Neal's Soapbox

Last night, just as I was sitting down to eat supper, the phone rang. Thinking it was my wife calling on her lunch break, I answered and was greeted by some guy named Steve who was soliciting contributions for the Fraternal Order of Law Enforcement. Regardless of how many times I politely ask to be removed from the call lists of organizations like this, they keep calling. So, this time around, poor ole Steve caught an earful of my anger and frustration.

While I can’t recall the exact words I used, it went something like this: I’ve asked to be taken off your call list numerous times now, but since you guys don’t seem to listen, I’m gonna tell you something. You people aren’t getting a penny from me until I see cops, dressed in full riot gear, busting down the doors of Congress and the State Legislatures, and hauling a few of those assholes away in chains. When I see that happening on a daily basis, I may reconsider my position. Until then, leave me the hell alone!

I’ll get back to that soon enough, but for the time being I’d like to discuss something entirely different; the relationship between the people, and those they elect to hold public office. I get the distinct impression that people believe that, once elected, these people are elevated to a position of superiority over those they represent; when, in fact, the reverse is true. They are, first and foremost, public servants; if anyone is superior, it is those whom these public servants serve.

I suppose another way of explaining it is that the election process is akin to the interview process a company goes through when it wants to fill a position; only in this instance we, the public, are the company, and those we elect are seeking a position to work for us. As their employer, we pay their salaries, (through our taxes), and we set the standards, or rules, that they must adhere to while working for us. Therefore, the misconception people have is that those roles are reversed, and that their authority is without limits, while we are under the solemn obligation of obeying every law they choose to enact.

An interesting fact about government is that, in comparison to those they supposedly represent, it is relatively small. Some of you may be aware that I live in California. I know, hold the jokes; I’ve heard them all before. Anyway, aside from that idiot governor who sounds like he’s sucked on one too many tube steaks, we have a State Senate and a State Assembly. There are 40 State Senators and 80 Assemblymen/women; totaling 121 elected representatives. Aside from all the executive, or administrative agencies, that’s it; 121 people are running this state – into the ground I might add.

On the flip side of that, according to the most recent census data, the population of California sits at around 39.5 million people. So, if you do some simple division, there are roughly 32,000 citizens per representative. We far outnumber them; so much so that it astonishes me that we haven’t marched upon Sacramento and stretched a few necks for what they’ve done to this state. The reason we haven’t can only be attributed to one of three things.

The first of these things is that people are happy with the way things are in California. I don’t buy that; I hear people complaining all the time; not to mention that in 2020 over 180,000 people fled the state for greener pastures; kind of like rats abandoning a sinking ship if you ask me. What sucks about that is that they are taking the same political ideologies that made California into the shithole that it is and bringing them to the states they move to; Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Texas, and a few others.

The second possible reason is that people believe that all California’s problems can be laid at the feet of one party or the other; the ole two-party paradigm. People don’t realize that government/s exist for a few specific purposes; they believe it should have all this power; the only thing being that this power should be used in accordance to their specific party ideology. People believe that the problem is the other party, therefore the solution is to try to vote the other party out of office, and keep their party in office.

The third, and final reason, is that people are afraid of government, and the things it can do to them if they choose to disobey; to question its authority. Either people have forgotten, or they’ve never been taught, that the source of all political power resides with the great body of the people, and if government does something the people do not like, they have the authority to simply disregard that particular law; as if it had never been written.

This concept is known as nullification and is explained in greater detail in 16 American Jurisprudence, Section 256 137, 180: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it.

However, since it is government that is enacting these laws, and since people believe that the authority/power held by government is superior to the power they hold, they believe that they must obey; simply because it is called THE LAW. Well, so was the tax on printed goods, known as the Stamp Act, in 1765. Yet, opposition to that law was so extensive that THE LAW was nullified – because nobody chose to obey it; and those who did had their lives and property threatened.

Sure, the actions of the Colonies led to further laws, but those laws pushed the Colonies closer and closer to the realization that their government sucked, and that the only solution to their problems was to sever the ties that bound them to it; the very point I’ve been trying to get people to see for years now!

In any case, seeing as how there are 39 million Californians, and only 121 elected representatives in Sacramento, I honestly don’t see why people are so bloody afraid of them; not when we could trample them into dust if we wanted to. Unless of course it isn’t them we fear; it is those who work for them in the capacity of law enforcers. I’m gonna let you in on a little secret here. During World War II, the government was run by the Nazi’s, and the Gestapo were only doing the job they were hired to do; meaning they were enforcing the law as handed down by the government. Yet, we view the Gestapo as a bunch of jack-booted thugs; and rightfully so, I might add.

Why can’t we see that those who enforce the laws here in America, laws that violate our rights and liberty, are no different than the Gestapo? While these law enforcers may perform some good, the good they do does not outweigh the evil that they perpetrate upon the people by enforcing laws that violate our rights and liberty. So, the question is, whom do these people serve; us, or the government? If they serve us, then we get right back to the point I made to poor ole Steve when he called asking for contributions for the Fraternal Order of Law Enforcement; Why aren’t these law enforcement officers busting down the doors of these legislative chambers and arresting those responsible for writing laws that violate our rights and liberty?

If, on the other hand, these people serve those in government, then why do we mourn their passing when they are killed in the line of duty; when that duty is tyrannizing the governed? I bet you wouldn’t have seen the Son’s of Liberty waving their thin red line flags, or lining the streets honoring the death of British Redcoats; they recognized that the Redcoats were the enforcing arm of tyrants; just like the police are the enforcing arm of our government/s today.

I’ve heard the argument that not all of them are bad, it is only a few bad apples that give police a bad name. Is that so? Let me ask you; if you were to walk down the street with a sidearm at your hip, without a permit to carry it, do you think those ‘good cops’ would leave you alone; or would they hassle you for exercising your fundamental right to keep AND BEAR arms?

Furthermore, if they did happen to leave you alone, would they come to your defense if one of the bad apples began harassing you; would they arrest a fellow officer who was attempting to deprive you of your rights? If not, how can you say that they are good when they either enforce bad laws, or remain silent while their fellow officers enforce them. As Edmund Burke once said: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

People believe that just because government issues an edict, and calls it a law, that it is just; that they are obligated to obey; no matter how much they dislike it. I suppose people don’t realize that, at one point in our country’s history, slavery was legal; upheld by the supreme law of the land – the constitution. I guess since it was the law, it was okay. Laws can, and often are bad; especially if they deprive a single individual of their rights, or their liberty. When that happens, it’s called tyranny; it is what our Founders fought to free themselves from, and it is what we submit to today because we are told it comes from almighty government.

After the constitution was presented to the people for consideration, a heated debate arose over the question of whether or not to adopt the proposed plan; scrapping the Articles of Confederation for a stronger, more centralized government. In the state of New York, opposition to the constitution was so intense that three supporters of that document wrote a series of essays in its defense. Known as the Federalist Papers, they are widely believed to be the ultimate guide to understanding the intent of the document they explain. The truth is, they were an ad campaign that hoped to generate support for a document that was facing stiff opposition from those who understood that it threatened the rights and liberty of both the people, and the states themselves.

In the 51st of those essays, Alexander Hamilton wrote: Government implies the power of making laws. It is essential to the idea of a law, that it be attended with a sanction; or, in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience. If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will in fact amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation. This penalty, whatever it may be, can only be inflicted in two ways; by the agency of the Courts and Ministers of Justice, or by military force; by the COERTION of the magistracy, or by the COERTION of arms.

At first glance, that sounds all well and good. It is only if you really think about what was said that the truth begins to materialize. First of all, government does imply the power of making laws. Unfortunately, Hamilton does not say what purpose those laws should serve. Are these laws to better secure the rights and liberty of the governed, or are they written to make slaves of the governed?

Next Hamilton says that it is essential to the idea of a law that a sanction, or punishment be attached for those who disobey it. Here is where we begin to see the cracks in Hamilton’s statement; for if government makes the laws, and government has the power to punish those who violate its laws, then government has a monopoly on the use of force. Nowhere in the constitution, and I defy you to prove me wrong on this, does it state that we can use force against our lawmakers if they violate the law by passing laws that deprive us of our rights and liberty…NOWHERE!!! Patrick Henry saw that discrepancy in the constitution clearly, and warned others of it when he said: My great objection to this Government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging war against tyrants.

So, did you dig out your copy of the constitution and find where it authorizes us to use force to keep government within the bounds imposed upon it by either the constitution or Bill of Rights? I’ll save you the effort, you won’t find it…anywhere; which means government has the authority to use force against us, and we cannot use force against it to keep it in line. What could go wrong with that scenario… Well, one look at history will tell you what happens to a people when they are deprived the use of force against their government. However, I’ll just quote from Patrick Henry again: Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force: Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.

If you recall, I made mention of how small my state government is in comparison to the overall population of the state. What I withheld from you is the fact that there are roughly 79,000 sworn law enforcers in this state; most of whom give little thought to the question of whether or not the laws they are enforcing violate the rights and liberty of the people; they just enforce them because it is their job to do so. Hmm, if I recall correctly, the Nuremberg Trials made it clear that following orders, or just doing their jobs, was not justification for the violation of human rights.

That statistic only refers to how many law enforcers there are in California, it makes no mention of how many there are nationwide. According to statistics, there are over 900,000 full time law enforcement officers across the country; all sworn to uphold the law. That’s a pretty substantial force that can be brought to bear upon those who decide that the law violates their rights, and therefore choose to disobey it. On top of all that, the federal government has another 700,000 full time federal law enforcement agencies; such as the FBI, BATF, DEA, Secret Service, and others.

Most, if not all of those law enforcers, are loyal to their jobs and their employers; the government. They say they are here to serve and protect, but whom do they serve, and whom would they protect if the people reached the point where they rose up against the tyrants sitting in office?

I, myself, could never be a cop, or any other agent whose job it was to enforce the law. It is not the fear of danger that would prevent me from doing so, it is the moral conflict I would undergo when I was forced to enforce laws that tyrannize and oppress those who I was told I was serving and protecting; I just couldn’t do it.

I understand the need for law enforcement; I truly do. People simply do not respect the life, liberty, or property of their fellow human beings, and there needs to be a force that can act to arrest, and bring to justice those who do not respect those things. The problem is, our government has become the very thing law enforcement is supposed to protect us from; yet they do nothing about it; choosing instead to be the enforcing arm of tyrants.

As I said, I could care less about all the good they do in society; nothing outweighs the fact that they let tyranny run rampant in this country, and they protect tyrants against those they tyrannize. For that, I can never forgive them, and it is why I refuse to contribute a single penny for them.

Yesterday afternoon I ran into town to pick up a few final items to finish off a bathroom remodel we’ve been working on. On the way back, in front of one of those drive-thru coffee places, there was a large group of people protesting the vaccine mandates; particularly Governor Newsom’s mandate that all eligible school children be vaccinated if they wish to attend ‘in person’ schooling. While it did my heart good to see that there were that many people, locally, who were opposed to the vaccine mandate, I couldn’t help but wonder if they realized how futile standing on a sidewalk holding signs and placards is.

Then, after I woke up this morning, I discovered that my old hometown, Oroville, had declared itself a sanctuary city in regards to the vaccine mandate; meaning that the city of Oroville will not enforce it. I’m almost certain that the governor will attempt something to override Oroville’s decision to ignore his mandate; but as far as I’m concerned, Gavin Newsom can go f*ck himself. After all, didn’t he declare that the entire state of California was a sanctuary state; a state that chooses to disregard federal immigration law? So, if he can do it in regards to federal law, what’s to stop a city from doing it in regards to state law? As the old saying goes; What’s good for the goose is good for the gander – at least that’s my thoughts on the matter.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t support much of what Uncle Sam does these days; in fact, you could say I don’t support a damned thing they do these days; but that’s beside the point, if Newsom can disregard federal law, then a city, or county for that matter, can disregard the b.s. laws and mandates that come out of Sacramento.

