Neal's Soapbox

If the consequences to the public liberty wasn’t so serious I could almost laugh at how today’s so-called conservatives and liberals are constantly at each other’s throats in the political arena. However, as the effects of the laws passed by the people these conservatives and liberals elect unfortunately reach down and touch my life; therefore I am forced to consider them as enemies to be opposed.

When our fledgling young nation first sought its independence from England the delegates to the Second Continental Congress voted in favor of a document which, not only stated their intent to sever the ties which had bound them to English rule for over a century and a half, they also agreed to the principle that their rights were a gift from their God, and the government should be instituted to preserve those rights.

Therefore, any government, and it doesn’t matter if it is being run by Democrats or Republicans, which seeks to limit my rights is a government to be opposed. Furthermore, any individual who supports a government that seeks to limit my rights, simply because they belong to the same political party, is also to be opposed.

People today have not been taught the purpose for which their government was originally established; nor have they ever lived in a time when their government ever cared about supporting and defending the Constitution. But the truth is easily obtainable if only they had the desire to seek it out.

Our Constitution is, above all else, a law which was written that, when ratified by the required number of States, became binding upon both our government, and upon the voters who select those to fill the seats of power within our government. If you do not know what the Constitution says, what those who argued over its structure and the powers it would give our government intended, then that is upon you; for the truth can be found if you had the desire to go looking for it.

What is wrong with America today is not a conservative versus liberal problem, it is a problem which sees America being taken over by the belief that individual rights, and the concept of universal liberty for all, is under attack from all sides. You cannot tell me that the Republicans are any less guilty of violating our rights than the Democrats are; not if you have an ounce of integrity in you. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have enacted laws which restrict the liberty our government was instituted to protect, so don’t tell me the Republicans are actually as conservative as they claim–they aren’t.

Prior to Lexington and Concord, prior to the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson would write his Summary View of the Rights of British America. In it Jefferson would state, “God who gave us life gave us liberty.”

I think people today are of the belief that any rights they enjoy are there because their government allows them to exercise those rights. That’s simply not true; our rights were in existence long before our system of government was even a consideration for the Founders. God gave us our rights and government is only established to ensure that those rights are protected; and when government seeks to limit those rights it, not only commits a crime against us, it is an affront to God Himself.

I constantly hear, with all these shootings, that the world has gone crazy. I don’t believe that; I don’t think it is a matter of actual insanity. What I believe is that what is wrong is a lack of spirituality and morals which has led us to having all these crimes; and that our government, being spiritually blind as well, seeks to use these events to further restrict the liberty that is God’s gift to us all. It’s as Rahm Emmanuel said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that is that it gives you the opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

Would we have tolerated all our invasions of privacy without the fear of terrorist attack? Would we have tolerated all these laws restricting ownership of certain categories of guns if we did not fear crime?

Recently, the current occupant of the Oval Office declared that he intends to impose tariffs upon other countries to stimulate economic growth and balance out the trade deficit between the U.S. and other countries who export more goods into our country than they import from us into their countries. Yet in 1788 Patrick Henry gave a stern warning to his fellow Virginians, “You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.”

You see, behind every law there is FEAR; fear that if we don’t somehow limit liberty something bad will happen. If we don’t violate people’s privacy there will be another terrorist attack; if we don’t ban this type of gun there will be another shooting; if we don’t enact these tariffs or subsidize American businesses our economy will suffer.

Every single loss of liberty can be attributed to the fear that if we do not surrender a portion of that liberty something bad is going to happen…EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!

What we are doing is seeking to control the symptoms of a disease without actually addressing the disease itself; that disease being a lack of spirituality and morals where the lives and liberty of people are respected by all. That cannot be fixed by any law, any regulation, and the only way this ends is either America has a sudden spiritual awakening, or we lose all the liberty our government was established to secure and we live our remaining days as slaves to despots and tyrants.

I know this is beginning to sound more and more like a sermon than a political rant, but I have come to the conclusion that I will NEVER reach those who truly need to hear my messages because their eyes have been shut, and their hearts hardened to the truth because they live not in the knowledge that there is a God, and that to violate the rights he has given us is as much a crime against Him as it is against those whose rights you seek to violate.

You do not have to believe in God for our system of government to operate as it was intended it operate; although it does not hurt that you do. What you do have to do is acknowledge that those who established our system of government did believe in the existence of God, and that our government has at its core, the preservation of God’s gift of liberty to us as its motive for enacting legislation.

Although he does not specifically mention God, in 1749 Samuel Adams warned, “[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.” (Source: Essay in the Public Adviser)

However, years later his cousin John would say, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Noah Webster, the father of American Dictionaries, also is quoted as saying, “When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, ‘just men who will rule in the fear of God.’ The preservation of [our] government depends on the faithful discharge of this Duty; if the citizens neglect their Duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the Laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizen will be violated or disregarded. If [our] government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine Commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the Laws.”

Then in 1951, in the middle of what history calls the Red Scare, or the era of McCarthyism, author Fulton Sheen would write, “There remains the one standard that has not yet been universally used, namely, the choosing of candidates on moral grounds. A nation always gets the kind of politicians it deserves. When our moral standards are different, our legislation will be different. As long as the decent people refuse to believe that morality must manifest itself in every sphere of human activity, including the political, they will not meet the challenge of Marxism (communism).”

While that quote is specifically addressed towards the threat posed by Marxism, or communism, it can also be applied towards how our liberty has slowly been eroded because we have chosen bad men, or the lesser of two evils, to make and enact laws on our behalves.

Before our Constitution ever went into effect James Madison would write, “But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?” If our government is bad or corrupt, it is because we as voters are corrupt in our understanding of why our government was instituted. We are the watchers who watch over our government to ensure that it obeys the law we wrote to govern IT’S actions. What do people think is going to happen if we neglect our duty, or intentionally vote for immoral or unprincipled people to sit in office; do they think that our government has an auto correct function that will prevent these bad people from enacting laws that restricts our liberty?

Again, going back to Patrick Henry, he warned his fellow Virginians, (to no avail I might add) of the dangers posed to our liberty by the government outlined in the constitution, “Where is the responsibility — that leading principle in the British government? In that government a punishment, certain and inevitable, is provided: 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.”

You can vote until you are blue in the face and your fingers fall off from marking ballots, but if the preservation of God’s gift of liberty is not your first and foremost consideration when making your selections at the voting booth, nothing is going to change in this country; in fact, it will just continue to get worse.

In 2nd Chronicles there is a verse which all should read and give great heed to, “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”

Now Chronicles may have been addressed directly towards those living in sin just a short time before the birth of Jesus Christ, and it may have meant that God would heal the land of drought and other calamities, but I think it may also be taken to mean that God would heal the land of all the evils it suffered under as well and that the people would prosper and flourish.

The problems that this country faces are due solely to the fact that we have forsaken our God and we believe in the power of man, and that laws passed by man to force the will of others down our throats and restrict our liberty will make America prosper. A spiritual blindness has overtaken this country, and nothing will change until we remember Jefferson’s words, “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.”

So you see, maybe it isn’t a problem of too many Republicans or too many Democrats; maybe the problem is that there are too few who have God in their hearts and the preservation of His gift of liberty to us as their first priority in life.

There, I’ve said it. Let the hate mail begin…

Never before, and never since, has such an assemblage of patriots been gathered together under one roof as were in attendance in the city of Philadelphia on July 2, 1776 when the 13 Colonies voted to separate from Great Britain and become free and independent States. Two days later their decision was formalized as they Declaration of Independence was signed by 56 men who had valued liberty more than life, and had the courage to tell a tyrant to go to hell.

Years later Dr. Benjamin Rush would recall the events of that day as John Hancock called out for each State’s decision whether to remain English subjects or seek independence, “Do you recollect the pensive and awful silence which pervaded the house when we were called up, one after another, to the table of the President of Congress, to subscribe what was believed by many at that time to be our own death warrants?”

It must be difficult for those who have grown up in the hodge podge of modern day multicultural modern America to understand the state the Colonies were in back in 1776, but you must try if you are to understand how the Colonists living in each of them felt about their individual Colony. Back then religion played a much larger role in the lives of those living in America than it does today and each Colony was distinct and separate from the others.

Therefore, each Colony considered itself to be independent and sovereign from the others; making the choice to seek independence even more of a miracle considering the varying beliefs held by the delegates in attendance at the convention.

There were in attendance two future presidents; John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. There were future Supreme Court Justices; including Samuel Chase, who was the only Supreme Court Justice to ever be impeached. There was James Wilson, who became a Supreme Court Justice, only to find himself in debtor’s prison for his inability to pay his debts. There was Elbridge Gerry, who would die in office while serving as Vice-President under James Madison. There was the aforementioned Dr. Benjamin Rush, who was also part of an unsuccessful plot to relieve George Washington of his command as head of the Continental Army.

None of these men were perfect, they all had flaws, but they came together at a time when America needed them most and they united in a common cause…LIBERTY.

Yet these men did not act of their own volition; they were first and foremost delegates sent to Philadelphia to represent their Colony; and therefore they were given specific instructions as to what measures they could support and which they could not. For instance, on July 2 New York had to abstain from voting for independence because the British had marched upon their Colony; forcing their legislature to disband, leaving the delegates in Philadelphia without further instructions.

There was also John Dickenson from Pennsylvania who excused himself on both July 2nd when the delegates voted on the proposal by Richard Henry Lee of Virginia which stated, “Resolved, 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, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.” He then again excused himself on the day the formal wording of the Declaration of Independence was voted upon. So there were those who were in attendance, but due to circumstances, or personal beliefs, did not vote for independence from England.

One might ask: Why would 13 Colonies who had peacefully lived under English rule decide to risk the horrors of a war they might lose to free themselves from a government they had lived under for over a century and a half? The answer to that is best taken from the very declaration they voted upon on July 4th, the edited draft of Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”

Although each Colony may have been distinct and separate from the others, they had one thing in common; a thorough understanding of the meaning of liberty and of their unalienable rights as human beings. They all believed that their rights came, not as privileges bestowed upon them by government, but as gifts bestowed upon them by their Creator; and that anyone who threatened or violated those rights was to be opposed; with force if necessary.

This is not to say that the decision to seek independence was a popular one throughout the Colonies either. There were those who chose to remain loyal to Mother England; even after the delegates had voted for independence. There were also those who didn’t really care one way or the other. But it was those who cherished their liberty above their very lives who carried the day which led to the 13 Colonies becoming 13 free and independent States.

If you’ll notice, I DID NOT say that America became a free and independent country, I said that each Colony became a free and independent State; for that’s exactly how they viewed themselves, and were viewed by the world.

On behalf of the King of England, the treaty of peace between the Colonies and Great Britain declares, “His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States…”

There is a vast gulf of difference between how the term United States is interpreted today and how it was interpreted in 1783 when the Revolution ended. Today the term United States is used to describe the country as a whole with it being populated by United States citizens. But back in 1783 the term United States was used to describe the confederacy established by the Articles of Confederation; our nation’s first constitution.

The Articles of Confederation established a Congress with specific powers, with all others being reserved to the States, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” (Source: Article II of the Articles of Confederation)

The citizens of each State considered their State to be their country; with Article III of the Articles of Confederation explaining why they had chosen to unite together in a confederacy, “The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.”

Yet from the moment they achieved peace with Great Britain there were those who felt that the Congress established by the Articles of Confederation did not have enough vigor, enough authority, to govern over 13 sovereign and independent States, and that a stronger form of government was needed if they were to survive as a nation.

Therefore, under the guise of coming up with proposed amendments to the Articles of Confederation, delegates again met in Philadelphia to hold a convention which would alter the course of this country forever. This time, instead of adhering to the instructions given them by their State Legislatures, they chose to trash the Articles of Confederation and come up with an entirely new system of government; one with a radically different structure and much more power over the States.

I doubt that any of you will do it, but I highly recommend you Google Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention and read them. It took me an entire week of two to three hours a day reading for me to get through them; but they provided a great deal of insight into the various proposals made for our system of government, and the views of the delegates themselves on many of the features of our federal constitution.

