the Constitution states, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”

This fundamental principle was upheld by the Supreme Court as far back as 1866, “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances.” (Source: Ex parte Milligan)

Yet the Court did not stop there. In their ruling they also stated, “No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of men than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.”

Our Founders realized that times change and that governments need to change with the times. Why else would they have included a means to amend the Constitution unless they realized that times change and that government needs to change with them as well? Yet there are two quotes that I need you to read, and understand, before I go another step further.

The first quote comes from George Washington’s Farewell Address to the Nation, “If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” (My emphasis)

The second comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to Spencer Roane in 1821, “Time indeed changes manners and notions, and so far we must expect institutions to bend to them. But time produces also corruption of principles, and against this it is the duty of good citizens to be ever on the watch, and if the gangrene is to prevail at last, let the day be kept off as long as possible.”

This corruption of principles which Jefferson spoke of is what has led us to the government we have today; all our woes come from a lack of knowledge, or concern for the purpose for which our government was established. Had we stayed true to those principles we would not be in the mess we are today; it’s that simple.

Our government was established to be one of limited power and authority; with most of its influence to be felt by the States, not the people. Federalist 45, written by James Madison and published on January 26, 1788 states, “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.”

Does that even remotely sound like the state of affairs in America today as it pertains to how much power and influence our government holds over our lives?

If our government was to be a limited government; and if the limits upon its powers are found within the Constitution; and if the Constitution is, in fact, the supreme Law of the Land; and if those we elect take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, what do you call them when they enact laws which go beyond the specific powers granted them? The word escapes me…oh, that’s right, criminals.

And what would you call a government that uses the threat of force or penalties for disobedience to the laws it passes which exceed the specific powers granted it? I don’t know about you, but our Founders would have called it tyrannical and oppressive; especially if any of the laws it passes violate any of our unalienable rights.

Next up on my list of questions is; what would you call those who enforce these unconstitutional laws upon the people; whether they be employees of the federal government such as agents of the BATF or FBI, or if they are local law enforcement? Again, I don’t know what you would call them, but I would call them tyrants; and I believe our Founders would have sided with me on that.

And finally, what would you call a people who submit to such laws without the slightest whimper of protest? What would you call a people who willingly surrender their most sacred rights for the promise of the protection doing so might provide? What do you call a people who allow a ‘supposedly’ limited government to micromanage their lives down to the minutest detail? What would you call a people who ignore the fundamental principles this country was founded upon and care more about which party gains control of this monster we call government?

It angers me beyond words how little concern people have for the very thing our government was instituted to protect; their liberty. Liberty is defined as: the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views; the power or scope to act as one pleases.

Liberty is not a gift granted us by a benevolent government; it is the reason for which our government was created. Liberty existed long before government did, and therefore government cannot diminish it without becoming oppressive.

Patrick Henry once said, “Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings-give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else…” Henry also stated, “Give me liberty or give me death.” Our Founders risked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to secure that liberty for us, and what have we done if not squandered it and given it away for the false promise of security?

All people care about today is that their party, their candidate gets to control things; not the fundamental principles upon which our government was established. The limits imposed upon government by the Constitution are irrelevant to most people, as are the rights protected by the first ten amendments to the Constitution. All people care about is their agendas, their beliefs as to what their government should do for them.

It doesn’t matter how much evidence one provides which proves our government has expanded its power way beyond what it was intended it possess; people simply do not care. It does not matter that our government has become a tool to be used by special interests to force their will upon the people; be it the social justice programs enacted by our government or the passage of laws which benefit the banking, corporate and military industrial complex. All people care about is that government follows what they believe to be the true purpose for which it was established; not the purposes stated by the very people who created it.

Ignorance is used to describe a person who is lacking knowledge, or facts, regarding a particular subject. Then there is willful ignorance; when a person refuses to consider any facts which contradict existing beliefs. In either case there is a quote by Willem Hendrik von Loon which applies to all, “Any formal attack on ignorance is bound to fail because the masses are always ready to defend their most precious possession – their ignorance.”

Regardless of why people choose to remain ignorant, there is a quote by Samuel Adams that I would like to address to them, “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

Our Founders risked all that they had and all that they were to be free of a coercive government. Yet the people of America today willingly go to the polls and cast their votes for people to represent them in a government that is far worse than the one our Founders fought to free themselves from.
People today believe that just because they have so-called free and open elections that our system of government, no matter how corrupt that government itself may be, still could be repaired and America made great again.

