Please Wake Up Before Reality Bitch Slaps You

How much freedom do you think you have? It’s a serious question, and I’d like for you to pause your reading for a moment to ponder it.
I suppose it all depends upon what YOUR definition of freedom is. If your definition means you are free to choose what to wear; what to eat; what vehicle to drive; who to marry; what genre of music to listen to and what to watch on TV, then I’m certain that you truly believe you are free; and there’s absolutely nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.

Unfortunately, your definition of freedom doesn’t quite match up to what the dictionaries say freedom means. Take for instance the old standard, Merriam Webster’s; it defines freedom as: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action. When I type ‘define freedom’ into my Google search box, the following comes back as a result: the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

But if you try that for yourself you’ll find that at the bottom of the box where that definition sits there is some text you can click on to expand that box to provide more definitions and the word origin. When I clicked on it, I found the following: the power of self-determination attributed to the will.

I don’t know how you define freedom, but I think that definition pretty much nails it. Self-determination is the ability to make your own decisions without any coercive or restraining force, either by society or government.

Now I can almost envision what some of you are thinking; that if Neal’s definition were to apply across the board, then there would be anarchy and chaos; kind of like the premise for that Hollywood film, The Purge; where for one night any crime is permitted….oh, except for crimes against the government. Can’t have that, can we; not even in a Hollywood film.

In Federalist No. 51 James Madison makes an interesting comment; he says, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” Now why would Madison say that; especially seeing as it was due, in large part, to his efforts that our system of government came into existence?

You see freedom does not mean we are free to do absolutely ANYTHING we want. Freedom imposes certain limits to what we can and cannot do; especially when in doing certain things we limit the freedom of others, or restrict them from enjoying the same rights as we do.

The state of absolute freedom to regulate and control their own lives was known to our Founders as the State of Nature; with the Laws of Nature being the only guide as to what a person could and could not do. One of those laws of nature was “… that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” (Source: John Locke’s Second Treatise on Civil Governments, Chapter II)

But man, being left to his own desires, does not always conform to the Laws of Nature, and unfortunately he does seek to bring harm to others. Therefore, some controlling force must be exercised, and a means for obtaining justice must exist if society is to avoid descending into chaos and anarchy.

If man adhered to the Laws of Nature we wouldn’t need government, but since we can’t seem to do that of our own accord, we need government. That thought now brings us to the question of, “What is the purpose for which our government exists?”

When Thomas Jefferson sat down to write the Declaration of Independence he could very well have simply stated something along the lines of, “The King of England, George III, is guilty of violating the rights of these Colonies, and we therefore declare our independence from his authority”, but he didn’t. Instead he produced what is, in my opinion, the greatest treatise on the relationship between man and government, and the purposes for which governments should exist.

Jefferson states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Jefferson felt that the purpose of government was to secure the rights of those it governed; and that all laws passed by government should serve that purpose and that purpose only. Now I’m going to provide a quote for you, but I won’t tell you who said it, or where it comes from until later.

If the purpose of government is to secure our rights and our liberty, then what would you call government when the following exists: The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!

That, my friends, is the definition of tyranny. When the coercive power of government is used to deprive people of their rights, or to benefit a particular class of citizens at the expense of others, that government makes a tyrannical use of its powers; and it is our DUTY to resist it.

You see, Jefferson didn’t just stop when he explained the purpose for which governments should exist, he also said, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government…” (Emphasis added)

But dare speak of throwing off government or openly resisting its authority and you are labeled subversive; a threat to society and the peace and general security of the nation. I’m certain King George and the British Loyalists felt the same way about men like Jefferson, Adams and Patrick Henry too.

How, might I ask, is it possible for a government to call those who fight to ensure that government obeys the law governing its actions subversive? I remember a few years back when there was this article making its way around on the internet listing the various things that could place a person on one of the many terrorist watch lists maintained by our government.

Among the things that could supposedly land you on a terrorist watch list were: using cash to make all your purchases; speak openly about constitutional rights; talk about Big Brother and government surveillance; are a member of an anti-abortion group; if you speak openly about the unrestricted right to keep and bear arms, or are a member of a local militia group.

Have you ever stopped to think about why our government continues to pass these laws which require us to register purchases of guns and ammo with them? Of course they are going to tell us that it is so that it will allow them to predict when someone might commit a crime using those guns and ammo. But it could also be that they simply want to know who has all these guns, how much ammo they have, so that if our system implodes they know who to go after before any organized resistance to their authority gains any traction.

Yeah, call me paranoid if you will, but just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean it isn’t possible. I’m sure the Jews had nothing to fear from their government in Germany in the 1920’s either; but look how that all changed when Hitler came into power. A good deal of paranoia is healthy, if you ask me. Just like what Jefferson also said about resistance to government, “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere.” (Source: letter to Abigail Adams, February 22, 1787)

But that’s okay, Neal is subversive, he is a danger to society, he is, a terrorist. Do you know what the 18th century definition of terrorism was? I’m guessing you don’t, so I’m going to provide it for you. In 18th Century America terrorism meant: government by intimidation.

That’s right, government by intimidation was what was commonly understood to be the definition of terrorism. So, when a government enacts a law which violates any of our unalienable rights, and then sends its jack booted thugs to enforce that law upon the people, that government is engaging in terrorist activities; at least according to the 18th century definition of terrorism.

Would you not consider it treason to aid, or provide comfort and support to terrorists? Therefore if the definition of terrorism is government by intimidation, aren’t you guilty of treason for supporting government rather than resisting it? Remember, Jefferson said it was our duty to throw off government when it becomes despotic; not to bow down before it and beg it to bestow more gifts, (benefits) upon us.

It’s funny that people can read, (that is if anyone reads anymore), a book like Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four and recognize the tyranny of Orwell’s fictional society Oceana. But then they are blind to the tyranny that exists right before their eyes every day of their lives. It’s almost like Orwell’s book became an instruction manual for those who seek to tyrannize us, rather than the warning it was written to be.

Big Brother certainly is watching and listening to us and our history is being re-written constantly by those who wish to erase even the slightest mention of liberty and freedom from our textbooks.

But we keep on supporting our government because to stand up for liberty requires a payment that many people simply aren’t willing to make; the total dedication of their lives and their time to the defense of it. Can’t be asking people to put aside their comfort and actually take a stand against tyranny, can we; especially when in so doing they will be called subversive alongside people like me. How could I expect someone to do something so drastic, so courageous?

Yet our Founders did; they found it within themselves to pledge their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to the obtaining of liberty and independence from a tyrant. Maybe that’s what made them great men, while we on the other hand submit to tyranny without even a whimper of protest.

And we have the audacity to say that we’re free; that we’re patriotic. Yeah right… most Americans don’t have a drop of patriotism running through their veins and wouldn’t know a patriot if he was standing right beside them.

John Adams once wrote to his wife, “Posterity! You will never know, how much it cost the present Generation, to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good Use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it.” I can only imagine what Adams is thinking right now about how we’ve honored and respected the sacrifices his generation made for our freedom.

You can hide from the truth all you want, but it will eventually find you. When that happens the shock of having your blinders pulled off and seeing reality in its full glory for the first time is going to knock you for a loop. But better that you see it know than when they put the shackles on you, or herd you into a FEMA relocation, (read, concentration) Camp.

As Niemoller said: First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out―Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did no speak out. ―Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, but I did not speak out―Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me¬―and there was no one left to speak for me.

They might be coming after the rights of those whose beliefs and ideologies you disagree with right now, but mark my words, your turn will come and it will be your rights they come after. And who will defend them when you have supported measures which led to the disarmament of those who understood why our Founders included a 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights? Because, when that realization comes for you, it will be too late; there will be no one left to defend your rights, and karma will have just bitch slapped you back from your dream land to reality.

Hope you wake up before then, but from what I see and hear on a day to day basis, I’m not holding my breath.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Two Can Play Your Game

If you were to cruise on over to your online version of Merriam Webster’s Dictionary and type the word stupid into the search box, then hit enter, this is one of the definitions you would end up getting in response: given to unintelligent decisions or acts.

I hate to sound condescending, but the next logical step is to discover what is meant by the word intelligence. So, if we were to go back to our online dictionary and type intelligence into the search box, one of the definitions we would find is: the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situtations: REASON.

As with many words, reason has numerous meanings; and I’m pretty sure that the one intended in the definition for intelligence isn’t a statement offered in explanation or justification. I’m pretty sure that the definition they were thinking of was: the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways.

There is an old math saying that if A equals B and B equals C, then A equals C. If you apply that train of thinking to the definitions I just provided, you might come up with the following:

If the inability to comprehend, infer, or think in an orderly rational way is the inability to reason, and if the inability to reason is a definition of a lack of intelligence, and if a lack of intelligence is a definition of stupidity, then the inability to reason is the same thing as stupidity.

Therefore, if you are having a conversation or debate with someone, and this person is unable to provide facts and evidence to support their position in a clear and precise manner, and if this person flies off the handle when you present evidence which destroys their position; wouldn’t you be compelled to call the person you are debating with…STUPID?

I have my own definition for stupidity in case you’re interested in hearing it. The Neal Ross definition for stupidity is as follows: the condition that occurs when an overabundance of ignorance, apathy and complacency exists in a person.

Ignorance differs from stupidity in that ignorance is simply not having the facts, while stupidity is ignorance accompanied by apathy; the fact that some people simply don’t care that they are ignorant: willful ignorance, if you will. Combine that with complacency; the sentiment of being self-satisfied when accompanied with an unawareness of reality and you get STUPIDITY.