I would really like to drive back up to Oroville and have a sit-down with Chuck Reynolds, the mayor of Oroville. I saw an interview with him, conducted by Newsmax, in which he said what Oroville did has no real teeth; meaning Oroville will, most likely, be unable to maintain their sanctuary status if the state government should decide to push the issue. There are a few things I have to say about that though.

First off, I don’t think what Oroville did went far enough. I’d have like to see them decide to stop enforcing all state and federal gun laws; meaning no background checks and no restrictions upon what type of weapons people can purchase. Furthermore, I’d have like to see employers in Oroville cease and desist in withholding state and federal taxes from every employee working within the city limits. Unfortunately, that will never happen. As I mentioned in a previous essay, all this anger at government is focused too narrowly; upon all the steps government is taking in response to the Covid scandemic; when it should be in response to everything government is doing…PERIOD!!!

The second point I’d like to address is, why does Mayor Reynolds think that Oroville could not enforce its sanctuary status? If the majority of those living in Oroville, and the outlying communities of Thermalito and Palermo, support this measure, then they should be willing to defend it whenever tyrants come to force their will upon the people of Oroville. You see, that’s the reason I say things like protesting, and even this, won’t work; people lack the spine to stand up for what they believe in.

People across the nation, not just in Oroville, have forgotten one fundamental point; government works for them, and if government oversteps its just authority, it is their right to defend themselves against its encroachments. The problem is, they want to do so with the least amount of risk to themselves; meaning by voting, protesting, writing letters to their elected officials, and even by ballot measures. The problem with all those steps is that it is working within the system, a system that, quite frankly, is broken beyond repair. Let’s look at a quick example of what I mean by that.

A little over a quarter century ago, the people of California voted in favor of Proposition 187, a ballot measure that would have denied public services to illegal aliens. Almost immediately after passage, MALDEC, LULAC and the ACLU filed suit, seeking an injunction against Prop 187. In fact, I believe they had written their legal briefs beforehand, in the off-chance Prop 187 passed. In any case, federal judge Matthew Byrne filed a temporary injunction against Prop 187, and federal judge Marianna Pfaelzer made the injunction permanent. The state, meaning Sacramento, did not appeal and the injunction stuck.

So, right there you have federal judges, and elected representatives at the state level, going against the will of the majority. So, tell me how you can fight against a system when the corruption runs that deep? While I applaud Oroville’s mayor, and city council, I am saddened that they seem to lake the courage to put their money where their mouths are. And as I said, it’s not just Oroville that I feel this way about; it’s something that bothers me about the majority of those calling themselves patriots.

Yet when someone like me suggests something outside the comfort zone of most, such as that we do away with the system entirely, people get all defensive of the system; saying that all we need to do is to limit it to the confines of the constitution; and therein lies the problem with their line of thought – the constitution is the problem; not the Democrats, not the Republicans, but the system that has been erected that allows for rivaling political parties to exert that kind of power over the people.

It’s just as Lysander Spooner said: But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist; and that goes for state constitutions as well; not a single one of those documents provides a means by which the governed can fight back when government becomes oppressive.

Numerous times during the Virginia Ratifying debates, Patrick Henry warned of this exact flaw in our constitution. Here are but two of his comments:

– My great objection to this Government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging war against tyrants

– Where is the responsibility — that leading principle in the British government? In that government a punishment, certain and inevitable, is provided: But in this, there is no real actual punishment for the grossest maladministration. They may go without punishment, though they commit the most outrageous violation on our immunities. That paper may tell me they will be punished. I ask, by what law? They must make the law — for there is no existing law to do it. What — will they make a law to punish themselves? This, Sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility — and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves.

Whenever you have a system, any system, that has a monopoly on the use of force, that system ends up becoming tyrannical and oppressive. While these may not be his exact words, Mao Zedong said something like, political power comes from the barrel of a gun; and in our case, government can use those guns against us, but we cannot use ours against it, or those who enforce the laws government enacts which violate our rights and liberty. Tell me that isn’t a lopsided equation; that government has the power to punish us, but we cannot punish them.

The majority of those living in this country confine their opposition to government primarily in opposition to what the other party does while it controls the system; not the fact that a system exists that gives anyone that kind of power in the first place. Whenever someone like me comes along and suggests something as radical as abolishing that system, people back away as if I’m crazy. I often wonder what side these people would have taken had they been alive in 1776; would they have been among those calling for independence, or would they have remained loyal to the Crown? I think I know the answer, but it is something people should start asking themselves.

Since I brought up the government’s monopoly on the use of force, there is another quote from Patrick Henry people, especially those who fear people like me, should ponder: Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force: Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
If you allow government to maintain a monopoly on the use of force, you will never have any rights or liberty that you can call your own. If you maintain the right to use force against those who would tyrannize you, but lack the courage to use that force in the defense of your rights and liberty, you may as well invest in a good pair of knee pads and get ready to lick the boots of those whom you believe serve you; for they have become your masters.

So, in closing, its fine if you want to protest, or even declare your city a sanctuary against laws and mandates that you believe violate your rights and liberty. But there’s an old saying you need to keep in mind: Actions speak louder than words. So, if you want your rights and liberty back, it’s okay to tell government to go take a flying f*ck at the moon; but you better be ready to defend your position when they send their jack-booted thugs to impose their will against you; otherwise you’re just blowing smoke out of your ass, without the courage to put your money where your mouth is. 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.

So, seeing as how Oroville is only 33 miles north of me, I’ll be keeping my eye peeled as to what happens up there. While I don’t intend to hold my breath, maybe this spark of resistance will grow into a raging inferno, and Gavin Newsom will learn what happens when you push people too far.

When I was younger, and, in my opinion, much stupider, I thought history was dull and boring. I simply couldn’t understand what purpose remembering all those names and dates would serve me later in life. Now that I’m older, and hopefully a bit wiser, I have come to realize that history is more than simply memorizing a few names, and the dates of certain events.

If you have ever watched one of those ‘cop’ dramas on television, you’re probably familiar with the word motive. Investigators may know that on, such and such day, John Doe committed a crime, but what they lack is the answer to why he committed the crime; or the motive behind it. Simply memorizing a few names, and the events they participated in gives you no clue as to the motive behind those events; the true study of history is the only way you’ll discover why events happened.

Take, for instance, the drafting and ratification of the constitution. Most people are, at least, remotely aware that there was a convention held in 1787, and that the product of that convention was our constitution. People may not be able to tell you the date the convention began, or concluded; or who any of the delegates were; but they know that it happened. If, by chance, their knowledge extends beyond those simple facts, it is most likely based upon what they were taught in school; not a thorough study of the historical records both prior to, and during the drafting of that document. It’s actually quite sad, because learning the why of things is what elevates history from being boring to being fascinating.

The same goes for the mis-named Civil War. Most people are aware that it happened, but they don’t know the reason ‘why’ it happened. Oh sure, they’ll repeat what they were taught; that it was fought over slavery, but that’s an outright lie, and easily disproved. The Civil War was a war for independence; no less than the American Revolution was a war for the entire country’s independence.

The entire conflict, all the death and destruction it caused, not to mention the fundamental changes that occurred after it ended, can be summed up by asking one simple question; Does a state retain the right to revoke their consent to the constitution, and resume their status as a free and independent state? Slavery may have been one of the many issues that led to the southern states seceding, but to say it is the ONLY reason the Civil War happened is like saying the American Revolution was fought over a tax on tea.

But I’m not here today to discuss the drafting of the constitution, or the Civil War; I’m hear to discuss the historical events that have led to our government, and the people of this country, to believe that they have the authority to infringe upon our fundamental right to keep and bear arms. As a heads up, as I progress with the history behind these infringements upon our rights, it may sound like I’m straying off topic. Trust me, everything I’m about to say ties directly into that topic, and I believe that by the time I finish you’ll have a better understanding of why government, and the people, justify the belief that government has the authority to limit or restrict the right to keep and bear arms. So, shall we get started?

I know it may seem funny that I’m talking about gun control now; amidst the whole vaccine mandate argument, along with Biden’s obvious mental incapability to hold the office of president; so why gun control? Two reasons. First, it’s one of my favorite topics to discuss, and secondly, even with all the other things going on right now, it’s only a matter of time before there is another mass shooting and the subject of common-sense gun control legislation rears its ugly head again.

If you were to ask me to name the 3 most important historical events in our country’s history, I would have to say that they were, in order of occurrence; the American Revolution, the drafting and ratification of the constitution, and the Civil War. Everything else pales in comparison to the impact those 3 events had on this country.

Since the Revolution was the first of those 3, it seems logical that the principles it was fought over would serve as the foundation upon which everything else was built upon. The American Revolution did not occur after a single instance of government abusing its power; it was the result of what Jefferson described as, ‘…a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism…’ So, if there were a long train of abuses, there logically had to be a starting point; a first instance in which power was abused.

The first instance, the one that raised alarms throughout the Colonies came when the Stamp Act was passed. In other words, the first instance when the Colonists felt that their government was doing things it shouldn’t, came about due to a taxing measure. It is the same with the history of gun control today; the first warning sign came over a taxing measure.

If there is one truth that remains constant over the passage of time it is that it costs money to wage war. Our revolution was no different; the country as a whole, and the individual states ran up a pretty substantial debt fighting for their independence. After the gunfire ended, and we gained our independence, the cost of fighting that war remained, and became the burden of the people. I say that because, no matter whether government be local, or centralized, government has no money that it can call its own. Every penny government spends it has to confiscate from people via taxation.

I’m not sure what the figures were for the debt accumulated fighting the war for independence, but once the constitution was ratified the newly appointed Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, decided that it would be best if the new government, not only be responsible for paying off the national debt, but to assume responsibility for paying off the debt acquired by the states during that conflict. So, right out of the starting gate this new system of government was going to have to levy taxes to pay off debt.

Although I did not mean to discuss the drafting and ratification of the constitution, I feel it is at least necessary to discuss the reason why the drafters felt that the Articles of Confederation needed to be abandoned, and replaced with an entirely new system. One of, if not the only, reasons the Articles had to be scrapped was the inability of Congress to levy taxes. To do so required unanimous support of all 13 states; even then it was difficult, if not impossible, to force compliance. If you want my honest opinion, that was a good thing. Regardless, that is the primary reason the Articles were scrapped, and replaced by the constitution. It also explains why the power to levy and collect taxes is the first power delegated to Congress by the constitution: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…

In the past, prior to the 16th Amendment, the majority of taxes collected by the government came from tariffs and other commerce related duties and imposts. So, when the federal government assumed all that debt immediately after the constitution went into effect, it faced a choice; raise the tariffs, or begin taxing the people. It chose the latter option; enacting an excise tax on the production of distilled spirits – a Whiskey Tax.

Before I move on, I feel there is something I need to address. I can’t be certain, but I would venture to guess that when people today look at history, they do so through the lenses of someone living in the 21st Century; meaning their perspective isn’t the same as those who were alive during the period people are studying. So, back in the early 18th Century, many of the smaller farmers supplemented their income by distilling the grain they grew into whiskey, and this new Whiskey Tax hit them the hardest.

