Neal's Soapbox

If someone wanted to take over a country without ever firing a shot, how do you imagine they would go about doing it; that is if it were even possible? Actually it would be easier than one thinks if the person or people attempting to take over a country had two things; patience and control over what our children are taught.

Although there may be some innate desire to be free in each of us, the basic principles upon which our system of government was built must be taught to us; either by our parents or our educators. If one could gain control of the curriculum being taught our students they would have the ability to shape the opinions and beliefs of entire generations of a society, or as Lenin once said, “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”

Is it any wonder that in any discussion of American politics today, especially when conducting these discussions with younger generations, one gets the impression that they believe their feelings are of greater value than facts? There simply is no arguing with people when they refuse to accept facts, or have no facts to back up their positions; relying totally on feelings. How can one expect to have any kind of honest debate when one side refuses to accept facts? It is like a football game in which the rules of play only apply to one team; those playing by the rules cannot win under circumstances like that; nor can one win a political debate when the other side refuses to accept facts.

The basic principles upon which America was founded are not that difficult to understand if you would just think about them. The problem lies in the fact that once a person’s core beliefs have been established it is very difficult to change them; no matter the preponderance of evidence which proves their beliefs to be invalid. It is a sad truth that people would much rather go on believing lies than they would changing their belief system; especially if in changing their belief system means they are forced to accept unwanted hardship or responsibility.

So basically, if someone wanted to take control of a country, all they would have to do is to deprive the youth of the history of their country and the principles upon which it was established. If you could do this, replace truth with feel good emotions, then it becomes much easier to manipulate the opinions of entire segments of society; as people will no longer stand for principles, they will stand for issues.

Once this has been accomplished the next logical step is to tell them that the purpose of government is to do things about these issues, and the Constitutional limitations upon government and the defense of people’s rights be damned! The battle cry then becomes that the ends justify the means; even if the means mean that some people’s rights are violated.

Once these things have been accomplished, what Dresden James once said will become the norm, ” When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.”

THE FACT IS that our Founders believed that all men are born with certain unalienable rights that no one, not another man nor a system of government can lawfully deprive them of. Some of these rights we are all familiar with; the freedom of speech; protest; religion; and the right to keep and bear arms being but a few. Then of course there are the rights as outlined in the Declaration of Independence; the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

But then there are lesser known rights, such as the right to property. Property is not simply things which you buy with the money you earn; it also includes all the things to which you alone can lay claim to; such as your thoughts and your beliefs. When anyone, be it a group of people or a government, begins telling people what they can think, what they can say, they are violating the right of property; especially when in so doing they are protecting the right of another group to openly express their beliefs while at the same time restricting your right to do the same.

THE FACT IS that our Founders based their beliefs on the purpose of government upon the thinking of men like John Locke, who in his Second Treatise explained that in a State of Nature the rights of the individual are not certain; prone to attack by others. Locke explains that the purpose of both civil and political societies is to better secure the rights of the individual. This is the building block upon which our nation was built, and found within the Declaration of Independence, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

THE FACT IS that our government exists ONLY because the true sovereigns of this country, the people, created it. Government did not will itself into existence; it was created when a group of men gathered together and debated over what shape it should take and what powers it should have. These ideas where then given life by the consent of the people through the ratification process by which each State debated the question of whether to adopt or reject this plan for government.

THE FACT IS that our government is not one with unlimited authority to act on behalf of the people. In fact, the laws it was to pass was not supposed to directly affect the lives of the people who make up the American Republic. You see, the people already had State governments for that purpose, to govern over the lives of the people within each State. If the State governments were then to pass the laws that affected the interaction between the people living within a State, then it could be said that the purpose of the federal government was to pass laws which affected the interaction of the States between each other…oh, and to provide for the common defense of the whole nation as well.

This separation, or division of power between the federal and State governments was explained by none other than the Father of our Constitution, James Madison in Federalist 45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

THE FACT IS that our government was created with 3 distinct branches; each with their own sphere of authority, and each with the ability to restrain the others from overstepping the authority granted them. This concept, or principle is what we were once taught in school; the checks and balances of our federal constitution.

Yet there were those who, during the period which saw our Constitution come into existence, felt that it did not provide sufficient guards to prevent the government it establishes from overstepping its authority and become tyrannical and oppressive. Among them was Patrick Henry, who questioned the strength of these checks and balances when he said, “There will be no checks, no real balances, in this Government: What can avail your specious imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances?”

The president cannot make law any more than Congress can enforce the laws which our government passes. Why is it that people today place so much attention upon the election of those whose job is to enforce the law, but not those who actually make the laws? Yet the fact is that people flock to the polls to vote for the candidate of their choice for president based upon all the campaign promises they make to ‘do things’ which they either agree or disagree with.

THE FACT IS that Congress is the lawmaking authority within our federal government; but it was established to represent the interests of two distinct bodies; the great body of the people, and the body of the States which comprise the Union. One could very well say that the States lost all say in what laws the federal government enacts after they lost the right to secede at the end of the Civil War. It was only made official when the 17th Amendment was ratified, making the election of the Senators by a vote of the people, not the State Legislatures.

In any case THE FACT IS that the powers granted our government are not unlimited and vague, they are few and specifically defined. Again, this fact is backed up by mountains of evidence which, unfortunately, very few care to accept.

For instance, in 1792 a bill was introduced to provide bounties, or subsidies as we call them today, to Cod Fisheries. During the debates over this bill, the young representative from Virginia, James Madison, said, “It is supposed, by some gentlemen, that Congress have authority not only to grant bounties in the sense here used, merely as a commutation for drawback, but even to grant them under a power by virtue of which they may do any thing which they may think conducive to the general welfare! This, sir, in my mind, raises the important and fundamental question, whether the general terms which have been cited are to be considered as a sort of caption, or general description of the specified powers; and as having no further meaning, and giving no further powers, than what is found in that specification, or as an abstract and indefinite delegation of power extending to all cases whatever…”

Madison would then go on to say, “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.”

As already proven, in Federalist 45 Madison said, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined.” If I were to give you a shopping list containing a few items I wanted you to purchase for me, those items are, what one might call, specifically enumerated. Specifically enumerated items are at the complete opposite end of the spectrum from unlimited and vague; such as if I were to give you $20 and tell you to go to the store and buy some food. In one instance my instructions are clear and specific; in the other they are vague and general. The same goes for the powers granted our government by the Constitution; they are very specific as to what powers our government may exercise.

Yet these FACTS do not seem to matter to people these days; they only care that their government is doing things which the people, depending upon their political ideologies, believe is in the best interests of the nation.

Principle only matters in political discussion today as it pertains to the principles held by either of the two political parties. People either adhere to the principles of the Democratic Party, or liberal principles or the principles of the Republican Party, or supposedly ‘conservative’ principles.

Yet the principles of the men who actually wrote the Constitution, and participated in putting it into effect, no longer seem to matter to people these days. I hear all the time that the Constitution is a living document, subject to interpretation and changing times. This belief is such a crock of manure that whenever I hear it I feel both angered and sick to my stomach.

Our Constitution is not a general guide, or list of recommended suggestions for the powers government shall exercise, it is the law which both established our government, and limits its actions. This fact was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 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. 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.”

The belief that our Constitution can evolve as time passes to meet the needs of current generations is so dangerous to what America was founded upon that I can hardly believe that anyone even believes that rubbish. One of the best quotes describing my views on the Constitution comes from Justice Antonin Scalia, who recently passed away under, what I can only call ‘suspicious’ circumstances, “The Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living but dead, or as I prefer to call it, enduring. It means today not what current society, much less the court, thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted.”

Do you get that, or is that too deep for your feeble mentalities; the Constitution means now the exact same things it meant when it was first adopted back in 1789; it has not changed in the slightest degree. The ONLY thing which has changed is how much people care about what it says, and fight to see how strictly it is adhered to.

You can call yourselves Americans, or patriots until you are blue in the face; you can vote for all the Republicans or Democrats you want, it won’t make you a patriot or a freedom loving American until you start voting for principle over political party ideologies!

One only has to note that something Charles Austin Beard said is commonplace today to realize that the takeover of America by those seeking to subvert the principles of freedom and liberty is complete, “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 great struggle for independence.”

When the principles for which our Founding Fathers fought, bled and died for become offensive to society in general you know that the dumbing down of America and the indoctrination into the belief that government is our caretaker and protector is complete. When those who fight for their liberty are viewed as threats to society or terrorists, you will know that what Thomas Jefferson feared has come to pass, “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?”

When all these things come to pass you can rest assured that the downfall of the experiment in self governance and the concept that government was established to protect our liberty has all but failed. And the sad thing is, you only have yourselves to blame.

“America, free, happy, and enlightened, as she is, must rest the preservation of her rights and liberties upon the virtue, independence, justice, and sagacity of the people. If either fail, the republic is gone. Its shadow may remain with all the pomp, and circumstance, and trickery of government, but its vital power will have departed.”
~Joseph Story~
(1833)

Whenever I sit down to write one of these commentaries I take a great deal of pride in trying to support my position with, an often, overabundance of facts; laying it out in as clear a narrative as I can. I know that there are some who appreciate the time and effort I spend writing them; but I also believe that these individuals constitute a very small minority of the total population of this country.

I know that there are some to whom the subject matter I discuss is of absolutely no importance. Then there are those whose beliefs run counter to mine, and therefore they reject what I have to say rather than admit that, quite possibly, their beliefs are flawed; which is symptomatic of what is known as Cognitive Dissonance. Then there are those who are simply unable to comprehend the subject matter I discuss; it is simply beyond their ability to get their heads around.

I am not saying that I am always right; but I have enough integrity to admit when I’ve been proven wrong. However, for that to happen I must be provided with incontrovertible evidence to prove my beliefs wrong. My sole purpose in the studies I have undertaken is the quest for the truth. Yes, there have been times when the truth I’ve uncovered has proven to be a bitter pill to swallow; challenging my core beliefs, and often obliterating them. But honestly, which would you prefer, to accept the truth or to continue believing lies? Or is that merely a rhetorical question; one which I already know the answer to?