Let me propose a little analogy for you. Let’s say you have a company that builds a highly specialized piece of equipment which requires employees with a very high level of education in a specific area of science. But let’s say the firm that does your hiring is located 2,000 miles away and is staffed by office workers who don’t know the first thing about what it is your business does. So they continue to send you job applicants who are woefully lacking in the necessary skills to work for you. Doesn’t it seem a tad stupid to do that?

What then is the difference between that little scenario and allowing an ignorant voting public elect politicians to fill vacancies in our government when those doing the electing; the voters, don’t know the first thing about what the government is supposed to be doing? Don’t you think that too is just a tad bit STUPID? Apparently most people do not find that stupid, because that is exactly what happens every time we have an election.

Yet if I were to come out and openly call people stupid I would probably end up getting my butt kicked; lose most of my friends, or at the minimum, find myself in the offices of someone in Human Resources because I have offended someone yet again.

I guess the truth must really hurt…

You know what, I don’t honestly care how many people I offend; I truly don’t. Let me tell y’all a little something about rights. People have the right to say that something offends them; but that’s as far as that right extends. I, on the other hand, have the right to say that I don’t care if what I say offends people; and keep on saying it.

My rights don’t end where your feelings begin. I wonder if those who always go around saying that this offends them, or that offends them, have ever stopped to ask themselves if the things they are saying offend someone else. I suppose they feel they are free to be as stupid as they want, and that it doesn’t matter if others find their stupidity offensive.

Don’t you see the problems of allowing large groups to determine what is, and what isn’t considered offensive? I remember a few years back when the music industry came under attack by Tipper Gore due to the offensive lyrics of some of the songs being recorded by musicians. Cries of censorship arose from those supporting the freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

Where are those same supporters of freedom of speech now when the truth is being silenced and historical images and monuments which people find offensive are being removed from the public consciousness at an alarming rate?

The hypocrisy people exhibit makes me want to vomit blood.

If people were actually capable of critical thought they would see the hypocrisy of their position; their rights matter, but the rights of those they disagree with don’t. You don’t have to agree with anything I say, but someone who is capable of critical thinking will at least give what I say a fair chance; they will weigh what I say against the facts which support their position and come to a conclusion based upon the facts, and only the facts.

The problem with this is that most people don’t have an real facts to support their position; they have been conditioned, spoon fed their beliefs without the means, or ammunition, (facts), to defend them. That’s why they fly off the handle and become enraged when anyone provides any evidence contradictory to their beliefs. It’s not that they truly don’t believe what they are saying; it’s that they are unable to defend their position with facts. Emotional outbursts and saying they are offended are the only weapons they have to use against the truth; and they have honed their skill in exercising them to a fine art.

That’s the biggest danger of political correctness; at least as I see it. Whatever the masses deem as being socially acceptable behavior and speech is what is allowed; all else is deemed offensive and comes under attack by the PC Police.

Most people will back down when cries of racism, sexism, or any of the other terms the PC Police begin hurling at them when their position is threatened by actual facts. That’s the effectiveness of political correctness; while I call it keeping the herd in line.

However, there are others, myself among them, who smell blood when the insults and name calling begins. We realize that we are getting closer to the truth and that the name calling is a mechanism to defend a position that is, well, defenseless. I can’t speak for others, but I find great sport in tearing apart someone’s beliefs with fact after fact after fact.

The only problem is that it often gets me into trouble, as society has erected workplace standards in which the feelings of employees are protected against truths people are unwilling to face. So, when I become too offensive, I get an invitation to come have a chat with Human Resources and am told to tone it down a bit.

I don’t know about you, but when I was growing up as a kid there used to be a name we reserved for those who ran off crying to an adult that someone had hurt their feelings. That word was; pussy. Are you a pussy, or do you have the courage to defend our position with facts, and not run off crying when someone else’s facts are more convincing than yours?

I have some, not many, but some friends whose views I often disagree with; but I respect the hell out of them because they are willing to engage in a reasoned debate; providing facts of their own to support their position; and they are open minded enough to give the facts I present serious consideration.

And that’s all that I really ask; that you give what I say a fair chance to prove itself as the truth. If you can’t do that, if you must resort to name calling, then two can play that game…you pussy!

Posted in General | Leave a comment

An Argument In Defense of the Confederate Cause

Do you know how difficult it is to hold an intelligent conversation with people when the subject is the American Civil War? Mention the Civil War and all hopes for an intelligent conversation vanishes. I can almost promise that when the topic of the Civil War comes up that 99.9% of the minds of the people immediately zero in on one single issue; slavery.

Once that happens there is little one can do or say to convince them that the Civil War was not fought to free the slaves. That is why I say that whenever there is a discussion of the Civil War intelligent conversation becomes next to impossible; because most people simply refuse to accept any evidence that they have been conditioned to believe a false narrative.

Nearly a century before the Civil War, John Adams argued, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” Adams spoke those words in his closing statement to the jury in the trial of the 8 British soldiers who had been accused of murdering 5 residents of the city of Boston, (The Boston Massacre). Adams succeeded in obtaining a not guilty verdict because the members of the jury put aside their passions and prejudices and rendered a verdict based solely upon the facts presented to them.

If more Americans were willing to do that today it’s more than likely that the Confederacy would be vindicated in the court of public opinion and the politically correct narrative would be exposed for the lie that it actually is; the Civil War was not fought over slavery!

Although the South, or more precisely, the Confederacy does not need my help in justifying their cause, allow me to assume the role of defense attorney and provide a few facts to support the argument that the Civil War WAS NOT fought over slavery.

First I would like to make it perfectly clear that I realize that slavery did exist in the United States in 1861 and that a great many of those held in bondage worked on plantations in the South. Yet slavery was not an American institution, it had been practiced since the earliest days of man’s existence on planet Earth. Even the Bible talks about slavery and how the owners of slaves should treat them.

You might be surprised to learn that a majority of those brought to the United States to serve as slaves were from Central and Western Africa who had been captured by other Western Africans for the sole purpose of being sold to the slave traders who then transported them to their final destinations to be sold at slave auctions.

And who were these slave traders who made their livings transporting human beings to be sold into bondage? Why, they were primarily Northern shipping interests located along the Northeastern Seaboard of the United States. Many a prominent Yankee family obtained a large portion of their wealth via the slave trade; so the North is not without blame when it comes to the matter of slavery as an institution in the United States.

It is also little known that the first African Slaves which were brought to America were not brought her by the Colonists themselves, they were brought here by Dutch sailors who had captured them from the Spanish in 1619.

Something else you may not be aware of, it was typical Spanish custom to baptize slaves before they were put aboard the ships to be transported to their final destinations. English custom declared that baptized Christians could not be held in bondage as slaves, so these baptized Africans were treated as indentured servants; required to work for a period of time, then being granted their freedom.

You might also find it hard to believe, but Massachusetts became the first Colony to authorize slavery by law in 1641. By 1678 Massachusetts ship owners were actively engaged in transporting slaves into the Colonies to be sold into bondage in Virginia.

But the U.S. was not the only place slavery existed during this period. The Caribbean was another place where slave labor was routinely used to harvest crops. In fact, the number of slaves transported into South America and the Caribbean dwarfed the number of slaves brought into the Colonies; and many of those sold into slavery were brought across the Atlantic by English shipping companies.

You may also not be aware that before the Declaration of Independence that we all know was agreed to, another version was written by Thomas Jefferson, which was edited down to remove certain passages and reword it so as to be acceptable for all concerned. One of the passages which was removed from Jefferson’s original draft laid the blame for slavery at the feet of the King of England, “He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce.”

By the time our Constitution was written, slavery was a widespread practice in the Colonies; even in the North, and any attempt to ban it in the Constitution would have doomed the document to rejection; so they swept it under the rug and allowed it to continue.

The point I’m trying to get at is that slavery was not confined to the United States, and it certainly was not the fault of the Southern States who depended upon slave labor for the harvesting of their crops. So now let us move on to the argument that the Civil War was fought to end the practice of slavery, and that the South fought solely to keep their slaves.

On December 20, 1860 South Carolina formally issued a declaration stating that it had seceded from the Union. In January 1861 Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia and Louisiana followed suit. Then in February Texas also seceded from the Union. Each State issued their own declarations, stating the reasons why they had chosen to leave the Union; just as our Founders had done when they wrote the Declaration of Independence. Yet at this point in time there was no war.

What you must firmly understand before I continue is that the Constitution authorizes the federal government to establish and erect forts and naval yards in those States which are part of the Union. But what was the status of those States which had issued declarations of secession; and what did that mean for all federal facilities on their soil?

If South Carolina had truly reverted to its status prior to the adoption of the Constitution, then all land within its borders belonged to South Carolina, not the federal government. And when Abraham Lincoln sought to provoke South Carolina by resupplying Fort Sumter, he was in effect, the initiator in hostilities against a sovereign and independent nation.

History books teach our children that the Civil War began when South Carolina attacked Fort Sumter. That is a misrepresentation of the truth. South Carolina did not attack Fort Sumter, they were defending what was theirs from occupation by a foreign invader. And if the attack upon Fort Sumter is what started the Civil War, how can anyone say that slavery is what caused the Civil War? Was Fort Sumter a staging ground for the movement of slaves from one place to another? No, it was a military installation which belonged to South Carolina after it had reverted to a free and independent nation; and Lincoln’s attempt to resupply it was an act of war against South Carolina.

When Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as President he gave a inaugural address in which he stated, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” If he had no lawful right to interfere with slavery before the Civil War began, how can anyone make the claim that he fought a war to end it?

Two years later Lincoln would write a letter to Horace Greely explaining his sentiments regarding the war and the subject of slavery, “I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.”

Again, using Lincoln’s own words, how can anyone claim that the Civil War was fought to permanently end slavery?

Then of course there is the argument that the South fought to keep their slaves. Why would the Southern States risk war and all the horrors that accompany it to keep their slaves when all they would have needed to do was ratify a constitutional amendment which would have made slavery PERMANENT and IRREVOCABLE?

On February 28, 1861 the House of Representatives passed a measure which would have done just that. Then in March the Senate adopted the same measure without change. All that needed to be done for it to become the 13th Amendment was for the States to ratify it. And what was the text of this proposed amendment? Why the text would have made slavery permanent. Here, read for yourselves the proposed Corwin Amendment, “No amendment of this Constitution, having for its object any interference within the States with the relations between their citizens and those described in second section of the first article of the Constitution as “all other persons”, shall originate with any State that does not recognize that relation within its own limits, or shall be valid without the assent of every one of the States composing the Union.”

So, if Congress was willing to make slavery permanent, why would the South fight a war instead of simply ratifying the proposed Corwin Amendment? Not only did Congress support this measure, Abraham Lincoln did as well, stating as much in his Inaugural Address, “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution–which amendment, however, I have not seen–has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

Lincoln may, or may not have felt that slavery was an abomination, but it was NOT the reason why the two regions of our nation went to war against each other in 1861. The reason they went to war is because Abraham Lincoln raised an army of 75,000 men and invaded them. Had he not done that there would have been no war; only a peaceful separation of the South from the Union.

On Monday, April 29, 1861, Confederate President Jefferson Davis gave a speech in Montgomery, Alabama, stating, “We feel that our cause is just and holy; we protest solemnly in the face of mankind that we desire peace at any sacrifice save that of honor and independence; we seek no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind from the States with which we were lately confederated; all we ask is to be let alone; that those who never held power over us shall not now attempt our subjugation by arms. This we will, this we must, resist to the direst extremity. The moment that this pretension is abandoned the sword will drop from our grasp, and we shall be ready to enter into treaties of amity and commerce that cannot but be mutually beneficial. So long as this pretension is maintained, with a firm reliance on that Divine Power which covers with its protection the just cause, we will continue to struggle for our inherent right to freedom, independence, and self-government.” (Emphasis added)

If you believe that our nation’s founders had the right to declare their independence from England, and if you believe that our Constitution was given life by the States, and the people residing within them, then how can you argue that those who agreed to become part of a Union of States cannot repeal their decision when the government the Constitution created becomes ‘destructive of the ends for which it was established.’ (Declaration of Independence)

If you deny the Southern States right to secede from the Union then you deny that the Colonists had the right to separate themselves from British rule. No man, nor group of men, can be forced to submit to any government that tyrannizes or oppresses them. To argue against that is to say that man can be forced to accept tyranny; which is just another form of slavery over the rights of man. And if you say that the Civil War was fought to end slavery, how can you justify that when, in fact, the Civil War was fought to keep the South in bondage to the system of government it had a hand in creating?

Yes, the Civil War did eventually lead to the ratification of the 13th Amendment we are all familiar with; the one that ended slavery. But the first shot at a 13th Amendment would have done the exact opposite. But throughout this war of aggression waged by Abraham Lincoln, he continued to claim that his only goal was to keep the Union intact; whether it was due to his perceived responsibility as President, or whether it was due to his fear that the loss of the Southern States would cause the money’s collected by tariffs in the South would stop and his treasury would dry up; killing the government that depended upon those funds.

The Civil War was a direct result of actions taken by George Washington while he served as President and led federal troops into Pennsylvania to quell the Whiskey Rebellion. Washington set a precedent which Lincoln only followed on a larger scale; that being that the government created by the Constitution has the right, and authority to use military force against any and all who seek to oppose its authority.

What this means is that, with the loss of the Confederacy, the federal government has become superior to those it was supposed to represent; making corporations of the States, and slaves of the people.

Then when the Southern States were forced to accept the 14th Amendment under duress, before they were allowed back into the Union, the serfdom of the American people began in earnest. By declaring ourselves to be United States citizens, rather than citizens of the State wherein we reside, we are saying that our allegiance and loyalty is to a nationalist form of government and not to the principles upon which that government was originally established.

That’s why I harp so much on the Civil War. It is not only to clear up the misconception that it was fought over slavery, but the fact that the consequences of the loss of the Confederacy to Lincoln’s army are still being felt today; even though most people don’t even notice it.

That is why I no longer pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, for to do so is to pledge my loyalty to a nation, and not my status as a citizen of the State wherein I reside; as screwed up as that State may be notwithstanding. That is why my flag will always be the flag of the Confederacy, for that flag represents the last dying gasp of the Republic our Founders established in 1789.

It may have taken 40 years of my life to realize it, but I was born a rebel and I will die a rebel. I WILL NOT submit to a government that seeks to enslave me; no matter which party is in control of it. Although the laws this government has passed, and continues to pass may restrict my freedom, the spirit of liberty which animated great men like Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams still courses through my veins and beats in my heart; and I will never bow down and accept slavery without resisting it; NEVER!

You may choose servitude over freedom, and that is a choice you have the right to make. Just don’t expect me to stand beside you when you do it; I will fight for my liberty; to the death if needs be. It’s the least I can do to honor those who fought to secure it for me in 1776; and if you were a true patriot you would be standing beside me; not bowing down to your government and accepting all the violations of your rights it is guilty of.

But as Mark Twain so aptly said, “In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”

While y’all are on your knees submitting to tyranny, I’ll be flying the flag which represents my values and beliefs with pride; and the politically correct who don’t know what it truly stands for can go to hell.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Looks Can Be Deceiving

I’m pretty sure that some of those who read my articles have, at one time or another heard the old metaphor: What came first, the chicken or the egg? I would like to pose a similar query for you to consider: What came first, man or government?

In order to clarify what I’m getting at I’d like to pose another question: Who wrote the various constitutions which formed the State governments? The obvious answer to both questions is man, or groups of men. Man, as an individual, is sovereign and independent of all other men; that is to say that no man, or group of men, can force their will upon any individual or other group of individuals, without violating their liberty.

But as man is a weak creature, subject to all manner of flaws and imperfections, people came to the realization that some governing body needed to be established to better secure the rights and liberty of all men from the violations they were prone to in a State of Nature free of any governing force. So governments were formed; simple at first; such as tribal councils that settled disputes amongst the tribesmen. Yet the basic purpose for which governments were formed was for the better preservation of liberty and the administration of justice.

The American Colonies were originally established upon the principle that those who occupied them, although they may have called themselves Americans, were in all actuality subjects under the rule of a monarch. This condition lasted for over a century and a half before the sovereign ruler over the Colonies began enacting laws which the Colonists felt violated their rights as freemen and freewomen.

At first they petitioned, then they protested, and then when all that had not eased their suffering they sought the only refuge left; to completely free themselves from the rule of a tyrant. Yet tyrants are not apt to let go of those they tyrannize without a fight, so a war was fought; a war which those seeking to free themselves from the bonds of tyranny won.

It was during this period of our nation’s history that the various State constitutions were written and ratified; creating the State governments that would govern for those who had established them; the people. When America did gain her independence the States reverted to independent nations of their own right; each with its own system of government to handle the affairs of each independent State.

Yet the people still retained the ultimate, or supreme sovereignty; for it was by their hands that these State governments had come into existence, having been delegated certain specific powers. The Legislature of Massachusetts could no more pass a law which affected the citizens of Virginia than the United States could pass a law which affected the people of Germany.

However, during the revolution it was decided that a confederacy should be formed in order for the Colonies to untie in defeating a common enemy; the British. Not for a moment did a single State relinquish its sovereignty by entering into this compact uniting them into a confederacy. In fact the 2nd Article of the Articles of Confederation clearly states, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

These Articles of Confederation established a single governing body to manage the affairs of the Confederation, a Congress. This Congress was bestowed with certain powers and certain powers only, with all others being reserved to the States. Yet after the revolution ended there many who felt that the Congress established by the Articles of Confederation was weak and ineffective; so they sought to remedy that.

A convention was called for in Annapolis, Maryland to propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation, but not enough delegates showed up for it to have the unanimity needed to effect any real change. They did, however, call for another convention to be held the following summer, this time in the city of Philadelphia, in the hopes that enough delegates would show up to do what was needed to strengthen their system of government sufficiently to keep the Union intact.

So, in May of 1787 delegates began arriving in Philadelphia, sent there by their State Legislatures for the sole purpose of coming to an agreement on proposals for amending the Articles of Confederation. That’s ALL they were authorized to do; but we know that isn’t what happened, is it?

From the moment a quorum was obtained, the doors were locked and curtains were drawn across the windows to keep the things they said from the prying eyes and ears of those who may have sought to spy upon their proceedings. Then they were sworn to secrecy; promising not to reveal a word spoken within the chambers until they had produced a finished document. Then came the trump card; they were not going to come up with proposals for amendments to the Articles of Confederation, they were going to create a new system of government; entirely of their own making.

I know most of you won’t take the time to do it, but I’m going to recommend something anyway. I would highly recommend that you Google James Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention and read them in their entirety. Yes it may take some time, but it would do a lot towards opening your eyes to what went on behind those closed doors in the Philadelphia State House. The arguments over representation, election of the Executive, and many other issues are debated and argued and I found them to be very enlightening; both as to how the constitution came into existence, and also as to how local prejudices and loyalties played a part in shaping the final document.