Although opposition to the Washington/Hamilton tax on whiskey was widespread, it was what happened in Western Pennsylvania that we need to focus our attention upon. I don’t know why Western Pennsylvanians reacted the way they did, but it seems they took a cue from the Son’s of Liberty; going so far as to tar and feather one of the governments tax collectors. Of course, the newly established government couldn’t take this lying down; it might establish a precedent that would be followed every time it sought to impose a tax. So, George Washington himself, although he was acting President, led an army of close to 13,000 troops into Western Pennsylvania to put down this Whiskey Rebellion.

That, in and of itself, sets a precedent; a precedent that government has adhered to, and expanded upon, since it first came into existence. The first part of this precedent is that it can, and will tax anything it wants. The second part of that precedent is that government will use force against the people whenever they do not comply. Keep that in mind as we move forward.

Now we must fast forward 129 years to the passage of the Volstead Act to enforce the prohibition of alcohol brought on by the ratification of the 18th Amendment in 1919. Prohibition came into existence due to the fact that one segment of society decided to impose their sense of morality upon everyone else. I like to call people like that, moral busybodies; people who think they know better than you how you should live your lives.

Believe it or not, the move towards prohibition got its start right after the end of the Civil War when branches of the International Organization of Good Templars passed a series of resolutions which created a political party which supported the complete banning of all alcoholic drinks. Although the party itself never did well in elections, the movement to ban the sale and consumption continued to grow amongst religious groups and spread amongst both the Republicans and Democrats.

Led by the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, a grassroots movement gained ground, and by the time the 18th Amendment was ratified in 1919 many of the state legislatures had already banned the sale of alcohol within their borders. The next logical step, it seemed, was a constitutional amendment banning the production and sale of alcohol.

If you ask me, it’s somewhat ironic that a bunch of religious busybodies would seek to ban the production and sale of booze, yet after they finished drafting the constitution, the framers of that document held a party at City Tavern where they consumed 54 bottles of Madeira wine, 60 bottles of claret, 22 bottles of porter, 12 bottles of beer, and 8 bottles of cider. In total, 55 men consumed 45 gallons of booze in celebration for drafting our constitution.

Then of course there is the old adage, that seems to fit Prohibition, that the solution is often worse than the problem itself. I’ll bet you weren’t taught in school that outgoing president Woodrow Wilson took his ‘stash’ of booze from the White House to his private residence as he left office, and that incoming president, Warren G. Harding brought his private stash to the White House. I’ll bet you also weren’t taught that the sale of small stills skyrocketed due to the national ban on alcohol. Also, although you may not have been taught that there was a direct correlation between the two, I’m certain you’ at least heard of organized crime; with the names Al Capone and Elliot Ness and his Untouchables at least ringing a bell.

It seems that people were not going to allow a bunch of teetotalers tell them they couldn’t have a few drinks, so the clubs that sold them went underground, and bootlegging became a way to get around the prohibition on large scale distilleries. Soon the rise of gangland violence supplanted the evils of alcohol consumption, and finally, after the failed experiment of 12 years of national abstinence, the 21st Amendment was ratified; repealing the 18th Amendment. Yet, the damage had been done; as I’m about to show you.

As is the case whenever government criminalizes something, it seeks to establish a means of enforcing the laws prohibiting certain behavior. As I’ve already shown, George Washington led an army into Western Pennsylvania to put down, what amounted to, a tax revolt. Prohibition was no different; just another means for government to create a bureaucracy to enforce the Volstead Act, and, as Ronald Reagan said: 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!

When the production and sale of alcohol became illegal, the government created an agency to ensure that the Volstead Act was complied with. Known as the Bureau of Prohibition, their primary mission was to shut down those who made, and those who sold alcoholic beverages. This Bureau of Prohibition was established in 1920 as a sub-unit of the Bureau of Internal Revenue; a tax collecting agency. The Bureau of Internal Revenue was the precursor to today’s Internal Revenue Service, the IRS. In 1933, the ATU once again shifted its parent organization and became part of the Department of Treasury. After Prohibition was repealed, the function of the Bureau of Prohibition, or the Alcohol Tax Unit, as it was now called, shifted from shutting down stills and speakeasy’s to collecting taxes on cigarettes and alcohol.

So, up until this point you’ve learned how your government has gone from using military force to ensure that taxes are collected, to creating entire bureaucracies responsible for ensuring that the collection of tax revenue proceeds unabated. Now you’re about to find out how all this ties in to gun control.

As I stated a bit earlier, the solution to a problem is often worse than the problem itself, and with the prohibition of alcohol we saw the rise in organized crimes; with gunfire often being the means of settling disputes between rival gangs, intent upon controlling the production and distribution of alcohol. I’m sure you’ve all at least heard references to the St. Valentines Day Massacre; when members of a rival gang were gunned down in Chicago; supposedly by those working for the notorious gangster, Al Capone.

Well, it was incidents such as that which led to the first gun control act in America; the National Firearms Act of 1934. The National Firearms Act of 1934 did not prohibit the possession or sale of any class, or category of weapons; at least not per se. The National Firearms Act of 1934 was a taxing measure; placing exorbitant taxes upon certain types of weapons, and those who sold them.

Back in 1934 there weren’t the restrictions upon guns that there are today; you could walk into a gun store and purchase a fully automatic rifle or short barreled shotgun. The National Firearms Act didn’t change that, what it did was impose a heavy tax upon you if you made such a purpose. Back then you could probably buy a shotgun for less than $100, and I’m basing that upon the fact that they cost about that much in 1958 when I was born. However, the tax imposed upon a shotgun with a barrel of less than 18 inches, or an overall length of less than 26 inches, was $200…more than the price of the weapon! Included in those weapons these taxes were levied upon were, machine guns, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, and suppressors; what people mistakenly call silencers. Also, a $500 tax was levied against dealers who sold any of the regulated weapons; payable annually.

The tax upon the sale of weapons was required every time a gun changed hands. So, if you bought one of these regulated weapons, you paid $200 in taxes; which is equivalent to close to $4,000 today, thanks to inflation. Then, if you wanted to sell that weapon to someone else, the tax was payable again; because the weapon was changing hands. On top of all that, each time the weapon changed hands, you had to register the transfer to the National Firearms Registry, and all transporting of NFA weapons were to be reported to the Alcohol Tax Unit; which had been also given the responsibility of tracking NFA weapons, and making sure that the taxes owed upon them were collected. If you haven’t figured it out by now, the ATU was the precursor to today’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, The BATF.

The first test of the National Firearms Act of 1934 came when two men, Jack Miller and Frank Layton, were arrested for possession of a weapon that had, not only been transferred across state lines, but one which the $200 tax had not been paid. Miller and Layton’s case was heard in an Arkansas court, and the judge held that the law itself was unconstitutional; therefore, Miller and Layton had committed no crime.

Again, just as it did with the Whiskey Rebellion, the government could not allow that decision to stand; it would set a precedent for future cases involving the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act; so. the government appealed, and the case went to the Supreme Court.

For whatever reason, neither Miller, Layton, or their attorney for that matter, showed up to defend their position; leaving the prosecuting attorney for the government to provide an un-answered argument in support of the legality of the National Firearms Act. The court ruled in favor of the prosecution, (as if that comes as any surprise), and the precedent was set that the government could impose taxes upon weapons. It is upon that case that the legality, or constitutionality, of every gun control law passed since rests.

The thing about government and precedents is, if they do it once, they not only do it again; they expand upon it, as is the case with the Gun Control Act of 1968. My dad used to tell me that two wrongs don’t make a right, and I think that just because government does something wrong once, the people shouldn’t just sit back and let them get away with it; again, and again, and again. Unfortunately, that’s what has happened, and every succeeding gun control law since 1934 has tightened the noose upon our right to keep and bear arms.

One more thing before I wrap this all up. Every gun control act that has come to pass has had, as justification for it, some crisis. Back in 1934 it was gangland violence, which was brought on by those moral busybodies who tried to prohibit the production and sale of alcohol. In 1968 it was the assassination of President Kennedy. Every time there is a mass shooting somewhere, we hear the call for tougher new gun laws.

I’m going to let you in on a couple of secrets here. First of all, as long as there are people on this planet, they will find a way to kill each other. If you took away every gun on the entire planet, people would use bows and arrows; it’s just the way we’re wired. Secondly, it’s already against the law to kill someone; yet people do it anyway…all the time it seems. Do you honestly believe that those who are inclined to break the law are going to obey these gun laws? The only people who will, are those who are inclined to obey the law; meaning you’re depriving them of their rights while the criminals run free.

I understand that people have this innate desire to feel safe, but taking away the right of people to own, carry, and USE guns in their own defense is not the answer. To tell you the truth, I’d feel much safer walking down the street with a pistol on my hip than I would walking down the street without a pistol, but having a policeman on every street corner. But hey, that’s just me, and I’m of the belief that it is my obligation, my responsibility to provide for my own defense; not shirk that responsibility onto the public, or the police. And, I don’t think that laws should be enacted that penalize me when I exercise that right, or set limits upon how much force I can use to defend what is rightfully mine.

All this began when government sought to increase its revenue stream by taxing certain categories of weapons; heavily enough that it made it cost prohibitive for some to own them legally, I might add. As far as government, and the gun-grabbers in society are concerned, the authority of the government to impose such measures became cemented in stone when the Supreme Court handed down their decision in U.S. v Miller. Then in 2008, the Court held that, although the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right, not tied directly to service in the militia, it was not absolute; they could impose limitations/restrictions upon it. That is a sentiment held by many, both in public and in government; such as Senator Charles Schumer: Like flat earth fanatics, Second Amendment fanatics just don’t get it. Facts are facts. The earth is not flat. And Constitutional law is Constitutional law. The Second Amendment is not absolute. It does not guarantee the mythical individual right to bear arms we will hear argued for today. The gun lobby and its friends in Congress can line up professors of history and law from here to NRA headquarters and back. They can all swear what they think the Second Amendment means, and how many angels can dance on a pinhead. But the settled law is flatly against them. (Statement before the House Subcommittee on Crime-1995)

The final thing you need to understand is, government is not going to give up on gun control until they’ve completely banned the private ownership of firearms. That is their ultimate goal, their end game; a society in which they have a monopoly on the use of force; where only the police and the military are allowed to carry guns. Those, both in public and in government, who are pushing for this have openly stated that this is their goal, and that they are going to have to do it incrementally; one step at a time.

For instance, in 1999 Congressman Bobby Rush, representing Chicago’s 1st District, stated: My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don’t have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police. But that’s the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation.

In 1993, acting Attorney General Janet Reno stated: Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal. Also in 1993, Major Owens, representing New York, stated: We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose.

Then, in 1995, on an interview on 60-Minutes, Senator Dianne Feinstein stated: If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them… ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in,’ I would have done it. There you have it, their ultimate goal.

I could go on and on, providing a litany of quotes proving that the ultimate goal of government is the complete and total disarmament of the people, and that they understand it has to be undertaken in minute baby steps. In response to their arguments, and to hell with what assholes like Charles Schumer says.

Now I would like to share a few quotes from the opposing side; beginning with two quotes from Thomas Jefferson.

– No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

– The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

And, since the Supreme Court is so revered as the final decider of all things constitutional, let’s see what other courts have said before the SCOTUS handed down its decision in 1934, setting the precedent defending government’s ability to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms.

Let’s begin with what a Georgia court held about the subject of gun control in 1846: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. (Nunn vs. State)

Then, in 1859, the Texas courts held: The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power. (Cockrum v. State)

Finally, in 1878, an Arkansas court held: To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege. (Wilson v. State)

And, just to throw some historical perspective into your decision, one final quote from a certain German dictator who tyrannized his people in Nazi Germany: The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.