Listen, and listen well; America will never become great again until the people who occupy it return to the fundamental principles upon which this once great nation was founded…NEVER! The sooner people get that through their thick skulls, the sooner we can go about the business of truly making America great again.

It does not matter who you choose to vote for to hold the various offices within our government if those you elect do not limit their acts to those specifically granted them by the Constitution, and seek to preserve our liberty at whatever cost. I they won’t do that it will be just as the Who sang in their 1971 song, Won’t Get Fooled Again, “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

Until that happens I’ll be right here, riding your asses and reminding you of how ignorant and foolish you are.

Posted in General | 1 Comment

I Wonder What Jefferson Would Say

If the consequences weren’t so frightening, I’d almost find it humorous how people bicker over such trivial things like which party gains control of the Presidency or Congress while our government as an entity continues to spend us into a black hole of debt from which we will never escape from.

I doubt that many are aware that in 1929 when the stock market crashed, sending the United States into the Great Depression, the national debt was a mere $17 billion. In comparison the Gross Domestic Product at that time was just over $1 trillion. Since then the debt accumulated by our government has steadily increased to where it now sits at $19.96 trillion, while our Gross Domestic Product lags behind our debt at $19.12 trillion. So, in essence our government owes more than the entire country produces in a single year; and the disparity between the two numbers keeps getting wider and wider no matter who sits in the Oval Office.

Our government was established to provide for the general welfare of the country, yet today we allocate billions of dollars in the federal budget for foreign assistance to hundreds of other countries. According to a March 10, 2016 article in Forbes Magazine, in 2016 the federal government pledged $37.9 billion in foreign aid, and that number jumped up to $42.3 billion after Trump took office.

How does our government justify spending billions of taxpayer dollars to all these countries? You know, if you took all that foreign aid and divided it equally among the 320 plus million people living in America at this moment it would come out to close to $14 million per person. Although the percentage of our budget that foreign aid accounts for is miniscule in comparison to how much our government spends on the defense budget or Medicare, it still adds up; and to make matters worse is the fact that our government has absolutely no authority to spend one penny of taxpayer dollars in assistance to any foreign country. You see, our government was not created to give aid to anyone, let alone a foreign country that it does not represent.

And do you want to know who gets a pretty hefty chunk of all that foreign aid? Well, it’s our good friends over in Tel Aviv, Israel; who get $3.1 billion annually. Although I am against the idea of sending one red cent of U.S. funds to any country, Israel is up towards, if not at the very top of my list of countries that should not get a penny from us.

Uh oh, Neal just crossed over into dangerous territory and is spewing anti-Semitic rhetoric. But let me explain why I say this before you completely slam the door on anything else I have to say. I have nothing at all against the Jews; it is Zionism that I have a beef with, and Israel is first and foremost a Zionist State.

I’ll bet you didn’t know that there are a great many Jews, many of whom are religious leaders within their communities that oppose the existence of the Zionist State we know as Israel. Yet we rarely hear of them because it would take the wind out of the sails of any cry of anti-Semitism if we began seeing Jews condemning the establishment of the State of Israel. After all, how could you possibly call a Jew who opposes the State of Israel anti-Semitic?

One of these Jews who oppose the Zionist State of Israel is Rabbi Dovid Weiss, who in a speech he once gave, stated, “Thus, when Jews viewed the destruction of their Temple in Jerusalem and subsequent exile among the nations, they saw it through the eyes of the Torah and the prophets. That vision was a clear one. The people had sinned and, thus, forfeited their claim to the land. Their exile was a punishment. Only G-d Himself could end the exile. He would do so when the people’s sins were expiated and they had learned the lesson of total obedience to G-d.” (My emphasis)

Rabbi Weiss goes on to say, “In fact, the Talmudic Sages foretold, on the basis of various sources in the Prophetic books, that an attempt to effect a premature ending of exile, would result in untold bloodshed and suffering.” Doesn’t that sound exactly like what has been going on every since the State of Israel was created in 1948?

Prior to 1948 you could not find the State of Israel on any map; it simply did not exist. What did exist is the nation of Palestine. Israel came into existence because the Zionists wanted a place for the Jewish people to live, a place to call home. I have already explained what the Jews who adhere to Judaism believe in regards to them being allowed to establish a home in the region their ancestors called the Promised Land; so how did Israel come into existence?