I truly believe that the basic framework of our government, as specifically outlined by the Constitution, is sound. Unfortunately, I believe it is wrought with loopholes and has allowed it to be perverted and used to expand our government from one of limited power which respected the rights of both the States and the people, to one which is nationalistic in nature; with all power being centralized in our nation’s capital in Washington D.C.

The moment the proposed constitution was introduced to the States for their consideration there was staunch opposition to it. Some feared it did nothing to secure the rights of the people. Others feared it simply gave government too much power. Others feared it would lead to a consolidation of the separate and independent States into a single nation under a centralized government.

Of those who opposed it, none did so with more vigor than Patrick Henry, the same Patrick Henry who just a few short years before had told the world, “Give me liberty or give me death!”

On June 5, 1788 Henry stood on the floor of the Virginia Ratifying Assembly and delivered a lengthy speech in opposition to the Constitution. I would like to share a few select quotes from that speech with you for your consideration. I will not comment on them, I only want you to read them and think about whether or not his fears were justified.

“It is said eight States have adopted this plan. I declare that if twelve States and a half had adopted it, I would, with manly firmness, and in spite of an erring world, reject it. You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.”

“Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings-give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else: But I am fearful I have lived long enough to become an fellow: Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man, may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old fashioned: If so, I am contented to be so: I say, the time has been when every pore of my heart beat for American liberty, and which, I believe, had a counterpart in the breast of every true American…”

“A standing army we shall have also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny: And how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders?”

“But now, Sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country to a powerful and mighty empire: If you make the citizens of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your Government will not have sufficient energy to keep them together: Such a Government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism: 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?”

Those who supported ratification of the Constitution were equally as fervent in their assurances that the government created by the Constitution posed no threat to the sovereignty of the States or the rights of the people. For instance, in Federalist 45 James Madison writes, “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.”

Now you tell me, and be honest, who was more accurate in their statements; Patrick Henry or James Madison?

As I already stated, I believe the basic structure of our federal government, as outlined by the Constitution was sound. Unfortunately Patrick Henry was correct to fear the imaginary balances, rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances. From the moment the government outlined by the Constitution went into effect it was undermined from within the government itself by those who sought to do just what Henry feared, consolidate the States into a single nation with all power held centrally by the federal government.

The America of my time is one in which I see people voting, not for the candidates who will best support and defend the Constitution and their rights, but the one which provides the most convincing argument in defense of a political party platform. The issues which are front and central in most presidential elections are issues that, for the most case, should not even fall under the purview and authority of the federal government if we were to adhere to Madison’s description of the balance of power between the federal and State governments.

Yet nobody seems to care; nobody seems to know what powers their government was supposed to hold or the reasons why some felt that certain rights were so vitally important to the liberty of the people that they be protected against intrusion by constitutional amendments.

The spirit of liberty which burned brightly in the hearts and souls of those who risked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor, has dimmed to but a bare flicker in the hearts of the people who inhabit this country today.

To be sure, there remains a remnant of those who chose liberty over tyranny, but we are far outnumbered by an ignorant mass of people who chose comfort over liberty, servitude over freedom. We are laughed at and scorned; told that our views are outdated and irrelevant in today’s modern world. We are told that we are wasting our votes when we vote for truly constitutional candidates, or that we lose the right to complain when we choose not to participate in selecting people to fill positions in a government that is corrupt all the way to its very foundations.

I truly fear that America must first witness the anguish of absolute tyranny before the spirit of liberty is rekindled in the hearts and minds of those who will, one day, find the courage to stand up to tyrants and repeat the same words spoken by Patrick Henry all those years ago, “Give me liberty or give me death!”

In closing, I would like to leave you with two quotes from the author of our Declaration of Independence, and our nation’s 3rd President, Thomas Jefferson. The first comes from his Summary View of the Rights of British America, (1774), “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.”

The second is more of a personal motto that Jefferson chose to use on his personal seal for all correspondence, “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.”
You can choose ignorance over knowledge; that is your right. You can choose to sacrifice your rights for safety and security; that is also your right. You can choose to suffer under bondage or rise up against those who tyrannize you; that is also your right. What you cannot choose is to avoid the consequences of your choice when you are called to face Him who created the Heavens and the Earth and explain why you allowed your government to deprive you of the liberty that was His gift to you.

I don’t know about you, but I fear His wrath far more than I do anything our government might inflict upon me for my opposing its steady march towards absolute tyranny.

I just watched a video on Facebook that left me almost speechless … almost! This guy was interviewing stricter gun control protesters to describe to him what an assault rifle was and they couldn’t do it. I heard the phrase ‘military grade weapon’ and I heard someone else yell AR-15. Then there was this one woman who could not answer, but she did keep asking the guy if he was stupid.

No bitch, he’s not stupid…YOU ARE! If you had any brains in your head you would realize he is trying to get you to think, trying to get you to explain what characteristics elevate a rifle from being a home defense or hunting rifle to the hated and despised category of ‘assault rifle.’

Unfortunately these gun control proponents are so brain dead that they can only recite and repeat the rhetoric they hear on CNN or from the mouths of their government officials whose ultimate goal is the total disarmament of the American people.

Lately I’ve been seeing videos and memes dedicated to David Hogg; the so-called student from Parkland who became a national figure after the shooting there when he began protesting in favor of stricter gun laws. In this recent wave of videos and memes he is seen protesting against the requirement that clear backpacks be carried by students so school administrators can see whether they are hiding firearms inside them. Hogg is decrying this as a violation of the 1st Amendment. Well I’ll be damned, is the light bulb starting to go on in this young man’s head or is he simply selectively choosing which rights he feels comfortable violating?

Did you know that when I was growing up there wasn’t a McDonalds every six blocks and there weren’t these huge mega malls within driving distance of every small community? When I was a kid we used to get the Sears & Roebucks catalog in the mail and do a lot of our shopping through them. You used to be able to flip through the pages and buy almost everything. They had clothes, furniture, appliances, and yes, guns.

You could buy a shotgun for as cheap as $6.95 and have it delivered right to your doorstep. A tubular magazine bolt action rifle could be had for $11.25; plus shipping and handling of course. Then, dear me, you could get a Colt semi automatic pistol sent right to your home through the U.S. Postal service for as little as $18.50.

It’s funny that we never had the problem with shootings that seem to plague America today. Why is that? After all, anyone could just purchase a money order, insert it into an envelope, and shortly thereafter a shiny new rifle or pistol would arrive on their doorstep; no background investigations required.

It’s not like we weren’t exposed to violence on TV and the big screen either. There were the cop vs. gangster movies with the inevitable shootouts between the forces of good and the forces of evil. The thing was, violence was a means used by good to triumph over evil; it wasn’t violence for violence’s sake. Violence, and those who perpetrated it were not glorified; made into heroes with millions of fans idolizing them. We knew the difference between right and wrong, and we knew that if we chose to do something wrong, there would be serious consequences.

Nowadays we are raising a bunch of pampered little brats whose rear ends have never met the backside of their father’s belt in their entire life; they don’t know what discipline is, and accordingly they have no respect for what is right and what is wrong. They are taught their entire lives that they are special; they are given awards for just participating, and then when real life hits them smack dab in the face they don’t know how to react; so they grab a gun and take their frustrations out on those they view as their oppressors; after all, that’s what their heroes in the movies and the fictional characters in their video games do…right?

But now, because we have failed as parents and as a society to raise young adults who respect each other’s rights and to respect life itself, we have created monsters who use violence to solve all their problems…and now we want to punish those who have done nothing wrong by violating our right to keep and bear arms.
I just read that, of all organizations, Planned Parenthood is organizing a march for tougher gun laws; stating, Think About the Children.

Really…Planned Parenthood is asking us to think about children when they are responsible for the deaths of more unborn children than all the guns in the U.S. combined? If there was an award for hypocrisy, Planned Parenthood certainly would deserve to win it for that.

I can’t recall when I first became aware that there was a concerted effort underway to deprive the American people of their right to keep and bear arms, but once I became aware of it I began fighting tooth and nail to prevent it from progressing any further. Unfortunately, it has been a fight I have been steadily losing because our lawmakers realize that their criminal activities warrant their being drug out of their offices and lynched; and as long as there is an armed public their safety and livelihood are in danger. There, I’ve said it, but that’s the truth of the matter. But they couldn’t just openly call for a total restriction on the ownership of firearms; that would be too drastic, even for them.

How many of you remember Henry Cisneros? He served as mayor of San Antonio, Texas, as well as Secretary of HUD under President Bill Clinton. Cisneros is quoted as saying, “What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament . . . . Domestic disarmament entails the removal of arms from private hands .”

Then of course there was Michael Dukakis, former Governor of Massachusetts, who said, “You know I don’t believe in people owning guns, only the police and military. And I’m going to do everything I can to disarm this state.”

And of course, my favorite person in the whole world, the Wicked Witch of the West, Dianne Feinstein, who said, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them … “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in,” I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”

But you see, the politicians have an ally in their quest to disarm the American people in the form of a willing and complicit media who echoes and reinforces their agenda by the careful manipulation of the emotions of the American people. My God, every time there is a shooting of some kind the media flock to it like moths to a light and they report on it round the clock for weeks; digging into the human interest, (sob stories designed to tug at our heart strings) and reinforcing this insane fear of guns that people seem to have today.

For instance, in a 1975 editorial published in the New York Times, we read, “The only way to discourage the gun culture is to remove the guns from the hands and shoulders of people who are not in the law enforcement business.”

Elliot Corbett writes in the Washington Evening Star, “[All firearms] … should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed.”

I could provide quote after quote of highly placed elected officials and news media moguls who all take the same position; that private gun ownership needs to be done away with; I have pages of them saved to prove that there is a concerted effort underway to deprive us of a right which is protected by constitutional amendment.

What would you do if you saw someone with a CCW permit and they were in public and you caught a glimpse of their concealed weapon? Would you freak out and call the police? Why is it then that cops walking down the streets with guns on open display cause you no adverse reactions? It is because you have been conditioned through a long and extensive propaganda program to fear guns in private hands; which in turn cause you to be more susceptible to laws which restrict our fundamental right to be armed for our own personal defense.

People’s emotions are being played like a well tuned violin and they don’t even know it. They believe they are acting of their own volition when the truth is that their thoughts and emotions are being programmed and controlled by those who seek to deprive them of the basic right of self-defense through the ownership of privately owned firearms.

There is absolutely no arguing with these people because they are immune to facts; the portion of their brain which deals with facts and logic has been short circuited by the part that deals with emotional responses to situations. They believe they hold the moral high ground, and that anyone who holds an opposing viewpoint is to be insulted and denigrated as uncaring and heartless.

Since our government has been unable to pass laws which totally ban the private ownership of firearms they are seeking to do an end run around the 2nd Amendment by saying that people who suffer from mental illness should not be allowed to own guns. And who gets to decide who is and who isn’t suffering from a mental illness? If you ask me, that is just opening up a Pandora’s Box of possibilities.

Gee, you think the Buffalo Bills are going to go all the way and win the Super Bowl next year? You’re crazy; therefore YOU cannot own guns! See where I’m going with this? Oh, you suffer from periodic bouts of insomnia, you must be crazy too, so YOU can’t have guns. Next thing you know, everybody is suffering from some kind of mental illness, and nobody except cops and the military can have guns; and only while serving to enforce the laws imposed by government…and that my friends is totalitarianism.

That is why we have the 2nd Amendment in the first place, to allow us to defend against totalitarianism, and you’re handing that right to them on a silver platter because you don’t understand the reason why our Founders felt the right to keep and bear arms was so critical to the survival of a free state.

Florida has already begun flagging otherwise law abiding citizens who have been diagnosed as mentally ill and has begun confiscating their guns. Washington, California, Oregon, Indiana, Connecticut and Rhode Island are also in the process of implementing legislation which imposes similar restrictions on gun ownership.

There will be those who willingly surrender away their freedom just because it is ‘the law.’ But there are also those who know, as did Thomas Jefferson, that law if often but the tyrants will, and that resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. We will not surrender away our rights…not without a fight.