There are those who have told me that I am very smart; something I wholeheartedly disagree with. I’m simply an average guy who has spent an enormous amount of time studying a subject which is of great interest to me. Almost anyone could obtain the knowledge I have acquired if only they would put their minds to the task. Although I despise Alexander Hamilton, one thing he said I do happen to agree with, “Men give me credit for some genius. All the genisu I have is this. When I have a subject in mind, I study it profoundly. Day and night it is before me. My mind becomes pervaded with it … the effort which I have made is what people are pleased to call the fruit of genius. It is the fruit of labor and thought.”

There have been times I have read and re-read passages dozens of times without them making sense to me. Then I’ll read it one more time and suddenly the light goes on in my head and it makes perfect sense to me. That’s the way things are sometimes; you have to work at it if you really want to grasp what you are reading. It’s all a matter of caring enough about understanding what you are reading to put forth the effort required to understand it.

This process, and I hate to sound insulting, is called thinking; something which I don’t see a whole lot of going on in America. I do not consider repetition and memorization thinking; anyone can repeat something over and over again until they have it memorized. But to actually ponder it for more than a few seconds; pick it apart and try to actually understand what is being said is a skill that I do not see many people capable of, or at least willing to do. Therefore, when they encounter someone who has given a great deal of thought to a subject, they have nothing to fall back on to support their own views; therefore they resort to name calling and denigration of character of those who present opposing beliefs.

People, most people at least, have this deep rooted need to belong, to fit in, to be part of a group. While friendships and groups can offer support, they can also become a hindrance when one attempts to broaden their knowledge outside their comfort zones. Ever hear the old saying, “Don’t rock the boat?” Well that pretty much defines how people who value their position in a group more than they value knowledge or the truth. Far too often people will shun the truth, when in accepting it will threaten their position in a group, or with their friends or peers.

There is a quote that I’ve seen from time to time on the internet which says, “When you truly don’t care what anyone thinks of you, you have gotten dangerously close to something called freedom.” I don’t know who said that, but it is an apt description of how I feel about the opinions of most of the people I encounter. Sure there are those, most often those more educated than I, whose opinions I value; but for the most part I could care less what others think about me or my views. The way I look at it is, you can either choose to consider what I have to say or ignore it; it makes no difference to me.

At the same time, you damned well better not try to silence my opinions just because you can’t handle them. Just yesterday at work I was discussing a subject with a woman in Human Resources and another lady came out of her office and tapped me on the shoulder and whispered, “You need to be careful when discussing politics, you might offend someone. If you need to discuss politics you might want to go outside where nobody can hear you.”

Excuse me; I wasn’t aware that the freedom of speech required me to limit my speech to areas where others don’t have to hear what I have to say. So I guess that means that everyone is free to repeat the lies and propaganda they have swallowed hook, line and sinker, but one who attempts to push aside the veil of lies and expose the truth has to shut up? Is that how freedom of speech works in politically correct America now?

I can fully understand the reasons why a company, or corporation may want to restrict the discussion of certain ideas or subjects; to prevent discord among the employees; but I cannot understand how people have gotten so thin skinned that ideas which conflict with their own are sufficient justification to silence open, honest debate.

Again, I hate to sound insulting, or insensitive, but have we become such a nation of pussies that ideas which we disagree with are so offensive that they must be silenced, rather than allowing them to upset our precious feelings?

Yet again, it seems that it is only the truth, or facts and evidence which contradict mainstream beliefs are those which face censorship; those who openly discuss the issues according to what is considered politically correct standards still retain their freedom of speech.
Does that sound fair to you? It certainly doesn’t sound fair to me.

People today, at least a majority of them, simply do not understand the nature of their rights. Most, if not all of our Founders believed in the principle of Natural Rights; that is our rights come to us as part of our nature as human beings, not as gifts bestowed upon us by a benevolent government.

Far too often I hear the term Constitutional Rights; which shows me that even those professing to protect our rights don’t understand their origin. Jefferson tells us that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that government’s are instituted to protect them, deriving their just powers by consent of the people. (Declaration of Independence)

While our Bill of Rights was specifically written to limit the ability of the federal government from restricting our rights, the fact that our rights predate any form of government should be sufficient argument to preclude any government, be it State or local, from restricting them.
I have never demanded that anyone simply abandon their beliefs and convert to my way of thinking. I only ask that I be allowed to present my case and allow others to choose for themselves which set of facts to believe.

People today are far too frequently required to obtain permission to exercise what our Founders considered fundamental rights. In most States you need a permit to carry a gun; yet the 2nd Amendment makes no mention of permits when it says we have the right to bear arms. You need a permit to hunt or fish; which is absurd as the government did not put these animals and fish on the planet for our consumption; God did. You need a permit to build a home, to drive a car, to hold a political rally, etc etc.

Are you aware that in 1967 Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said, “The right to defy an unconstitutional statute is basic in our scheme. Even when an ordinance requires a permit to make a speech, to deliver a sermon, to picket, to parade, or to assemble, it need not be honored when it is invalid on its face.” (Source: Walker v. Birmingham)

The other day I read a quote from income tax and overall political activist Larken Rose which I believe should go down in the history books as the quote of the decade, if not the quote of the century, “The truth is, one who seeks to achieve freedom by petitioning those in power to give it to him has already failed, regardless of the response. To beg for the blessing of “authority” is to accept that the choice is the master’s alone to make, which means that the person is already, by definition, a slave.”

Is that what America has become; a nation of slaves? Are we slaves to our government because we need permission to exercise our rights? Are we slaves because our freedoms of speech and expression are limited by whatever society deems to be politically correct? Are we slaves because of our ignorance, apathy and complacency?

They say the truth will set you free, but only if you first seek it out, and then only if you act upon it; or as von Goethe said, “Knowing is not enough, we must apply.” What good is understanding our rights if we don’t stand up for them? What good is knowing the Constitutional limitations upon government if we don’t hold government accountable to them? What good is information if people ignore it, or refuse to expend any time and effort in understanding it?

It is our duty, our responsibility to uphold the values and principles upon which this nation was founded. If we fail in this, if we forsake those principles, then what is to become of all the other freedoms we take for granted? As George Washington said in his first Inaugural Address, “The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government, are justly considered deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.”

Almost half a century later, Justice Joseph Story would offer a dire prediction of what would happen if we forsook the principles upon which our nation was founded, “Yet, after all, the fabric may fall; for the work of man is perishable, and must for ever have inherent elements of decay. Nay, it must perish, if there be not that vital spirit in the people, which alone can nourish, sustain, and direct all its movements. It is in vain, that statesmen shall form plans of government, in which the beauty and harmony of a republic shall be embodied in visible order, shall be built up on solid substructions, and adorned by every useful ornament, if the inhabitants suffer the silent power of time to dilapidate its walls, or crumble its massy supporters into dust; if the assaults from without are never resisted, and the rottenness and mining from within are never guarded against. Who can preserve the rights and liberties of the people, when they shall be abandoned by themselves? Who shall keep watch in the temple, when the watchmen sleep at their posts? Who shall call upon the people to redeem their possessions, and revive the republic, when their own hands have deliberately and corruptly surrendered them to the oppressor, and have built the prisons, or dug the graves of their own friends?” (Source: Commentaries on the Constitution, Section 901)

If I cannot speak my mind openly without fear of reprisal, or offending others, then the fundamental bulwark of open debate has died and all we have left is the politically correct narrative; no matter how far from the truth it may be.

As Justice Hugo Black once said, “An unconditional right to say what one pleases about public affairs is what I consider to be the minimum guarantee of the First Amendment.” I don’t know if the word unconditional means anything to you, but according to my dictionary it means: complete or guaranteed, with no conditions, limitations, or provisos attached.

So if you wish to retain the right to freely express your ideas and beliefs, then you damned well better respect my right to do the same!

As most of you know, recently during an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester England a suicide bomber set off his bomb inside the arena where Grande was performing. According to reports the bomber, Salman Abedi was the British-born son of Libyan Refugees.

Then just this morning we hear news of a van mowing down pedestrians on the London Bridge, near the Borough Market, then the occupants climbed out of the van and began stabbing pedestrians with 12 inch knives. The identity of the three attackers is still unknown, but according to reports, including the Daily Star, a British tabloid type newspaper, the culprits were, “three jihadis” implying that they were Muslim.

What is it going to take for Muslim sympathizers to realize that Islam and Western Civilization are incompatible; having them live side by side is like trying to mix fire and gasoline. A friend of mine, Bart Stewart, just did a podcast in which he spoke his feelings regarding this subject. I do not wish to directly plagiarize him, so I will take one comment he made and rework it to fit my narrative.

Imagine if some faithful Christian were to blow up an abortion clinic because of his beliefs; how long would it be before his Christian beliefs were grabbed hold of by the media and played in an endless loop as the motive behind this person’s attack? I’m guessing it wouldn’t take very long. While we may hear, from time to time, the word jihadis or jihadists in reference to those who commit these terror attacks, it is rare that the motivation behind them is brought into the spotlight for public discussion; and if it is there are handfuls of organizations which rise up in defense of the so-called religion of peace, Islam.

But is Islam the peaceful religion they tell us it is? I suppose it is…as long as you follow Sharia, or Islamic Law. While there are some Middle Eastern countries which have adopted a more Western attitude, many still can be said to have 14th Century attitudes and their practices only called savage by modern standards. America’s allies, the House of Saud, or Saudi Arabia, routinely carries out punishments in public squares; including the cutting off of hands for theft and the beheading of those guilty of more serious crimes like murder and homosexuality. Under Sharia Law you are born a Muslim, and a Muslim you must remain until your death. Should you choose to change your religion, say to Christianity, or heaven forbid, Judaism, the punishment is death.