It’s just as Ben Franklin’s final speech to the convention states, “I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution: For when you assemble a Number of Men to have the Advantage of their joint Wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those Men all their Prejudices, their Passions, their Errors of Opinion, their local Interests, and their selfish Views. From such an Assembly can a perfect Production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this System approaching so near to Perfection as it does…”

Yet the problem for them was, now that they had created this new system of government, they had to convince the States to agree to it; which would prove even more difficult than accepting the compromises which led to the constitution being written.

I sometimes get the distinct impression that some people think that once the Philadelphia Convention finished writing the constitution and convened their proceedings that the constitution simply went into effect.

What actually happened is that the delegates returned to their States, with copies of their finished document in hand, and then presented them to those who had sent them off to Philadelphia in the first place. I don’t know if you have ever given this any thought, but when that happened the State Legislatures could very well have said, “No, this is NOT what we sent you to Philadelphia to do. Go back, try again; and this time stick to the instructions given you!” But we all know that’s not what happened, is it? Instead they accepted the document that was presented to them; along with the demands the delegates to the convention had attached to it.

You see, not only had the delegates overstepped their authority by producing a constitution instead of simple amendments to the Articles of Confederation, they dictated the means by which their creation would be put into operation; and, unfortunately for us, the State Legislatures went along with those demands.

Had the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention simply done as they were told, they would have returned to their State Legislatures with a list of proposals for amendments to the Articles of Confederation. But since that didn’t happen, since an entirely new system of government is what they were handed, they simply could not give it their blessing and say, “Go for it.” You see, there is this little known legal maxim which states, “delegata potestas non potest delegari” or a delegated power cannot be further delegated.

If the States, via their State Constitutions had been given certain powers then they could not just simply hand over more of the power which had been granted them to any centralized form of government; not without first obtaining consent from the true sovereigns; the people.

So Ratification Assemblies were held, and a year’s worth of debates took place while the people of the States argued over whether or not to accept this new system of government which had been proposed. These arguments were not confined to the meeting halls were the actual ratification assemblies were held, no they were argued over in homes, churches, taverns, and of course, the local newspapers. Both those who supported and those who opposed ratification went on the offensive; arguing their position and hoping to sway the minds of the people towards their belief. It makes for fascinating reading; both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist writings. In find these writings to be very enlightening; especially seeing as how many of the warnings given by the Anti-Federalists in regards to the dangers of the constitution have proven to be true.

But we all know that the constitution was ratified, and that the government it outlined did go into effect. I suppose the thing that is logical to ask now is: Is the government we have today the same one that those who ratified the constitution agreed to in 1788-1789?

Yes, we do have a President; just as there was when the constitution first went into effect. Yes, we do have a Congress; consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives; just as we did in 1789. And yes, we do have a federal judiciary; just as we did when our government first went into operation. So, from all outward appearances the governments look the same now as they did back then. But we all know that looks can be deceiving.

If you were to dig just a little bit deeper you would find that the government we have today bears absolutely no resemblance to the one that was first put into operation in 1789. Are the boundaries which separate the powers given to each branch of our government still intact and are they the same as they were in 1789? Is the overall power our government exercises the same limited power that was originally exercised or has it grown to monstrous proportions? Are all the bodies our government was instituted to represent still receiving the representation they did back when the first Congress went into session?

In answer to each of the above questions, the answer is a resounding NO! So in all actuality, we DO NOT have the same government as the one which the State Ratifying Assemblies agreed to.

If the principle of delegata potestas non potest delegari remains as true today as when it first went into effect, how can our government up and grant itself more power than it was originally given without being considered tyrannical? If that same principle applies, how can one branch of the government overstep the boundaries which separate it from the other branch and assume powers which were reserved to them? If that same principle applies, how can one branch of the government give the other branch more powers than it was originally intended to have?

For instance, where in the Constitution does it authorize the government to enact a law which restricts the citizens of a State from using marijuana; either for medicinal or recreational purposes? Nowhere, that’s where. Yet they have done it, and created an agency to enforce the laws they have passed criminalizing its use. On top of that, although some States may have legalized the recreational use of marijuana, some employers ignore the State laws and apply federal statutes upon their employees.

Another example is the War Powers Act which gives the President the discretion to send US troops off to fight without a formal declaration of war by Congress. How is THAT constitutional if the power to declare war is the sole purview of Congress?

Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to require that people participate in programs which save money for their retirement or purchase health insurance; and don’t give me that general welfare crap, I’m not buying it!

Some people believe the government to have nearly unlimited power to do whatever is in the general welfare of the country and the people; but that simply isn’t so. People who believe this are reading between the lines and interpreting the constitution in ways it was not meant to be interpreted. They are finding hidden, or implied powers by their interpretation of clauses such as the general welfare clause; thinking it gives government a blank check to enact programs and restrict rights…all for the general welfare.

But that is not how Madison interpreted the General Welfare Clause. In a private letter to James Robertson Jr, dated April 20, 1831, Madison wrote, “With respect to the words “General welfare” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense, would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character, which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its Creators.”

When our federal government overstepped its authority in the early years of its existence there will still those who understood the limited nature of our government as outlined by the Constitution; and they resisted all encroachments of power which were reserved to the States and violated both the rights of the States and those of the people.

One such instance came in the administration of President John Adams when he signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts; leading his Vice-President Thomas Jefferson to write, “…the government created by this compact [the Constitution for the United States] was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; . . . . that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority…”

As I have already mentioned, when our constitution was being argued over across the country a series of debates waged in the press; both for and against the ratification of that document. The most commonly known of these debates are the writings of Publius; known to all as the Federalist Papers.

Knowing full well that these articles are nothing more than a slick ad campaign to get people to support ratification of the constitution, they still remain the arguments which were given to the people in order to convince them to accept the new form of government they were being asked to accept, and therefore should be taken to be an honest explanation of the content of the constitution and the shape and powers given to this new form of government. That is of course unless they were flat out lying to the people just to get them to accept the system of government they were offering.

Therefore, when James Madison wrote the following in Federalist 45 we should take him at his word, or at least give him the benefit of the doubt that he was explaining a true concept regarding the different powers held by the States and the central government created by the constitution, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

Does that even remotely sound like the government we have today? I didn’t think so. So why do people continue to support this government by going to the polls and voting for people to fill the seats of power within it? Don’t you know that by doing so you are consenting to whatever laws they pass; that you are consenting to having your liberty taken away from you? Yet people tell me that I’m the one who loses his right to complain because I don’t vote any more. Yet I’m not the one electing these criminals to office, YOU ARE! So who really is to blame?

During the debates that raged across the land and in the newspapers over ratification of the constitution, a Massachusetts man wrote a series of essays under the pseudonym of John Dewitt, in honor of the 17th Century Dutch patriot who defended the liberties of the people against an oppressive government. In his second article Dewitt makes the following statement, “In short, my fellow-citizens, previous to a capacity of giving a compleat answer to these proceedings, you must determine that the Constitution of your Commonwealth, which is instructive, beautiful and consistent in practice, which has been justly admired in Europe, as a model of perfection, and which the present Convention have affected to imitate, a Constitution which is especially calculated for your territory, and is made conformable to your genius, your habits, the mode of holding your estates, and your particular interests, shall be reduced in its powers to those of a City Corporation: — The skeleton of it may remain, but its vital principle shall be transferred to the new Government: Nay, you must go still further, and agree to invest the new Congress with powers, which you have yet thought proper to withhold from your own present Government.”

Have you ever wondered why the drafters of the constitution created a bicameral Congress; that is a Congress with two separate and distinct houses? Are you aware that there were those in the convention which produced our constitution who favored the almost absolute abolishment of State authority; reducing them to mere appendages or corporations which would serve the federal government? Luckily that idea was scrapped and a bicameral Congress was agreed to as a compromise.

The members of the Senate would be chosen by the State Legislatures and would act as the voice of the States in determining which laws were passed by the federal government. The voice of the people was to be found in a House of Representatives elected directly by the great mass of the citizenry. Each would pose as the voice of those they represented and act as a check upon each other to insure that no law was passed which might harm them in their own sphere of sovereignty.

This was done to serve as a check upon the federal government to ensure that it did not overstep the boundaries which separated its authority from that of the States as stated in Federalist 45. Yet when the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913, giving the selection of US Senators to the general public, the States lost all say in what laws the federal government passed; reducing them to mere corporations; just as John Dewitt predicted.

I could go on and on and on with this; and never even touch upon the crime that was Lincoln’s little war against a States right to secede. Yet I think I have rambled on long enough for one sitting.

However, in closing I’d like to repeat one question I asked a moment ago. If our government is guilty of doing all these things, why is it that so many people still look to it for the answers to all the problems our country faces; when in fact government IS the problem; or at least TOO MUCH government. As Jefferson said in his first Inaugural Address, “Still one thing more, fellow-citizens — 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.”

If you truly care about the future of this country and want to see it become great again, the answer is not more government programs; the answer can be found in those words uttered by Thomas Jefferson almost 220 years ago. But those are just words; for them to have any power and effect the people of this country are going to have to have the courage to stand up to the Leviathan thing called government and demand that it obey the law we have imposed upon it, or face the consequences of our wrath.