I know not what your position on the private ownerships of guns is; and quite frankly, I don’t care what your position is. My view is that, if those who enforce the laws and serve in the military can carry these weapons in the carrying out of their jobs, then I can own and carry them in the defense of myself, my property, and my rights and liberty – END OF STORY!!!

I also feel, that those who seek to deprive me of that right are the enemy of liberty, and it is they who continue to support a system that is hell bent upon enslaving the people it was ‘supposedly’ instituted to serve. One final note; on the eve of the American Revolution, in carrying out his duties as the King’s representative in the Colonies, probably realized that things weren’t going well, that eventually what had been semi-peaceful acts of civil disobedience would turn violent. So, on April 19th, 1775 he sent his troops to confiscate the arms stored at Lexington and Concord.

The patriots in response did not say; let’s vote these cocksuckers out; they grabbed their privately owned guns and rallied in defense of their right to own them; to defend that right against tyrants who wanted to take away their ability to resist the tyranny being imposed upon them.

That, after all, not hunting, not skeet shooting, and not even home defense, is the ultimate reason we have the 2nd Amendment, so that we can resist tyranny in government. Oh, and for those of you who think that your NRA membership is how you defend your right to keep and bear arms, consider this. In 1968 1968, NRA Executive Vice President Franklin Orth stated: The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871. So, if you support unrestricted right to keep and bear arms, you may want to reconsider supporting the NRA.

Well, there you have it, the history of how gun control came into existence, and the history of the agency that, in my opinion, is nothing but a bunch of jack-booted thugs; putting their boots upon the necks of good people across the land who only want to exercise a right that was supposed to be excluded from governments ability to infringe upon by the 2nd Amendment. And, if government truly was established to secure the rights and liberty of the governed, then ours has really mucked things up, and that wonderful document so many of you revere, (the constitution), has been unable to prevent it from happening; making what Lysander Spooner said 100% accurate: But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.

There you have it, real history; not the garbage you have been fed in school and by the mainstream media. I now leave you to decide what you’re going to do with the information I have just shared with you. I think you know my position, so I won’t waste your time sharing it with you.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled indoctrination…

“In a nation full of slaves, the man who stands alone
in defending his rights is both scorned and feared.”
~Neal Ross~
Oct 31, 2021

I don’t know whether or not people even realize it, but every political discussion these days seems to revolve around the two-party paradigm; right versus left, or conservatives versus liberals. Whenever I hear people discuss politics, it is always from the perspective of their party criticizing what those on the other side are doing. Don’t get me wrong, occasionally I will hear someone criticize what their party is doing, but those instances are few and far between; typically it is left versus right, or the two-party paradigm.

That’s the primary reason I feel less inclined to engage in a political debate with people these days; if I say something that criticizes what the Republicans are doing people call me a liberal, if I criticize what the liberals are doing, I’m a conservative. Rarely do you find anyone from either side willing to put aside their party loyalty and examine the facts, and when you do try to introduce facts into the debate, they look at you as if you’d just stepped off a UFO and were speaking a language they do not understand. Neither side seems willing to admit that they might be wrong; they continually blame the ‘other’ side for all our country’s problems.

Listening to people argue politics today reminds me of an episode from the original Star Trek TV show that aired on January 10, 1969; entitled, Let This Be Your Last Battlefield. The story revolves around two characters, Lokai and Bele; both of the planet Cheron. Each of these characters are distinguished by the fact that one half of their body is white, and the other half black; with the difference between them being which side of their body is white, and which half is black.

The two species have been at war with one other for eons, and Bele explains to Captain Kirk that he has been hunting Lokai, a political refugee, for 50,000 years. The story ends when both discover that the hatred between the two races has led to the annihilation of all life on their home planet. They beam down to the planets surface; engaging in a battle to the death, with each of them blaming the other for what has happened.

While I don’t see the animosity between the Republicans and the Democrats leading to the extinction of all life on this planet, you can’t deny that there is a certain similarity between it, and the episode from Star Trek I just mentioned. Both sides of the political spectrum today are of the belief that their side holds the moral high ground; that their ideology is best for the future of this country. When I hear people discussing politics, I often hear things like, ‘We can’t let them win’, or ‘we’re winning the battle.’ What exactly does that mean? Who, or what specifically, do these people refer to when they use the words, we and they, or us and them? I’ll tell you what I think they mean; I believe they refer to either the conservatives or the liberals; depending upon which side is using which words. In other words, the debate is in regards to whether the left or the right is winning; or, trapped within the confines of the two-party paradigm.

There is a graphic I found a day or so ago that I think aptly describes politics in America:

Inside the ring you have the liberals; or the donkey wearing the blue trunks, and you have the Republicans; or the elephant wearing the red trunks. In the stands, you have the fans, or in this analogy, the voters; cheering for the candidate that best represents their political ideologies.

While one side may be worse than the other; and I’m not going to waste my breath saying which one is which, it does not mean that either side is particularly good; the ole lesser of two evils syndrome. While it isn’t everyone who does this, I often hear people say that they are voting one way to prevent the ‘other’ side from gaining control; usually due to the fact that they can’t stand the person who is running for the ‘other’ side. I heard this in regards to Hillary, and I heard it again in regards to Trump; so, it is not limited to just one side of the political spectrum.

My problem with that is, even if the conservatives, or Republicans, are less tyrannical and oppressive than the Democrats, it does not mean they aren’t tyrannical and oppressive; it’s just a matter of how tyrannical and oppressive each side happens to be. So, the way I see it is that we are stuck choosing between Tyranny, and Tyranny Lite. To me, that’s like someone coming up to me with a gun and telling me that he’s gonna shoot me, but I have the choice between letting him shoot me in the head, or in the gut; when I’d prefer not to get shot at all.

I see both sides of the political spectrum as being lousy choices; neither of them stand for the things I do. Even if the conservatives stood for the things people claim they do, there is one thing they fail to recognize; no matter if their party gains control of the system, nothing done by the other side is ever repealed or revoked.

I remember, back when Obama was in office, how ardently the GOP protested against the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Yet when their golden boy, Mr. ‘Make America Great Again’ Trump began his campaigning, did he promise to repeal it entirely? No, he promised to replace it with a version he believed would be better. Even though he failed to uphold that promise, he never intended upon repealing entirely; he only wanted to replace it with a program authored by Republicans.

How many laws, how many unconstitutional programs, how many oppressive taxes, and how many authoritarian rules and regulations have continued on, regardless of whether or not the Democrats or the Republicans have had control over the system? That is why the two-party paradigm is a prison; once trapped inside it you cannot see that it is not the other party that is the problem, it is a system that allows those you disagree with to enact laws you disagree with.

I would like for you to read something, and read it carefully. The following was written in 1850 by a man by the name of Frederic Bastiat:

Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

If every person has the right to defend—even by force—his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right—its reason for existing, its lawfulness—is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force—for the same reason—cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, nonoppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable— whatever its political form might be.

Under such an administration, everyone would understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence. No one would have any argument with government, provided that his person was respected, his labor was free, and the fruits of his labor were protected against all unjust attack. When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost. The state would be felt only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided by this concept of government.

I’m sorry for the length…actually, I’m not; your brains need some exercise. Although Bastiat was a Frenchman, if you were to look back at the writings and speeches of those whom we call our Founders, (and not all of them were good men; not by a long shot), you would find that they frequently made reference to the fact that all men are endowed with the rights of life, liberty and property; that they were endowed with the right to protect those things to the best of their ability; and that governments are instituted among men to secure those rights to them.

That is what people fail to see; the purpose government should serve. This is due to the fact that they have not been taught these things; and that is to be expected when the ‘system’ runs our school systems; establishes the curriculum to be taught. It seems pretty logical to me that if you want to keep a people under your thumb, oppressed, you do not teach them that they have the right to abolish the system, or disregard those laws that they believe violate their rights. What you teach them is that it is their patriotic duty to vote, to obey, and to pay their taxes, and that anyone who thinks/acts outside the box is to be feared; your enemy.

I’m just flummoxed over the fact that there are certain things that are so simple, yet at the same time, so difficult for people to see; comprehend. For instance, most believe that our system was established by the people some 200 some odd years ago. Yet if a system was established by the people, cannot the people undo what their ancestors did; can they not revoke their consent for the system…abolish it entirely? Or, do they truly believe that, once established, the system is permanent; it cannot be altered, replaced, or abolished altogether. Not only that, are people so incapable of handling their own affairs that they fear living without the system to provide them with all the things they’ve come to reply upon; expect from it?

What American politics boils down to today is two differing ideologies, seeking to gain control of a system that gives them the authority to pass laws that everyone must obey; or be penalized should they refuse to comply. I picked on the Republicans earlier, so now let me pick on the Democrats.

Recently Joe Biden issued a sweeping mandate that all businesses with more than 100 employees require that all their employees take the Covid vaccine, or be tested, either weekly or monthly, I can’t recall which. If a company does not comply, they can be fined upwards of $14,000 PER EMPLOYEE. First of all, where does Biden derive the authority to do that; it’s certainly not spelled out anywhere in the constitution. So, these companies with more than 100 workers have until January to comply, or face penalties.

I tell you what, if it was my company, I’d give all my employees a bonus, and tell them they have until January to find a new job; because, come January 1st, I would shut down all operations. I would NOT comply; even if it meant I’d be forced to close down the company I’d worked my entire life establishing. Fuck Joe Biden, fuck the government, and fuck every single employer across this once great land who complies with this mandate!

You see, that’s the problem; and it is twofold. First, the people think that government has the authority to do things such as this mandate; and that belief extends to both sides of the political spectrum. Secondly, the people of this country have no concept, or understanding, of what rightful liberty is; and how it is their unalienable right to defend it against any, and all, who threaten it.

People today live in such fear; fear of crime, of terrorism, of a virus…of failing…that they would rather surrender all their rights than risk living without government to take care of them should they fail. Think back to what Bastiat said, “When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost. The state would be felt only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided by this concept of government.” Now, compare that to something former President Theodore Roosevelt said: If an American is to amount to anything he must rely upon himself, and not upon the State; he must take pride in his own work, instead of sitting idle to envy the luck of others. He must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can, and accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs. The two quotes sound quite similar, don’t they? Yet try getting people to apply either of them to their lives, or political ideologies and you’re bound to encounter the same cognitive dissonance I encounter whenever I try; all because they are trapped within the confines of the two-party paradigm. People today have been so conditioned to stay within the confines of the two-party paradigm; to trust in the system, even though those they elect might abuse the power given them by the system they trust so implicitly.

You would think that if you see others being elected, others who in turn abuse the power given them, that you would want to strengthen the controls over those who wield that power; possibly provide for a way to punish them should they abuse that power. The problem with that is, those controls, those limits, could then be used by the other side to prevent the people you elect from accomplishing the things you elect them to do.

Now do you see the conundrum? On the one hand you have a system that contains flaws within its founding document that allows for those in power to abuse the trust placed in those you elect. On the other hand, if you insert iron clad restrictions upon the powers given those you elect, then they would be unable to do the things you want them to.

What ends up happening is that we have a system with no controls over it; a system, the control of which, is fought over every two to four years by differing ideologies; neither of which give a rat’s ass about securing to the governed their unalienable rights and liberty. That is what happens when you combine the two-party paradigm with party over principle; you end up with a tyrannical system, and the only difference is who gets to play tyrant; those on the left, or those on the right.

And for those who offer secession as a means of escaping this, can you honestly tell me that the poison of partisan politics has not spread to the state level as well; that the two-party paradigm is not at play in the state wherein you live?