Islamic doctrine preaches that the purpose of Islam is to convert, or kill every unbeliever. It also tells the followers that it is okay to lie to and deceive the infidels, (us), when living amongst us; to fool us into thinking they wish to live peacefully side by side with us until there are sufficient numbers of them that they can begin exerting political influence and establishing an Islamic State within the host nation. This practice, called Taqiya, could very well be a smokescreen to hide their true intent, the hostile takeover of all Western Civilization, and the eradication of the Western Principles of freedom.

I know there are some who claim that this whole idea of Islamic extremists is a type of false flag deal where the government creates these terrorist groups to further their agenda of total control over the American people; and that may be true to a certain extent. But you see, I’m not talking about the Al Qaeda’s and ISIL’s we hear on the news, I’m talking about your day to day Muslims living here in our communities; what is it that lies in their hearts in regards to those who have invited them to live in their country and communities?

Having read numerous spy novels which speak of sleeper cells whose job is to live among us, blend in so to speak, until they are called upon to inflict their terror attacks upon us, one has to wonder if that is not the strategy they use in general; blending in until they have sufficient numbers to bring about the kind of change which leads to an Islamic conquest of the host nation.

I know that there are many who argue that Islam is the religion of peace; that it is only a small percentage of all the Muslims who are radicalized and want to kill us infidels; say ten percent. Do you know what ten percent of 1.5 billion is, (and 1.5 billion is the estimated number of practicing Muslims in the world)? You don’t know; well it is 150 million people who want to kill us because of our beliefs. That’s almost half the population of the United States.

There are an estimated 3.3 million Muslims living right now in the United States. If ten percent of those are radicalized and want to see us dead, that means there are 330 thousand Muslims in America who want to see Americans die and our way of life ended; to be replaced by their version of peace…i.e. Sharia Law. And you think this it is a good thing to continue to allow them to immigrate to America; to increase their numbers?

To make matters worse, many of those seeking entrance into the U.S. are coming from war torn countries where U.S. foreign policy is to blame for the destruction of their homelands. These folks may have been peaceful farmers and shepherds that never gave the U.S. much thought; that is until the United States brought war to their country by our interventionalist foreign policies. Don’t you think that just maybe they might be holding some pretty deep seated resentment towards America, and might one day lash out at those they blame for causing them to flee their native lands?

Are you aware that, according to some scientific studies, there are approximately 30 trillion cells in the human body? Yet often, when one is diagnosed with cancer they view it as a death sentence, depending on the severity, location, and stage at which the cancer is found. Yet cancer often accounts for but a mere fraction of the total cells in a human body; yet people undergo all manner of medical procedures to remove it from their bodies.

The principles upon which Islam is founded are a cancer to the principles of freedom that America was founded upon; yet there are many who are of the belief that it is the right thing, the politically correct thing, the feel good about yourself thing to invite this cancer into our country and let it reproduce until it destroys all America once stood for.

The recent attacks in London, and a few of those which have occurred right here on U.S. soil are only harbingers of things to come it America does not come to its senses and halt the flow of more Muslims into this country, or at least recognize that Islam is the threat it truly is. I’m not saying that ISIS terror cells are going to spring up all over the country, but I am saying that Islam and the principles of freedom of choice cannot coexist peacefully side by side; one must prevail.

I think a big part of the problem is that many people do not understand Islam for what it truly is. They view Islam as a religion much like Christianity where you go to church on Sundays and are free to either adhere to the tenets of the Christian faith, or not adhere to them. Islam is a theocratic ideology in which their religious doctrine dictates the law by which everyone must obey. Imagine if you will if the Pope were to become president and impose Roman Catholic doctrine upon every U.S. citizen. Birth control would be banned, as would homosexuality. Imagine the uproar were this to happen. Yet that is what pure Islamic states are; the religious leadership makes the laws according to their religious doctrine.

History shows that those states in which Islam is the faith of the people tend to be nations which invade and conquer others; the most famous of course being the Ottoman Empire. People often give the Crusades as justification for their aggression toward Christians. But the Crusades were defensive wars fought to slow down, or beat back the spread of Islam from taking over predominantly Christian regions.

Even our own history has shown us that force must be used against Islamic states. Jefferson’s war with the Barbary Pirates is a perfect example; when Thomas Jefferson created the United States Marine Corps to deal with the Pirates of the Barbary Coast.

In 1785 Algeria captured two American Schooners; Maria and Dauphin. All four of the Barbary Coast States; Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and Libya demanded $660,000 each for the release of the ships and their crews. The crews of these ships remained as slaves for the Barbary Pirates for over a decade.
In 1795 Algeria came to an agreement that it would release 115 prisoners and halt all piracy against U.S. ships if America would pay $1 million in tribute; which at the time was 1/6 of the entire U.S. budget.

In 1796 Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to meet an envoy from Tripoli, the capital of Libya. During their discussion the Libyan ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman justified their piracy with the following comments, “It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.” When Jefferson finally became president, he’d had enough of this extortion and sent U.S. troops to deal with the Barbary Pirates.

Although times have changed, there still exists the dangers of piracy off the coasts of certain Muslim countries, and their religious ideology has not changed much over the passage of time. They still adhere to the same basic beliefs that they did over half a century ago. Yet people say that we are able to coexist peacefully side by side with people whose beliefs are not in sync with modern times.

Ridiculous!!!

These Muslims are using our system against us; saying that the freedom of religion permits them to worship as they see fit, and that any attempts to point out the glaring defects in their beliefs is racist and an attempt to profile them. Yet were you to go to almost any country where Islam is that State sponsored religion and try to practice your faith openly and see what happens. Where is their tolerance for differing ideologies? The answer is that it does not exist; they have no tolerance for faiths other than their own.

Just like cancer, if you catch it early, before it metastasizes, you can prevent the death of the host body. America can still save herself if her people would only recognize the threat that lives among them.

I hate to sound alarmist, but that is the threat we face, and it is growing inside us like a cancer. If you don’t believe me, take a trip to Dearborn Michigan and walk through the streets with a T shirt with an image of Jesus or the American flag and see what kind of a response you get. If you make it out alive you’ll have an idea of what’s coming to cities and towns near you if we don’t do something to stop this plague before it spreads any further.

And even if only 10% of the Muslims living here in America are the ones who pose a threat, that number continues to increase as we allow more Muslims to immigrate to America. And, if these so-called peaceful Muslims truly wanted to live side by side with us; respecting our laws and our customs, why are they not coming forward and helping in identifying those who have become radicalized amongst them? Could it be because they fear them as much as we should be fearing them?

I know this will ruffle a few feathers; particularly amongst those who will think that I’ve fallen for the government’s narrative about the war on terrorism. This isn’t about terrorism, it is about conflicting beliefs; one which believes that people have the freedom of choice, and the other which seeks to impose their religious beliefs upon all; erasing all freedom from the land that was founded upon that very principle.

All you bleeding heart liberals, you politically correct sympathizers, are not going to be spared should this plague go viral and begin imposing its will upon American society. You think you will be able to say, “Hey, I supported your right to come here; I’m a good guy.” Do you think that will spare you from having your head lopped off; your wife and daughters raped, and your house burnt to the ground? If there is truly is any karma in the world, it will be when you learn the harsh reality of your foolish belief that American values and Islam can coexist peacefully.

So, you can choose to pull your head out of the sand now and face the growing threat that lives among us, or you can face the consequences when that threat becomes painfully apparent. Your call…

You can call me Islamophobic if you want, but phobias are defined as irrational fears. My fear is not irrational; it is based upon observation and study. I have visited many Muslim countries and seen these people up close and personal. Yes, not all of them were bad, but I got the distinct impression that under the smiles I saw was a burning desire for them to say “Fuck you, you American pig!”

You wouldn’t call yourself pyrophobic because you feared your house burning down would you? You understand the threat that fire poses and take precautions against it. That’s all I’m doing, is trying to awaken you to the threat that Islam poses to America. You can either heed my warnings, or go about with your feel good, open borders, open arms policy; until it turns around and bites you in the ass that is.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
~Newton’s 3rd Law of Physics~

It seems you can barely turn on your TV or log onto Facebook without seeing at least one story or post about the actress and comedienne Kathy Griffin. Ever since Ms. Griffin decided to pose for a photo shoot holding a fake bloodied head of Donald Trump she has been all over the news and the recipient of some major backlash. Recently she went so far as to say that the First Family is trying to ruin her life. Methinks that maybe she should have consulted the Dixie Chicks before she decided to do something that might anger people sufficiently to prove harmful to her career and reputation.

Yet, however misguided and foolish her intentions may have been, I fully support her right to express herself in whatever manner she chooses…as long as in doing so she does not violate the rights of a single individual. What harm did Ms Griffin do? Did she deprive you of your property or your rights? Sure, she was holding what appeared to be a severed head of the president, but it was just an effigy, and people really ought to study their history a bit more before they come out saying she should have her rights restricted or face jail time for what she did.

Was Ms. Griffin’s photo shoot in poor taste? Probably; yet it is not without precedent. I wonder how many people are familiar with the protests that took place in Colonial America after Parliament passed the Stamp Act. Are they aware that in 1765, Andrew Oliver, a Bostonian, was appointed by Governor Thomas Hutchinson to collect the revenues derived from the recently passed Stamp Act? In protest, angry Colonists hung an effigy of Andrew Oliver from an Elm tree near Boston Common; said tree we now know as the Liberty Tree.

What is the difference between the lynching of an effigy of one individual and the holding a facsimile of a severed head of another? Both depict harm being done to the person being protested against, yet one event goes down in the history books as the actions of patriots standing up to tyranny and the other is cause for massive public outrage.

I have heard cries from the conservative right about how supporters of President Trump have been attacked for simply wearing attire with his name on it, or attending rallies which he has spoken at. These folks claim that their rights are being violated and that something should be done to protect them. Now, many of these same people are calling for actions to be taken to violate Ms. Griffin’s constitutionally protected right to express herself; simply because they do not LIKE what she has to say.