Zionism, simply stated, is a political and military entity which seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Palestine; circumventing the will of God as those who oppose Zionism believe; such as Rabbi Weiss. This idea of establishing a home for the Jews was first introduced in a meeting in Basle, Switzerland as far back as 1897, where the First Zionist Congress declared, “Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Palestine secured under public law.”

Going back through the pages of history one finds that the entire region the Jews once called home had been conquered and re-conquered; and the people who lived there subject to foreign rule. During the time of Christ’s ministry the Romans held control of Judea. During the period leading up to World War I the Ottoman Empire maintained control of the region.

Just because the Jews had been exiled from their homeland did not mean that they had not flourished and achieved success and riches in their adopted homes. One family in particular had achieved massive wealth; the Rothschilds. The Rothschild family descended from Mayer Amschel Rothschild, a Jew who lived in Frankfurt Germany who went on to establish a huge banking empire he later passed on to his sons.

Each of Mayer Rothschild’s sons went on to establish huge banking houses in France, England, Italy, and Austria; and each of his sons were devout Zionists.

When World War 1 began it offered the perfect opportunity for the Rothschilds, and all those who believed in the Zionist movement, to displace the Ottoman Empire and establish a homeland for the Jews in Palestine. The only problem is that for that to occur the Allies would need to win the war, which wasn’t happening with the status quo of forces allied against the Germans.

You see, the United States had not yet entered the war. In fact, Woodrow Wilson was re-elected to the presidency under the campaign slogan, “He kept us out of war.” America, for the most part had no desire to become involved in a foreign war; and without our involvement it seemed likely that the Allies might possibly lose to the Germans.

So, behind the scenes in Britain an agreement was made between the British Foreign Secretary, James Balfour, and the banking mogul and devout Zionist, Lord Walter Rothschild; if Rothschild could get the Americans to enter the war on the side of the Allies the British would issue a declaration establishing a homeland for the Jews in Palestine.

Well we all know that the U.S. did, in fact, enter World War I; but how many know of the Balfour Declaration; which was Britain keeping its promise to Lord Rothschild? The Balfour Declaration is a letter from Britain’s foreign secretary to Lord Rothschild which states, “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

Prominent Zionist Chaim Weizmann once said about the Zionist intent, “There is a British proverb about the camel and the tent. … At first the camel sticks one leg into the tent, and eventually it slips into it. This must be our policy.” The Zionists did not seek to live side by side peacefully with those who were already living in Palestine; they sought to take the land all for themselves by any means necessary; but first they had to get their foot in the door; or the camel needed to first get its leg in the tent as the British proverb goes. The official recognition of Israel as a State was all the opening they needed.

Going back a moment to the point before the U.S. entered WW I on the side of the British, it has been said that President Wilson was pressured by outside sources to enter the war on the side of the Brits. Among those attempting to influence Wilson’s decision were Bernard Baruch, Jacob Schiff, Paul Warburg, and even Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis; all who happened to either be Zionists themselves, or supported the Zionist movement. Which now leads me to my next topic; the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank.

Just as Americans were weary of entering a foreign war, they were also weary of the idea of another central bank in America. Yet going back to the 1800’s, James Madison once said that, “History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance.” The bankers fought tooth and nail against President Andrew Jackson when he sought to let their charter to control America’s monetary supply expire, and they were not about to give up just because they had lost control of it again.

In 1910 a group of men, most of whom were affiliated with either Rothschild owned banks, gathered together on an island off the coast of Georgia to produce the plan which would lead to the establishment of another central bank in America. This Creature from Jekyll Island as it is often called, became the Federal Reserve Act.

The Federal Reserve is about as federal as Federal Express; it may be headed by an appointee of the President, but it is a privately owned and privately run bank. And what is the purpose of banks? Why, to make profits derived from the money they lend out to others. And who borrows the most money? Certainly it is not the average person who takes out a home or auto loan. Neither is it the big corporations who take out loans to expand their businesses. It is government that borrows money on the scale that makes the bankers rich and gives them power.

Politicians are nothing without the money to fund the government and the programs they institute and the wars they start. Take away their money and they have no power. Give them a blank check however, or an open line of credit and they have all the power in the world.

Don’t you find it just a tad fishy that just about the same time the Federal Reserve Act was passed that the Constitution was amended, giving government the power to directly tax your income? They are not going to come out and tell you this, but that was done to provide collateral upon any debt that they might incur.