That is why I have become so cynical…so pessimistic. It used to be that I’d get an idea for an essay, and that idea would snowball until it became so big that it felt like my head would burst if I didn’t put it to words for others to read. Now I feel like screaming; What’s the fucking use? Instead of battling rivaling political ideologies, I’m trapped in a war within my own head. One part of me sees that most people don’t care about learning the truth, and it is telling me to stop wasting my time on people who don’t care. The other side refuses to give up; to admit defeat. That side does not care if I am the last remaining person on the planet who cherishes his liberty; it says to fight to the end.

In either case, these essays used to flow off my fingertips without much thought about what I was writing. Now, each of them becomes more and more difficult to get out. I am not giving up on my liberty, or the liberty of those who I call my friends. However, as to the rest of y’all, you deserve what’s coming, and when it gets here, don’t come crying to me; you’re liable to find my boot up your ass!

Although it does not happen with any regularity, occasionally someone will tell me that I for someone who bitches a lot about how terrible our system of government is, I don’t seem to offer any solutions to the problem. The reason for that was, aside from eliminating government entirely, I didn’t think there was a solution.

There are those who believe that the answer lies in secession. I don’t share that belief; at least not any more. While secession, if it were allowed to happen, might eliminate the threat to our lives and liberty the federal government poses, it does nothing to eliminate the threat to our lives and liberty posed to us by our state governments.

Prior to the Revolution, when the Colonies were tossing around the idea of independence, Boston clergyman Mather Byles stated: Which is better – to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or three thousand tyrants one mile away? I think what he meant by that was that, under the King, they were subject to only one tyrant. However, if they were to gain their independence, who knew how many petty tyrannies might arise to fill the vacuum created when they became free of the jurisdiction of the British.

The problems we face today have, as their root cause, two things. The first is that political power has become too centralized, and the second being that party takes precedence over principle. When you combine the fact that we have a large, centralized system of government, with the fact that most people only care for utilizing that government to serve their partisan ideologies, you have the perfect recipe for an out-of-control tyranny; just like we have now. The problem with secession is that the same two problems would still exist; only instead of one massive tyrant, we’d have 50 smaller tyrants; the same fear Mather Byles had prior to the Revolution.

Secession may have worked, say 150 years ago; when the South attempted it prior to the outbreak of the Civil War; but not now. Back then, while there were still political parties, the Democrats still held to the belief that the internal affairs of the individual states was not subject to the authority of the central government.

Thanks to Lincoln’s war against them, and the subsequent Reconstruction programs enacted by the Republican Party, the control held by the central government became supreme, and all encompassing. Today we have the same two parties, but neither of them adhere to the principles held by the Democrats of old; the party that grew up as followers of the Jeffersonian train of thought. Seceding would do nothing to alleviate, or provide a solution to that problem; it would only eliminate the control exerted over our lives and liberty by Uncle Sam.

I’m going to let you in on a little secret; I’m awfully disappointed in myself. For quite some time I’ve believed that there is no solution to the problems we face; yet the solution has been there all along; I just didn’t see it. To fix the problems this country faces we must do two things. First, we must decentralize the power; placing the power closer to the governed; in the state, county, and local governments. While that may not eliminate entirely the problems caused by ‘party over principle’ it prevent it, as much as possible, from affecting the lives and liberty of everyone.

The only problem with my solution is that, a) people aren’t going to like it, and b) the federal government, and the state governments to a lesser extent, would fight tooth and nail to see that it was never implemented. However, after much thought on the matter, it is the only solution I see that has any hope of eliminating the growing tyranny exerted over us by government.

The reason I say that I’m disappointed in myself is that our problems began in 1787 when the 55 delegates to the Philadelphia Convention sought to centralize all power in a single, ‘supreme’ government; thereby eradicating the less centralized government they had under the Articles of Confederation. My solution would take the framework established by the Articles of Confederation and apply it, not only to the central government, but to the state governments as well.

Therefore, my solution would take our existing system, where the supreme power was centralized, and turn that on its head so that the majority of the power over the lives of the people was held by the local governments; with diminishing power being held by the state and federal governments.

I know that there would be some who might disagree with me, but I do not have a very legal mind. I may be able to wrap my head around principles, but I am far from being smart enough to draft a document such as a constitution to outline the system I propose. Yet, I can outline the basic principles I think that system should have; and the limitations upon the power delegated to the various governments it established. I also believe, that if written properly, this country would only need a single constitution; thereby eliminating entirely the need for 50 individual state constitutions.

As best as possible, I would like to devote the remainder of my time explaining the principles I think could solve all our problems…

First and foremost, before even attempting to outline the plan for my proposed system, we must all agree upon the purpose government needs to serve. This is where I see one of the two difficulties adopting my system would face. Aside from such things as the common defense, regulating trade, and possibly interacting with foreign nations, I believe that government should not have the power to do anything that aids, benefits, or subsidizes any individual, or group. Therefore, all social service programs, at anything beyond the local level, would have to be eliminated. No more welfare on a massive scale; no more subsidies for businesses or other interests; no more college grants; no more taxpayer funded programs that take from the masses, and give to those the government, or the people, believe are in need, or are deserving of help/aid/assistance.

In short, people need to step up and assume responsibility for their own wants and needs; which is why I said the people aren’t going to like my solution. Personal responsibility scares the living hell out of most people, yet, it is necessary that people assume responsibility for themselves if we wish to undo the damage our existing system has created.

I believe, aside from providing for the common defense, regulating trade to ensure it flowed freely, and possibly a few other minor things, the function of government, at all levels, should be to pass laws that prevented people from threatening the lives, liberty, and property of others…NOTHING MORE! To quote Frederic Bastiat: Under such an administration, everyone would understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence. No one would have any argument with government, provided that his person was respected, his labor was free, and the fruits of his labor were protected against all unjust attack. When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost. The state would be felt only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided by this concept of government.

In 1788, while debating whether or not to adopt the plan outlined by the constitution, a group of men known as Anti-Federalists wrote numerous essays voicing their concerns about this new system of government. One of the concerns that was expressed by many of these Anti-Federalists was that the people of one state, or one community for that matter, might have different wants and needs than those living in other states, or communities, and that by centralizing government under one supreme authority would cause problems.

Under my proposal, the power to directly tax, or enact laws that affected the people, would be held by those most closely familiar with their wants and needs; the local and county governments. Although I believe it was written more as an attempt to assuage any fears held by the people over the proposed system of government, in Federalist 45 James Madison spoke about the principle of decentralized political power: 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.

If you were to examine the Articles of Confederation closely, you would see that, what Madison describes in Federalist 45, was already in existence in the system outlined by the Articles of Confederation. The problem was, those who proposed changing from the system under the Articles of Confederation to the system under the government, was that the States held the power to defeat any law, or proposal for taxation; which is why they had to lie; so as to convince the people that this new system posed no threat to them.

Yet the basic tenet of what Madison described provides the framework of what I propose; only I propose in applying that same principle to the state governments as well; placing the majority of the power in the local and county governments.

However, before outlining the structure my proposal should take, the first thing I propose is an iron clad bill of rights; protecting the unalienable rights and liberty of the people against encroachment. As George Mason wrote in his Virginia Declaration of Rights: THAT all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Therefore, in establishing my system, the first thing I would do would be to preface it with a bill of rights; stating that the rights and liberty of the governed are not subject to any law, ordinance, regulation; that so long as each individual does not violate the rights and liberty of another, there shall be no laws written that limit, restrict, or infringe upon them.

That being said, let’s begin our discussion of how I would organize the system I propose. As I said earlier, if written properly, my proposal could all be contained in a single document; eliminating the requirement that each state have its own constitution. All that would be required is that the document include Articles delineating the powers which were to be held by the state, county, and local governments; as well as the central government.

The structure I propose is based upon the belief that those living closest to you are most likely to be familiar with the wants and needs of your local community; therefore, the largest concentration of power over the ability to tax, and enact laws that affected the people, should be held by the local governments. Using California as an example, under my plan the city of Los Angeles could only tax, and pass laws that affected the residents of Los Angeles. Under my plan, whatever laws/taxes they enacted would not affect the residents of San Diego, or my small community; which is far removed from L.A.

That format would prevent the masses, or majority, from enacting laws, or imposing taxes upon, the less populace areas; laws that may not be in the best interests of the smaller communities.

It would be up to each city to determine for itself, the framework of its government. For instance, they could create a city council, or elect a mayor and a city council, or they could do something entirely different; whatever they felt best would serve their needs as a city. The only qualification I would see imposed upon these local governments would be, the power of the people to recall their representatives at any time be preserved; as it was found in Article 5 of the Articles of Confederation: …with a power reserved to each State to recall its delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to send others in their stead for the remainder of the year.

With the majority of the power localized like this, should a city choose to overstep its stated purpose, and being creating programs that provided benefits and subsidies to the governed, or passing laws that violated the rights of the people, such actions would not affect those living outside that local community, and that should a citizen not agree with what their government was doing, they would be free to move to a city where those laws could not reach them.

The next step up in my hierarchy, would be the county governments. Although the number could be determined later, each city would be allowed to select a certain number of representatives to represent them at the county level; with the same ability to recall their representatives at any time being held by the individual cities. The purpose of these county governments would be primarily focused upon maintaining the peace between the cities, and passing laws that protected the unincorporated areas within the boundaries of each county.

These county governments would be prohibited from enacting any law, or imposing any tax, that directly affected the individuals living within each city. Should they require funds to accomplish their stated goals, they would be required to request that the cities provide those funds; and if the cities refused, then they ultimately would suffer; as the roads would go unpaved, or fire services would not be provided.

Furthermore, for any proposal to become law, it would be submitted to the governing body of each city for their consideration; and for it to become binding upon all, it must have the unanimous consent of all; just as was the case under Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation. That way, no city, or group of cities, could form alliances that proved harmful to any other city.

The same principle would then apply to the state government; it’s primary function would be to keep the peace between the counties, ensure that one county wasn’t interfering in the affairs of another. As with the county governments, those serving at the state level would be chosen by a general election to serve the individual counties; with the same ability to recall their representatives at any time should they fail to serve their respective counties faithfully.

Also, as with the county government, any proposal by the state governments would have to be submitted to the individual counties for their consideration; requiring unanimous approval before becoming law.

Furthermore, I would also add one more function to the state governments; that being the overall defense/security of the state against attack. To serve that function, the citizens of each state would be required to serve in the militia of each state; barring they did not provide a religious exemption.

Each citizen would, as is the case in countries like Switzerland, be provided with a firearm, to be used, not only for their own personal defense, but for the defense of their state. These individuals would be trained in the art of war, so as to provide a ready, and capable, first line of defense against foreign invasion. Not only would this provide for a capable force of trained citizens, it would give pause to any of the local and county governments when they might consider passing laws, or imposing taxes upon the people.

Under this system there would be no requirement for a massive police force; as is the case today. Each individual would be responsible for defending their home, their lives, their family, and their liberty, and the only time a police response would be necessary is to ensure that the use of violence was justified; that the individual was only defending what was rightfully theirs.

The criminal justice system, under such a system, would only affect those who initiated violence against the lives, liberty, or property of others; there would be no more victimless crimes; filling our jails and prisons like they do today. Under such a system, people would know that if they initiated violence against the life, liberty, or property of others, they would most likely be shot dead for doing so.

While some might say that we would revert to the Wild West, I beg to differ. As author Robert Heinlein wrote: An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. The problem we have today is that we coddle the criminals, and we punish those who use violence to defend what is rightfully theirs. Under my proposal, with the people being responsible for their own security/defense, crime would drop if the criminals knew there was the distinct probability that they would be shot dead while trying to commit their particular crime.