What this shows me is that there is a huge lack of something that many on both side of the political spectrum say they want for their views; tolerance. Tolerance is a two Way Street; if you expect people to have it for your beliefs you also have to be willing to have it for opposing ideas and beliefs. Making threats against those you disagree with, assaulting them, or simply trying to censor their ability to freely express their beliefs shows that there is a huge lack of tolerance by many in this country.

At the same time, Ms Griffin should have known that by making such a bold statement she was going to receive some pretty serious backlash. Even Colin Kaepernick learned this lesson when he refused to stand for the playing of our national anthem at 49ers games. To put it bluntly, you cannot spit into the face of people’s beliefs without expecting some consequences. While I fully support anyone who chooses to boycott performances by Ms Griffin, I do not support attempts to restrict her right to free expression, or any threats against her person.

The freedoms of speech; of religion; of expression; and of protest against our government are all protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. These are fundamental rights that our Founders sought to protect from violation or infringement. George Washington felt so strongly about the freedom of speech that he said, “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

In a draft of his Kentucky Resolutions Thomas Jefferson writes, “One of the amendments to the Constitution… expressly declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,’ thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others.”

Freedom of speech is such that you do not like what others say, but you must respect their right to say it. I may not like what I hear other people say, and I am free to interject my own comments into the mix to provide a differing opinion; that’s the nature of debate and open, honest discussion. The moment society begins telling anyone that they cannot say this or that because others find it offensive you have taken the free out of free speech.

Look what is occurring across the former states of the Confederacy, with the politically correct movement calling for the removal of all things which represent the Confederacy. Although you cannot erase history these people are certainly trying. Not only that, the version of history which is being taught our youth is full of lies and lacking in all the facts. Is it any wonder our children grow up believing exactly what Major General Patrick Cleburne warned about, “Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision…”

Again, it is a lack of tolerance to opposing ideas and beliefs on the one side that is causing these historical monuments to be taken down across the South. When are people going to get it through their thick skulls that their feelings are not protected by Constitutional Amendment, but that the people’s right to express themselves in whatever manner they see fit are?

I have lost track of the times I’ve been told to tone my rhetoric down because people at work have gotten offended over what I’ve said. Yet never have I directly come out and threatened anyone; unless of course the truth is threatening to certain people’s frail belief systems.

Once I began this pathway towards wherever the truth may take me, I understood that I may encounter people who disagree with me; I understood that I may even lose friends over the things I try to share with people. Yet I never expected to see my right to say these things attacked with such vehemence. I had always thought that the American people had more integrity and respect for the right of free speech than that. I guess I was wrong. I guess since people can’t handle the truth they will seek any and all means to silence it.

Well, if y’all knew anything about the Bill of Rights you would see that the freedom of speech is protected by the 1rst Constitutional Amendment. It is immediately followed by an amendment which provides the people of America the means of defending against those who would take away the rights protected by the former.

I’m not the only one who is becoming fed up with this constant assault upon my right to free speech and expression; there are many others like me, and if y’all keep pushing, you are gonna find that you’ve opened a huge can of pent up anger and Whoop Ass!

You see, everything has consequences. The freedom of speech comes with the consequences of people not liking what you say and choosing not to associate with you. Conversely, your attempts to stifle our freedom of speech, erase the truth, and impose your views on us come with consequences as well. It may take awhile for them to be realized, but when you do you may have wished you had just a bit more respect and tolerance for opposing ideas and beliefs.

It’s a good thing for most politicians that the average U.S. citizen is an ignorant, apathetic, imbecile that doesn’t know, or care to know, the first thing about Constitutional principles; otherwise there might be a lot of unemployed politicians. However, none are more benefitting of this quality than are the mayors and governor of the state of California.

I was born in Pacifica, California, just south of San Francisco on the Pacific Coast on June 28, 1958, and aside from time spent in the United States Air Force have lived my entire life in California. Aside from the fact that at any time a major earthquake could hit, causing California to slide into the Pacific Ocean, I love California. The geography and scenic locations that make up the State make it a beautiful place to live. But the morons in Sacramento with their progressive, liberal, or socialist programs have turned it into a living hell for anyone who values the freedoms that our nation’s Founders fought for back in 1776.

For almost as long as I can remember there have been segments of the State that has talked of dividing it into two states; Northern and Southern California; primarily due to the differences in political ideologies between the two regions. Then there was the push to create the State of Jefferson; combining portions of the Pacific Northwest into a fully independent and sovereign nation. Now there is talk of secession; both among liberals who are upset over the policies of President Trump, and conservatives who are growing increasingly more upset over the policies coming out of Sacramento; especially under the leadership of Governor Edmund ‘Jerry’ Brown, or Moonbeam as some have taken to calling him.

In response to the conservatives who are upset with the liberal policies coming out of Sacramento, spokesperson for the Governor Gil Duran is quoted as saying, “If you want to live in a Republican state with very conservative right-wing laws, then there’s a place called Arizona.” Effectively, the governor’s office is telling conservatives that if they don’t like the policies coming out of Sacramento, they can leave California altogether. That’s one hell of a way to inspire confidence and trust in your state leadership; it’s as if your opinions don’t matter and they are gonna continue doing whatever the hell they want to do regardless of whether or not the things they do are in conformity to the Constitution of the United States and the will of a large segment of the citizens of California.

Although I don’t see it happening now, especially with the abundance of Millennials who are now of voting age, Governor Brown may want to watch what he says; it wasn’t that long ago that another Democratic Governor in California, Gray Davis, was recalled because the people became disgruntled over his performance and policies.

I have been asked by friends who live in other states why I continue to live in this Socialist hellhole. My response is twofold. First I truly love California as a State, it’s just the idiots in Sacramento and the voting public who put them there that I hate. Secondly, I plan on leaving if I can survive to retirement. It would break my heart to say goodbye to this beautiful State, but the way things are going, if I make it to retirement I intend to leave without ever looking back; leave it to the Socialists and let then take it straight to hell.

Until that time, I intend to fight tooth and nail for the true conservative values, (not the faux conservatism that define the Republican Party platform), which form the foundation of my core belief system. It is for this reason that I am writing this, to explain why I think those in Sacramento, especially Governor Brown, all ought to be, at a minimum, recalled from office; if not sent directly to prison for their crimes against the people and the Constitution of the United States.

Just the other day I saw a brief interview by KCRA’s Edie Lambert of Governor Brown in regards to his views on President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Change Accord. I can’t recall his exact words, but Governor Brown basically said that if President Trump won’t take the lead then he will. Governor Brown then went on to say that he was planning a trip to China to meet with the leadership there and forge his own agreements on reducing carbon emissions and environmental damage; the basic platform of many environmental and global warming movements.

While I am sure that there are a great many Californians who applaud the governor for taking the lead on this issue which is of such great concern to them, my first reaction was; “Does this guy know that what he’s suggesting is unconstitutional?”

Our nation has a constitution which established our federal government; on that point I think we can all agree. However, whether what it actually says is of any concern to most voters is a different story altogether. I would be willing to wager that a good many voters have never read it; and of those who have, a good many don’t care about what it says as long as they somehow benefit from whatever laws our elected representatives pass.

Going way back to 1866, the Supreme Court held that “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. 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.” (Source: Ex parte Milligan)

Article 6 of the Constitution states, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…” What that means is that the limits it imposes upon the government; both federal and States, are supreme and they cannot go beyond those limits without violating the Constitution; basically becoming criminals subject to federal prosecution for their crimes.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution lists the powers granted the Congress at the federal level. Those are the only powers our federal government have, and to take any step beyond them is both unconstitutional, and criminal. However, Article 1, Section 10 imposes certain restrictions upon the States; which include the actions taken by their governors. Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1, among other things, states, “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation…”

Governor Brown cannot simply take it upon himself to go to China and forge an environmental agreement, compact, or treaty without violating that Clause of the Constitution. It won’t happen, but if he does, impeachment proceedings should begin immediately in the State Legislature, and a petition to have him removed from office should begin circulating among the voters.

But Constitutional limitations and obedience to lawfully enacted federal laws never seem to matter much to Californians; especially those holding office in our cities and State government. Take for instance this widespread move to make California a Sanctuary State for illegal aliens; it is entirely unconstitutional for these elected representatives to do this; and I can prove it.

Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution declares, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion…” One of the definitions for the word invasion is: an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity. Now I don’t know about you, but as far as I’m concerned the illegal entry into the United States of anywhere from 4 to 20 million illegal aliens, (depending on whose statistics you quote), constitutes an invasion to me.

Furthermore, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution states that one of the powers given Congress shall be; “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…” This is one area in which the laws passed by the federal government and my own personal beliefs are in tune with each other. Unfortunately, my beliefs are not considered politically correct and the animosity between myself and those whose views are more mainstream have caused me some difficulties at work and with people in general.

Yet Governor Brown, and the mayor of every city which has declared itself to be a sanctuary for illegal aliens is in violation of federal law, and they should be indicted and prosecuted for their crimes.

The Immigration and Nationality Act, (1965), states, “A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:
-assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him”

Furthermore, Section 1324 of 8 USC declares harboring illegal aliens to be a crime as well, punishable with up to 10 years in prison;
Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
(A) Any person who—

(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation

I don’t know how well people are able to read and comprehend things in California, but those are the laws; and anyone who violates them, (including lofty mayors and the governor) are criminal in their acts and should be punished accordingly.

There is already enough problems in this country due to people not obeying certain laws, but if there is a total disregard for the supreme law of the land, both by our federal and state governments, then what’s the purpose in even pretending we have a Constitutional Republic?

Did you know that were it not for the law; (those fundamental rules agreed upon by society; both in legislative acts and by constitutions), are all that keep society from breaking down into anarchy and chaos? Yet government has at its disposal the means to enforce the laws they pass; be they constitutional or not. A myriad of governmental agencies, as well as local law enforcement, are responsible for enforcing the laws passed by those we elect to represent us in government.

Yet in 1816 Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter in which he said, “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.”