Posted in General | 1 Comment

My Thoughts on the Nunes Memo

So they got caught; that about sums up how I feel about the whole affair regarding the Nunes memo. Nixon got caught too; although his crimes were nowhere near as serious as those brought to light by the release of this highly anticipated memo.

Now if those damned pesky Democrats would just shut up, step aside and take their obstructionist shackles off Donald Trump he could get to the business of Making America Great Again; according to his own personal vision of what greatness entails.

If only that would happen, then everything would be just hunky dory in the land of the free and people could go back to their Facebook, their football, and whatever else it is they do with a sound mind knowing that our government is in good hands; you know, kinda like those Allstate commercials.
Excuse me while I go vomit…

Let’s just say the Russian’s were guilty of manipulating our election…so what? It’s not like we haven’t screwed around in other countries; supporting opposition candidates and toppling those who weren’t friendly to US business interests.

Excuse me America, but your hypocrisy is showing…

On the other hand, let’s say the Clinton campaing willingly produced a fake news story about Russian interference in our election, and then the FBI acted upon that story and surveilled the Trump campaign illegally. It’s politics, and politics is cutthroat.

As the Oracle tells Neo in the second Matrix film, “I thought you’d have figured that out by now.”

When are people going to realize that it’s all a circus sideshow designed to keep us divided and at each other’s throats? As long as the people keep saying our problems are due to the Democrats, or that they are due to the Republicans, they’ll never see that our problems are due to government in general overstepping its authority and restricting the liberty it was established to protect.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

A Short Rant About Knowledge and the Truth

Besides the actual knowledge I have obtained in all my studies, there are a few other things I have learned since I began researching both the founding and the history of this country. One of those things is that an overwhelming majority of the people in this country are, not only reluctant to accept the truth if you present it to them, they simply don’t care about the information you are trying to share with them. For the most part people are content to go on believing whatever it is they were taught in school and have absolutely no desire to gain further enlightenment; even if this means they live the rest of their lives believing lies. If you ask me, that’s probably the saddest statement on human nature there is. Unfortunately is also probably the truest.

As the graphic at the top of this little rant states, “Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people.” But the Father of our Constitution, James Madison, expanded that sentiment even further in a letter to W.T. Barry, “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”

When I write these rants or political commentaries, if you will, I always print a copy out and take it to work. I then make copies on the photocopy machine and share them with a few others who truly do like reading them. However I always make a few extra copies to leave in the cafeteria for whoever might want to read them. Inevitably I come to work the next day to find them still there, or thrown into the trash cans because someone found the things I said OFFENSIVE.

How can knowledge be offensive unless one is so closed minded that they refuse to have the courage to read things that might threaten their precious beliefs? The ancient Greek philosopher Plato once said, “We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.”

I, literally, cannot count the discussions I have had with people who refuse to accept any information which contradicts their existing beliefs; while at the same time, if you ask them to provide any factual evidence to support those beliefs they will be unable to do so. Instead of facts, they recite sound bites they heard/saw on CNN, FOX, or any of the other major news networks. Is that what passes for knowledge today; what the news media tells people is the truth? If that truly is the case, then we’re doomed.

If you think about what Madison said, “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance…” then it’s pretty easy, at least for me, to see how easily an ignorant people will be misled by those who do not want them to come into possession of the truth regarding their criminal activities. Could that be why so very little is taught to our children about the nature of their rights, or the actual powers our government was originally granted? Could it be that those responsible for educating us have, in fact, sought to produce entire generations of Americans who are woefully lacking in actual knowledge?

Yet these same people will argue that they are well informed because they are up to date on current events; because they watch a 30 minute news broadcast every evening and read the local newspaper. Do they not see that they are being spoon fed their beliefs; being told what is truth and what is a lie; that they are being conditioned, or to use a better word, brainwashed?

Yet if you even attempt to try and get people to look beyond what they are being told you are given a multitude of excuses as to why they can’t. Yet knowledge today is more closer to us than ever before in the history of man, if only people would take the time to seek it out.

British actor/author Stephen Fry once wrote something that perfectly describes the state of mind I find in most of the people I encounter, especially those of the younger generation, “There are young men and women up and down the land who happily (or unhappily) tell anyone who will listen that they don’t have an academic turn of mind, or that they aren’t lucky enough to have been blessed with a good memory, and yet can recite hundreds of pop lyrics and reel off any amount of information about footballers. Why? Because they are interested in those things. They are curious. If you are hungry for food, you are prepared to hunt high and low for it. If you are hungry for information it is the same. Information is all around us, now more than ever before in human history. You barely have to stir or incommode yourself to find things out. The only reason people do not know much is because they do not care to know. They are incurious. Incuriosity is the oddest and most foolish failing there is.”

As y’all know, I like to read, and I like to share the information I have learned with you in these little articles I write, (okay, I know that sometimes they are not always so LITTLE, but you get the picture). Out of 100 people, how many do you think would take the time to read what I write? I’m guessing, and probably being very generous with my estimation, that maybe I could find 10 people who would read one of my articles. Out of those 10 I’m betting that half of them would stop to think, and I mean really THINK about what I said. Of that half, how many do you think would change their beliefs because of what I said? What good is information if it is not thought about and then put to use by those who obtain it?

As I said, y’all know I like to read, and at any time I am probably reading through at least 3 books to further my own personal knowledge base. The other night I was reading through the book How Alexander Hamilton Screwed America, by author Brion McClanahan, and I came across something I hadn’t known. During the Washington administration Alexander Hamilton and James Madison had undergone a series of essays and rebuttals in the newspapers under the pseudonyms Pacificus and Helvidicus.

Out of curiosity I typed Pacificus into the search box and hit enter. WHAM, there it was with dozens of links taking me to the Pacificus/Helvidicus debates. Then awhile back I was reading a book on the writings of the Anti-Federalists during the ratification of our Constitution. I came across a passage in the writings of John De Witt and wanted to find the entire document. So I did the same, typed in John De Witt #2 into my search engine and hit enter. Again, it was right there.

The same thing can be said for almost anything about the founding of our country or the truth regarding America’s history; all it takes is the desire to seek it out. Unfortunately that desire is something that is woefully lacking in this country. Yet people can somehow find the time to take pictures of their meals and post them to Facebook, or they can sit in front of their TV’s for hours on end on the weekend watching football.

You tell me, what does that say about what is important to the average American. It certainly isn’t the obtaining of knowledge! And until that mindset that entertainment and self-gratification are more important than knowledge is changed, nothing is going to get any better in this country; we are going to continue to be ‘governed’ by those who seek to abuse their authority and restrict the liberty they were supposed to be protecting.

I don’t care which side of the political spectrum you’re on, you are supporting crooks who don’t care one bit about upholding their oaths of office to support and defend the Constitution, and they certainly don’t care about whether or not the laws they pass restrict the liberty of the people of this country.

As I overheard someone ask last night:

Q:Do you know how to tell when a politician is lying?
A: Their lips are moving.

That about sums it up, and nothing will change until the people of this country start seeking out who has the true power in this country, why we established our system of government, and the width and depth of the corruption to the principles this country was founded upon.
The truth is out there, but it isn’t going to come knocking on your door; you’re going to have to go out and find it.

And that’s all I have to say on that…

Posted in General | Leave a comment

The Time Will Come…

I don’t know which search engine y’all use when conducting internet searches, but for ease of use, and yeah, I know there are those who don’t like them, I use Google. So I don’t know how this will work if you use, say Bing or any of the other search engines, but I typed define principle into the Google search bar and got the following response: a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning. I think that is as close a definition as to how I personally describe it, so I’m gonna use that as the basis for what I’m about to write.

I know that there are many who read my articles that already know and understand the things I write about, and not to demean their support for my efforts, I do not write these little rants for them. What I hope to accomplish is to stimulate the grey matter of those whose beliefs differ from mine. I have no qualms with having discussions with anyone, as long as they remain open to facts which may contradict their position, while at the same time are able to provide facts of their own which support that position. That is how an INTELLIGENT debate takes place.

Unfortunately, what I typically encounter is people whose minds are set, yet they cannot provide any factual evidence to support their position on a multitude of issues. So what happens is they get ‘OFFENDED’ and try to censor or denigrate the character of the person who is offending them with those uncomfortable things called facts.

If you want my honest opinion, that is the behavior of a 5 yr old, not an adult.

Anyways, I’d like to ask you a series of short questions and hopefully your brains might wake up out of their sluggish state and actually begin to think for themselves rather than simply repeating whatever rhetoric you have been conditioned to accept as the truth.

Okay, let’s get down to business…

Do you think our constitution just magically appeared; that the drafters left a blank parchment on the table and overnight words magically formed upon it outlining a system of government? No, of course not, we don’t live in a land of fairly tales, (although sometimes I think people believe in them). The truth is someone put those words upon that piece of parchment; which leads me to the next question.

Who wrote our constitution, was it our government? Of course not, for our current system of government did not exist at that exact moment in time; it was men who gathered together and debated, then compromised, and came up with the words to put down upon that piece of parchment creating a constitution for the united States of America.

As a side note, I find it interesting that every time I write out, or type out at that is, the phrase united States of America my spell checker tells me that it is incorrect. When I check on how to fix it the spellchecker always shows that I must capitalize the U in united. When you type something out like that it declares it to be a pronoun, describing a single entity; the United States of America. The way I type it declares the word united to be an adjective, describing the States which make up America. The States are united under a constitution and for the common good of all, but they are NOT a single inseparable entity; a point I hope to prove in the remainder of this little rant.