The ignorance of well over 90% of the people in this country is pushing us closer and closer to another revolution, and when it comes they will sit there shaking their heads wondering why it is happening. I may be cruel and heartless for saying this, but when it does come, I hope they get caught in the crossfire.

Most of us can remember where we were and what we were doing when the planes struck the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. Most of us could probably say, with all honesty, that we sat in front of our TV’s and watched, with both horror and a growing anger, as they played the footage of the Towers collapsing over and over again; while in the background the news commentators fed us continuing updates.

Had those planes not struck the Twin Towers, had those two buildings not collapsed; killing all inside, we would most likely not have tolerated the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, or the rapid expansion of the NSA’s mass surveillance of us; along with all the other infringements upon our rights perpetrated by agencies such as the TSA.

I know it’s fiction, and I know it’s not in regards to 9-11, but I want you to read the following dialogue from the film V for Vendetta in which Chief Inspector Finch is talking to his associate Dominic; and imagine that instead of St Mary’s and Three Waters he is asking about 9-11 or the Twin Towers:

Finch: I want to ask a question, Dominic. I don’t care if you answer me or not. I just want to say this aloud… The question I want to ask is about St Mary’s and Three Waters. The question that’s kept me up for the last 24 hours, the question I have to ask, is: What if the worst, the most horrifying, biological attack in this country’s history was not the work of religious extremists?

Dominic: Well, I don’t understand. We know it was. They were caught. They confessed.

Finch:And they were executed, I know. And maybe that’s really what happened. But I see this chain of events, these coincidences… and I have to ask: What if that isn’t what happened? What if someone else unleashed that virus? What if someone else killed all those people? Would you really want to know who it was?

Dominic: Sure.

Finch: Even if it was someone working for this government? That’s my question. If our own government was responsible for what happened at St Mary’s and Three Waters… if our own government was responsible for the deaths of almost a hundred thousand people… would you really want to know?

If Academy Awards were given to news broadcasters, the performance rendered during the events on 9-11 would most certainly had won one; that is if they ever allowed their complicity in brainwashing us to ever become known.

Imagine, they repeatedly show video footage of an event which, in and of itself, is shocking and horrific; then at the same time the news anchors and commentators carefully feed us bits and pieces of information and most people accept that as the absolute truth; then go on to form opinions and beliefs based upon that data without ever wondering if we haven’t been lied to.

It was an absolutely masterful performance…MASTERFUL!!!

What got me to start questioning what I had been told by the news media was not the collapsing of the Twin Towers themselves, but the finding of the, almost pristine passport of supposed terrorist Satam Al Suqumi. My dubiousness was vindicated when I learned of the conflicting stories of how this passport came into the possession of anti-terrorist officials.

The director of the FBI’s New York field office, Barry Mawn, would tell CNN that it was found by law enforcement while they were doing a grid search of the area surrounding the collapsed Twin Towers. However, the 9-11 Commission Report states that it was found by a man of about 30 years of age, wearing a business suit, who gave it to NYC Policeman Yuk H. Chin around 9:59 a.m. … and then abruptly vanishes without ever being questioned.

That was my, HEY WAIT A MINUTE moment; the moment I began asking myself if this seems fishy, them what else about the official narrative is fishy? That is when I began digging into all those wild conspiracy theories regarding the collapse of the Towers themselves; and you know, the more I dug the more I began thinking that what we were told by the news and our government was complete and utter propaganda designed to keep us in a perpetual state of anger and fear; which would then cause us to accept all these infringements upon our rights without question.

What I want to do now is provide you with something I wrote back in 2007, with a few updates and corrections in grammar and spelling, in the hopes that you too might begin questioning the official narrative of how the Twin Towers came down into a pile of rubble; killing all those still trapped inside.
*********

On September 11, 2001 the American people watched in horror as, first, two aircraft struck the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, and then secondly, the Twin Towers themselves came falling down into a pile of rubble. President Bush came on the TV to reassure the American people and inform us that this was an act of war by terrorist extremists and that we would find those responsible and make them pay.

Do you not find it just the slightest bit odd that the first two countries President Bush chose to invade in his War on Terror were Iraq and Afghanistan, yet not one of the hijackers were Iraqi or Afghan? According to the data released by the FBI there were 15 Saudi nationals, 2 from the United Arab Emirates, and one each from Lebanon and Egypt.

I guess it didn’t matter to President Bush that Saudi Arabia is the wellspring for Wahhabism; a radical branch of Islam that preaches jihadism; and that the Saudi Royal Family are financiers of this extreme sect of Islam. I guess since Saudi is America’s friend we can just ignore their ties to extremism and terrorism and go after Iraq and Afghanistan; even though they had nothing to do with the events of 9-11.

What are the facts that we do know? Well, we know two aircraft struck the Twin Towers in New York City. We know that both of the Twin Towers collapsed, as did Building 7 of the World Trade Center; even though it was NOT struck by a plane. We know something struck the Pentagon, although no clear footage has been released of an aircraft striking that building; even though it has video surveillance equipment covering it in a 360 degree radius. We also know, or at least were told, that United Flight 93 was, first hijacked, then taken over by passengers to avert it from striking its intended target; eventually crashing into a field in Somerset County in Pennsylvania.

The ‘official’ report tells us that the Twin Towers collapsed as a result of the structural damage inflicted upon them by the planes and the resulting fires which weakened the steel which held the buildings erect. The news media immediately took the bait and official experts were questioned and interviewed; all providing us with their ‘expert’ opinions on why the Twin Towers came down … and the American people accepted the ‘official’ story without ever asking themselves if they weren’t being lied to … well almost all the American people did … I certainly didn’t.

Are you aware that back in 1945 a wayward Army Bomber, piloted by Lieutenant Colonel William Franklin Smith Jr. struck the Empire State Building in New York? Fourteen people died in that crash; the 3 aboard the plane and 11 people inside the building in the vicinity of where the plane hit it. Yet the building did not collapse due to structural damage or fire.

Are you also aware that when engineers were hired to plan the construction of the Twin Towers they specifically designed them to be able to withstand an impact by the largest aircraft in existence at the time; without weakening their structural integrity? Yet our government; and their lapdogs in the media want us to believe that the Twin Towers collapsed as a result of the very thing they were designed to withstand and still remain standing?

The skeleton, so to speak, of the Twin Towers of the World Trade center consisted of columns of 4 inch thick steel beams. There was an inner and outer ring of these beams upon which the flooring was both bolted and welded to. The internal ring consisted of 47 of these columns and the outer ring consisted of 236 columns. The flooring was prefabricated, then both bolted and welded to these columns at thousands of locations along that skeletal framework. The outer skin of the Twin Towers is best described as screening; much like a screen door; so that if a hole was punched into it, it would still retain its integrity in the undamaged sections.

That’s the careful engineering that went into constructing the Twin Towers so that if what happened in 1945 ever happened again, it would not cause catastrophic failure of the Twin Towers. Yet the media would have us believe that is exactly what caused them to collapse.

Well here’s a bit of science that contradicts the official story. Steel melts at 2,750 degrees, and typically will not do so unless in the controlled environment of a blast furnace. In open air, jet fuel burns at a temperature of approximately 1,200 degrees Fahrenheit and is characterized by a red/orange flame. Science and the laws of physics tell us that an object heated by a fire cannot reach a temperature which exceeds that of the flame which it is subjected to. So how is it that steel, which melts at 2,750 degrees, melted due to a fire that burned at 1,200 degrees?

Many homes in America use space heaters which burn refined grade jet fuel; which burns at 1,800 degrees. Why don’t we hear of these space heaters melting under the continued exposure to temperatures which exceed the ones 4 in thick steel columns were subjected to on 9-11 by a fire 700 degrees cooler? Are you telling me that space heaters are designed better than our skyscrapers are?

We are told that the fires did not actually melt the steel, (even though pockets of molten steel were found in the basement area of the Twin Towers by fire crews days after the collapse of the Towers). We are told that the intense heat of the fires caused the steel support structure to ‘weaken’, causing the entire building to collapse.

By the time first responders got on the scene the fires from the burning jet fuel had, for the most part, died out. A radio transcript from a Ladder Crew of the New York Fire Department states that there were two isolated pockets of fire around the 78th floor and that they could easily be put out by two hoses. Yet we are expected to believe that these fires brought down two steel framed buildings; the same style of buildings which had never collapsed due to fire … until 9-11 that is.

In 2005 the Windsor Tower in Madrid Spain, (of similar construction to the World Trade Center Towers) burnt in a raging inferno for over 20 hours. When the fire was finally put out the flooring and exterior walls were heavily damaged, if not outright destroyed; but the steel framework remained as a grisly reminder of what once stood in its place.

Why, after the Twin Towers collapsed, did we not see two 110 story steel skeletons where the World Trade Center Towers once stood? We are told that the buildings collapsed in a pancake fashion; that is that one floor would collapse down upon the floor below it; taking out both the flooring and the steel framework at the same time, and the process repeated itself over and over again until there was nothing left of the buildings.

Okay, that sounds plausible; until you begin to think about HOW the Towers were constructed and you begin to apply the laws of Physics to what happened. You have to remember, each floor was anchored to the steel framework at thousands of points. So, while the temperature of burning jet fuel may have weakened both the framework and the welds in the immediate vicinity of the fires, the rest of the building was structurally intact. So, if the upper floors came down on top of the floors below, for the collapse to continue each floor would have to shear off, or snap thousands off the bolts and welds of the floor below it.

This process would have provided resistance to the collapse and slowed it down. Yet the Twin Towers came down at almost free fall speed; as if they were encountering absolutely no resistance at all. How is that even possible?

The laws of Physics prove that an object falling will increase in speed until it reaches what is called terminal velocity. Once it reaches terminal velocity it cannot accelerate any faster unless it is acted upon by outside forces. Through applying the formulas for a free falling object, if one were to have climbed to the top of the Twin Towers and dropped a bowling ball off the top, it would take somewhere around 9 seconds to hit the ground; that’s falling with the only resistance to its fall being the friction it encounters in the open air.

Computer simulations on a pancake collapse of a 110 story steel framed skyscraper place the length of time from beginning of collapse until the end at around 93 seconds; which is about a minute and a half. Yet the North Tower came down in 8 seconds and the South Tower in 10 seconds.

Explain how buildings which encountered resistance as they collapsed fell at damn near free fall speed … that is of course unless they were somehow released from the resistance and allowed to fall at free fall speed. But to do so would require that each floor was no longer attached to the steel skeleton which held them in place; which suggests both foreknowledge of the attacks and advanced planning on the part of someone.

Are you aware that the footage of the Twin Towers collapsing have been studied extensively by experts whose job is the controlled demolition of large buildings? Many of these experts say that the manner in which the Twin Towers collapsed suggest that it was not due to the damage suffered by the planes and fires, but that they were intentionally demolished to give the appearance of failing due to the planes and the fires.

To intentionally bring down a building of that size takes time and careful planning so that the building collapses into its own footprint without causing collateral damage to nearby structures. To do so requires that charges be set inside the building to be brought down at specific locations, and set to explode on a carful timetable so that, basically, the building implodes inwards upon itself.

Why is it, that upon examination of the video of Tower 2 that at 9:55, 9:56.05, 9:56.10, 9:56.21, 9:56.51, 9:56.54, 9:56.56, 9:58.12 we can clearly hear the boom of explosions; just moments before the building begins to collapse? Why is it the fire crews in the area of the basement have reported hearing explosions IN THE BASEMENT; which are 70-80 floors below the level of the fires? Why is it that, when watching the collapse of the Twin Towers in slow motion, you can clearly see puffs of explosions on the floors directly below the areas which are collapsing above them?

Although none of this actually proves anything, it suggests that these buildings did not fall due to the damage they suffered from the planes and the fires; that they were intentionally brought down to increase the shock and horror people felt DUE TO THE PLANES HITTING THEM! After all, George Bush did coin the phrase Shock and Awe; and that’s exactly what the American people felt after watching the collapse of the Twin Towers; shock, awe, and horror. Just the kind of feelings needed to get people to accept Draconian programs which violated their rights.