Therefore, if our government refuses to obey duly, and constitutionally lawful laws, and then they also enact unlawful acts which violate the rights of the people, what term would you use to describe the state society has fallen into? At the least I would say it is rule by whatever the whim of the majority is; a representative democracy; which is NOT what our Founders envisioned.

It could also be described as rule by the arbitrary whim of those we elect; or tyranny; and tyranny is what our Founders fought a revolution to free themselves from. Why it is that so many people are so willing to simply slide back into the comforting arms of an elected tyranny is something I will NEVER understand.

Yet due to the ignorance and apathy of the citizenry, the woeful job of reporting the truth as it pertains to the unconstitutional acts of both our federal and state governments by the media, and the lust for power by those whom we elect, and that’s exactly what is happening in America.

And I for one, am sick and tired of it. Have a pleasant day America, and Californians in particular; and as Samuel Adams said, “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.”

Whatever happened to the concepts of self-reliance and individual responsibility; or are those the beliefs of a bygone era, never to return? I recently got into a semi-heated discussion on Facebook over the subject of what women can do about unwanted children. It wasn’t clear exactly what the person who originally posted the comments was angry about, but I got the impression it was over the issue of pro-life versus pro-choice.

I suggested, and I’m paraphrasing my own comments here, that if you don’t want unwanted children you should practice birth control or abstain from sex. I was laughed at by one person, and the person who originally posted the comment said that birth control such as condoms are not 100% reliable, and, and I quote, “And when the government starts making laws about your uterus. We can talk more.”

Aw yes, the MY UTERUS argument! What about the life growing inside that uterus; does it not have the right to choose whether it gets to be born or discarded as if it were some inconvenient piece of garbage? Are people today so selfish that they only think about their own wants? Are people today so lacking in responsibility that they want the enjoyment that bonding between a man and woman brings them, but not the responsibility of caring for the life that bonding might produce?

I will not hide the fact that I am staunchly pro-life, but I also believe that should a doctor choose to perform abortions, and should a woman choose to visit that doctor to have an abortion performed, it should be their choices; government should not get involved at all. That said, I believe it should be clear that when I say government should not get involved that I mean no government funds should be spent for abortions, or the funding of clinics where abortions are performed. I do not want to see a single penny of the money taken from my pay in the form of taxes spent upon what I can only call the murder of defenseless unborn children.

If a woman gets herself knocked up, then she, and the person who knocked her up, should be the only people responsible for deciding what to do about the life they created by their union. It’s called accepting responsibility for your actions; something people today seem to have forgotten. Instead of accepting responsibility, they seek to place the responsibility upon society by asking that government provide programs which benefit them in time of need or want.

Just look at all that our government does because of this belief. There is no real way to give an exact number when it comes to how many gun owners there are in America, so let’s just make a number up and go from there. Let’s say there are 80 million gun owners in the U.S. Let’s say one of them uses one of their guns on a shooting rampage; causing society to mourn the tragic loss of life. What does society do? Do they question the motive of the shooter and then blame that? Do they look to see if the person was under the influence of mind altering prescription medicine which may have caused the violent tendencies which led them to go out and shoot all those people? Do they blame hateful ideologies that promote violence against certain segments of society?

The answer to all those questions may be yes, but what society does is seek to place the blame on the gun; which was simply the tool of choice for these disturbed individuals who commit these type shootings. So society blames the gun, and then they ask their government to pass laws restricting a fundamental right to own guns because of the actions of one or two individuals.

Using the same logic society does, if someone drives a Toyota Land Cruiser into a crowd; killing dozens, then society would seek to restrict the purchase of Land Cruisers, require people to pass a background check before buying one, or obtain a special permit before taking it out of their driveways. Sounds silly, doesn’t it? Yet that’s exactly what society has done with guns; and the right to own and bear them is protected by constitutional amendment and should be immune to these type restrictions. What ends up happening is that government then attempts to pass a law punishing, or at least restricting the rights of 79,999,999 people because of the actions of ONE PERSON. By all means punish those who abuse their rights and use guns in the commission of a crime; but leave the law abiding gun owners alone!

It’s not just gun control either. Look at 9/11 and the subsequent actions taken by our government to keep us safe from terrorism. They say that they have to pass all these laws and create all these agencies to protect us from terrorism, but in so doing they violate the right to privacy of every individual in the country. The militarism of our police forces and the ever increasing intrusions upon our privacy are all a result of people wanting government to do something to keep them safe.

Yet people are so politically correct and sensitive in regards to the feelings of people that they refuse to accept that these acts of terror were committed simply because of a particular religious ideology which states that the followers of that religious system are justified in attacking, and killing, non-believers. To focus on them would be considered profiling and raise the ire of groups like the Center for Islamic American Relations. Now, I’m not saying ever Muslim is a terrorist; but if you put one terrorist into a room with a dozen peaceful ones, could YOU tell the difference? And if these Muslims are peaceful, and truly love the country that has opened its arms to them, why don’t they police their own communities and work with our government and law enforcement in rooting out the bad apples?

Instead of that happening, the people expect government to keep them safe without violating the rights of, or hurting the feelings of all Muslims. So instead they violate the rights of everyone by casting a wide net hoping to catch a few terrorists here and there. As Mulder said in Season 10 of the X Files, “They police us and spy on us, tell us that makes us safer? We’ve never been in more danger.”

In the name of safety and security people have willingly sacrificed their rights; and it makes me sick to my stomach to see it happening. We are monitored, policed to extents which would have shocked our nation’s Founders. Our ability to defend ourselves, from crime and our government itself, has been restricted to such an extent that it is considered a crime to exercise that right to its fullest extent.

How much has our government done because one segment of society wanted, or needed something; so government passes another law which affects the entire country? The Affordable Care Act is one example, Social Security, Food Stamps and Welfare are others. Once these programs are instituted, any talk of repealing them finds one confronted with the argument that they are cold, insensitive, and attempting to deprive someone of their, and here comes that word, ENTITLEMENTS.

I think there is a fundamental flaw in the thinking of a great many people in this country; particularly the younger generations. Our government does not produce anything which it can sell for a profit to fund its operations. Any money it spends on all these programs it has to take from those who work for a living; either that or it borrows the money which only adds to our $19 trillion debt. A process, by the way, that we cannot sustain without the entire system imploding eventually.

You may not know it, but you, and your belongings are collateral on that debt. Should our government default on the debt do you think President Trump, (or whoever is president when it happens), and Congress are going to be held liable? Hell no, we are. Our savings, our homes, our very labor is the collateral upon that debt we continually ask government to incur on our behalf; making us essentially debt slaves. Yet what does America do? It continues to ask government to keep doing more and more for the people who inhabit it; any talk of scaling back government is the object of derision and scorn.

Not only that, we want government to bring in all these refugees from other countries, some of which we’ve bombed to hell and back, and whose people probably hold some pretty deep seated resentment towards America. We also want to open our doors to all those poor people down South of the border who only want a better life and who want to share in the American Dream. What is the American Dream anyway? It used to be one of a land of freedom where hard work and perseverence was rewarded by success. Now it is one where if you don’t achieve success the government is always there to take care of you. The problem is that all this taking care of people comes at others expense!

All of this, all of these intrusions upon our liberty, the taxation of one segment of society to benefit another, can be attributed to one simple fact; people do not understand the nature and purpose of the federal government. The belief today, in comparison to the belief two hundred years ago, is completely different as it pertains to the question of what is good government.

In his Inaugural Address Thomas Jefferson said, “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.”

Yet I constantly hear the argument that times change, people change, so our government should change along with them. That might be true, but as Jefferson also said, “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.” (Source: letter to Spencer Roane, 1821)

I also hear the misguided say that our Constitution is a living document that must change with the times. No, our Constitution is a legal charter of specific powers granted those who represent us in a body known as the federal government. That government cannot exceed the powers given it without committing a crime; which it routinely does with impunity. People do not act upon these violations of the Constitution because their meter, or gauge as to whether the government is doing a good job is skewed and as long as they are safe and comfortable they could care less about the massive debt our government has incurred or whether their rights are being violated on a daily basis.

In George Washington’s Farewell Address he made the following comments, “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.”

I have not read of any amendment granting government the authority to tax those who work for a living to fund programs which benefit those in need. I have not read of the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Six and Tenth amendments being repealed. If you honestly believe that these are powers which should be held by government, then go about getting a constitutional amendment passed giving government that power. But until that is done, respect and obey the Constitution as it is written; that is if you have even read it.

And don’t give me that general welfare crap either, facts prove that to be utter b.s. as well! In a letter to James Robertson, James Madison, the Father of our Constitution said the following, “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.”

Thomas Jefferson stated it thusly, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” And even Alexander Hamilton, whose views were of a much larger and powerful government than Jefferson and Madison wanted, said the following about the so-called general welfare, “This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.”

But that’s all people care about today; what government is gonna do for them. That’s what guide their voting decisions; who makes the best sounding promises which align with their beliefs as to the purpose for government. But almost every American’s belief regarding the purpose for government is wrong, therefore we flip flop back and forth between candidates from the two political parties who care nothing about the constitutional limitations upon them. Therefore our government stumbles towards tyranny like a drunkard; with both the left and right legs heading further away from constitutional principles and towards absolute government control over our lives.

It’s insane and it makes me want to pull my hair out because I can’t get people to see it! But one day you will see it; when the fruition of your ignorance and apathy comes into bloom there will be no denying that you let government become your absolute master. Unfortunately, when that happens it will be too late to do anything at the voting booth. You will then be faced with two choices; submit to their authority or take up arms and hope to restore your liberty. But liberty comes with the price of accepting responsibility for your actions, and not seeking to shoulder society with the burden of paying for your mistakes and shortcomings.

And from what I hear from most people, they simply aren’t mentally capable of accepting that responsibility yet.