Getting back to my series of questions, if men wrote our constitution, under what authority did they do so? I mean, did they just arbitrarily hold a meeting and say, “Hey, why don’t we create a system of government for this country.”

While some may believe that is how it happened, it isn’t. The State Legislatures selected delegates to attend a convention to come up with proposals for amending the existing constitution; known as The Articles of Confederation. You see, they already had an existing federal government, but they had come to the conclusion that it was weak and inefficient; so they sent delegates to Philadelphia to come up with amendments which would strengthen it; something the delegates did not do by the way. Rather they took it upon themselves to scrap the Articles of Confederation and come up with their own version of a central government; completely disregarding the instructions given them by their State Legislatures.

My final question is this; once those delegates came up with their constitution, did it just immediately go into effect? No, what happened is that it was then shown to the State Legislatures, and they in turn called for conventions, or assemblies to be held where each district, or county, would send people to discuss and debate the merits and faults of this proposed constitution, and then vote on whether to accept or reject the proposed plan. This is how ratification works; a process by which the people agree to systems of government, or changes to existing systems of government.

If you’ll notice there is a common thread to be found in each of the questions I posed to you; that thread being that it was not government itself, it was men, or people in general, who performed these actions. Therefore, isn’t it a logical conclusion that the power to create, agree to, and amend systems of government belongs to whom….why the people of a country. Isn’t that what Jefferson basically said in our Declaration of Independence, “…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

That, my friends, is what’s known as a principle; one upon which our system of government rests its existence upon. It therefore follows that if man can create government, cannot he un-create it if he grows weary of it or if it becomes oppressive?

I find it absolutely mind boggling that so many people believe we have a system of government that is superior to the people who created it. I also find it mind boggling that people think that anyone who talks of dismantling our government because it has become oppressive is a danger to society, or America; when it is government itself which poses the danger to us.

The problem as I see it is that the majority of the people in America consent to a system of government that routinely violates their rights; leaving the minority who cherishes its liberty to suffer under an oppressive government. They believe that we must sacrifice our rights, surrender our liberty for the overall public good and so that order can be maintained. In other words, they demand that we become slaves so that they can keep their form of government; no matter how oppressive it becomes.

Sorry, but I won’t submit, and I’d say something that rhymes with truck blue, but I want to keep this with a PG rating.

In his miscellaneous notes, Thomas Jefferson describes exactly what I am discussing, “Wherever there are men, there will be parties; and wherever there are free men they will make themselves heard. Those of firm health and spirits are unwilling to cede more of their liberty than is necessary to preserve order; those of feeble constitutions will wish to see one strong arm able to protect them from the many. These are the Whigs and Tories of nature. These mutual jealousies produce mutual security; and while the laws shall be obeyed, all will be safe. He alone is your enemy who disobeys them.”

The problem is, the law IS NOT being obeyed. Our Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the law, and our government does not obey it, and the people who put these criminals into office don’t care that the law is not being obeyed as long as they somehow benefit from whatever unconstitutional laws and programs our government enacts.

By now you all with have read my little letter to the FDA, or at least I hope you have. If I may be so bold to ask, where does the FDA get its authority to arbitrarily enact regulations which make my life miserable? If I recall correctly Congress is the legislative authority and before any law goes into effect it must be signed by the president. So how can the FDA enact these regulations of their own volition AND STILL be considered constitutional?

If you ask me, our government has strayed so far beyond its original intent that the only way to ever hope to fix it is to tear it down and rebuild it from scratch.

If government was established by the people, then it should also be representative of those who established it. But at the same time it was by authorization of the States that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were sent; so the States were also originally represented by the government. That’s why our Congress was bicameral; with one house representing the people and the other representing the States. That balance was shifted with the ratification of the 17th Amendment and it is by the fickle and partisan will of the people that members to Congress are chosen.

I think that was intentional, if you ask me, but that’s beside the point. What has happened is that people have become so ignorant regarding the shape our government was supposed to take and the powers it was supposed to be allowed to exercise that they can’t see how tyrannical it has become; even when people like me try to explain it to them. Unfortunately, what happens is that government exercises its coercive power to force the will of the majority upon the minority; and that is exactly how Ben Franklin described democracy; two wolves and a sheep discussing what’s for dinner.

That’s what happens though when the people who are the true sovereigns in a country disregard the law, or choose to set it aside for their own petty self-interests; what we end up with is tyranny where the majority gets to decide what rights the minority gets to exercise. In other words, when that happens one segment of society becomes enslaved to the large segment.

Well I refuse to be a slave…to anyone; be it our government or the people who are too ignorant and stupid to see that one day the coercive power of government they support being used upon my rights is going to come after their rights as well.

In closing I’d like to leave you with three quotes, all from different people, but saying basically the same thing. Each of these quotes can be taken in whatever manner you want, but know this; they represent how I feel regarding the continued infringement upon my rights and liberty.

The first quote comes from Emiliano Zapata Salazar, one of the leading figures of the Mexican Revolution, “I’d rather die on my feet than live on my knees.”

The next comes from retired Continental Army General John Stark, who sent it off to an anniversary celebration of the Battle of Bennington in New Hampshire, “Live free or die.”

And the third, and final quote, comes from none other than that bastion of liberty Patrick Henry, “I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.”

Oh, and know this, although I may be the most outspoken person on this subject that you know, there are a great many others I know who, although they remain silent, are just as fed up with our government, and the ignorant people of America who tolerate the tyranny it exercises simply because it is THEIR PARTY exercising it. The time will come when you are held just as accountable as our government will be…

Posted in General | Leave a comment

A Cheery Little Letter to the Fine Folks at the FDA

Food and Drug Administration
10903 New Hampshire Ave
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002

To All Those Concerned: February 1, 2018

In January of 1979 I enlisted in the United States Air Force and shortly thereafter found myself at Lackland AFB, Texas attending basic training. Upon completion of basic training I was then sent to Sheppard Air Force Base, near Wichita Falls, Texas, to begin my technical training. It was while I was assigned to Sheppard that I developed a rather nasty ingrown toe nail. It got so bad that they sent me to the base hospital to have it taken care of.
While I was at the base hospital the foot doctor asked me a rather strange question; he said, “Do your feet hurt a lot when you subject them to long periods of standing?” I said, “No, not really; why?” He then told me something which has proven to be quite true, “When you get older, they will; believe me. Your feet are serious candidates for major foot pain in old age.”

When I hit my late 30’s I began noticing a dull soreness in my feet at the end of a long day. By my 40’s that dull soreness had become a constant ache accompanied by various sharp stabbing pains. By the time I hit my 50’s at the end of the day my feet felt like someone had beaten them with a 2 x 4 and then made me walk across broken glass.

I have been to 4 different podiatrists and I have gotten 4 different courses of treatment to ease or eradicate the pain I feel in my feet. One built me custom orthotic inserts to go into my work boots because he said my arches were way too high and all my weight was distributed onto the heels and balls of my feet.

Another said, yes, my arches were high, but it was due to tendon shortening; and he began a series of painful injections of cortisone steroids into the tendons on the underside of my arches.

Another had custom fitted work boots built.

Then the other began with another set of custom orthotic inserts, then had me buy these special boots with springs in the boot heel; out of pocket mind you, as my insurance wouldn’t cover them. After two days of wearing those I know what Christ felt like when they pounded that nail through his feet.

Two things are in common in regards to the treatment I received from these quack doctors; first is that once their suggested mode of treatment was proven to be ineffective, they basically shrugged their shoulders as if to say ‘I don’t know what else to try.’ Secondly, not a single one of them ever had X rays or an MRI done on my feet to see what may be going on inside them to cause me this pain that causes me to look at my shotgun at the end of each night and thing, “Just one pull of the trigger Neal, and all your pain will vanish forever.”

What does this have to do with the Food and Drug Administration? Well the only course of treatment that has provided me with any relief is pain medication prescribed by my family practitioner; and you people are screwing around with it and making me jump through all kinds of fucking hoops to get it!

First came your decision to reclassify pain medication so that the doctors couldn’t just call in refills to the pharmacy for pickup; requiring that I drive 15 miles to my doctors office and physically pick up a handwritten refill scrip from my doctor and then take that to the pharmacy.

I work Swing Shifts and get off between 11 p.m. to midnight. By the time I shower and unwind and go to bed it is around 3 a.m. So I was either forced to get up early so I could run into town, get the scrip, take it to the pharmacy, and wait while it was filled, (all in time to make it to work mind you), or I could use a sick or vacation day every time I got a refill.

Then my insurance company, and I don’t know if this was at the urging of you fine folks at the FDA or not, began refusing to pay for a month’s supply of Norco. If I wanted them to pay it the doctor would either have to put me on a 10 day supply; tripling the number of times I would have to get up early and go to my doctor, or my doctor would have to put me on a chronic pain management program; which incidentally has to be updated every year for the rest of my fucking life.

Another hassle.

Then just yesterday I got the icing on the cake. I called my doctors office to get a refill and was told that now I have to make an appointment to physically see my doctor EVERY GODDAMNED TIME I REFILL MY PAIN MEDS!!! So not only do I have to get out of bed early, I have to pay a co pay and sit around in a waiting room just so my doctor can take my vitals, ask me how’s it going, and then hand me my refill scrip.

Listen, I fully understand that there is a problem in this country with opioid abuse. But just as with everything else the government does, including gun control, you idiots think it’s okay to punish everyone for the problems created by just a small percentage of the people. Someone shoots up a school, let’s ban that type rifle for everybody. See what I’m getting at here? So a few people are abusing, and even dying from abusing opioids, you guys make life hell for everyone.