If these two buildings were demolished instead of collapsing due to the terrorist attacks, how could they accomplish the intricate rigging of them to collapse without people noticing? For weeks prior to the September 11 attacks there had been numerous security evacuations drills with bomb sniffing dogs brought in to search the buildings. Just prior to the attacks the evacuations stopped and the bomb sniffing dogs were removed.

Three weeks before September 11 there was a power down which left all security systems disabled. There was no video surveillance during that weekend when there were guys with toolboxes and huge rolls of cable working inside the building. We are told they were running new wiring for internet connections. Is it coincidence that they chose to do this work when there was no surveillance? Since there wasn’t, we will never know exactly what they did that weekend.

A couple last side notes to get you to thinking who might have been behind this atrocity. Marvin Bush, younger brother of President George W. Bush was director of the company that provided security for the World Trade Center Complex. From 1996-1999 SECURACOM installed new security wiring throughout the World Trade Center complex. Security wiring or wiring for demolition? The president of SECURACOM was Wert Walker, a cousin to President George W. Bush. Coincidence? I’ll leave that up to you to decide.

Up until now I have only discussed the Twin Towers, but what about Building 7 of the World Trade Center Complex; it collapsed too that day in the same fashion as did the Twin Towers. How is that possible when it suffered only minor damage and was not struck by a plane?

I can see them being heavily damaged by fire and the collapse of the Twin Towers, I can see it having holes punched in it. But to fall in mere seconds just as it would if it had been demolished by experts… What kind of a fool do you take me for? No, just like the Twin Towers, Bldg 7 was intentionally demolished.

Are you aware that Building 7 housed its own backup generator system, oxygen systems and office buildings for the Secret Service, the CIA, the Department of Defense, and the Mayors office of emergency management. Yet Mayor Gulliani chose to find another location to use as a command center even after all other flights were in the process of being grounded to prevent further attacks. Why? You would think that the mayor of New York City would want to be Mr. Johnny on the Spot, right there in the thick of things proving that he was in control; right; and what better place than the Office of Emergency Management in Bldg 7 of the World Trade Center Complex?

Could it be that there would be incriminating evidence in that building if it were allowed to remain standing? After all it had offices for the CIA, the Secret Service and the Department of Defense. All the offices that were supposed to prevent terrorist attacks had offices there. Could it be that they had evidence proving they knew that the attacks were coming and they couldn’t let that evidence get out? Or could it be that WTC 7 housed case files for corporate fraud such as WorldCom and Enron including the records for the $70 billion California energy swindle and they wanted those records to vanish? Maybe we will never know, but the coincidence is more than interesting.

Then there is the Pentagon? Why is it that a building which has 100’s of cameras monitoring it for security has not shown us any footage which clearly shows an aircraft crashing into it; even though numerous eyewitnesses have been provided who have told us they ‘saw’ a plane. Just like the eyewitnesses the media conveniently ignore at these mass shootings who swear there were multiple shooters; we never hear the truth.

How is it that Hani Hanjour, the supposed terrorist who was described as a ‘terrible pilot’ in a single engine Cessna was able to make a descending 270 degree corkscrew turn and level out just above street level and fly into the side of the Pentagon without crashing into the ground first?

Some pilots interviewed regarding what Hanjour is said to have done have questioned their own ability to make such a turn, and we are expected to believe that a ‘terrible pilot’ in a Cessna could fly a fully loaded Boeing 757 better than they could have?

Is it a coincidence that one of the first reporters on the scene was Jamie McIntyre from CNN, who reported, “From my close-up inspection, there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon… The only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you could pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn’t happen immediately, it wasn’t until almost about forty-five minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.” Is it a coincidence that his report was pulled and no longer repeated while the official story could be promulgated for consumption by the masses?

Does this look like the damage you’d expect from a fully loaded passenger plane striking a building?

I find it suspicious that just the day before the attacks on 9-11 that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld reported that the Pentagon had lost or misplaced a whopping $2.3 trillion in funding. I guess the fact that the Pentagon was hit by terrorists pushed that story back to page 11 of the news and was soon quickly forgotten. Another coincidence? All these coincidences are sure adding up; aren’t they?

And since we’re discussing coincidences, I find it a bit coincidental that just prior to the attacks of 9-11 that the owner of the Twin Towers doubled his insurance coverage on those buildings. Was he aware that an attack was coming and he wanted to cash in on it, or was it just another in a long string of coincidences.

I don’t expect you to believe me, but I do expect you to openly examine the facts and the science behind some of the suggestions I have made. How is it that weeks after the collapse pockets of 1,100 degree molten steel still existed in the basement areas of the Twin Towers which melted the boots of fireman working in the area? How is it that photos of the 4 inch thick steel columns in the basement of the Twin Towers can clearly see to have been sheared off at a precise angle unless they were intentionally sheared using explosives; just as they would be if it had been a controlled demolition? How is it that in the image below melted steel is clearly visible on a steel beam located well below the level at which the fires caused by the planes had burned?

What I’m asking you to do is to stop taking the government and the media at their word for what happened on 9-11 and do a little investigating of your own. I promise you, if you do you will NEVER trust the media or your government again.

And yet here we are in 2018, with all these programs and rules which violate so many of our rights and so much of our liberty. What if all these things were accomplished all because our government either knew in advance about the attacks, or actually staged them to garner support for the War on Terror and the creation of a Draconian Police State which monitors and controls us like a herd of sheep?

I think I have clearly proven that our government is clearly capable and willing to do these kinds of things. It only rests upon you to decide whether 9-11 was another such event, or whether you choose to go on believing the ‘official story.’

“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s
an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”
~Rahm Emmanuel~
(November 19, 2008)

There is a common nickname that has been given to those who believe in theories that are outside those held by mainstream society…tin foil hat. It is derogatory in that it labels one as paranoid and tending to believe in far-fetched conspiracies. I have never been called a tin foil hat to my face, but I’m certain that there are those who believe me to be one nonetheless.

Numerous times I have been told that the things I believe in simply aren’t possible or that our government just wouldn’t do things like that to its own people. Really? If you believe that, then maybe YOUR the one who needs their head examined; not me.

People are capable of great evil; all one has to do is look at the long history of the gruesome crimes committed by some to realize that to be true. What makes anyone think that our country is immune from having a government that is also capable of committing horrific acts just to further an agenda?

Have you ever heard of the Hegelian Dialectic? The Hegelian Dialectic deals with the tensions revolving around two conflicting ideas or beliefs and the means of solving them. It begins with the introduction of a thesis; which is then countered by an antithesis; which is then resolved by a synthesis.

The Hegelian Dialectic is at work around you all the time and most never even realize it. Look at it this way: Let’s say there is a small town with a group of businesses. One day the Mafia comes to town and demands that they pay protection money. They refuse; claiming they don’t need protection. The Mafia demanding protection could be the thesis in Hegel’s Dialectic; while the businesses refusal to pay it is the antithesis. Since the businesses refuse to pay, the Mafia then sends goons to these businesses to harass and vandalize their property; forcing the owners to pay the protection money to prevent further harassment. That is the synthesis; the means by which people can be forced to do things, or accept things which ordinarily would go against their nature.

Let me ask you something: How many gun control laws do you think the people of this country would have tolerated if there had never been a mass shooting? But people, clamoring for safety, are more than willing to sacrifice one of their rights when ordinarily they wouldn’t do so.

I can’t confirm that he said this, but according to some, Henry Kissinger, who served as Secretary of State and National Security Advisor under President Nixon, supposedly delivered a speech in Evian, France in which he stated, “Today American’s would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.”

Even if he didn’t say it, that is a perfect example of how Hegel’s Dialectic is used to get people to do or accept things they ordinarily wouldn’t.
How many rights, how much freedom have we lost because we fear something and wanted our government to do something to prevent it from ever happening again? Look at what we have accepted: the Patriot Act, the establishment of a Department of Homeland Security, a vast expansion of the search powers granted to the Transportation Safety Administration, (TSA), and the expansive spying upon us by the National Security Agency. How much of that would America have tolerated on September 10, 2001; the day BEFORE the supposed attacks upon the Twin Towers?

Yet here we are in 2018 and these things are not even spoken of; except by people like me who speak out against how they violate our rights. People today accept these intrusions upon our rights as commonplace; as part of living in a world where the threat of terrorism exists.

Here we are in 2018; 17 years after 9-11 and how much progress have we made in eradicating terrorism? Sure, we may have prevented a few isolated terrorists attacks here and there; but they won’t tell us specifically how many attacks have been thwarted by the programs which routinely violate our rights in search of terrorists.

Let me tell you something, terrorists are like weeds; you kill one and another one pops up somewhere else. We are never going to end terrorism; and is the price of safety really worth sacrificing the liberty this country was founded to preserve?

In 1775 Patrick Henry asked that very question, “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?” He then went on to answer his own question by saying, “Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

But what if all these programs which have been instituted under the guise of keeping us safe are based upon a huge lie? What if the official story regarding what happened on 9-11 was a masterfully engineered and executed example of Hegel’s Dialectic?

In the Marvel Universe movie, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, there is a scene when Steve Rogers and Natashi Romanoff are told by a computerized version of Dr Arnim Zola, “HYDRA was founded on the belief that humanity could not be trusted with its own freedom. What we did not realize was that if you try to take that freedom, they resist. The war taught us much. Humanity needed to surrender its freedom willingly. After the war, S.H.I.E.L.D was founded and I was recruited. The new HYDRA grew. A beautiful parasite inside S.H.I.E.LD. For seventy years, HYDRA has been secretly feeding crisis, reaping war. And when history did not cooperate, history was changed.”

Yes, that was pure fiction and I’m not saying that terrorists do not exist. But what if the event which precipitated the creation of the Department of Homeland Security; the passage of the Patriot Act; the justification for the mass surveillance upon every single American, was all based upon a carefully planned event to cause people to willingly surrender their freedom?
What if???

You say that simply isn’t possible; our government wouldn’t do that to its own people. Well, in part 2 of this three part series I intend to provide evidence which proves that our government is not only capable of committing horrific acts against the American people; it has done so numerous times in the past.

So stay tuned….

Part II

In my last commentary I suggested that our government may have participated in horrific acts against the people it was established to protect; I will now proceed to provide evidence backing that claim up.

How many of you have ever heard of the Tuskegee Experiments? The Tuskegee Experiments were a clinical study, performed by the United States Public Health Service, between the years 1932 and 1972, (40 years!) in which poor black men were offered treatment under the guise of studying the progression of syphilis without ever telling them they had the disease. In all 399 men were studied; and even after penicillin became available to treat syphilis, the men were withheld from obtaining the necessary treatment to cure the disease; just so government scientists could track the diseases progression.

Not only were these men allowed to die so scientists could study the progression of syphilis, 40 of them had infected their wives with the disease, and 19 of them had children born with congenital syphilis.

In 1950 the United States Navy sprayed large quantities of the bacterium, Serratia marcescens, over the city of San Francisco in an operation called Operation Sea-Spray. This caused numerous people to break out in pneumonia like symptoms and one man died from it. Later, the family of the man who died from complications sued the federal government, but a judge ruled in the government’s favor and awarded the family nothing.

In 1963 Doctor Chester M. Southam in injected elderly patients at the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital, in Brooklyn, New York, with live cancer cells to discover how the human body fights cancer. The administration of the hospital tried to cover the experiments up, but the New York Medical licensing board placed Southam on probation. Ironically, two years later Southam was made Vice-President of the American Cancer Society.

For six years, from 1963-1969, under the name of Project Shipboard Hazard and Defense, the US Navy sprayed US Navy warships with chemical and biological agents with thousands of US Naval personnel aboard them. Many of these sailors were not told of the tests which subjected them to Sarin and VX nerve gas. In declassified documents, the DoD has stated that no ‘long term effects’ of participation in Project SHAD have been found.