Finally, we get to the structure of the central, or federal government. As with the state and county governments, one of the functions of the central government would be to ensure that one state was not doing things that violated the rights and liberty of another state. In that sense, the central government might be akin to a mediator that settled disputes between two arguing parties.

However, I would restructure the central government by eliminating the House of Representatives entirely; as the central government would have no power to enact laws, or impose taxes that directly affected the people. As was the case previously, each state would be allowed to choose a certain number of representatives for the central government; with each state having an equal vote regardless of population, along with the ability to recall their representatives at any time, for any reason; should they fail to serve their state faithfully. Finally, as would be the case with all the other governments under my proposed system, any proposal by the central government would have to be submitted to the state governments for their consideration; with a unanimous vote being required before it became law.

However, as this central government would be representative of the entire country, I would delegate certain powers to it, to be exercised on behalf of all the inhabitants of the country.

First, I would delegate the authority to call forth the militias of the individual states should our country face an attack from outside forces. However, before doing so, I would require that the representative body first issue a formal declaration of war against the invading nation; stating the intended goal of the conflict. Furthermore, no military forces shall be used to invade, conquer, or occupy any foreign country; they should only be used to defend our country against attack.

Secondly, as this central government would be representative of the whole, one of the primary functions of the Executive/President, would be to act as a spokesperson for the entire country. However, this Executive shall not be allowed enter into any treaty the violates the rights and liberty of the individuals living within the country, and any treaty must be submitted to the state governments, with a unanimous vote of approval before it became binding upon the country as a whole.

That is the overall structure I would like to see implemented; although it sure seemed a lot easier to picture in my mind than it is to put into words. That said, there are a few limitations I would like to see included within the framework of my proposed system.

The first of these restrictions would be upon those who represent us. Under our current system, those who write the laws, and those who enforce them, pretty much have qualified immunity for their actions. What that means is that they cannot be punished directly by us for any breach of trust, or violations of our rights or liberty. I would like to see that changed somehow, so that anyone who acted in a representative capacity could be charged with violating the trust imposed upon them, and be punished, either by fine, jail time, or execution should it be warranted. As it stands now, they are above the law, with the only punishment being the removal from office through the election process. This flaw in the existing system is one that Patrick Henry warned us of: Where is the responsibility — that leading principle in the British government? In that government a punishment, certain and inevitable, is provided: But in this, there is no real actual punishment for the grossest maladministration. They may go without punishment, though they commit the most outrageous violation on our immunities. That paper may tell me they will be punished. I ask, by what law? They must make the law — for there is no existing law to do it. What — will they make a law to punish themselves? This, Sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility — and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves.

As I said, I’m not good at writing legal documents, but I would like to see that flaw corrected under any proposed system that might replace our current one.

The next restriction I would like to see is not directly upon governments, but upon those who contribute to the campaigns of those seeking office. I would like to see iron clad restrictions placed upon the ability of groups, special interests, and foreign investors/governments; preventing them from contributing funds to anyone seeking office, at any level. That’s a huge flaw in our system today, where business interests have such control and influence over government, that it no longer serves the people, it serves them. That flaw needs to be remedied as well.

Next up concerns the power of taxation. Somewhere within my proposed system I would like to see a iron clad restriction upon all governments, excluding the city governments, from imposing any kind of direct tax upon the individuals that comprise this country.

If something needs to be funded, then whether it be the county, the state, or the central government, they must include it in a budget, to be sent to those who must provide the funds to pay for it. Within that budget must be a specific cost for whatever is being asked for, and the duration for which that cost will be imposed upon those responsible for providing the funds to accomplish it.

Each state, county, shall have the authority to identify individual parts of this budget that they choose not to provide funds for. Should the majority of the state or county, choose to fund it, only those who voted in favor of it shall be required to provide the funds for the accomplishment of whatever it is that the funds are being asked for.

For instance, I live in Sutter County, California. Suppose the state government sends a budget to the counties, and Sutter County sees that the state is asking for funding to do something that does not benefit the people of Sutter County; it only benefits those in, say, Los Angeles, or San Francisco. Then, Sutter County could reject that portion of the budget; placing the burden of paying for it upon ONLY those who voted in support of that part of the budget. While it might seem to you that this would create gridlock, that it would prevent funding of essential services, I believe it would act as a deterrent for unnecessary projects; projects that served to benefit only those of a particular state, or region within a state.

Finally, I would like to see wording included in my proposal that prohibits the government from exceeding their budget; in short, I would like to see government prohibited from borrowing money to fund its operations. Should it become necessary to borrow funds, such as in times of war, or natural disasters, then the exact amount must be submitted to those who end up paying the principle, plus the interest upon.

Furthermore, each request to borrow money must contain the length of time this borrowing will be required, and the time frame allotted for repaying the debt. Under my proposed system, government at all levels would not be allowed to heap a massive, unpayable debt upon those who shoulder the burden of paying it off.

In fact, unless it was an absolute necessity, there should be a provision that requires that anyone proposing that the government borrow money be immediately recalled and prohibited from ever serving in government, at any level.

I’m sure I haven’t covered everything that could be done to create a system that is better than our current one; but as people often tell me, I don’t see them coming up with any better ideas. All I see is the hope that they can fix our existing system; either at the voting booth, or by repealing certain laws/amendments to the constitution.

That, in my opinion is a fallacy of belief, it only perpetuates a system that Lysander Spooner had this to say about: But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.

But like I said at the beginning, people would never go for such a system, as it would eliminate all the services they’ve come to expect from government; placing sole responsibility for their wants and needs where it belongs – upon their shoulders. Plus, those in power would never allow for this kind of system to be implemented; they fought too hard to get the current system put into place, and they certainly are not going to give up the power they’ve amassed without a fight.

What I’ve just proposed is, therefore, merely a theoretical discussion regarding my thoughts on how I would fix the problems this country faces; nothing more. Nothing will come of this; it only serves to silence those who tell me I never offer any solutions to our problems.

All I ask is that, if you have any criticism of my proposal, before you present your criticisms to me, you come up with a better plan, and share it with me. Otherwise, keep your thoughts to yourself; I don’t want to hear it. I am, on the other hand, open to ideas that might improve the system I just outlined. But criticism; if you can’t come up with a better system, then keep your damned thoughts to yourself!

Before I wore it out (literally) I used to own a t-shirt that said: It’s not about right versus left, conservative versus liberal. It’s about liberty versus tyranny. What many fail to realize is that what is considered left or right is relevant to your current position. Allow me to explain what I mean by that.

Let’s say you are standing side by side with a long line of other people, and I’m about a dozen people down the line from you; which side doesn’t really matter. Now if someone were to ask you who was on your left, or right, your answer would be different than mine due to our different positions in the line.

So, when people use the terms left and right, or even liberal and conservative, it is a matter of perspective based upon something known as the Overton Window. The Overton Window does not use the terms liberal or conservative; what it describes is the window of what is considered acceptable beliefs/behavior on a sliding scale between complete freedom and complete governmental control of our lives.

Imagine you had a 12-inch ruler, like this:

Now if you were to place Absolute Freedom at one end of the ruler, and Absolute Government at the other, that would be your sliding scale. The Overton Window would be like what you would see if you took a piece of paper and cut a 1 inch square out of it and placed it over the ruler; like this:

What you see inside that cut out square is what is considered acceptable by the majority of the people. However, that window can be shifted; either to the left or the right; towards more freedom, or more government. So, when I hear people use the terms left and right in regards to their political positions, I have to ask myself; where on that sliding scale are they in comparison to those they oppose?

There is a graphic I found that may help in understanding what I just described; although on either extreme it simply refers to the amount of freedom enjoyed by the people who are governed:

To understand the political positions of the two primary political parties in America today, we must know the definition of the term they use to describe themselves; either conservatives or liberals. The word conservative is defined as one who is opposed to change; one who adheres to traditional values. A liberal is one who is open to change, or reform; one who is not bound by traditional values.
On the surface, that sounds all well and good; especially if you consider yourself to be a conservative. But, if you enter the Overton Window into the formula, what is considered a conservative position today might have been considered a liberal position fifty…twenty…even ten years ago; it’s relevant to our current position on that sliding scale that determines how much freedom we enjoy.

Unfortunately, we’ve been shifting on that scale from total freedom to total government ever since the Constitution was put into effect back in 1789. You may call yourself a conservative by today’s standards, but your parents and grandparents would probably have thought your beliefs were more liberal than they were conservative. Like I said, it’s all relevant to where we are on that sliding scale.

That is why I harp incessantly upon the importance of knowing the purpose government should serve, while not basing your beliefs upon the political party platforms of whatever parties exist in today’s political climate. To do that, all one has to do is refer to the Declaration of Independence, where it 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. (My emphasis)

That right there is the purpose government should serve. However, there is something else people must take into consideration when discussing the function of government; that being what kind of government are we talking about. Even if you live in a small town, that town has some form of government; be it a mayor, or a mayor and a city council. Then there are the county governments, the State governments, and finally, the central, or federal/national government; and there is a huge difference between the two when talking about a central government.

After the Revolution ended, when they transitioned from 13 British Colonies to 13 States, each State was considered sovereign and independent; much like each country in Europe, Africa, or South America is a sovereign and independent country. Our country’s first attempt at a centralized government, under the Articles of Confederation, explain the relationship between the states and the central government quite clearly in Articles II and III, where they state:

Article II.
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.

Article III.
The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.

Under that system, each State was treated as if it were an individual; each given a single vote. Not only that, the Congress could not draft a piece of legislation, then hand it off to an Executive to decide whether to sign or veto it; simply because there was no Executive! For any measure to become binding, it first had to be agreed to in the Congress, then by the unanimous vote of every single State Legislature; leaving the power where it should be; localized and in the hands of those who directly represented the people.

That system stood in the way of those who thought that power should be centralized; especially when it came to matters of taxation; a single state could defeat any taxing measure by simply voting against it in the State Legislature; which is why that system had to go; to be replaced by one which gave the central government more power, without depending upon the approval of the States for any measure.

Ah, but Neal, that’s where you’re wrong; the Senate did represent the States before the ratification of the 17th Amendment. First of all, I don’t believe the 17th Amendment was lawfully ratified; just like I don’t believe the 14th and 16th were lawfully ratified; but that’s a topic for another day.

Yes, there were two bodies in Congress; each of whom represented different political entities. There was the Senate, that represented the States, and there was the House, that represented the people. However, gone was the requirement that a vote be unanimous in support of the measures that would go before Congress.

I honestly don’t know how much thought, or study, people have given the concept of representation in government; but the difference in beliefs held by the delegates of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 were enough to where they almost prevented the Constitution from coming into existence. There were those who wanted representation in both Houses of Congress to be equal, and there were those who wanted representation in both Houses to be based upon population. In the end, a compromise was reached in which representation in the Senate would be equal, and in the House, representation would be based upon population.

That may not seem to be of much importance, until you consider that while this was happening, there were two distinct economies and cultures making up these States united. The economy of the Northern States was predominantly centered around business; commerce and banking. The South, on the other hand, was predominantly an agrarian economy; one in which agriculture was the primary means of providing income for those who lived there.

As America was new on the world stage, those who manufactured goods faced stiff competition in the marketplace from those countries who had well established industries. This new government, whose founding charter, (the Constitution), which was written by those involved in commerce and banking, sought to create a system which would give them the power to elevate America into an economic power capable of competing with global competitors. However, to do so they would need to impose tariffs upon goods coming into the country so that America’s fledgling industries could compete in the open marketplace.