I truly wish there was some way I could magically transfer the pain in my feet into the feet of every single one of you at the FDA. I promise you, by the end of one day you’d either revoke every idiotic regulation you have enacted which makes it difficult for people with serious pain issues to obtain the ONLY form of relief they have found, or you blow your fucking brains out because you couldn’t handle the pain.

I’m truly sorry if I have used words that have offended anyone’s precious feelings, but I get that way when idiots make my life difficult.

Have a pleasant day…

Posted in General | Leave a comment

That Swamp Is Awful Deep

I did not get a chance to watch/listen to President Trump’s State of the Union Address as he gave it last night; although I’m sure that it will eventually be available on the internet; at least in transcript form. But I wanted to see/hear if he said anything about the progress he has made in draining the swamp.

I’d be curious to know just how many people voted for Trump based upon that one promise alone; I know that, although I stayed home and didn’t vote, it did give me a glimmer of hope for a Trump administration. I’d also be curious to learn what people took ‘draining the swamp’ to mean, as that is a very vague and generalized statement that could mean many different things.

I take the swamp used in Trump’s analogy to mean ALL corruption in government. If that be the actual case, the swamp is not like a bathtub you can just reach down and pull the plug and let the water flow down the drain, it permeates every nook and cranny of our government; and if you ask me the only way to get rid of it is to tear our government down to the ground, sanitize the whole thing, and then rebuild it from scratch according to the instruction manual; the Constitution and first ten amendments to it.

That said, there are a few things that could be done which could lessen the harm done by corruption in our government, but it would take Congress enacting laws that would affect them; so I don’t see that happening. But I will share them with you, my faithful readers, nonetheless.

At the top of my list would be to get the money out of politics. I would enact strict campaign finance reform legislation which simplified things immensely. If I had any say in the matter the campaign finance laws would be reduced to a single sentence; maybe two. Mine would read:

Each individual is authorized to contribute a maximum of $250 during any election cycle; this total being able to be divided among candidates and political parties, or contributed in its entirety to one or the other. No corporation, no organization, no group of more than one person shall henceforth and forever be allowed to contribute ANY funds whatsoever towards political parties or the individual campaigns of candidates seeking any political office; be it State or federal.

That would be Step 1. Step 2 would be to enact legislation banning lobbyists. Our government was NOT established to represent groups other than the States themselves; and they already had lobbyists, if you care to call them that, in the form of Senators who represented them in Congress. This balance of State and federal authority was forever altered by the ratification of the 17th Amendment which would need repealing if the States to were regain their say in what laws our government enacts.

I don’t care if your name is Bill Gates and you are acting in your capacity as head of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; if you are a big pharmaceutical company; if you represent a labor union that is representing its own constituency; or if you are some big shot military contractor trying to get some Congressman to appropriate funds for the purchase of your latest weaponry…YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS SEEKING AN AUDIENCE WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE!!!

Our representatives need to once again start representing those who elect them, and they cannot do that when the halls of our nation’s capital are swarming with high priced K Street lobbyist wooing our elected officials. These people are cockroaches and our seat of national power needs fumigating!
The next step is not as simple and straightforward, but still needs to be addressed if we are to effectively end the influence organizations and corporate interests hold over our government. We need to do something about the revolving door between the private sector and government.

Say a Congressman serves a few terms, then gets a job at a huge corporation in his jurisdiction upon getting unseated from office. That Congressman then uses his influence, or access to former colleagues to get laws passed which benefit his new employer. Or say the opposite is true; say some big wig from the pharmaceutical industry gets appointed to an agency that is directly responsible for deciding whether products made by their former employer get approved for public consumption. Can you see the conflict of interest that might arise under such circumstances?

That very situation occurred when Barack Obama appointed former Monsanto attorney Michael Taylor to a key position within the Food and Drug Administration. I’m certain this is not the first time such a thing has happened, nor will it be the last; but it has to stop!

I can fully understand the need for selecting educated people for key positions, and this is putting aside my absolute disdain and disgust for any government entity which is not specifically authorized by the Constitution, but picking people who used to work for companies whose products are approved or purchased by our government is a big problem, and if we don’t address it there will always be a little bit of corruption left in the swamp.

I could end this right here, and maybe it would be wise if I did. But I never claimed that I was wise, only that I like to provide people with information they may not have been in possession of.

Since we’re on the subject of draining the swamp, let’s talk about the Central Intelligence Agency, or the CIA as y’all know it. Have you ever heard of a guy named Michael Ruppert? Probably not, but he was a Los Angeles narcotics officer in the 70’s. During his time on the Los Angeles Police Department Ruppert uncovered information which led him to believe that there was proved that the LAPD and the US military were involved in smuggling large quantities of narcotics into Los Angeles. Ruppert speaks of it in length in his book Crossing the Rubicon; a must read if you are even half interested in the truth behind the events of 9/11.

During the Vietnam War accusations came out that the CIA’s airline, Air America was being used to smuggle heroin out of Laos into the U.S. The CIA had an internal investigation, but that’s like letting the Mafia investigate itself if you ask me. They did, however conclude that small amounts of opium MAY have been smuggled into the U.S. aboard their aircraft; which coming from an agency which works in a cloud of secrecy, is as close to an admission of guilt as you’re going to get.

Then of course there are the rumors that Mena, Arkansas was a major drop point for the importation of cocaine into the U.S. by the CIA. The CIA, in typical fashion, denied all allegations.

Then in 2013 two former federal agents and a former CIA operative claimed that CIA operatives were involved in the kidnapping and murder of Enrique Camarena, a Drug Enforcement Officer, because he was a threat to the CIA’s drug trafficking in Mexico.

Backtracking a bit, in 1996 San Jose Mercury News reporter Gary Webb wrote a series of stories which proved that the CIA and the Contras were involved in drug smuggling into the U.S. Ironically, Webb was found dead in his apartment in Carmichael, California, the victim of TWO GUNSHOT WOUNDS TO THE HEAD. The coroner deemed his death to be a SUICIDE???

Then of course there is Manuel Noreiga. For years the U.S. government knew that Noriega was involved in drug trafficking in Panama. When the Drug Enforcement Agency tried to indict Noreiga in 1971, it was prevented from doing so by whom? Why the CIA of course. Later, the head of the CIA, one George Herbert Walker Bush, provided Noreiga with hundreds of thousands of dollars per year for his work assisting the U.S. in Panama. Tell me he wasn’t in cahoots with the CIA with a straight face after all the information I’ve already provided you, I dare you!

Last but not least, let us talk about Afghanistan. Are you aware that during the height of Taliban control in Afghanistan opium production was all but eliminated? It’s true, during the years leading up to 2001, in collaboration with the United Nations, the Taliban had all but eradicated opium production in Afghanistan. Enter the US military after 9/11 and their war against the Taliban. Now opium production in Afghanistan is in full swing, and even hitting record numbers. I’ve even heard rumors that U.S. servicemen are guarding the poppy fields, although I’ve been unable to verify that claim. Of course, as with every major US military engagement, the CIA is always there in the shadows; providing intelligence and most likely raking in the profits from whatever drug trade is available.

Boy, that swamp is a whole lot deeper than you thought it was, isn’t it? And you think Trump is going to be able to drain it? Who are you fooling; presidents have been killed for less; just ask John F. Kennedy.

But that’s okay, you keep believing that Trump has good intentions. He may be doing other things which are benefitting the country as far as the economy and what not, but I haven’t seen him take the CIA or the NSA to task for its spying upon the people of this country.

Oh, you didn’t think I was going to talk about draining the swamp without talking about that did you?

On December 17, 2014 Barack Obama delivered a speech in which he said, among other things, that tighter restrictions would be placed on the NSA in regards to its surveillance and spying upon American citizens; requiring a FISA court warrant to conduct such operations. Well, the NSA’s data collection didn’t stop, it didn’t get restricted. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if some supercomputer at Fort Meade, Maryland is, at this very moment, registering every keystroke I make and entering the data into a file with my name on it.

I don’t know if I’m being paranoid or not, but I have noticed that when I am on the internet conducting research or posting things to my blog that my hard drive really ramps up; making a winding noise as it spins; yet when my wife is online posting to Facebook that NEVER happens. Could they be scanning my hard drive for data which justifies them putting me on some sort of government watch list? Maybe, but I’ll never know until the day they come for me in black SUV’s with tinted windows.

People think this is something new, something post 9/11; it isn’t, the technology has been around for a long time; and don’t think our government has not been putting it to good use. In 1975 Senator Frank Church appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press, and he stated, “In the need to develop a capacity to know what potential enemies are doing, the United States government has perfected a technological capability that enables us to monitor the messages that go through the air. Now, that is necessary and important to the United States as we look abroad at enemies or potential enemies. We must know, at the same time, that capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left such is the capability to monitor everything—telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide.

If this government ever became a tyrant, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology.

I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.” (Pertinent passages emphasized by me)

Well, we have crossed that bridge and there is no turning back. How can we claim to have any right to privacy when we are monitored and surveilled almost 24 hours a day? Our cell phones may be turned on without our knowledge and used to record our private conversations; the cameras on our PC’s and laptops can be turned on without our knowledge and used to film us; and we say we still have privacy?

Of course this all requires a warrant, thereby technically being in compliance with the 4th Amendment, but all FISA warrants are secret and no one who is subject to the surveillance is allowed to see the reasons they are targeted for surveillance. In short, these warrants are rubber stamped, giving our government the authority to spy upon anyone who disagrees with their policies, or stands for a limited government according to the Constitution. You know, people like me.