In 1966 the United States Army released Bacillus globigii into the tunnels of the New York City Subway system under A Study of the Vulnerability of Subway Passengers in New York City to Covert Attack with Biological Agents. Bacillus globigii is similar to anthrax in its symptoms and characteristics. The Chicago Subway system was also subjected to similar tests by the Army.

Then of course there is the radiation testing that went with the growth of the nuclear age after the dropping of the two nuclear weapons on Japan during World War II. The U.S. military, the Atomic Energy Commission, and many other government agencies are guilty of exposing humans to radiation to determine the effects of radiation poisoning on the human body.

In some instances radioactive food was fed to mentally disabled children, while in other instances radium rods where inserted into the nasal passages of schoolchildren. Pregnant women were injected with radioactive materials and the testicles of prison inmates were also injected to see how radiation affected them. Not to mention that under the guise of testing and study radioactive materials were deliberately released over cities in both the United States and Canada to measure the effects of radioactive fallout.

In 1986 the United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce released a report entitled, American Nuclear Guinea Pigs: Three Decades of Radiation Experiments on U.S. Citizens. Their report documented many of the atrocities committed by our own government upon its people in the name of studying the effects of radiation on the human body.

In 1953, at Fort McClellan, Alabama, the United States Army exposed soldiers in their Chemical Corps. to sulfur mustard gas and various nerve agents under the program Operation Top Hat. Although the Army had formally adopted guidelines regarding human testing, the Army declared that it was in the line of duty for soldiers in the Chemical Corps. to be exposed to these agents.

These soldiers were not volunteers, and they were not informed that they would be exposed to these agents.

These are just a few of the examples I could provide that shows how far our government will go in the name of science and study. If they could do that to people; many of whom were unaware that they were human guinea pigs, what else do you think our government might be capable of?

Do you think that possibly our government might even sacrifice people to further an agenda or achieve a specific goal? World War One was the War to End All Wars; or so the American people were told. After 4 years of war the American people were sick of war and wanted nothing to do with the conflict that was brewing in Europe. Yet Roosevelt wanted to enter the fray because he felt the Nazi’s posed a serious threat to us; but he could not do so without the consent of Congress and the support of the American people.

What to do?

Prior to our entering the war, Japan, Germany and Italy had signed a Tripartite Pact which stated that if war was declared against any of the three countries by a country not currently involved in hostilities, all 3 countries would align against the aggressor. So, Roosevelt had a back door; if only he could get Japan to attack the United States first.

Enter Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum of U.S. Naval Intelligence. in the fall of 1940 Commander McCollum composed a memorandum which he submitted to FDR which outlined 10 steps that might be taken to provoke an attack upon the United States by Japan. Some say FDR never saw this memo, but it is interesting that the day after the memo was supposedly given to him, ALL 10 STEPS WERE IMPLEMENTED.

One of those steps was to centrally locate the US Navy fleet in Hawaii; well within reach of the Japanese Navy’s ability to reach. You can draw your own conclusions, but the cynic in me does not believe in coincidences, and I think FDR intentionally goaded Japan into attacking us so that we would declare war on Japan and then Germany would declare war upon us; giving FDR his entry into the European conflict.

Almost 2,500 people died in the attack on Pearl Harbor. Could they just have been pawns who were sacrificed by FDR in a game of global chess? I think they were, and if so it proves that our government is willing to do almost anything to achieve a desired goal.

Are you aware that in the 1960’s a joint proposal the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Department of Defense called for the Central Intelligence Agency, (CIA), to perform acts of terrorism within the United States and to lay the blame for these attacks at the feet of the communist Castro regime in Cuba?

This Operation Northwoods called for the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, the sinking of boats of Cuban refugees seeking asylum in the U.S., the hijacking of planes, the blowing up of a US held ship, and various other acts of terrorism within US cities.

Although President Kennedy ultimately rejected the proposal, there are two things I want you to consider. First is that there are those within our government who believed that the ends justify the means; meaning that the ultimate goal of toppling Castro was worth whatever sacrifices the American people might have to make in achieving that goal.

Secondly, with the evidence I have already provided showing what our government DID DO, it is only by Kennedy’s good sense that Operation Northwoods was not implemented. I think it’s pretty clear that our government has no qualms about performing horrific acts against the people if it serves their needs. Kennedy could easily have given the green light to Operation Northwoods and we would have fallen in step behind him; waving our flags and calling ourselves patriots; all for a CIA and DoD orchestrated fraud.

Makes you wonder about 9-11, doesn’t it; which will be the subject of Part 3 of this series. I hope I have stimulated some thought, and caused you to express a bit more distrust of the integrity of your government as it pertains to your well being and best interests.
Stay tuned…

“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t
true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
~ Søren Kierkegaard~

Three decades after our Constitution was ratified and went into effect James Madison sat down and wrote a letter to William Taylor Barry, who was serving as Lieutenant Governor of Kentucky at the time, where he states, “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”

What is knowledge? Well, according to the dictionary knowledge is defined as: facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. (My emphasis)

Using that as your definition, how knowledgeable are you regarding how our system of government was intended to operate? Knowledge, now more than ever, is readily available to all. Yet how many actually seek it out? How many people would rather spend their time glued to their TV’s watching sports rather than spending the time buried in a book learning about the history or the founding of their country?

You may not know this, but I have a folder on my computer which holds 424 files on a wide variety of subjects. I have every Presidential Inaugural Address ever given. I have the Constitution and a majority of the arguments given both against and in support of it. I have over a dozen speeches given; from Patrick Henry’s “Give me liberty or give me death” speech to a speech given by John F. Kennedy in 1961. I have James Madison’s entire notes on the Constitutional Convention as well as entire books; such as The Law by Frederic Bastiat. I have entire Supreme Court opinions dating back as far as 1793 and spanning all the way to their decision on D.C. v Heller in 2008. And that’s just what’s stored on my computer; I also have dozens of books that I have also read, or which are waiting to be read.

How many of you can say that you have spent that amount of time collecting and seeking to gain knowledge? The funny thing is, is that I don’t believe myself to be as well informed as I should be; particularly in regards to certain aspects of how our government has corrupted our system of government. I know people who have thousands of books; and I count them as my dearest of friends, for they are those who guide and direct me towards even more knowledge.

There is a YouTube personality who goes by the name Mark Dice who goes around asking people questions about history, or asking them to sign satirical petitions; such as a petition for repealing the Bill of Rights. His intent is to expose the extensive ignorance that plagues America today. Now I have no way of knowing if Mr. Dice edits out those who give correct answers, or call his bluff on those ridiculous petitions; but even if he does, there are still A LOT of people in this country who don’t know squat about its history or its system of government…AND THEY VOTE!!!

There is a certain progression that should take place when one learns things. It’s kind of like math; you don’t just hand a five year old a book on calculus; first you teach them how to count, then you teach them to add and subtract; then to multiply and divide; then you teach them algebra and geometry. Only after they have accomplished these steps will they be ready to begin the study of calculus.

If you are truly interested in fixing our corrupt system of government, you first have to learn how it was designed to function. You’re not going to get that information from the news media, from the corrupt politicians who seek your votes, or from the textbooks you studied in school; you are going to have to go out and dig for that information yourself.

It seems so obvious to me; if you don’t know how our system of government was supposed to function, you will never know what changes need to be made to fix the problems within it; if that is even remotely possible at this stage in the game. If you don’t know what your rights are, or why certain rights were singled out to be protected by Constitutional Amendment how can you hope to protect them against infringement by the government?

Before I began my own personal pursuit of knowledge there was a television show that I used to watch called House. The story revolved around a vicoden popping doctor who was both brilliant and a bit of a wiseass. House would get the tough patients; the ones no one else could figure out what was ailing them. But he would often try one thing; only to make matters worse, before finally stumbling upon a vital piece of evidence which led him to correctly diagnosing the ailment.

That’s how I view most people in this country; switching back and forth between Republicans and Democrats while never obtaining that one vital piece of information which would help them restore our country to the principles it was founded upon; liberty for all. That information is out there, but no one is going to hand it to you on a silver platter; and even if they did you would most likely reject it.

If there is one thing I’ve learned, it’s this, the truth can only affect change in people whose minds are open to it; and from what I’ve seen, the doors on most people’s minds are slammed and dead-bolted shut. There is an old saying which states; you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink. Well the same goes for knowledge; you can provide people with information, but you can’t force them to think.

I have to laugh inwardly at all these people who support Donald Trump and his boast that he intends to drain the swamp; in reference to the corruption in our nation’s capital. It angers me to no end that I have spoken out about the shadow government for over a decade now; only to be laughed at and scorned, but now that Donald Trump talks about the Deep State, (which is the same thing as the Shadow Government), people suddenly say, “Oh yeah, we need to drain that swamp and get rid of the Deep State.”

What do people actually think the Deep State is; a few corrupt officials and possibly certain special interests that exert an unusually high degree of influence upon Congress? Sorry to disappoint you, but that’s not the Deep State. The Deep State is those who control our government from behind the scenes. The Deep State sets the policies that our government enacts for them. The Deep State tells our government where and when it will go to war. The Deep State controls our monetary system and our system of credit.

Trump may fire a few individuals here and there, but they are but token sacrifices to appease the public’s demands that he fulfill his promise to drain the swamp. The last President who truly took any steps towards weakening the Deep State’s control over our government was assassinated in Dallas Texas on November 22, 1963.

You want to know who the Deep State is? Well, John Hylan, the former mayor of New York City described them as follows, “The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government, which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation. To depart from mere generalizations, let me say that at the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller–Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as the international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes.

They practically control both parties, write political platforms, make catspaws of party leaders, use the leading men of private organizations, and resort to every device to place in nomination for high public office only such candidates as will be amenable to the dictates of corrupt big business.”

Hylan also said this about the Deep State, “These international bankers and Rockefeller–Standard Oil interests control the majority of the newspapers and magazines in this country. They use the columns of these papers to club into submission or drive out of office public officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government. It operates under cover of a self-created screen [and] seizes our executive officers, legislative bodies, schools, courts, newspapers and every agency created for the public protection.”

They own and control the media; so if you watch the news for your information you are being manipulated; and this is true both in regards to CNN and FOX; for they play both sides of the coin against each other to keep us from focusing our attention on THEM. They dictate to our schools what our children are taught; so if you think your kids are getting a comprehensive education regarding how our system of government is supposed to work, think again.

We, or more precisely, you, are being played for fools if you believe that Trump intends to, or will be allowed to, come near the drain plug for the swamp that is corrupt politics in our nation’s capital. If he did, he wouldn’t be long for office; of that I can assure you.

Trump is a pressure relief valve for those who wanted change and someone to enact it. Trump is a loud mouthed outsider who made big bold promises to restore waning faith in the Republican Party after years of names like Cruz, Bush, Rubio, McCain, (who is more Democrat than he is Republican), and Romney. People were tired of the same old GOP rhetoric, so along comes Donald Trump; and the GOP faithful flocked to him like moths to a light.

Let me tell you something; as long as there have been governments there have been those who seek to use government to increase their own power and wealth. What gives you the impression that America is immune to that universal truth? Is it because we have democratic elections and are given a choice between liberals and conservatives; Democrats and Republicans? If you truly believe that, you haven’t understood a damned thing I’ve said!

This Deep State that everyone is talking about has been around for a very long time; in fact it got its foot in the door on September 11, 1789 when Alexander Hamilton was appointed to the position of Secretary of the Treasury. I find it somewhat ironic that 9-11 was the day that Hamilton was appointed Secretary of State and the date that witnessed the event which led to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the Patriot Act, the expansion of the TSA the complete and utter obliteration of the 4th Amendment, and a blank check for war against terror whenever and wherever it may be found.

When Hamilton was appointed Secretary of the Treasury he introduced crony capitalism to government; the use of bounties and tariffs to aid and protect business interests in the North. He also gave the moneyed banking interests control of our nation’s monetary supply via the First Bank of the U.S.
For nearly 3/4 century those who sought to keep government to its specific limits fought a back and forth battle between those who adhered to Hamiltonian principles; until it all erupted in 1860 and South Carolina said, “Enough, we’re leaving the Union. We will no longer be taxed to fund Northern Industrialists. We will no longer let Northerners dictate to us how we will manage the affairs of our State!”