Bankers do not care what laws the government passes which directly affect the lives of the people; all they care is that the interest payments are made and their profits continue to grow. They control governments by controlling the money which governments need to operate. They use money to buy influence and power for their friends and associates; i.e. lobbyists. They ensure that laws are passed which benefit people of like minds and agendas; such as the relationship between Big Pharma and the Food and Drug Administration.

They are the shadow government and we are but slaves on their plantation; working to keep the money flowing into their coffers. All these trivial things which keep us divided are purposefully kept at the forefront so that we will not seek out the truth about their crimes. The media is owned and operated by these people and we get only the news they want us to hear.

This was affirmed by Congressman Oscar Calloway way back in 1917, just years after the passage of the Federal Reserve Act and the institution of an income tax, “In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interests, 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 a 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.”

And all this is also why the U.S. stands behind Israel. The Zionists control our monetary system, and therefore if the U.S. refuses to stand behind Israel they simply threaten to raise interest rates and stifle economic growth, or reduce the flow of new money into the economy; which is the only thing keeping our economy afloat right now.

It’s all tied together in a complex web of deceit and betrayal by those we trust to govern on our behalf, and powerful men seeking control of, not only America, but the entire planet. They do not care what laws governments impose upon the people they govern, as long as they control the money supply of the countries themselves.

Just look at how they went after Gaddafi after he announced a plan to sell Libyan oil using gold backed currency instead of U.S. petro-dollars. It would have devastated the hold the bankers have on the monetary supply of many countries; especially had that idea caught on among all the other oil producing nations of the world.

Let us not forget what James Madison said, “History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance.” (My emphasis)

Sir Josiah Stamp, who once served as director of the Bank of England, once said, “Bankers own the earth. Take if from them, but leave them the power to create money and control credit, and with the flick of a pen they will create enough to buy it back.” And who owns these banks? Predominantly they are owned or affiliated with the Zionist Rothschild mega banking houses of London, Paris, Vienna, and Naples. JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, all the major lending houses in the U.S. have ties to, or are owned and controlled by Rothschild owned banks.

We may have the freedom to move about within the country, to pick and choose where to live, what to drive, what clothes to wear, what to eat, and what to do to keep ourselves entertained, but make no mistake about it, we are slaves to the debt our government incurs to keep itself running; and that debt now stands at $61,346 for every man, woman and child living in America right now.

What makes matters even worse is that the people of this country also remain ignorant as it pertains to the extent to which their rights are being stripped away from them. What differentiates a free man from a slave is the ability of a free man to enjoy all their rights, along with all the fruits of their labor, (i.e. their income.) Take away those two things and you may as well be wearing shackles.

But that’s okay, y’all keep worrying about whether O.J. is gonna get parole, what the Kardashians are doing, who is going to win on Dancing with the Stars or America’s Got Talent, what is trending on Facebook, or who your favorite NFL team is gonna draft…all is well in America.

Yeah, go ahead and keep on believing that; after all president after president continue to reassure you that the state of our Union is STRONG. Like they would tell you the truth…

It is said that famed automaker Henry Ford once said, “It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

Freedom is not just about being free to exercise all your rights, it is also being free of the shackles which bind us to debt. And in that regard Americans are anything but free. Thomas Jefferson once declared “Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.” He also said that he believe banking institutions to be more dangerous to liberty than a standing army. I wonder what he’d say about America now; seeing as how we have both and neither of them serve the public good.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

What A Complete Waste of My Time!

Sometime in 2011 my friend, Jeffrey Bennett, suggested I compile four or five articles from each of the subjects I had been writing upon and submit them to him for publication in book form. The result of this project was my first book, Ross Unmasked: An Angry American Speaks Out. When I finally held a finished copy of the book in my hands I was proud of the fact that I had finally become a published author. Now, five years after publication, I look back and find the title a bit misleading as I was not truly angry at the time it was published. However, that was then and this is now; and let me tell you, anger doesn’t come close to describing how I often feel.

The subject matter I write about is not that difficult to understand; at least not if you graduated from high school with a certain degree of literacy. The hard part, at least for me anyway, was in accepting what I was reading when it conflicted with what I had been taught. After all, what good is knowledge if one does not put it to use? If one encounters facts which contradict with their existing beliefs they have but two choices; they can either change their existing beliefs to conform to the facts they have learned, or they can reject the facts they have learned and go on believing falsehoods.

Our government was established to perform certain tasks on behalf of those it represented; the people and the States. Anything they did which went beyond those specifically enumerated powers found in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution was usurpation, and was to be avoided at all costs.
I now provide for your edification Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution in its entirety:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Those are the things our government can do and still remain within its just authority; anything beyond those specific powers is considered unconstitutional until the Constitution is properly amended to give it the authority to do other things.