The American President has no policies. There are policies drawn by the American institutions which control the American regime which are the intelligence agencies, the Pentagon, the big arms and oil companies, and financial institutions, in addition to some other lobbies which influence American decision-making. The American President merely implements these policies...~ Bashar al-Assad~

In 1787 a proposal was made to create a new system of government for the United States; one which would represent both the sovereign States which comprised the Union, and also the people who inhabited it. A bicameral, or a legislative body having two branches, was established for this purpose; with the position of president being created to implement, or enforce the laws they passed. Limits were imposed on what this government could and could not do, with the remaining legislative authority reserved to the States themselves; as later affirmed by the 10th Amendment to this proposed Constitution.

The government established by this Constitution had no say in its own creation; that came about solely by the consent of the people to the terms explicitly found in the document outlining the powers this government shall exercise. The government created by the act of the people agreeing to those terms could not arbitrarily expand its powers beyond those specifically listed; as that would be usurpation. Finally, the government could not fight back should the people decide that it became too big, too powerful, and choose to dismantle it; as it was but a creature created by an act of the people; and what man can do, it can undo.

If you think of government as a rebellious child it will make what I’m about to say much easier to understand. The first few years of our government being engaged in the act of governing was akin to a newborn learning how to walk, talk and do things; a learning experience. But almost immediately after it got its legs, so to speak, it began pushing against the restraints which limited its authority. In nine short years our second president, John Adams, signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts; infuriating those who adhered to the principle of a government with limited authority over the States.

In fact, his actions were so egregious that his sitting Vice President, Thomas Jefferson, wrote this in response, “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. . . . that the government created by this compact [the Constitution for the United States] was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; . . . . that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; . . . and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorised by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories…”

Yeah, that’s a mouthful, but it basically says is if the government exercises power beyond those given it by the Constitution, the States can, and will, declare those acts null and void, and of no force within their borders.

America at this period of her history was basically divided into two segments, the heavily populated North, which was more involved in manufacturing and industry, and the South which was basically agricultural. At this time there was no income tax as we know it today, the income our government needed to fund its operations came in via tariffs, or taxes upon imported and exported goods.

As Congress was the lawmaking body, and the controller of the purse strings, it was the body which enacted any tariffs which raised the life blood of revenue into the treasury which funded government. Most of the tariffs which funded government were imposed upon goods exported and imported by the South; basically meaning that the South was bearing the load of funding the operation of the government. At times this load was anywhere from 40%-70% of all the money taken in to the treasury in the form of tariffs.

Yet the majority of the money collected from tariffs was being spent in the North upon internal improvements which benefited the industry; which even back then had its hooks into, what we now know as the Republican Party. This crony capitalism was the precursor today to lobbyists influencing Congress to benefit business interests to the detriment of the people whom government is supposed to be representing.

As our country was expanding westward, new states were being added to the Union and the subject of whether slavery should be allowed to expand westward became a hot topic which further divided the North and South. Abolitionists in the North who decried the inhumane practice of keeping human beings as slaves protested the expansion of slavery westward. Republican Congressmen in the North fought against the expansion of slavery because it would increase the representation of their opponents the Democrats; giving them more power in Congress to resist the unfair tariffs being imposed upon them.

In the 1830’s the tariff issue came to a head when South Carolina declared that the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional; therefore null and void within their State borders. Eventually this crisis passed, but not for long. In 1860 a young Prairie Lawyer, turned Congressman named Abraham Lincoln won the presidency. Lincoln was a Republican who followed the principles of the former Whig party of internal improvements and protective tariffs; those same tariffs which had been a yoke upon the necks of the South for so long.

Up to this point the excesses of the Congress had been kept somewhat in check due to the fact that a majority of the sitting presidents had been Southern Democrats who would temper the acts of Congress and attempt to protect the interests of the Southern States. With the election of Lincoln, all bets were off and the government would be free to impose whatever burdens it wanted upon the South. Essentially the South was backed into a corner where it had the choice to either submit to the oppression of a government which represented the business and banking interests of the North, or secede. They chose secession, and thus began the Civil War when Abraham Lincoln denied them that basic right found in the Declaration of Independence, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Lincoln himself, in a speech given just a decade earlier, stated that it was the right of the people to leave any union, “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, most sacred right- a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to excercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize and make their own, of so much territory as the inhabit.” (Lincoln’s War with Mexico Speech, January 12, 1848)

You may still believe that the Civil War was fought over slavery, but Lincoln himself said otherwise in a letter to Horace Greeley, dated August 22, 1862, “As to the policy I “seem to be pursuing” as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.”

The victory of the Union over the Confederacy was not a victory of slave liberators over slave owners, as a majority of those who fought on the side of the Confederacy didn’t even own slaves. No, it was the victory of government over the rights of the States to limit the power held by government, and to leave a voluntary union of states should that government prove harmful to them. It was also, as quoted by Thomas ‘Stonewall’ Jackson in the film God’s and Generals, “If the North triumphs, it is not alone the destruction of our property; it is the prelude to anarchy, infidelity, the ultimate loss of free and responsible government on this continent. It is the triumph of commerce – the banks, factories.”

From that point forward our government has not been one which cared for the limits imposed upon it by the Constitution. The political parties, especially the Republicans, became the puppets for the banking and industrial interests. The Democrats, for awhile, tried to remain true to their principles of adhering to limited power given the government, but for them to continue existing as a viable political force they had to also change, and became the party of special interests such as environmentalists, gay rights, social justice, and all the things associated with liberalism in American politics.

But the extent to which Constitutional principles were abandoned does not end there, it goes much deeper. Over time groups came together within the U.S., funded and organized by those who wanted to ensure that Americas government served their interests, and not those of the people who they were elected to represent. Think tanks of like minded individuals, such as the Council on Foreign Relations were established and many of their members are found throughout America’s power structure.

The list of CFR members extends to former presidents such as Bill Clinton, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell, and three Supreme Court Justices; Bader-Ginsburg, O’Connor and Breyer; just to name a few. It also includes a long list of members of Congress from both political parties; including Dianne Feinstein, Christopher Dodd and Newt Gingrich.

But there influence does not stop there, it also extends to other positions of authority and leadership. Many current and former members of Chase Manhattan bank are CFR members, as were members of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The CFR has also infiltrated key positions within many labor unions, such as Jack Sheinkman of Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Workers, and Albert Shanker of the American Federation of Teachers.

Key positions within the military are also held by CFR members, with such notable names as Lee Aspin, McNamara, Westmoreland, Rumsfeld, Eisenhower, and Haig all being CFR members at one time or another.

The CFR also permeates our media, with its members holding key positions in CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, Time Warner, Newsweek, Reuters and Associated Press. Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Brian Williams, Barbara Walters, Diane Sawyer were all CFR members.

The CEO’s of most major oil companies are members of the CFR as are those in key positions in GM, Ford, IBM, AT&T, and American Express. Chemical and Pharmaceutical companies all have CFR members in key positions as does Pepsi, Nabisco, Levi Strauss, and Johnson & Johnson.

And finally, the CFR has not limited itself to key positions in government and industry, it has also infiltrated our institutions of higher learning. Harvard, John’s Hopkins, Columbia, Stanford University, Bowdoin, Brown University, Cornell and Princeton, just to name a few, have CFR members in key positions of authority.

The CFR was, up until recently, headed by David Rockefeller, (may the devil show no mercy on his soul). He was the patriarch of the Rockefeller family, the same family whose John D. Rockefeller attended the meeting on Jekyll Island which created our Federal Reserve Bank.

Not only do CFR members hold key positions within government, media, academia, and industry, the bank created by the predecessor of the man who created the CFR controls our nation’s monetary supply. They have us in a stranglehold and we don’t even see it.

These are those the former mayor of New York, John Hylan warned us about when he said, “The Real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state, and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of a self created screen. At the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both political parties.”

This is why no matter whom you vote for, those who truly control our government will still retain the reins of power; because they are not elected by a vote of the people and are, therefore, not accountable to us. These men and women serve different masters, and the constitution means nothing to them. They remain in the background whispering their influence into the ears of those we elect and funnel money into the campaign coffers of those who play ball with their agenda. Those who don’t, well we’ve all seen how everyone has come out against Donald Trump; need I say more?

I’m not saying I fully support Trump, but he is an outsider who is self funded and did not need their money to get elected. He poses a threat to them simply because there is no control they can exert over him; so instead they seek to attack and discredit him constantly. We saw the same thing, although to a lesser extent, when Ron Paul was growing in popularity among the disgruntled members of the voting public; both Democrat and Republican.

It’s just as Carroll Quigley said, “The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.”

If you think your vote counts, you are fooling yourself; your vote doesn’t mean diddly squat. Our government is owned and controlled by this Deep State, or Shadow Government you all like to insult people such as myself for even suggesting exists. You are being played for fools by still believing that anything you do, anyone you vote for, is truly gonna make a difference. The news will still play the trumpets and wave the flag and declare America to be a democratic nation with all the freedoms in the world, until someone tries to exercise real freedom. Then they will condemn them while the government squashes them like a bug. Ask the Branch Davidians if you don’t believe me. Ask anyone who has attempted to go off the grid, become free from all the restraints and restrictions imposed by State and local authorities. They will tell you the horror stories of how they had their homes confiscated and their lives ruined; simply because they wanted true freedom. Ask the family of LaVoy Finicum what happens when one stands up to the almighty authority of government.

Why is it that there are thousands of naturally occurring substances which can treat and cure disease, but the FDA tells us that only drugs can cure disease, and they have the authority to regulate and control those drugs?

Why is it that we have found ourselves embroiled in wars of intrigue in foreign lands that have never directly attacked the United States?
Why is it that the technology for cars that can get 100 miles per gallon have been around for years, but we’re still driving vehicles that get a measly 30 miles per gallon?

It is because we are human guinea pigs whose labor and money keep them flowing in riches while we suffer. If we could grow a plant which cured cancer, just think about the millions, if not billions of profit that would be lost by the pharmaceutical companies. If we could buy a car that got 100 mpg think of the revenue loss by the oil companies. If we pulled all our troops home and only used them to defend our nation, think of the millions in military contracts that would dry up.