Lincoln, who was a disciple of Henry Clay, who was a disciple of Alexander Hamilton, said, “Like hell you are.” And that’s what the Civil War was about, the last effort of a segment of this country to free themselves from the controlling interests of the Deep State.
We have been slaves to the Deep State ever since…

If you truly think that the Deep State is going to allow Donald Trump to undo what it took them over 200 years to achieve, you’re foolish and naive. Trump is there to make you think that there is hope, when hope is all but nonexistent as long as the people refuse to look beyond their narrow fields of vision and seek out the real truth; that being that our entire government is corrupt to the very core, and that no matter who you elect, that will NEVER change.

I have been thinking about the First American Revolution a lot lately; not so much the events that transpired which led our Founders to declare their independence; rather the quality and nature of those brave men who risked all they had and all they were for a cause that none of them were sure would succeed.

I’m sure you see it as well as I do, but the America of 2018 is so fragmented that getting a majority of the people to agree on something is next to impossible. Therefore I find it astonishing that people from various walks of life, holding various occupations, could come together in Philadelphia and agree to a separation from England, and more particularly from the English monarchy.

Many who attended the Second Continental Congress were so different from each other that the hand of Providence must have played a part in allowing them to work out their differences and agree to stand united for a common cause; LIBERTY. There were lawyers, shipbuilders, merchants and plantation owners who attended the Second Continental Congress; which produced our Declaration of Independence.

What I find even more amazing is how so many of these men fought for liberty for America, then turned around and sought to create a system of government for the United States that was an almost exact replica of the one they had just fought a war to free themselves from.

Before I continue I need to stress something. Whenever I discuss how our system of government came into existence I would ask you to put aside your 21st Century perspective and at least try to view things from the perspective of those who lived when these events transpired. If you can’t do that, then everything I say is all for naught; for you will be looking at events from the perspective of someone who has never seen their government operate the way it was intended. If you can’t do that, then I’ll have about as much success as would a person who tried to explain colors to someone who was born blind.

When the 13 Colonies gained their independence, they did not become a consolidated entity known as the United States, they became 13 sovereign and independent nations unto themselves; each with their own cultural beliefs and systems of government to regulate their internal affairs. The men who lived back then owed their loyalty and allegiance to the State wherein they resided; first and foremost they were Virginians, or New Yorkers, or Philadelphians. Unity, or the Union, was only considered as a means to defend themselves and regulate the interaction between the various States; or as the old saying goes; there’s strength in numbers.

Yet there were those who, when a convention was called for amending the Articles of Confederation, sought to completely neuter, or obliterate the authority of the States and create a single form of government that would rule over the whole United States.

Alexander Hamilton was one such man. Hamilton felt that the States stood in the way of his grand scheme for a strong central government whose power could be used to prop up and support business and banking interests; which unfortunately for the South were primarily located in the North.

On June 18, 1787, Alexander Hamilton, who up until this time had remained silent, stood and offered his plan for a system of government to replace the one established by the Articles of Confederation. During his rather lengthy speech, he made clear his reluctance to leave the States with any residual power and authority, “He was particularly opposed to that from N. Jersey, being fully convinced, that no amendment of the Confederation, leaving the States in possession of their Sovereignty could possibly answer the purpose.” Thankfully, Hamilton’s proposal was, for the most part, ignored. However, as you will soon see, Alexander Hamilton was not one to give up.

I find it somewhat interesting that many of the men who fought so fervently for independence, and who were the loudest and most outspoken for liberty were not in attendance at the convention which produced our constitution. Whether this was by accident or design I suppose I shall never know, but Patrick Henry did say he smelled a rat in Philadelphia in regards to what was going on behind the closed doors of the convention, and he did speak out openly, and often in opposition to the proposed system of government outlined by the Constitution, saying, “You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.”

Regardless, after a yearlong debate the constitution was ratified, and the government it outlined went into operation; and Alexander Hamilton was right there in the thick of things. Having served George Washington well as his aide de camp, Washington may have felt obliged to place him in a position deserving of his talents, and where else but in the position of Secretary of Treasury for a young man who had such a vast knowledge of banking and finance?

Hamilton was placed in a key position to use the power of the newly established government to move the government in a direction more in line towards the one he had envisioned the convention would produce; but he had a stumbling block in his way in the form of Washington’s choice as Secretary of State; Thomas Jefferson.

Not only was Jefferson a strong proponent of liberty for the people, he was also a Southerner who did not need the aid and assistance of government to prosper; therefore all of Hamilton’s proposals to use the power of government to tax, and created debt went against all that Jefferson stood for; and the two clashed constantly in Washington’s Cabinet meetings and in the press.

Unfortunately, Hamilton had the President’s ear, and Washington himself was inclined to lean more towards Hamilton’s views than he was those held by Jefferson. The tension between Hamilton and Jefferson, and Jefferson and Washington himself, led Jefferson to resign from the position of Secretary of State during Washington’s second term as president.

During the Washington administrations, most of the major accomplishments came at the suggestion of Alexander Hamilton; the first central bank, the assumption of State debt by the federal government, the imposition of protectionist tariffs to benefit Northern manufacturers, the excise tax on Whiskey, and even Washington leading 17,000 men into Pennsylvania to quell a rebellion against the tax on whiskey are all directly attributed to Alexander Hamilton. All these things Washington did, at the suggestion of Hamilton, led Thomas Paine to call Washington an apostate to the principles that he had fought for during the Revolution.

I sometimes wonder if those who fought for freedom from the tyranny of King George III were not opposed to tyranny itself, only a tyranny in which no one in their country benefitted from. Hamilton certainly had no qualms in finding hidden powers within the constitution which gave him the authority to propose programs the debates over the ratification of the constitution clearly show were among those which were never intended this government possess. Washington certainly didn’t seem to mind the abuse of his powers as long as it benefitted the growth of industry and commerce in the North. And finally, John Adams, when he ascended to the presidency, seemed to think and act along the lines of Hamiltonian disciples; even though he and Hamilton personally clashed on many issues; which eventually led to him losing the election of 1800 and seeing his old ally and current arch rival, the Republican Thomas Jefferson replacing him. (And that’s an interesting story in and of itself; the on and off friendship of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams)

When Jefferson was elected President in 1800 he promised a “…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, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.”

This became the platform of the Democratic Republicans for years, and the people seemed to like it, as after Jefferson stepped down after two terms, James Madison, another Democratic Republican served two terms, as did James Monroe, then followed by John Quincy Adams for four years, then followed by Andrew Jackson who served 8 years as President; all disciples of the Jeffersonian philosophy of limited government.

Then we begin to see the flip flopping that plagues American politics today between the two political parties. First we’d get a Whig, the old incarnation of the current Republican party, and then we’d get a Democrat, the party of Jefferson.

You have to remember, the policies espoused by Alexander Hamilton had been set in stone by his followers in the Supreme Court’s opinions in numerous cases; all expanding the power of either the government, or the court itself. The only thing preventing an all out assault upon the rights of the States was the fact that there were Democratic Presidents who acted as a check upon the power of government against State sovereignty.

That all changed in 1860. The Republicans already held a substantial majority in Congress, but the existing president, James Buchanan, was a Democrat. Then Abraham Lincoln, a staunch supporter of the Hamiltonian views of government won the election. The South realized that any hope of them retaining their sovereignty was all but gone and therefore they were forced to make a choice; stay in the Union and submit to a government that cared little about them or their rights, or secede and establish a government that would serve their best interests. They chose option B and seceded.

I’ve said it before and I’ll keep saying it until you get it through your thick heads; the Civil War was not fought over slavery, it was fought to keep the South in the Union. Lincoln could easily have said farewell to the South and let them live in peace, but instead he chose to raise an army and compel them to obey the commands of the government…at gunpoint; thereby turning the Declaration of Independence, and all that it stood for, on its head.

Although I despise Lincoln for what he did, I will admit that he was the supreme politician and acted as somewhat of a check upon the more radical elements within his own political party. However, when Lincoln was assassinated, the radical Republicans found Andrew Johnson to be easy to control and therefore their system of revenge against the South, (commonly called Reconstruction) was implemented.

The South was divided into military districts and anyone who had been loyal to the Confederacy, (which was just about everybody) was denied the right to hold political positions within the conquered territories. This violated Section 4 of Article 4 of the constitution, which states, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…”

Then, the radical Republicans told the South that before they would be allowed to send representatives to Congress they must accept ratification of the 14th Amendment; creating for the first time the status of United States Citizen.

Up until that exact moment in time, everyone in the United States considered themselves to be, first and foremost, a citizen of their home State. Now everyone would be a United States Citizen; thereby completing the consolidation of the States into a mighty empire under the central government; just as Alexander Hamilton had wanted.

Unless you know better, you are not a free man, but a subject of your government. You are issued a birth certificate which identifies you as a United States citizen, your passport, (if you have one) identifies you as a United States Citizen. Unless you go through a rather lengthy, and complicated process, you retain that status as US Citizen and are thereby liable and responsible to the jurisdiction of the federal government, which originally only held absolute jurisdiction over the ten square miles chosen as the location for the government itself. Not only that, as per the 14th Amendment itself, you are tied to the debt created by the government, whether you like it or not, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

People are taught that the 14th Amendment was written and ratified to give the freed slaves their rightful positions in society, and that is simply not the case. Sure the 14th Amendment may have given the freed slaves a new position in life, but it only made them equal to us in that we are all subject to the jurisdiction of a government that knows no limits to its authority, and we are subject to work our entire lives under the oppressive chains of an ever increasing national debt.

And now, once again, they are coming after our guns; the only thing which holds them back from becoming truly tyrannical and unbearably oppressive. It is said that when asked why he did not invade the United States, Admiral of the Imperial Navy of Japan answered that he could not because there was a rifle behind every blade of grass. Now there is some question as to whether Yamamoto ever actually said that, nevertheless that answer goes a long way towards explaining why our Founders felt it so important that the people retain the right to keep and bear arms.

I got into a rather heated discussion just the other day, with of all people, my own brother regarding this very subject. He was of the opinion that the 2nd Amendment was originally written so that the people could form militias to defend America from outside attack, and now that we have the National Guard, the people no longer need these weapons of war, or so-called assault rifles. I, as you may have guessed, felt otherwise. I told him, in no uncertain terms, that the 2nd Amendment was written to give us the means to resist tyranny from our own government.

Although I have come to despise Joseph Story almost as much as I despise Alexander Hamilton, he did say one thing I agree with. In his Commentaries on the Constitution, (which mostly is an essay on the Hamiltonian view of government) he does state the following about the 2nd Amendment, “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

Not only does our government want to deny us that right, the majority of the people in this country are openly calling for measures which gives them the mandate to do so. Well, over my dead body.

The ignorance of most people in this country absolutely boggles my mind. The other day I saw an image on the internet of a young woman wearing a Molon Labe hoodie holding a sign that said, “NRA there is blood on your hands.”

This young woman apparently has no idea what the graphic on her hoodie stands for. Molon Labe is what King Leonidas told the Persians when they told him to lay down his weapons at the Battle of Thermopylae, and roughly translated it means, “Come and take them!” Therefore the hypocrisy of a young woman protesting for tougher gun laws wearing a Molon Labe hoodie is a perfect representation of how people today call for their government to take measures they know absolutely nothing about.

People simply do not realize the precarious state this country is in. For years, decades even, those who still believe in the Jeffersonian vision of government, and are staunch supporters of individual liberty have seen our government grow and grow in size and power; along with a corresponding loss of our rights.

There will come a time when we are backed into a corner where our only choice will be the same as those who declared their independence from King George III in 1776 and those who declared their independence from a government that sought to oppress them in 1861…submit or fight.

I have personally been told that the time for words is over, that it is WAY past time we picked up our guns and started fighting for our liberty. I don’t want to see that, and you certainly don’t want to see that happen. It will be ugly, it will divide families and friends, and it will, in all likelihood, affect each and every one of us. But I won’t back down from my duty to preserve my liberty should it come.