Those tariffs were felt the most in the South; which imported much of what it did not produce itself. Opposition to those tariffs led to the Nullification Crisis in the 1830’s, and eventually the Civil War in 1860. Yet, I’m not here to talk about tariffs; I’m here to talk about how representation allowed for those tariffs to be imposed in the first place.

A majority vote in the Senate today is 51 votes, and in the House, it is 218. Back then those numbers were even smaller. As America began to grow, those coming into this country sought jobs, and there are more jobs in industrialized areas than there are on farms and plantations; even assuming there was no slave labor force to do most of the work. So, it is natural that the population of the Northern States would increase faster than it would in the South. This increase gave the industrialized states an advantage in the House, and as new States were added to the Union, the battle was over whether or not to allow them to enter the union as a free, or a slave State; as the majority would then secure control of Congress.

It’s important that you understand that, although there was opposition to the institution of slavery in the North, the battle was for preventing the spread of slavery into newly admitted States; which would take away the North’s ability to control Congress. Abraham Lincoln almost said as much in his Inaugural Address: 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 you’ll note, he only said that he felt he had no lawful authority to interfere with slavery, ‘where it exists’, not in regards to whether or not it should be allowed to spread throughout the rest of the Union. Lincoln’s concern, his primary reason for sending troops into the South is best explained by something he said in a letter to newspaper editor Horace Greeley: My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.

I truly think that Lincoln felt that the Southern States would give up when they saw the might of the Union Army; but after the first major battle at Manassas, Lincoln realized that was not to be. Yet he could not back down now; not if he hoped to save face and continue to be supported by the newly created Republican Party.

So, Lincoln waged war against the South, who only sought to exercise their right, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Slavery may have been an issue that led to secession, but it was not the cause of the war itself; that was fought because Lincoln could not afford to let the South separate and form their own country; as they were paying most of the tariffs/taxes that funded the programs that benefitted those for whom this government was created to serve – banking, commerce and industry.

On December 10, 01860, the Chicago Daily Times spoke openly in an editorial in regards to what must have been on the minds of Lincoln, and every Northern member of Congress: In one single blow our foreign commerce may be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruin. Let the South adopt the free trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow.”

The North needed the South, while the South did not need the North. The South was the government’s cash cow; it’s source of revenue to fund its operations – and it could not allow it to leave.

So, how did a discussion of the Overton Window devolve into a discussion of the Civil War? The answer is, it didn’t; it merely shows you how that window had slid along that scale from more freedom for the governed, to less freedom. If government is, as the Declaration of Independence says it is, instituted to secure the rights and liberty of the governed, then a government that seeks to use its power to benefit one class of people, at the cost of their tax dollars and their freedom, then the Overton Window has shifted away from freedom, towards more government. That also means that, what it means to be a conservative today is not the same as what it meant prior to the Civil War.

In 1849 a fellow by the name of Henry David Thoreau, wrote a book entitled Civil Disobedience. He begins his book by stating: I heartily accept the motto, “That government is best which governs least”; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe- “That government is best which governs not at all”; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

Using the Overton Window, words like that today would fall outside what is considered politically acceptable speech, or beliefs; it would be considered, not only radical, it would be considered unthinkable. If you don’t believe me, just tell anyone you know that you think that we’d be better off without any kind of government, and see how people respond.

Yet, as terrible as the Constitution is, that is almost how things were at the beginning; when our government first went into operation in 1789 – it exercised very little power over the lives and liberty of the people. In fact, in his first inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson described ‘good’ government as follows: 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.

While the constitution was still merely a proposal for a new system of government, James Madison, one of its authors, wrote the following, detailing the powers that would be exercised by the new government, and those exercised by the states: The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. (My emphasis)

Does that last sentence sound anything like our federal government today? Please, do not answer that it does; not when our current Buffoon in Chief has said that we must take a vaccine if we want to keep our jobs; assuming we work in places with 100 or more employees.

So, either Madison flat out lied about what the Constitution would do, or that document isn’t as good as they said it was in preventing government from overreaching its authority. In either case, Lysander Spooner was 100% correct in stating: But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.

But Neal, times have changed; we live in a far different world than they did back in 1789. Yes, times have changed; I’ll admit that, but I’d like for you to read two quotes when you consider how much we should allow government to encroach upon the freedoms it was ‘supposedly’ established to secure. The first quote comes from George Washington’s Farewell Address to the People: If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.

Have there been amendments to the Constitution, granting government increased powers, or have these new powers come through usurpation, (look the word up, you might learn something)? If they have come through usurpation, then what is considered acceptable, that Overton Window this whole thing is about, has shifted away from freedom towards less freedom. That means what is considered conservative today, would not have been considered conservative by men like Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and a whole host of others.

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

While I, myself, do not want or need government, I can see that, if it served the purpose it was supposed to, it is something I could live with. As Thomas Paine wrote: Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.

Therefore, if we MUST have government, and if you think that government does not have the requisite powers needed to run this country, then do not let them assume those powers by usurpation; let the Constitution be amended by the proper means, so that these new powers have the consent of the governed.

The unfortunate thing is, we have slid so far on that sliding scale, allowed government to assume for itself what powers it will exercise, that it is too late to hope for a restoral of the principles, true conservative principles, to be restored in this country. Overton’s Window is now nearing the point where we have no freedom whatsoever, and anyone who seeks to regain the freedom that is their birthright is seen as a threat to society.

So, where does that leave us? I really don’t know what lies in the future; not when the overwhelming majority think that they can undo 232 years of damage to their freedom at the voting booth. I do know that doing the same thing they have been doing isn’t going to do a damned thing.

If we want our freedom back, we’re going to have to risk something to take it back; government isn’t going to give it back to us without some kind of a fight.

The Declaration of Independence states: Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

I suppose the only question worth asking at this point is; How much discomfort are you willing to bear before you realize that it isn’t the left or the right that is the cause of your suffering, it is the system you’ve supported and complied with for all your lives?

If you get a splinter that causes you pain and discomfort, the only way to rid yourself of that pain and discomfort is go get rid of what’s causing it. Well, government is a sliver; hell, it’s a cancer that is eating away at your freedom. So, what are you going to do about it? As the immortal Patrick Henry said in 1775: I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Authors Note: May contain thoughts, ideas, and language that threaten your beliefs. Proceed at your own risk.

There is a commonly repeated analogy that if you put a frog into a pot of water and gradually turn up the heat the frog will not notice the change in temperature and will stay in the pot until it is boiled alive. Since I’ve never captured a frog and tested that theory, I have no idea if it is factual, or not. Nonetheless, it does serve as a fitting analogy to explain what has happened to the people in this country; and why we’re in the pickle we currently find ourselves in.

There are many ways to enslave a people; to control and manipulate them. You can use force, but that often results in an equal, and corresponding, use of force against those who seek to control others. You can try to convince or persuade people to accept the things you are trying to impose upon them; but that is not always effective. No, the most effective way of controlling and manipulating people is through the use of fear.

Fear is probably the most powerful of all human emotions; causing people to do almost anything to escape that which causes them to be afraid. It’s kind of ironic how people idolize heroes; those who look fear in the face and overcome it to do amazing feats of courage; yet at the same time they allow themselves to be controlled and manipulated by their own fears. Those who govern know this, and they use it to their advantage to increase their power, while diminishing our God-given rights and liberty. As Rahm Emmanuel so aptly said: You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.

There is an old saying, that I believe draws its origin from Ecclesiastes, Chapter 1, that says: There is nothing new under the sun. If fear is being used against us now, it was used against those who came before us, and those who came before them as well. Those who seek power and dominion use fear, well, because it works! Why stop using a tactic that works, right? To use a football analogy; if you’re kicking your opponent’s ass with your passing game, why switch up and begin running the football?

There are certain phrases one can use to identify those who are reacting from a fear-based position rather than a position founded upon logic and reason. For instance, if you hear someone say something like, there should be a law, you know they are not thinking logically; they are reacting emotionally. Then there is my all time favorite; Something must be done. If queried, those saying that could not tell what should be done, all they know is that there is something frightening going on, and ‘something’ must be done about it.

Fear people, plain and simple; the most effective tool to control YOU!

In our modern age we are more susceptible to fear than ever before. In olden times, news of events took days, sometimes weeks, to get from one place to another. Now, with all this modern technology that allows for the immediate dissemination of information, fear can be broadcast to the entire globe simultaneously.

Have you ever heard someone say that they don’t mind talking to individuals, but they hate talking to groups? There is a reason people say that. You can reason with an individual; or at least there is a chance that you can reason with an individual. However, the dynamics change when you’re trying to talk reason to a group. Group dynamics are powerful influencers of people’s behavior; they aren’t likely to do or say anything that will threaten their position, or status, in their group. And what is the largest group if not the entire population of a country, or a planet for that matter?

Therefore, if you can introduce fear, not on an individual level, but on a nationwide level, you can control and entire country; get them to do/accept things they wouldn’t normally do/accept. And where do most people get their information? Why, the news media. Even though many claim not to trust the news media to tell them the absolute truth, they still tune in and watch it anyways to get their daily fix; kind of like news junkies if you ask me.

Have you ever noticed how negative the news is these days; how almost every story is about a shooting, a disaster, a CRISIS of some sort? Yet they always seem to make time to tell a story, even a brief one, about something good; how one person is, as Lester Holt of NBC says, making a difference. There is a reason they do that; it gives people hope that there is still good in the world; that its not all dark and evil. I’ll return to that thought later, so keep it in mind as we move forward.

As I said earlier, there is nothing new under the sun, and if fear is currently being used as a tool to manipulate us into surrendering our rights and liberty, it has been used in that past as well. A perfect example of this is how, in 1787, the people were told they were in a dreadful situation, that if ‘something’ weren’t done, the union would splinter apart.

One of those who saw clearly, saw through the fear mongering being used to generate support for a stronger, more centralized, system of government, was Samuel Bryan, who, writing as Centinel stated: But our situation is represented to be so critically dreadful, that, however reprehensible and exceptionable the proposed plan of government may be, there is no alternative between the adoption of it and absolute ruin. My fellow citizens, things are not at that crisis; it is the argument of tyrants.

Bryan also explained how ‘fear’ was being used against the people: The wealthy and ambitious, who in every community think they have a right to lord it over their fellow creatures, have availed themselves very successfully of this favorable disposition; for the people thus unsettled in their sentiments, have been prepared to accede to any extreme of government.

He then went on to say what the end result would be if the people succumbed to their fears: I shall now proceed to the examination of the proposed plan of government, and I trust, shall make it appear to the meanest capacity, that it has none of the essential requiresites of a free government; that it has none of the essential requisites of a free government; that it is neither founded on those balancing restraining powers, recommended by Mr. Adams and attempted in the British constitution, or possessed of that responsibility to its constituents, which, in my opinion, is the only effectual security for the liberties and happiness of the people; but on the contrary, that it is a most daring attempt to establish a despotic aristocracy among freemen, that the world has ever witnessed.

I bet you weren’t taught that in school, were you?

We are taught, mistakenly I might add, that our Constitution was written by great men, that it was divinely inspired, that it secured to us our rights and liberty by a Bill of Rights, and that it has all these wonderful checks and balances to protect against encroachments of power by the various branches. That is what we are taught – but it is a myth; the Constitution was written by men who had been frustrated time and time again by the limitations upon their lust for power imposed upon them by the Articles of Confederation.