This simple principle is based not upon my thoughts and beliefs, but the beliefs of the very first man to serve as President of the United States; George Washington. In his Farewell Address Washington warned, “If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” (My emphasis)

Although he personally disliked the title, James Madison is considered by many to be the Father of our Constitution. Wouldn’t it be prudent to learn what he had to say about the powers given our federal government by the Constitution?

In Federalist 45, written in 1788, Madison states, “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.”

It would seem, after reading that, that the laws which were to be passed by the federal government were primarily designed to act upon the States and affect the interaction between them, while the States themselves were responsible for enacting laws which directly affected the lives, liberties and properties of the people.

But then I can almost hear the responses, “But Neal, isn’t the government supposed to enact laws for the general welfare?” Well, let’s examine that claim for a moment. At first glance the phrase general welfare seems to imply a wide range of power and authority to do things on behalf of the people; but is that truly the case?

Again, turning to Madison, here are three quotes which prove that this belief is not, in fact, the case:

-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. (Source: Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792)

-With respect to the two words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. (Source: Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831)

-If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress… Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America. (Source: Speech to House of Representatives, February 3, 1792)

It would seem that your beliefs regarding the powers held by government to provide for the general welfare are based upon faulty information. Just like Morpheus gives Neo the choice between the red or the blue pill, I’m giving you the choice to either accept the facts or reject them.

But there is one other thing I have refrained from discussing up to this point; the fact that there are certain things our government is strictly prohibited from doing. While the Constitution itself mentions a few things, such as the fact that Congress cannot pass an ex post facto law; pass bills of attainder, or suspend the writ of habeas corpus, these are not the things I’m thinking of. I’m referring to the fact that there are certain unalienable rights that our federal government simply cannot touch without their actions becoming unconstitutional.

At the time our Constitution was being argued over among the States there was a certain amount of resistance to its ratification based upon the fact that many believed it did not go far enough towards protecting the rights of the people. Therefore, to calm any fears it was promised that if they would just accept the Constitution a Bill of Rights would be passed and added to it.

It took a couple years, but on December 15, 1791 the Bill of Rights was formally ratified by a sufficient number of States and became part of our Constitution; therefore the Supreme Law of the Land by which our representatives are sworn by oath to defend.

I’d be willing to bet that 9 out of 10 people couldn’t name more than 4 or 5 of the rights the Bill of Rights protects. I’d also be willing to bet that if we did not have a Bill of Rights, and one was introduced today for ratification, it would not pass because the general public has no concern for things such as the freedom of speech; the right to keep and bear arms, or the right to privacy and unreasonable searches and seizures.

Nonetheless, the fact remains we do have a Bill of Rights and it is part of our Constitution; which means that if our government passes any law which violates ANY of the rights protected by those ten amendments to the Constitution, its actions become unconstitutional.

Therefore when evaluating which candidate to vote for, or which piece of legislation to support or oppose, it should be simple enough to compare what the Constitution allows and what is being proposed. If the two don’t match up the Constitution should take precedence. The same goes for the Bill of Rights; if what a candidate, or bill proposes violates, in the slightest degree, any of the rights protected by the Bill of Rights, then it should be opposed.

But is that what happens? Of course it isn’t, otherwise we would not have the NSA spying on us; all these laws restricting our right to own firearms; Universal Health Care, and all other manner of laws which violate both the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

When I first began writing all those years ago I thought that by sharing the things I was learning I could cause others to see the truth that they had been denied learning in school, and that they would therefore change their way of thinking towards government and what they expect out of it.

I’m not saying there aren’t people who do not care, but they are but a small percentage of the total population in this country. I first began this article by saying I wasn’t angry when my first book was published, but I am now. I am angry at the people who choose ignorance over education. I am angry at those who reject the truth when it is presented to them. I am angry at those who accept that what I say is true, but do not alter the way in which they vote because they still believe in the two party paradigm. But most of all I am angry at myself for being stupid enough to think that I could get people to care. And that’s what it all boils down to, most people just don’t care about the things I write about.