We may not win, and that is okay, for as Winston Churchill once said, “If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

And believe me, if it ever comes to that, and if we lose the conflict, your status as slaves will become painfully apparent to you. But if life has taught me anything it has taught me that, for most people, hindsight is always 20/20 and it is only when the consequences of their actions and decisions become obvious do they regret the decisions they have made. Therefore I don’t expect that my words will have much effect upon those who need to understand them the most. The choir will understand what I’m saying, and the rest of you will go on believing that you can restore America or make it great again by repeating the same old mistakes which got us to this point in the first place.

And as Einstein so aptly said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.” And y’all call me crazy!!!!

Every October people celebrate the discovering of America by getting a day off from work for Columbus Day, in honor of Christopher Columbus; the explorer who most people believe was the man who discovered America. Unfortunately history is not always accurate, and this is a perfect example of that. Columbus may have been the first European to set foot on American soil, (and even this has come into question), and been the one to introduce this new world to Europeans, but he certainly didn’t ‘discover’ America, as there were already indigenous people living here.

Archeologists have dated early settlements of indigenous people’s living near modern day Clovis, New Mexico going back as far as 11,000 years ago. These Clovis people most likely made their way into America by way of the Bering Land Bridge which, at the time, connected North America to Siberia. DNA testing of remains found at the site leads scientists to believe that they were the direct ancestors to upwards of 80% of all the Native American Indians who inhabited the Americas when Columbus later made his first trip to this ‘uncharted’ land.

Another holiday we Americans celebrate is Thanksgiving, in remembrance of the Pilgrims who settled at Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts. Most Americans do not realize that the Plymouth Colony was not the first attempt to establish an English Colony in America; it was the third such effort.

The Pilgrims, as they are commonly called, landed at Plymouth in 1620, however nearly 40 years earlier Queen Elizabeth the First granted a charter to Sir Walter Raleigh to establish a colony in the New World. Raleigh’s charter stated:

ELIZABETH by the Grace of God of England, France and Ireland Queen, defender of the faith, &c. To all people to whom these presents shall come, greeting.

Know ye that of our especial grace, certain science, and mere motion, we have given and granted, and by these presents for us, our heirs and successors, we give and grant to our trustee and well beloved servant Walter Raleigh, Esquire, and to his heirs assignee for ever, free liberty and license from time to time, and at all times for ever hereafter, to discover, search, find out, and view such remote, heathen and barbarous lands, countries, and territories, not actually possessed of any Christian Prince, nor inhabited by Christian People, as to him, his heirs and assignee, and to every or any of them shall seem good, and the same to have, horde, occupy and enjoy to him, his heirs and assignee for ever, with all prerogatives, commodities, jurisdictions, royalties, privileges, franchises, and pre-eminences, thereto or thereabouts both by sea and land, whatsoever we by our letters patents may grant, and as we or any of our noble progenitors have heretofore granted to any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate: and the said Walter Raleigh, his heirs and assignee, and all such as from time to time, by license of us, our heirs and successors, shall go or travel thither to inhabit or remain, there to build and fortify, at the discretion of the said Walter Raleigh, his heirs and assignee, the statutes or act of Parliament made against fugitives, or against such as shall depart, romaine or continue out of our Realm of England without license, or any other statute, act, law, or any ordinance whatsoever to the contrary in anywise notwithstanding. (Old English corrected to modern day spelling)

Raleigh was also supposed to build a fort from which English privateers could launch raids upon Spanish vessels in the area to show Spain that England was ready for war should their intentions become hostile or threaten England.

What people fail to understand today is that, back then, there were three primary nations, or empires, which controlled a good portion of the world; Spain, England and France; and they always seemed to be at each other’s throats seeking to expand their empires and diminish those held by their enemies.

As far back as 1492 Spain had already begun to colonize this land on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, dating back to when Columbus had first ‘discovered’ this new land which abounded in natural resources; and England wanted to stake her claim to it as well.

Therefore, in 1584 Raleigh dispatched an expedition, led by two men, Philip Amadas and Arthur Barlowe, to explore the eastern seaboard of what is now the United States. Arriving on, of all days, July 4, Amadas and Barlowe disembarked on Roanoke Island in the Outer Banks of modern day North Carolina. The quickly established relations with the Croatan Indians living there, and Barlowe soon returned with two of them, Manteo and Wanchese who then explained the politics and geography of the area they had chosen to settle.

Based upon the information he had been given, Raleigh then dispatched a five ship fleet carrying explorers and settlers to establish the first English Colony in the Americas. However, rough weather separated the Tiger, a ship commanded by Richard Grenville, from the rest of the fleet. Grenville arrived at the Baye of Muskito in Puerto Rico; which was a Spanish held territory. He simultaneously established relations with the Spanish, while at the same time engaged in privateering against them.

Grenville built a fort to house his crew, and soon afterwards the Elizabeth, a second ship in his fleet arrived. Nonetheless, Grenville became soon tired of waiting for the arrival of the other ships, and on June 7 he abandoned his fort to proceed on to Roanoke Island. When he arrived at his intended destination he attempted to navigate the Ocracoke Inlet, but hit a shoal; destroying most of his food supply aboard the Tiger.

Once the other ships finally arrived they established a small Colony at the Northern end of Roanoke Island. Grenville then left Ralph Lane, along with 107 others on the island to return to England. He promised to return with more men and supplies in 1586, but for some reason he did not make arrive when he had promised, and when he did he found the settlement abandoned. Leaving a small detachment of 15 men to maintain Raleigh’s claim to Roanoke Island, Grenville returned to England.

The following year, Raleigh dispatched another group of 115 colonists in an effort to establish another colony on Chesapeake Bay. On the way to Chesapeake they stopped at Roanoke to pick up the 15 who had been left behind, but only found a single skeleton, and the fate of the other 14 remained a mystery.

Upon finding no one they returned to the ships, only to be told by Master Pilot Simon Fernandez that he would not let them board; that they were to settle at Roanoke instead of Chesapeake Bay. Whether they were simply unprepared for living in a new land, or they whether it was due to increasing tensions between the Colonists and the local Indians, the Colonists persuaded their Governor, John White, to return to England to explain the dire situation they faced.

White set sail for England in winter, a perilous time for ocean travel back then. Upon arriving in England, his return was delayed; first because ship captains were reluctant to cross the Atlantic in winter, and then because war broke out between England and Spain, and every sea going vessel was needed to fight the Spanish.

In 1588 White acquired to smaller ships and attempted to make the crossing, however they decided to engage in a bit of privateering and instead of coming out victorious, they had their supplies stolen and had to return to England.

It would be 1590 before White was finally able to return to Roanoke Island; only to find it deserted. Of the 90 men, 17 women and 11 children who simply vanished was White’s own granddaughter, Virginia Dare, the first settler to be born on American soil. The only clue left to White and his relief team was the word CROATOAN which was carved into a post. Whatever happened to them hadn’t appeared to be disastrous as the entire settlement had been dismantled; leaving them to suspect that possibly they had chosen to relocate somewhere else.

Later attempts to discover the fate of the Roanoke Colony led some to the belief that Chief Powhatan had personally led the slaughter of the Colonists because they had chosen to live among their enemy, the Chespians, but no substantial evidence was provided to either prove or disprove that claim. What is known is the ultimate fate of the Lost Colony or Roanoke remains a mystery.

This was the first attempt by English setters to establish a Colony in the New World. My next piece will discuss the second attempt at Jamestown. Stay tuned.

Even if they don’t know who the man was, the name Thomas Edison probably rings a bell of familiarity for most people. Edison was an inventor who gave us the carbon filament incandescent light bulb, the phonograph, and the motion picture camera. Edison, if he was anything, was what one would call a ‘Thinker.’

As one who made a name for himself using his mind, it comes as no surprise that he would look down upon those who refused to use theirs. Therefore this lends credence to the fact that Edison supposedly made the following comments: Five percent of the people think; ten percent of the people think they think; and the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think.

Edison died in 1931 due to complications from diabetes, but I think his statement is a pretty accurate assessment of the general mass of people who inhabit these States united. I don’t think that it is that people are unable to think, I think it is due to the fact that thinking involves too much effort, and people, for the most part, are fundamentally lazy.

Nowhere is this dearth of thinking more on display than in regards to American politics. Using Edison’s percentages, allow me to explain why I say that. The 5% that he speaks of who think would be, at least from my perspective, those who have discovered that their government is corrupt beyond salvage and that the two party system is designed to give the illusion that the people still retain some control over what their government does. These people have chosen to stop participating in the fraud of Presidential and Congressional elections; knowing full well that no matter which party assumes control of government, government will continue to grow in size and in how much power it exercises over our lives.

The 10% that Edison speaks of are those who pay close attention to the news and the political debates and believe they are making informed decisions at the polls based upon the data they have accumulated. They think they are thinking because, in reality, their opinions are being molded and manipulated by the media which is complicit in the process of keeping them uninformed under the guise of providing them with ‘the news.’ They think they are thinking because they are analyzing facts and making decisions based upon those facts; but is it really thinking if everything you are analyzing and correlating is a ruse to keep you from seeking out the truth?

Finally there is the other 85% who would rather die than think. These are those who either don’t pay any attention to politics at all, or who vote strictly along party lines without paying any attention to the qualifications of the candidates, or the issues themselves. In short, the 85% is most people in this country.

I became part of the 5% after the first Bush election which saw America witness the 9-11 attacks and the birth of the War on Terror. I’m not blaming those events for my refusal to participate in the elective process; I think it would have happened sooner or later anyways; I’m only saying that 9-11 and all the laws which violate my rights in response to it only hastened the inevitable.

I have come to the conclusion that our system of government began to depart from the principles our Founders fought a revolution to achieve the moment it first went into operation. Yes, there were those within government who sought to keep government in check; to bind it with the chains of the constitution, to quote Thomas Jefferson; but they eventually lost out to the followers of Alexander Hamilton who sought for a more energetic government which supported business and industry more than it did the States and the people.

I think the end came with the surrender of Lee at Appomattox, which actually was the demise of the Jeffersonian vision of “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.”

Our government has been pure Hamiltonian doctrine ever since the end of the Civil War, with the only difference being that it comes disguised as liberalism or conservatism. Gone are the distinctions between a limited government and an all powerful one; to be replaced by different flavors of an all powerful government.

I don’t care which party you support, if you have any integrity whatsoever, I would like for you to take a few minutes to stop and ponder whether the things your candidates ran for office championing are among the specific powers granted government by the Constitution, or if they are among the powers given the particular office that candidate sought. If you cannot answer yes to that question, then you are among the 10% who think they are thinking; but in reality are being led around by the nose with propaganda and rhetoric. Lenin had a term for people like you, ‘useful idiots.’

Do you know what the Circuit Court system is? The Circuit Courts were established in 1789 by the Judiciary Act passed by Congress. They are a series of intermediary courts which had jurisdiction over cases of a federal nature and were established not to burden the Supreme Court with a deluge of cases.
One would think that judges assigned to these Circuit Courts would be required to have a thorough understanding of the Constitution they were supposed to be basing their rulings upon. After all, that only seems to be logical; that they be familiar with the law they were supposed to be upholding.

Why is it then that back in 2016, Steven Posner, a judge assigned to the 7th Circuit Court made the following comments, “I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation…” Posner then went on to say, “Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century.”

The sad thing is, I frequently hear that same sentiment whenever I engage in discussion with many younger people regarding the powers our government should be allowed to exercise. These young whippernsappers think that the Constitution is irrelevant, that its limitations and restrictions upon our government do not apply in today’s modern world.

They don’t seem to realize that, first of all the Constitution is the law; and both they and the government it established are bound by it, “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 man 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: Justice David Davis, Ex parte Milligan, 1866)

Secondly, these people react quite violently when I suggest that we revoke the Constitution, as long as in so doing we tear down the government it established. You see, to these people government is not an entity to defend the liberty and equal rights of others; it is a tool to be used to force their will and their views upon the great mass of society. These social justice warriors are defenseless against those willing to defend their rights without the coercive power behind every law passed by government, and they know it’ even if it is only on a subconscious level. They need government to impose their agenda and they only complain about government when those in power act contrary to whatever agenda they have.