They tax us, they restrict our freedom, and then they give us the charade of being allowed to choose our own slave masters; and most of y’all play along with it. Well I don’t buy it. I may not be able to do anything about it, being so outnumbered, but I’m certainly not going to play their game anymore.

I can almost imagine the snickers of derision that this will generate from most people. But that is why the truth no longer matters in this country; people would rather go on believing a comfortable lie than accept the truth. That is why the history of the Civil War you have been taught has all been lies; because if you knew that the real truth was that the South fought for a return to the system of government envisioned by our Founders, you would have to accept that our government fought against that principle, making them the bad guys.

But it all hinged on the Union winning the Civil War. Maybe, just maybe, had the Confederacy won, things may not have turned out this way; or at least the evil postponed. Thomas Jefferson once said, ” Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers (administrators) too plainly proves a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery.”

If you could only open your eyes to see that, since 1865 our government has been imposing oppression after oppression upon us, the American people. If that doesn’t show their true intent, then I don’t know what will. They keep you divided along political party lines, or over the various issues, while they reap the whirlwind and bask in their power and glory.

Our Founders bequeathed to us a nation founded upon liberty; not slavery. Yet slaves are what we all are now. And, as Thomas Jefferson also said, “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

Christ told His disciples that those who would remain faithful to the end would be rewarded. If America truly was protected and guided by divine inspiration, and our freedoms given us by our God, then I will fight for them to my dying breath, and hopefully be rewarded for my service. You, on the other hand, who foolishly believe that your government even comes close to being the one our Constitution outlines, had best open your eyes before the day of reckoning arrives for your apathy and your ignorance.

Imagine for a moment, if you can, what the world would be like if there was no language; no means by which human beings could communicate and share ideas. How would you even know your own name if your parents had been unable to communicate it to you? Words, and I don’t care if they are in French, Tagalog, Russian, English, or Mandarin, are what give us the ability to share ideas; give instructions, express our feelings, and pass down our history from one generation to the next.

When two people carry on a conversation they assume that what they are hearing from each other is the truth. You see, words can be used to express the truth; or to spread lies. When I was growing up it was considered almost sinful to tell lies; hence the old childhood rhyme, “Liar, liar pants on fire.” When I was a kid parents taught their children to tell the truth, and getting caught in a lie often resulted in punishment. Nowadays all that has changed; our politicians lie to us, our news media lies to us, our schoolteachers teach us lies, and we routinely lie to each other.

Yet with all this lying going on, there is one thing that remains constant; the truth. The word truth itself is defined as meaning: that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality. Therefore, if the truth is based upon fact, or reality, then what are lies based upon? Fiction?

In the America of 2017 the people are so accustomed to hearing lies that they reject the truth when it is presented to them. It is as Dresden James said, “When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.”

This fact is no more evident than when one attempts to explain to people the extent to which the history of this country they have been taught is founded upon lies, or at least misinformation, and that their system of government is so corrupt and bloated that it is beyond salvage.

As Jack Nicholson so famously uttered in the film A Few Good Men, “You can’t handle the truth!” That seems to be the case with a great many people I come into contact with; they simply refuse to accept the truth because it conflicts with all they’ve been taught, and all they believe in.

Try telling someone who supports any measures taken by our government as they pertain to a wide range of issues that what their government is doing is unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, and people will look at you like you’ve lost your mind.

Try telling people that even though they are the ones who go to the polls and choose from whoever is running for office that, once elected, the loyalties of those they elect are to a small group of banking and business interests, and once again people will look at you as if you’ve gone insane.

Try telling people that the federal government has obliterated the sovereignty of the States, and that this has been so since 1865 when the South gave up their fight for independence, and again, people will think you’ve lost your marbles.

Try explaining the limited powers given government by the Constitution, or the nature and purpose of their rights and they will get, what I like to call, the dumb cow look; a blank stare that shows they just can’t comprehend what you are saying.

For so many Americans it is far easier to go on believing lies than it is to accept, or seek out the truth. Yet as often as it is rejected, or ignored, the truth remains constant. It used to be that when debates were held that both sides would offer their arguments in support of a particular view on a subject, and the side which provided the most convincing evidence was deemed the winner of the debate.

Now our political debates are more akin to shouting matches, or mud-slinging events where one side attempts to do the better job of discrediting the opposing speaker; rather than conscientious studies of the facts. When facts cease to matter, what’s the purpose in even having any political discussion whatsoever; be it among political candidates, or among the citizens who vote for them? When feelings take precedent over fact; when emotions take precedent over the law, why do we continue to lie to ourselves that we have a government as outlined by our Constitution? Why can’t we just accept that what we have is NOT the same government our Founders had envisioned back in 1789; that it is far more intrusive and oppressive than the one they sought to free themselves from?

Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World, once said, “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” They say the truth will set you free; but only if you accept it. I am not making any claim that to accept the truth will not come without consequences; that would be, in and of itself, a lie.

If the truth is what we hope for when we are engaged in communicating with others, then why are so many unable, or unwilling, to accept it when it is presented to them? James Madison left a warning for the generations which would follow him, “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”

There are always two sides to every story, and if the people of America wish to remain free they must be willing to accept that the story they have been taught, the story they have believed all their lives, is quite possibly a lie. That is the first step. The next is finding how deep the rabbit hole goes, to use the quote from the Matrix. Taking that first step is always the hardest; but once you do the rest becomes easy; because once you accept that you’ve been lied to about one thing, it is easier to accept that you’ve been lied to about others.

As Americans you owe it to yourselves to seek out the truth; you owe it to posterity to seek out the truth for their sake, and you owe it to those who have preceded us, who have fought and died for the supposed freedoms you claim to enjoy.

Otherwise the following quote from Samuel Adams applies quite well to you, “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.”

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. ~Alexander Fraser Tytler~

In 1776 fifty-six men, acting as representatives of their perspective Colonies, signed their names to a document declaring “That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown…” This was not an act of a people severing ties with another country, it was an act of a people severing ties with a political system which had become intolerable. Therefore, our Revolutionary War was not a war fought to free us of the English people, but to free us from the monarchal government within England. It is important that people understand this distinction.

Thirteen years later delegates would meet again, this time in the city of Philadelphia, to amend the Articles of Confederation; make them stronger and give the Congress they created the necessary power to fulfill its assigned duties. However, James Madison felt that the Articles of Confederation did not go far enough in creating a system of government which would be able to manage the affairs of a burgeoning nation; his goal was to write an entirely new document, establishing an entirely new system of government.

It is interesting to note that the State of Rhode Island refused to send any delegates to this convention, and once Madison unveiled his plans, Robert Yates and John Lansing of New York left because they felt the convention was overstepping its just authority to simply amend the Articles of Confederation. Then of course once the final document was presented to the delegates, the distinguished delegates George Mason, Elbridge Gerry and Edmund Randolph refused to sign it.

If the heated debates of the convention were contentious, they were simply the opening round of the upcoming debates over whether the nation should adopt the system of government they had proposed. The States quickly found themselves divided along the lines of those agreeable to the proposed constitution, and those opposed to it. Those agreeable to it were dubbed Federalists, and those who opposed it were given the name anti-Federalists.

Articles were written and speeches given, all designed to sway the minds of those who might find themselves tasked with making the momentous decision of either accepting or rejecting the plan of government contained within the document being discussed. They say hindsight is always 20/20, so it’s easy to armchair quarterback now and say the anti-Federalists were more right than they were wrong in their fears over this proposed system of government; but nonetheless it is true. Almost all their fears regarding how powerful this system of government would become, all their fears over the security of our unalienable rights being restricted by the government created by this constitution have come to pass. On the other hand, most, if not all the promises and assurances issued by the Federalists have proven to be lies, or at least hollow promises with no substance behind them.

For instance, in Federalist 45 James Madison assured the people, “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.” While conversely he promised, “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.”

Now I’m not saying that the basic system of government outlined in the Constitution is bad; it isn’t. However it contains one fatal flaw which doomed it to failure from the get go; it relied upon the people of this country to hold those they elect strictly to the limits established by the Constitution.

In a speech given on June 7, 1788 the esteemed Patrick Henry spoke of this danger when he said, “But in this, there is no real actual punishment for the grossest maladministration. They may go without punishment, though they commit the most outrageous violation on our immunities. That paper may tell me they will be punished. I ask, by what law? They must make the law — for there is no existing law to do it. What — will they make a law to punish themselves? This, Sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility — and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves.”

Now let me ask you a simple question; who do you think was correct in their statements, the Federalist James Madison or the anti-Federalist Patrick Henry? If you are willing to admit that our government has grown far larger and far more powerful than envisioned by those who created it, then you must be forced to accept responsibility for it.

Yet today when one discusses politics, it is typically along partisan lines; Democrats versus Republicans. Americans no longer discuss government from the perspective of whether or not the Constitution authorizes it to do something, but whether there party supports doing it. What truly despairs me is when I see one party doing something, and being criticized for it by the other party, and then when the tables are turned and their party does the same thing they support it.

Take for instance how Republicans across the land fought tooth and nail against the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. Then when their candidate Trump gets into office they support HIS plan for a government run health insurance program. If I tried I could probably provide two to three pages of instances of the hypocrisy of those from both political parties. Like I said, the constitutional limitations upon government no longer matter to the voters; only what they can get from government which benefits them or their cause.

Tomorrow is Memorial Day, the day which Americans honor those who paid the ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms. How many Americans are going to take a moment to reflect upon how many of the freedoms those men and women died for that we have lost because we have allowed government to take them from us?

How is it that we can celebrate a holiday, then at the same time turn our backs upon the fact that there is a growing segment of society that is intent upon removing all reference to the Confederate States of America; which fought for the same principles as did the Patriots of 1776?

You may believe that the Civil War was fought over slavery, but it was fought because the government established in 1789 sought to prevent a portion of the Union from severing the ties which bound them to the rest of the Union. The causes which led the Southern States to secede were many, and yes the interference in the institution of slavery may have been one of them; but it was not the cause of the war. The war was fought because the government sought to force the Southern States into remaining in the Union. The Civil War was, in fact, a second war for independence and freedom of government by consent of the people.