For nearly two decades I have been at this, writing close to two-thousand articles and two books. And what have I accomplished other than neglecting my family? Therefore, although I will still write from time to time, I am going to stop wasting my time on a bunch of ignorant, apathetic, and hypocritical sheep who do not care that damned near everything their government does now violates either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

The information I have tried to share with y’all is out there; if I can find it so can you. But you can forget about me spoon feeding it to you from now on; it’s time you got off your asses and did some work searching for it yourselves. I’ve got better things to do than to waste another moment of my time researching and writing for people who simply do not care.

And now you know why I wasn’t angry then, but I am now.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Nothing In Life Is Free

Last night I did something I rarely do these days; I sat down and watched an hour of the evening news. During that hour the local news ran a story about how the House Republicans have postponed a vote on President Trump’s healthcare bill due to the fact that Senator John McCain is out for surgery, and they need all the votes they can get if they want this bill to pass.

During the story the seed for this article was planted when the news showed a woman standing on a stage saying, “How dare the Republicans try to take away health care from millions of people.” So many thoughts ran through my head in the seconds that followed that statement that I could write a treatise based on them alone.

Fortunately for you I want to keep my thoughts focused on one primary subject; this idea of entitlement to things people in America have today.

Every single belief a person holds is either taught to them or the result of things they have experienced over the course of their life. Therefore, if people believe that they are entitled to things, that belief was either taught to them, or they grew up having things given to them without ever having to work for them.

I remember growing up as a kid my dad always telling me that you had to work in life to obtain things. Sure, my parents would give me presents on my birthday and on Christmas, but anything else I wanted I had to go out and work for, save money for. I cut lawns, I washed dishes in a family run restaurant, I made pizza’s at Shakey’s, I stocked books at the Public Library, and I shoveled asphalt out of a hopper attached to the back of a dump truck in 115 degree weather. But, to quote John Mellancamp, “I earned every dollar that passed through these hands.” (Source: Minutes to Memories)

My first car was a 1962 Volkswagen Beetle with rust holes in the floor boards and a peeling paint job, but by God it was mine and I was proud of the fact that I had worked and saved for it. I drove that car everywhere with my head held high; even taking it on long road trips to the Bay Area to see concerts in San Francisco and Oakland. I had worked for the ability to have wheels that could take me away from the dismal life in Oroville, California, and I wasn’t about to let a few rust holes and loose running boards deny me the pride of having my own car.

But that’s the way I grew up; nothing was handed to me on a silver platter; I had to work for whatever I wanted. My dad used to also say something that has stuck with me over the course of my years, “If you’re gonna work for someone give them an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay.” That has always stuck with me in whatever job I have held. I may not have been the best employee at some of those jobs, but I’ve always given it my personal best.

I recall a rough period of my life when my father lost his job and my mother had to leave her role as homemaker and become the breadwinner for the family; how it devastated my father. Yet during all those years of lean times my father refused to seek assistance from any of the programs which were available to him; he simply had too much pride to take handouts, as he called them.

Although my father and I butted heads frequently, and our last parting words were spoken in anger, the ethics that he pounded into my head over the years formed me into the man I am today; and were he alive today I would thank him for it.

You see, I was taught to be self-reliant, to put in an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay, and that life isn’t always easy, but to pick yourself up when you’re down and keep pushing forward through whatever life throws at you.

But there’s one other thing my father taught me that I haven’t spoken about yet; the fact that when a person sees something wrong they should stand up and speak out about it. I recall countless times hearing the clickety clack of my father’s old manual typewriter as he pounded away with letters to the editor, or letters to his elected representatives about the issues that were of concern to him.

Even though we parted ways due to his prejudice against my Filipina wife, when she first arrived in the States after the evacuation of Mount Pinatubo he was so upset over how the military handled the evacuation of all spouses that he called the local paper; who then came out and interviewed my wife. Her story was front page news and that was all due to the fact that my father saw an injustice and spoke out about it.

When I look in the mirror I see Neal Ross, but deep down I’m more like Donald Ross than I often care to admit.

I grew up in different times I suppose; back when America still held its head high and was a place of great opportunity. Sure there was the assassination of John F. Kennedy and Watergate which cast a shadow over our land. Sure the Vietnam Conflict was raging and sought to tear this country in two, but Americans, for the most part, still held to certain traditional values and beliefs.

I can’t say that anymore about this country. Everywhere I go, everyone I talk to, I hear this nonsense that government needs to pass this law or that to do this or do that for the people. It seems that no one today wants to accept responsibility for their actions or their lives; they want some sort of government safety net in case they run into hard times or fail to achieve riches or success.

That isn’t the America I grew up in, and I don’t believe it was the America our Founders had envisioned when they rose up and took up arms against their oppressors.