The sad thing is that people have been brainwashed into believing that there is this huge gulf of difference between the two primary political parties in America. This red and blue, conservative and liberal, Republican vs Democrat belief is a ruse designed to keep us from seeing the reality that both parties don’t give a damn about what the Constitution says, and that both parties owe their allegiance and loyalty to a select group of special interests; including business and banking interests.

It’s just as Georgetown Professor Carroll Quigley wrote in his book Tragedy and Hope, “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.” Yet most people steadfastly refuse to look beyond partisan loyalties when discussing politics; and the constitutionality of the things their candidate does never crosses their minds.

At least the liberals are somewhat honest in who and what they are, but those who claim to be conservatives, and then turn around and support measures which violate the Constitution or restrict my rights, make me question their integrity; or at least their capacity to distinguish between right and wrong; good and evil. As Noam Chomsky so aptly said, “There are few genuine conservatives within the U.S. political system, and it is a sign of the intellectual corruption of the age that the honorable term ‘conservatism’ can be appropriated to disguise the advocacy of a powerful, lawless, aggressive and violent state, a welfare state for the rich dedicated to a lunatic form of Keynesian economic intervention that enhances state and private power while mortgaging the country’s future.”

Yet people wonder why I hold out so little hope for our nation’s future. Well that’s why, because people refuse to think, they refuse to put aside their partisan loyalties and pledge their loyalty to the Constitution and the rights and liberty it was established to protect.

I’m going to do something I’ve never done before, and probably will never do again; I’m going to include a few political cartoons to help emphasize what my feeble attempt to explain has probably failed to achieve. Maybe images will, in this instance, speak louder than words.

Enjoy, or don’t enjoy; but at least THINK….

If I have any readers left after this, I’ll be back tomorrow with a new approach. Stay tuned…

Have you ever witnessed a love one slowly succumb to a terminal illness or sink into the depths of Alzheimer’s, only to be lost to you forever? You know that combined feeling of anger, frustration and sadness you felt as you helplessly watched someone you love slowly pass from your life; well that’s how I feel as I sit and watch the effects of ignorance, apathy and complacency slowly destroy the country I love.

As our nation’s first President under the newly ratified Constitution, George Washington was in a unique position; not only would all Presidents who followed him be compared against him, but he was the first to assume the position of Chief Executive and was treading where no man had tread before. I think he was fully cognizant of this fact, and it must have weighed heavily upon him as he assumed the position entrusted to him by the voters.

How many of you know that Washington did not seek out the newly created position of President of these States united; that it was thrust upon him by the voters? Washington would have preferred to return to Mount Vernon and retire from public service, but the confidence of the people in his leadership made him the obvious candidate to become our nation’s first President under the Constitution.

In his Inaugural Address Washington himself attested to this when he said, “Among the vicissitudes incident to life, no event could have filled me with greater anxieties than that of which the notification was transmitted by your order, and received on the fourteenth day of the present month. On the one hand, I was summoned by my Country, whose voice I can never hear but with veneration and love, from a retreat which I had chosen with the fondest predilection, and, in my flattering hopes, with an immutable decision, as the asylum of my declining years: a retreat which was rendered every day more necessary as well as more dear to me, by the addition of habit to inclination, and of frequent interruptions in my health to the gradual waste committed on it by time. On the other hand, the magnitude and difficulty of the trust to which the voice of my Country called me, being sufficient to awaken in the wisest and most experienced of her citizens, a distrustful scrutiny into his qualifications, could not but overwhelm with dispondence, one, who, inheriting inferior endowments from nature and unpractised in the duties of civil administration, ought to be peculiarly conscious of his own deficiencies.”

How unlike those who seek the presidency today; candidates with overinflated egos who loudly proclaim why the voters should choose them from among a virtual freak show of candidates. Yet it is not Washington’s own sense of self doubt that I would like to spend the rest of my time discussing; it is something else that he said in his 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.”

If you’ll notice, Washington did not say that the preservation of our democracy was entrusted to the hands of the American people; rather he said the preservation of our republican model of government was entrusted to our hands. It was our responsibility, our obligation, our DUTY to keep a watchful eye on government and ensure that it remained true to the purposes for which it was established; and we have failed miserably!

I often speak of the eventual downfall of our Republic, and I get the distinct impression that people think that I mean that America is simply going to vanish off the face of the Earth. Did Italy vanish when the Roman Empire fell? Did Greece or Turkey vanish when their empires fell? Of course not, those countries still exist, and so will ours when our Republic eventually falls. But the vital principles upon which America was founded will have gone by the wayside to be replaced by something Ben Franklin warned would be the inevitable outcome when the people of this country failed in the experiment that Washington speaks of in his Inaugural Address; a despotic government.

On the final day of the convention which produced our Constitution, a speech written by Ben Franklin was read to the delegates by James Wilson. In that speech Franklin states, “Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administered; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.”

Has that fateful day arrived, is it upon us now? I tend to think that it is, and I’m not alone in my sentiments. My dear friend, and mentor, Michael Gaddy wrote something on Facebook the other day which stated, “As hard as it is for me to say, and as hard as it has been for me to face the reality of it all, this once grand experiment in Liberty, without some form of divine intervention, is over. The grand old idea of individual freedom and what Thomas Jefferson once defined as Rightful Liberty has long since passed. But, who is to blame you ask; the very same folks this government was once designed to protect, none other than “We the People.”

I have been told, both in private and public that the time for words is over, that those who cherish the liberty our government was instituted to protect must either stand for it now, or see it vanish forever. I think that is the biggest failing of the American people, the fact that they have forgotten that the most important function our government was established to serve was the preservation of our liberty. As Patrick Henry admonished his fellow Virginians in the Virginia Ratifying Assembly, “You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.”

Yet how can liberty be preserved when an overwhelming majority of the people don’t even know, or care for that matter, what it is? The 18th Century statesman Johann Wolfgang von Goethe once said, “None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.” If you are not taught from an early age what true freedom is, and if you grow up hearing that you are free, then how are you to know whether you are free or not if you will not take the time to learn what liberty actually is?

I have read many definitions of the word liberty, and of all the definitions I’ve read I think this is the best, “free from restrictions in both thought and action.” Using that as your definition, do you think you are free, that you truly enjoy liberty? How many things do you do daily which require a license, a permit, or require the paying of a fee for your privilege of doing these things?

If you get into your car you are required to have a license to operate it, and pay a registration fee for it to be allowed to operate on public roads. You pay fees for the use of the airwaves in the form of taxes on your phones. If you want to hunt or fish, fine, but first get a license. You want to add a room to your house; fine, but you need a building permit first; which of course comes with a fee. And these are just some of the things we accept as routine in our day to day lives; but in truth restrict our liberty.

Our understanding of liberty, and what our rights are, is so limited that we, as a society, impose restrictions upon each other in the name of political correctness which further restricts our liberty. In 1816 Thomas Jefferson wrote, “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.”

That’s liberty right there, unobstructed action according to our will within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. The problem today is that people have come to believe that their feelings have rights of their own, and that when someone says something, or displays an image which offends those feelings, that speech, or those images need to be censored. That is the essence of political correctness; that the feelings of certain groups overrule the right to speak freely. Our government did not need to propose an amendment repealing the 1st Amendment, we have imposed restrictions upon it ourselves by accepting the terms dictated by the politically correct among us who tell us what they will allow us to say or display.

People today are so pathetically ignorant as to their rights that they believe that the public welfare is all the justification that is needed to limit the very rights our government was prohibited from legislating upon by the Bill of Rights. Instead of condemning government for even considering restricting our rights, the people openly call for them to do so.

As a nation we have become so accustomed to, and complacent in regards to our government violating our rights that we barely take notice of how quickly they are vanishing. Just look at how readily people accepted our government’s dismantling of the 4th Amendment just to keep them safe from terrorism. The Patriot Act, the expansion of the NSA’s surveillance upon the American people, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and its influence in local law enforcement, the growth of the TSA and its intrusive searches without search warrants; all that can be laid at the feet of our willingness to surrender our freedoms just so that we can be safe from terrorism.

In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, James Madison wrote, “Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions agst. danger real or pretended from abroad.” Seeing as how we have willingly acquiesced to all these violations of our rights to keep us safe from terrorism, I would say that Madison was quite correct in his sentiments.

And I would be highly remiss if I didn’t mention the current call for tougher gun laws after the recent school shooting in Florida. I am of a firm belief that many people think we have a 2nd Amendment so that we can hunt and defend our homes against criminals. Well, at least they got the defend and criminals part right, but it wasn’t our homes which the 2nd Amendment was written to protect, it was our liberty; and the criminals it was written to protect us from were those within our own government.

In a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, Noah Webster wrote, “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.”

George Mason, a respected Virginian who also the convention which drafted our Constitution, declared, “…to disarm the people . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

The 2nd Amendment was written to protect and defend the right of the people to be armed so that they could constitute a force greater than any standing army our government might erect to enforce tyranny upon us…END OF STORY!!! It was the fail safe, the last resort when all other means to obtain a redress of grievances against our government have failed…and people are willingly calling for that right to be further restricted? Sorry, but over my dead body!

And while I’m on the subject of gun control versus the 2nd Amendment, I have a message for all you die-hard Trump supporters. Tell your man to keep his yap shut and take a few minutes to recall that oath he took to support and defend the Constitution.

I sometimes feel that those of you who stand behind Trump no matter what he does or says are more dangerous than the liberals you so freely condemn. You claim to be conservatives, but then stand behind Trump when he says things like, “Take the guns first, then due process later.” Do you even realize what Trump is saying when he makes comments like that? He is basically saying, and excuse my language, “Fuck civil rights, do what needs to be done and we’ll deal with the legal consequences later.”

This is a problem that both Republicans and Democrats share, that the end always justifies the means. Both parties fail to realize that they are restricted by law as to what they can and cannot do for us, and that there is a process by which justice is served; and to take action and then worry about the legal ramifications of that action later, is not the correct way of doing things in our Constitutional Republic.

I’m sure Abraham Lincoln felt that he was doing what best served the ends when he suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. I’m sure Franklin Roosevelt felt that the interment of over 100,000 Japanese-Americans during World War II also served the ends; but both Lincoln and Roosevelt were guilty of violating the law, and the rights of the people their actions restricted. Trump’s call for taking the guns now and due process later is the same kind of mentality which leads to tyranny and despotism; and I’d be very careful about blindly supporting a man who proposes such measures; that is if you value what remains of your liberty.

It does not matter what I say, people are going to go on believing whatever they want to believe; because the truth is too painful and they are content to remain protected from it in their cocoons of ignorance. However, that will not relieve them of the guilt of allowing the liberty that our government was instituted to protect to be taken from them. As the old legal maxim states, “Ignorantia juris non excusat” or, “Ignorance of the law does not excuse.”

Each and every one of us is born with free will; that is one thing they cannot take away from us. We can choose ignorance over knowledge, and we can choose liberty over servitude. Most, unfortunately, choose servitude.

But why should I be surprised; this is nothing new. Did not the Jews, when presented by Pilate with the choice to either free Jesus, or free the criminal Barabbas, choose Barabbas? It the nature of weak minds to choose that which is evil over that which is good; so I don’t know why it should come as any surprise that they would choose bondage and servitude over liberty. What surprises me is how long our country has survived as a free nation before the liberty it was founded upon was finally relinquished in return for the comforting promises made by tyrants and despots.

Make no mistakes about it though, regardless of what the media tells you, regardless of what the President says in his State of the Union Address, the grand experiment in whether we could be a self governing nation that secured liberty for all has failed, and failed because we the people simply choose comfort over liberty, entertainment over knowledge, and party over principle.

There’s a modern slang saying which states, “Living the dream” in reference to the American Dream. Well, the dream part is right, because if you think that you have any liberty left, you must be dreaming.

Sweet dreams, cupcake!!!