If Trump were truly serious about draining the swamp he would pull the plug on the NSA, shut it all down, and bring Edward Snowden home to a hero’s welcome. But he won’t, of that I’m certain.

But yeah, you go on trusting that Trump is truly concerned with draining the swamp and ridding our government of corruption. I’ve heard that same thing, or similar statements going back decades, and nothing became of it then and nothing will come of it now; it will be business as usual and the people will remain happy as long as their candidates keep making unfulfilled promises.

In closing, I’d like to leave you with a quote I found that fits the subject to a T. This quote is attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte and states, “If you wish to be a success in the world, promise everything, deliver nothing.”

Think about that the next time you praise any President when they promise to end corruption in government…

Posted in General | Leave a comment

What Was Unconstitutional Then Is Unconstitutional Now

The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be]
submission to a government of unlimited powers.

~Thomas Jefferson~
Declaration and Protest of Virginia, (1825)

Three years after our Constitution was ratified and the government it created put into effect, a bill was introduced into the House of Representatives which would have granted bounties to Cod Fisheries. James Madison, then a young member of the House of Representatives, rose up and delivered a lengthy speech in opposition to this bill. I would like for you to read through a few of the comments he made in opposition to this bill, and pay close attention to what he says.

First off, Madison states, “It is supposed by some gentlemen, that Congress have authority not only to grant bounties in the sense here used, merely as a commutation for drawbacks, but even to grant them under a power by virtue of which they may do anything which they may think conducive to the “general welfare.” This, sir, in my mind, raises the important and fundamental question, whether the general terms which had been cited, are to be considered as a sort of caption or general description of the specified powers, and as having no further meaning, and giving no further power, than what is found in that specification, or as an abstract and indefinite delegation of power extending to all cases whatever; to all such at least, as will admit the application of money, which is giving as much latitude as any government could well desire.

Next Madison states, “I, sir, have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the constitution conceived; it is still more fully known, and more material to observe, those who ratified the constitution conceived, that this is not an indefinite government deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers—but, a limited government tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms.

Then he says, “There are consequences, sir, still more extensive which as they follow clearly from the doctrine combated, must either be admitted, or the doctrine must be given up. If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.

Finally he says, “In short, sir, without going further into the subject, which I should not have here touched on at all, but for the reasons already mentioned, I venture to declare it as my opinion, that were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundation, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America: and what inferences might be drawn or what consequences ensue from such a step, it is incumbent on us all well to consider.”

Two years later another bill was introduced which appropriated $15,000 in relief funds for French refugees who had fled from the insurrection which was then going on in San Domingo. Again, Madison protested this bill, saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

Then, while serving as President, Madison vetoed a bill which would set aside funds for internal improvements, set apart and pledge funds for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses. As is required for all vetoes, President Madison enclosed his reasons for vetoing the bill upon its return to the House of Representatives. I urge you to once again pay close attention to the wording and justification Madison uses in his reasons for vetoing this bill, “I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.

The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation within the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.

The power to regulate commerce among the several States” can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such a commerce without a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.

To refer the power in question to the clause “to provide for the common defense and general welfare” would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper.”

I know a couple of those quotes are rather lengthy and use words that you may not be familiar with, but I would hope that you would give them the due consideration they deserve. The reason I stuck with James Madison is because at age 36 he was not only a delegate to the convention which produced our constitution, it was primarily due to him that we even had a convention to produce a constitution. It was HIS Virginia Plan upon which our constitution was built. It was he, along with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay who wrote 85 essays explaining why people should adopt the system of government they had submitted to the people for their consideration.

If anyone knew what our Constitution says and means, it would be James Madison. If you were to write a document, or a book for that matter, then less than a hundred years later a group of people decide to try and squeeze unintended meaning out of your words, don’t you think you would be offended, or a bit upset?

How do you think our Madison, or any of the other Founders who adopted the Constitution with the belief that it created a government with limited and clearly defined powers saw how far we have allowed the government they agreed to overstep its lawful authority?

If Madison believed that it was unconstitutional for the government to set aside funds for constructing roads and canals, then why did it suddenly become constitutional for Abraham Lincoln to set aside funds for building an transcontinental railway? Why did it suddenly become constitutional for Dwight D. Eisenhower to appropriate hundreds of millions of dollars to construct an interstate highway system?

Oh, you didn’t realize that Eisenhower is the one who built our massive interstate highway system? Well yeah, it was Ike who signed the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956. A part of his justification was the need for a highway system to movie military assets across the country on roads that were capable of handling the traffic. I have to laugh, seeing at the poor condition of sections of I-5 and I-80 here in California. I can just imagine huge convoys of tanks trying to make their way down those decrepit sections of our interstate highway system.

But I stray from my point, that point being that if it was unconstitutional for our government to set aside funds to make improvements to canals and roadways in 1817, then what made it constitutional in the 1860’s, the 1950’s and today in 2018? I mean, I’ve read the constitution and the current list of amendments to it, and I don’t see one which has expanded the powers government can exercise for the general welfare, or for the regulation of commerce for that matter. But how many laws, how many programs have been enacted due to how our elected representatives INTERPRET those clauses?

Just look at Social Security and Medicare, two programs people have come to believe they are ENTITLED TO because the funds for them are withheld from their pay. Where in the constitution does it authorize the government to compel a people to participate in a program to save money for their retirement, or provide them medical insurance during their golden years? And speaking of medical insurance, where is the justification for the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare as it is commonly called? Trump campaigned saying he was going to repeal Obamacare, but what did he do, he tried to pass his own version of it; leaving HIS signature on a bill that is blatantly unconstitutional.

I’m not a huge fan of President Ronald Reagan, although before I began this journey for the truth I used to think he was the next best thing since sliced bread; a true American conservative. I have learned otherwise, yet still he did come up with some truthful comments amidst all his other rhetoric. One of those comments was, “No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!”

You see, it’s not just the government that refuses to reduce itself in size, it is also we the people, en masse, who get a taste for all the benefits these programs provide and become angered when someone suggests we do away with the programs which provide those benefits.

Although he was primarily talking about husbandmen and agriculture, in his Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XIX, Thomas Jefferson states, “Dependance begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.”

I have been told numerous times that some have difficulty understanding my articles because I use quotes that contain words they don’t understand. I’m thinking this might be one of those instances; particularly the words dependance, subservience and venality. Therefore, as a public service, I am going to simply provide the definitions for those words.

Dependence: the state of relying on or being controlled by someone or something else.

Subservience: willingness to obey others unquestioningly.

Venality: the quality of being open to bribery or overly motivated by money.

Is that not what we are today as a people in general, both dependent and subservient; and has not our government become venal in that it allows lobbyists and the wishes of special interests to dictate what laws are passed?

It is said that between government and certain segments of the private sector, (and this is especially true in regards to the military) there is a revolving door that sees people pass from government to private sector jobs, and vice versa. As one example, and I’m not singling the Obama administration out on this, but Michael Taylor was a big wig at Monsanto Corporation, working as Vice President for Public Policy; in other words he was in charge of their propaganda campaign. During the presidency of Barack Obama, Taylor was selected to the newly created position of Deputy Commissioner for Foods.

I mean, come on people, don’t you see just a little bit of conflict of interest there? It’s like the old saying, “Letting the fox guard the henhouse.” You honestly think that a former Monsanto employee is going to put the public interest above those of his former employer? You think he is going to ban products produced by his former employer? No, he’s their lackey, their inside man, their puppet. And if you think this is an isolated instance, you haven’t done any research at all. If these people don’t get jobs inside the government, they go to work for high powered K Street lobbying firms and whisper promises of wealth and good cushy jobs in the private sector into the ears of those who are supposed to be representing…who? Why US, you know; we the people!

You would think that, if our constitution truly created a limited government, that after almost 230 years of existence it would have passed almost every law it possibly could have in regards to those specific powers it was granted; wouldn’t you? But our government keeps churning those laws out by the bushel, creating more dependency upon them for all our needs and slowly, but surely taking away our self-reliance, and, more importantly, our liberty.

But you zombies keep going to the polls every two to four years; playing your two party paradigm bullshit game, oblivious to the fact that you are slaves, corporate holdings and collateral on our national debt, and have been since the illegal ratification of the 14th Amendment. But I’m not gonna go into that right now; maybe another time.

Knowledge no longer matters in this country, the truth no longer matters, all that matters is that those benefits keep coming, that you have your entertainment to come home and relax to, and that you have 3 square meals a day; liberty and limited government don’t mean a damned thing to 99.0% of the people in this country.

In closing I’d like to leave you with a quote from Thomas Jefferson, taken from a letter he wrote in 1821 to Spencer Roane, “Time indeed changes manners and notions, and so far we must expect institutions to bend to them. But time produces also corruption of principles, and against this it is the duty of good citizens to be ever on the watch, and if the gangrene is to prevail at last, let the day be kept off as long as possible.” Well, the gangrene has prevailed and it has spread across the country like a plague. The principles upon which our country was founded are now considered politically incorrect and the justification Madison used to oppose all those unconstitutional laws is not found in the political vocabulary of our elected officials, nor the general public that elects them.

In short, America has become what Jefferson said would be our greatest calamity, a land where we submit to a government of unlimited powers, and a standing army to enforce its laws upon those who resist. Just know this, although the attitudes of our elected officials and the people may have changed, what was unconstitutional 200 plus years ago remains unconstitutional today. Think about that, would you.

Posted in General | Leave a comment