This sickness that is the entitlement mentality permeates America today. I see it in the laws people demand our government pass to create programs to help them, I see it in my place of employment where people do the bare minimum so as not to get fired; and then complain when they are expected to do what the job actually entails. I see it EVERYWHERE and it makes me sick to my stomach!

There is a quote from Theodore Roosevelt, which I have used before by the way, which fits in nicely to my beliefs and values, “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.”

The America that I grew up in was not a country where it was considered the obligation, the responsibility of the working class to have a portion of their pay withheld and then given to those who refused to work, or could not work. This concept grew into what it is now during MY lifetime, and I blame the people of this country for allowing it to become this politically correct rubbish that it has become today.

The minute anyone begins talking about cutting back on these programs which redistribute wealth they fact harsh criticism and are told they are heartless and uncaring. In 1766, ten years before our Declaration of Independence was even a thought in the minds of our Founders, Ben Franklin wrote an article entitled, On the Price of Corn and the Management of the Poor. In it Franklin states, “I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. … In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty.”

Today’s answer to all our problems; be it the woeful state of our educational system, or poverty, is to throw more money at the problem and hope it will go away. How well has that worked out for us? Our schools still suck, and there are still many living in poverty. To top it all off our national debt is pushing steadily towards the $20 trillion mark.

But don’t worry ole Uncle Sam’s got everything under control. (And if you didn’t recognize it, that was sarcasm.)

You know, Einstein once said something that aptly fits in to what I’m trying to say, “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” Einstein also supposedly said that the definition for insanity was doing the same thing time and time again but expecting different results.

Donald Trump campaigned on the slogan Make America Great Again. What made America great was that it was a land where people were left to their own wits to achieve success, not one where they came here and were given everything they needed to survive.

Everything we do these days is done to ease the symptoms of the problem, not remove the cause of the problem. Take this health care issue for instance. Why is health care so costly these days? Our answer is to make health insurance available for all at the cost of higher premiums for those who can afford it. Why don’t we address why it costs so much more for basic medical treatment now than it did 50 years ago? Why don’t we address why it costs people hundreds of dollars, often thousands, for treatment that is obtained for much less both North and South of our borders? Why does the FDA, (which happens to be part of the government by the way) refuse to allow treatment by homeopathic means; instead declaring that only drugs produced by pharmaceutical companies can cure disease?

You may not want to believe this, but it is all about control. If you provide a service for the people they are less likely to take offense at the fact that you are depriving them of certain rights. The old saying you don’t bite the hand that feeds you comes to mind.

America was founded upon the concept of individual freedom, and you aren’t truly free if you are dependent upon someone else for your survival. It’s that simple. The more they provide for you, the more they control you. This goes for the money you get to buy your groceries, the subsidies you get for your homes or your children’s educations; and for the protection provided by law enforcement to keep you safe. Take away your self reliance and what have you got; a land of slaves dependent upon government for a portion, if not all their needs.

In closing I would like to leave you with a couple lines from a song written by the rock band RUSH, entitled Something for Nothing, “You don’t get something for nothing
You can’t have freedom for free.”

Nothing in this life is free; if you’re getting something without having earned it, the chances are it was paid for by the theft of money from those who DID work for it. Also, freedom does not come without a cost. Just one look at Arlington National Cemetery will confirm that.

Our country was birthed by men who cherished freedom so much that they were willing to sacrifice their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor for it. What are you willing to sacrifice to get the freedom we have lost back?

Posted in General | Leave a comment

The Enunciation of Truth

“Words offer the means to meaning and for those
who will listen, the enunciation of truth.”

(Alan Moore)

No truer words were ever written than those above, taken from the graphic novel and film of the same name, V For Vendetta. If you were asked to describe something as simple as an orange to someone, but then told that you could not use words, how would you go about describing it? Words are the means by which individuals communicate with each other. Therefore the larger your vocabulary; the better your understanding of the use of grammar, then the better you are able to express your ideas to others. The reverse is also true, if your vocabulary is limited, or if you do not understand the proper use of grammar, you will have a difficult time understanding the meaning of the person trying to get their point across.

But what good are words if people do not listen to them? The key in open communication between people, or groups, is that both sides listen to what the other is saying; putting aside their personal prejudices and beliefs, and considering whatever facts may be presented.

The ultimate goal in any means of communication should, therefore be, the truth. But what is the truth? Is it your truth, my truth, someone else’s truth? The truth, simply stated, is defined as that which is accordance with reality; which leads me to my next point.