But political correctness has taken over and the Civil War is now viewed as the evil slave owners against the righteous North seeking to free them from bondage; when what really happened is that government won and America as a whole found itself in servitude to the government.

Since 1865, when Lee surrendered at Appomattox, our government has steadily grown in size and in power; with a corresponding loss of the freedom it was originally established to protect. No amount of voting is going to fix that. It does not matter if the entire government was comprised of Republicans or Democrats, we would still have agencies such as the DEA, BATF, Bureau of Land Management, IRS, and the NSA, just to name a few, which overstep the limits imposed upon government by the Constitution and violate our rights. How is voting for a Republican or a Democrat for a specific office going to fix that?

If we are to celebrate Memorial Day we must also celebrate what it was those who paid the ultimate price fought for; freedom. If we are to celebrate freedom then we must cherish it to our last dying breath and fight against every intrusion upon it; no matter if it comes from your party or the other one.

In 1944 Judge Billings Learned Hand delivered a speech in which he said, “I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it.”

Liberty is what those whom we honor fought and died for, and if we are to truly honor them we must honor not only them, but what they fought for. Liberty knows no political parties, it establishes freedom for all. The sooner America remembers this, the better it will be for all.

For nearly two decades now I have been researching the history of this country and spitting out these little commentaries of mine. On a scale of 1 to 10 as it pertains to how much I know and how well I write, I’d say I’m somewhere around a 6, maybe a 7. Along the way I’ve met some interesting people; some of whom are far more knowledgeable than I. I’ve also lost friends I’ve known for years because my ideas and beliefs have shifted so dramatically that they couldn’t stand to be around me anymore.

Some people, especially those I come into contact with on a daily basis, find me outspoken, abrasive and obnoxious. I have lost track of how many times I’ve been warned at work to tone it down because the things I’ve said, or written, have offended someone. While I respect the fact that management has to maintain a work environment with minimal conflict between the workers, the workers themselves need to stop being so sensitive; especially when what someone else says threatens their beliefs, and their precious feelings.

I could care less if people like me, all I ask is that they be willing to consider that what I’m saying, or writing, may be the truth. I’ve never asked anyone to blindly accept what I say without researching the information for them self. Yes it may prove uncomfortable; finding out that everything you had believed was a lie, but would you rather go to your grave having believed a lie, or would you rather someone opened your eyes to the truth?

After a major surgery or injury people often have to go see a physical therapist. During their visits to these therapists they are pushed, often painfully, towards recovery so that they can fully regain the mobility and use of limbs that the surgery/injury caused them to lose. Therefore, I would like for you to think of me as a physical therapist for your minds; as most of the people I know minds have atrophied and are simply incapable of processing complex data and information, and then acting upon that information.

Honestly, if our minds were not capable of changing our beliefs and conceptions then we’d all still believe in Santa, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. As we progress from children into teens, and then into adults, the childhood fantasies and untruths we once believed in are replaced with the clarity only the truth can provide. I don’t know what it is about human psychology, but it seems that once we reach a certain age our ideas, beliefs and values become set in stone, and it takes something much more life altering than facts to change them.

If you’ve been doing something one way your entire life, and then someone comes along and shows you a different way to do it, are you going to ignore them just because that’s the way you’ve always done it? Why is it that so many people still put their faith and trust in a system, [government] that the facts clearly prove is broken beyond repair?

All those years ago when I picked up my first book and began reading about our Constitution and Bill of Rights, I was like almost every other American I meet on a day to day basis; ignorant as hell as to what powers our government was supposed to be exercising. I’m not proud of that, but Ben Franklin once said something that gives me a certain degree of comfort, “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.”

Ignorance is only a character flaw when it is willful; when one rejects information because it conflicts with their beliefs. What separates me, and many like me, is that instead of clinging to our beliefs simply because they provided us with a certain degree of comfort, we chose to open our minds to the truth and allow it to take us wherever the facts led.

You see, there is one thing I don’t think many people have given much thought; that being that the truth is constant. If, as a child, you did something and as you grew up you forgot about it, does the erase the fact that it actually happened; that it is a truth? If you grew up and your parents lied to you about what you had done to protect your feelings, does that change the fact that the belief you hold in regards to what you did is based upon lies?

People have this amazing ability to rationalize almost any behavior or belief. The problem for them is that the truth threatens these beliefs because they rest upon no solid foundation of facts and evidence. There simply is no arguing with someone whose entire belief system is based upon rhetoric and emotionally based beliefs. One could provide encyclopedias full of evidence which prove their beliefs to be wrong, and all they’d hear back is emotional tirades against the person who is simply presenting the truth.

How can it be so difficult to take our written Constitution and see what it says are the powers given our government, and then compare that to what our government is actually doing? Either our government is adhering to the Constitution, or it isn’t; and if our Constitution truly is the supreme law of the land, then would that not make all those in our government criminals for violating it?

How can it be so hard to read our Bill of Rights and see which rights are protected from interference by our government, and then see how many of those rights we’ve had legislated into oblivion?

And yet people think the answer to all this is to keep supporting the ‘system’ which is guilty of doing all these things it was never supposed to. Our government be it good or bad; corrupt or pure, is a mirror which reflects the values and attitudes of the people of this country. If people do not like what they see in government then they need to change their beliefs as to what government is supposed to be doing and vote accordingly.

In 1877 James Garfield, (20th President of the United States), said the following, “Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature…. If the next centennial does not find us a great nation … it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.”

Why is it that all these Americans focus so much attention on the election of a president, then basically ignore the races for seats in the Senate and the House of Representatives? Could it be because they are under the mistaken belief that the job of the president is to decide what path our country should take; which laws should be enacted? This only shows me that the people have absolutely no understanding of the Constitution; for it says that the legislative, (which is the lawmaking power) shall be vested in a Congress.

Yet how many people in this country can tell me what bills are currently before the House or Senate for consideration? How many can tell me how their representatives voted on a particular piece of legislation? How many can tell me they’ve gotten on the phone or written a letter to their representative?

EXACTLY!!!

The first step if fixing what is wrong in America, if that’s even remotely possible at this point, is to understand how the system was designed to function. That’s like teaching the alphabet to someone before you try to teach them to read or write; it’s absolutely essential. If people can’t learn that, or refuse to accept that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are what they say they are, and that anyone who violates them is guilty of a crime, then there is no point in going any further in this discussion.

The next step in fixing America is for the voters, (you know, the whole We the People thing) must stop voting along party lines and start voting only for candidates who we believe will strictly adhere to the Constitutional limitations upon the office they seek. If that means we stay home on election day because there is no one worthy of our vote, then so be it. But we need to stop voting for people JUST BECAUSE they are either a Republican or a Democrat; or worse, just to prevent the OTHER GUY from winning.

And then, once we’ve elected these people we must keep our eyes peeled for any infractions of the law. We must know what laws these people are proposing, and raise a united voice against any law which exceeds the power given government by the Constitution, or which infringes upon any of our rights.

I honestly think that people would not know what to think if our government truly was to abide by the Constitutional limitations imposed upon it. What a wonderful country this would be if all those government agencies were forced to close their doors and cease operations. But it won’t happen, because people have come to rely too heavily on government to provide all the services these agencies provide for them.

It truly cracks me up, all these Trump supporters who support his plans to ‘drain the swamp.’ I too want the swamp drained, but I’m for pulling the plug on it and letting the whole damned thing go down the drain, not whichever people Trump decides needs to go.

How is it that people can accept that there are special interests which, by way of lobbyists, sway the way Congressmen vote to support the interests of their employers, but they can’t accept that there is a concerted and coordinated effort to infiltrate key positions of power within our government to do the same? If lobbyists can influence Congress, is it too far a stretch to believe that groups like the Council on Foreign Relations can insert people into key positions within our government; positions within the huge infrastructure which actually makes policy and does the governing?

To use an accurate metaphor, our government is like the fictional enemy from the Captain America films, Hydra; cut on head off and two more shall take its place. You cannot vote this problem away; the entire system must be allowed to collapse and everyone in it sent to the unemployment line. Then, and only then, can the system be rebuilt according to the plan; i.e. the Constitution. Any efforts otherwise are exercises in futility.

But none of this will happen as long as people cling to their beliefs like life rafts. Nothing will get better if the people stop believing the lies they are being spoon fed and take some initiative and seek out the truth for themselves.

Our country was founded upon one simple principle; liberty. If you took a see saw and put liberty on one side, then government would be on the other. If one goes up, the other goes down; and so it is with the power exercised by government; if government expands its power, then our ability to live as freemen and women goes down. Although you may choose to ignore this simple truth, you cannot avoid the consequences of it.

Does it really matter if we lose our liberty to a bunch of career politicians who have no idea what the Constitution says, or don’t care what it says, or if it is by the infiltration of our government by power hungry sociopaths bent on the destruction of the Republic established by our Founders 230 years ago? After all, the end result is the same.

Either you can choose to continue supporting government, or to use another metaphor, take the blue pill, or you can stop putting your faith and trust in a broken system and stare educating yourself as to the reasons why the system was established in the first place. It’s your choice, I’m not going to hold a gun to your head and force you to do anything. Just don’t come crying to me if you choose the blue pill and then the whole system comes crumbling down around you at some point in time; which it will if you don’t radically change your beliefs on government.

But whichever you choose, don’t you dare call me a radical or unpatriotic because I no longer support the entity you know as government. You don’t know me, or the first thing about me if you make claims like that. As H.L. Mencken said, “The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.”

You see, if you keep calling me these names I am going to be forced to resort to the same tactic and start calling y’all a bunch of ignoramuses. I have history and the words of our Founders to back up my position. What do you have, a few pithy quotes from Barack Obama or Donald Trump? If it comes down to the court of history, I think y’all are gonna be the ones found guilty of letting our Republic go down the toilet.

Just sayin…