Words can lead us to the truth but they can also be used to obfuscate and manipulate; in essence, to keep the truth hidden. If one is willing to only hear one side of a story then how can one expect to come to the truth? If one rejects ideas they disagree with, even though they are supported by insurmountable evidence, then how can that person honestly say that they seek the truth?

The truth is not always easy to find, or identify once found; it takes a certain amount of effort; of thought and evaluation of facts before one can say that they have found the truth. I have found that people are fundamentally lazy; and this is even more so when it comes to reading dry old documents written hundreds of years ago. Yet how can one expect to come to the truth about why our system of government was established if they do not go to the source; or the horse’s mouth so to speak?

Are people today so naive that they believe that those they elect are going to come out and directly say that their intent is to deprive the people of this country of their God-given rights? Of course they won’t say that; they will obfuscate the truth by telling us that the laws they pass are in our best interests, or they will cloak their true intentions under the banner of national security. No one wants to be called unpatriotic, and yet that’s exactly what happens when one stands up and questions the actions of our government when they tell us we must sacrifice a few of our rights to keep us safe from whatever it is they tell us these new laws are supposed to protect us from.

If I were to call someone ignorant they would most likely take great offense at it. Yet according to the dictionary ignorance is simply the lack of knowledge. How can anyone claim not to be ignorant about the reasons for which our government was established if they have never taken the time to read our Constitution and Bill of Rights? How can possibly say that they are informed when they have never read the Federalist and anti-Federalist Papers; Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, or any of the notes on the various ratification assemblies which argued whether to accept or reject our Constitution?

If you do not know why our government was established then how can you honestly say that when you vote for a particular candidate you are making a truly informed decision? Sure, you may be evaluating the differences between whoever the Republicans or Democrats nominate, but is that truly comparing the candidates against what the Constitution says are the powers given the office they seek?

If you have never read any of the abovementioned documents, you are probably, by definition, ignorant. It is not an insult, it is a statement of fact; unless of course your ignorance is willful on your part, then it becomes something entirely different; it becomes stupidity.

I know what the dictionary says is the definition of stupidity, but I have my own definition for it. Stupidity is the willful disregard for the truth, or the fact that one chooses not to seek it out; i.e. apathy and complacency. Stupidity, as found in the Neal Ross Standard Dictionary, can also be described as holding opinions or beliefs which go against what the facts prove to be the truth.

I have sort of been dancing around a question that I would now like to address; what is the purpose for which our government was established? Do you think it is to create jobs; protect us from terrorism, or any of the other issues the candidates campaign upon? If so, upon what facts do you base your opinion? If you’re going to say something, you should be able to provide some supporting evidence for your claim; otherwise it is just your OPINION.

I can provide tons of quotes proving that those are not the reasons for which our government was established; but I will settle for two.

The first comes from the Inaugural Address of Thomas Jefferson, our nation’s third President, “…a wise and frugal government, which 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…”

The second comes from James Wilson, a signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, “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.” (Source: Lectures in Law, 1791)

If, therefore, any form of government seeks to restrict the natural rights of its members, how can you say that you support it and still remain true to the principles of those who originally established it?

And if you’ll notice in Wilson’s quote, he did not limit his comments to the natural rights of the people; rather he used the broader term, members; which as originally established meant the States as well. Therefore, if the State governments seek to limit the natural rights of the people they are not, as Wilson explained, of the legitimate kind. Nor is the federal government if it seeks to limit, deny, or usurp the rights held by the States.

When I try to share the truth with others I am either laughed at or ignored because my beliefs are not in accordance with what is commonly believed to be the truth. I suppose now is as good a time as any to insert a quote from Patrick Henry regarding how I feel about people today, “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 might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.”

Those words flamed the fires of independence in a great many who witnessed them being spoken by Mr. Henry. Today they fall on deaf ears; souls devoid of the love of liberty which gave rise to the Colonists seeking their independence from a King who was far less oppressive than the government we willingly submit to today.

In a letter to Edmund Randolph, George Washington stated, “There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily.” If that means that the truths you find conflict with existing beliefs, then if you have any virtue and integrity, you will discard those beliefs and replace them with those founded upon the truth. But that’s assuming that there is any virtue and integrity left in America today.

Which leads me to my final quote, which I find aptly describes American politics today, “Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.” (George Carlin)

Posted in General | Leave a comment