However, the people were (relatively) content with things the way they were, so those seeking more power for themselves had to resort to fear to accomplish their goal of creating, and implementing, a system that would give them absolute power over the people. While, in my mind, those who drafter our Constitution were evil, they were quite clever in cloaking their ultimate goals in wording that hid their true intent; while at the same time providing enough loopholes within the wording of their ‘document’ to allow for a gradual, but inevitable, increase in their power over us.

Yet there were those who saw through their deception, and tried to warn the people of the impending danger this proposed Constitution posed to their rights and liberty; as well as the sovereignty of the individual states. Among them were, the aforementioned Samuel Bryan, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, Luther Martin, and various others; all being assigned the name of Anti-Federalists; which in and of itself was a deception, for these Anti-Federalists were the ones who supported federalist principles.

It was those who passed themselves off as Federalists who were, in reality, nationalists; seeking to usurp the sovereignty and authority of the states, and consolidate it into a centralized government of their creation; one which would give them the power and authority to tax without limitation, and pass laws that would ultimately lead to the loss of the rights and liberty of the governed.

Since I broached the subject of taxing without limitation, and since I know that there are some who are skeptical of that, let me tell you about a current taxing scheme being proposed by government right now. Ever hear of Senator Richard ‘Dick’ Durban? Well, he has introduced a bill that will raise billions in tax revenue by raising taxes on tobacco products. I’m not talking about a five-cent increase, or a fifty-cent increase for that matter; Durbin is proposing that those who smoke cigarettes will end up paying close to 20% of their annual income on taxes upon those cigarettes. His proposal will also raise the taxes on pipe tobacco and dipping snuff; with a 1,651% increase in taxes on pipe tobacco and a 2,035% increase on dipping snuff.

Don’t believe me? Go research the Tobacco Tax Equity Bill for yourself.

Remember those Anti-Federalists, the ones who warned of the dangers posed by the proposed Constitution? Well one of them, writing under the pen name of Brutus, said the following about taxation in his 5th essay: To detail the particulars comprehended in the general terms, taxes, duties, imposts and excises, would require a volume, instead of a single piece in a news-paper. Indeed it would be a task far beyond my ability, and to which no one can be competent, unless possessed of a mind capable of comprehending every possible source of revenue; for they extend to every possible way of raising money, whether by direct or indirect taxation. Under this clause may be imposed a poll-tax, a land-tax, a tax on houses and buildings, on windows and fire places, on cattle and on all kinds of personal property: — It extends to duties on all kinds of goods to any amount, to tonnage and poundage on vessels, to duties on written instruments, newspapers, almanacks, and books: — It comprehends an excise on all kinds of liquors, spirits, wines, cyder, beer, etc. and indeed takes in duty or excise on every necessary or conveniency of life; whether of foreign or home growth or manufactory. In short, we can have no conception of any way in which a government can raise money from the people…

But these taxes are for legitimate purposes, aren’t they? I don’t know, are they? How would the average voter know when they haven’t read the Constitution; dissected the phrasing to determine what it really says? Let me ask you something, does the Constitution specifically mention that it is within the government’s authority to take tax dollars and use them for all the social service programs we currently enjoy, or send a single dime of our tax dollars overseas in the form of foreign aid? If you believe that is within the function of our government, please tell me which Article and Clause says so; I’ve been unable to find those powers specifically listed among the powers delegated to government by the Constitution.

If you were to take every piece of legislation that is either currently underway in Congress, or those that have been passed within the past 40-50 years, then compare their purpose against the powers given Congress by Article 1, Section 8, you would most likely find that nothing Congress does is within its authority to do. So, how does Congress get away with it? Well, that’s why we’re here; to learn the truth.

One of the biggest problems is the overall ignorance, apathy, and complacency of the American people. Even James Madison, one of drafters of the Constitution, and our 4th President, said: Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power that knowledge gives. So, if you don’t know what the Constitution says, or more importantly, what the wording means, you are ignorant. It’s that simple; and they are using your ignorance as a weapon to enslave you.

As I also said earlier, fear is a powerful tool, and all they have to do is use an existing crisis, or create a crisis, which will in turn create a climate of fear; fear that is then used to justify new laws, new taxes, new encroachments upon your rights and liberty. Yet Patrick Henry, probably the most ardent champion of the people’s liberty this country has ever seen, once said that: Fear is the passion of slaves. Yet, even if you do not succumb to your fear, if you are ignorant as to the purpose, function, and limitations placed upon the powers delegated to government, if they can word it in a way that sounds convincing enough, most people will accept it without question. Isn’t that the same tactic scam artists use to deprive their victims of their money? So, it could be said that government is a large-scale scam; with the problem being that the people acquiesce to it due to their belief that they ‘need’ government.

One of the biggest loopholes written into the Constitution, aside from the power of unlimited taxation, is the Necessary and Proper Clause. Those who argued in support of it said that without that clause, they would have had to list every conceivable power the government might have to exercise to accomplish the specific powers delegated to it. Those who argued against that clause felt that it was a window by which all manner of evil and usurpation would enter.

It was no sooner than the administration of George Washington that the intent of the Necessary and Proper Clause was put to the test. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson took the word necessary to mean that which was essential for the exercise of a specific power. Alexander Hamilton, Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury, (imagine that), took it to mean anything that made the exercise of those powers more easily accomplished.

To explain the difference in their ideologies, imagine that I were to delegate the authority to you to build a home for me. Using Jefferson’s understanding of the word necessary, you would be allowed to purchase lumber, cement, nails, and the tools necessary to construct that home. Using Hamilton’s line of thought, you would also be justified in purchasing the lumber mill where the wood was cut, purchasing the trucks that delivered the materials to the job site, as well as anything else that made it ‘easier’ to accomplish the goal of building my home.

Washington sided with Hamilton, and the precedence was set; a precedence that has been exploited time and time again to expand the powers of Congress to cover everything of the minutest detail. If you’re interested in learning more about this, I suggest you study the founding of the first national bank during George Washington’s administration; all at the behest of Alexander Hamilton I might add; the same Alexander Hamilton who proposed an elective monarchy during the Constitutional Convention!

Yet the biggest, at least in my opinion, loophole is the creation of the Supreme Court; which serves as the final voice in all matters of a constitutional nature. Is not the Supreme Court a part of the government? Therefore, as part of the government we are letting 9 appointed, not elected, but appointed officials of the government decide what is, and what isn’t constitutional, as well as what powers the government shall be allowed to exercise; as well as the limitations upon a states ability to oppose federal encroachment upon its power.

But the Supreme Court is unbiased Neal. Are they? Then why does it matter one iota to you whether new justices are appointed by a Republican or a Democrat? Not only are the justices biased politically, they aren’t even consistent with upholding decisions handed down by previous sessions of the Court. If they were truly unbiased, the only way they could overturn the decision of a previous Court would be if the Constitution had changed, (been amended), since the first decision was handed down; such as with how the 13th Amendment allowed the Dred Scott decision to be overturned. Yet the Supreme Court has overturned its own rulings over 200 times!

What does that tell you? It tells me that there is no consistency in the Court; that it is open to the changing sentiments of the public, or current conditions in the country; not remaining true to what purpose and powers people believe the Constitution delegates to government. Yet the people look anxiously every year for new rulings from the SCOTUS; which is like waiting for the government to decide how it interprets the law on any given day. To me, that’s like letting the fox guard the hen-house; but hey, what do I know?

The biggest flaw, or fallacy in that line of thinking is that government has the power to decide what its powers shall be; not those from whom government supposedly derives its authority – the people. Since we are supposedly the true sovereigns, (see Chisholm v Georgia, 1793), then it should be those who government derives its authority from that get to decide the limitations upon the power delegated to those who govern. It was this very obstruction found in the Articles of Confederation that led those power-hungry bastards to draft their precious constitution; with all it’s loopholes.

A government that was truly representative of the people, and subject to their will, would provide a means by which those who elect others to act in their stead the power to punish their representatives should they abuse the trust placed in them. Please show me what Article and Clause authorizes us to punish those we elect. I’ll await your answer with anticipation!

The truth is, we have no power to punish them; a fact Patrick Henry made abundantly clear: That paper may tell me they will be punished. I ask, by what law? They must make the law — for there is no existing law to do it. What — will they make a law to punish themselves? This, Sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility — and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves.

Yet they have the power to enact laws, laws that we are bound to obey by threat of fines, jail time, and even death if we resist the authority of those who enforce those laws upon us. So, tell me, does that sound like the way a servant treats their masters; by punishing them when they violate laws that they had no authority to enact in the first place? Yet people say that we live in the land of the free. My ass!

Yet there is another thing that people today also fail to realize; the nature of compacts and contracts. In 1791, Thomas Paine, the man whose pamphlet Common Sense, stirred the hearts and minds of the Colonies towards independence, wrote a treatise he called, The Rights of Man. In that treatise, Paine writes: There never did, there never will, and there never can, exist a Parliament, or any description of men, or any generation of men, in any country, possessed of the right or the power of binding and controlling posterity to the “end of time,” or of commanding for ever how the world shall be governed, or who shall govern it; and therefore all such clauses, acts or declarations by which the makers of them attempt to do what they have neither the right nor the power to do, nor the power to execute, are in themselves null and void. Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which preceded it.

Two years earlier, while serving as our ambassador to France, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to James Madison in which he discussed the same idea. Jefferson stated his position as follows: The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; & that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof. I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self-evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’: that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it.

To understand the implications of that, we need to understand what a constitution actually is; it is the act of constituting, or establishing, a system of government. That cannot be done by those who have died, or those yet unborn; it must be done by those who are living. This brings us to the next point; that a contract, or compact, only binds those who enter into it, and agree to its terms. If I were to enter into a contract with you, that contract could not bind anyone else to its terms; not even our offspring; for they would be free to either continue that contract, or let it expire.

To explain where I’m going with this, in 1787 fifty-five men gathered together and drafted a constitution; which is either a contract or a compact to establish a system of government. For that compact/contract/constitution to be binding, it had to be submitted to those it bound; the people. While I don’t know the specific numbers, I can guarantee you that not every citizen in the 13 States had a say in whether or not they chose to accept the terms of this compact/contract/constitution. By the very fact that there was a very vocal opposition raised to the ratification of the constitution, we know that not everyone wanted it to be implemented.

So, for the sake of argument, let’s say that each State held a ratifying convention, with 100 people being chosen to debate whether or not to decide whether the constitution would become binding upon everyone else. As each individual is sovereign, “but they are sovereigns without subjects…with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty” then how can a small group of people agree to something, such as a constitution, that binds everyone to it, without also being a violation of the sovereignty of the individuals that comprise a society? That’s like saying you have 1,000 people in a room, and 100 of them agree to do something, and the other 900 MUST comply…or else.

To take that one step further, a compact/contract/constitution, only binds those who enter it willingly; by giving their consent to it. Have you ever formally consented to the Constitution? Have you ever signed a piece of paper, or voted openly to support the document, and the government it establishes? I took an oath to support and defend it when I enlisted in the military, but the way I see it is that my oath expired on the same day my final enlistment did; I am no longer bound by that oath.

So, to paraphrase both Jefferson and Paine, how is it that we have a government today; a government that was established by men who have long ago passed away, yet remains binding upon you today? I’m going to provide you with a couple of quotes to consider, although I am going to present them out of order as they appear in the source I found them in.

The first quote states: If any considerable number of the people believe the Constitution to be good, why do they not sign it themselves, and make laws for, and administer them upon, each other; leaving all other persons (who do not interfere with them) in peace? If you wish to be governed by the government established by the Constitution of 1787, why do you not willingly, and openly, pledge your support for, and allegiance to it; while leaving those of us who do not want to be governed free to live our lives not subject to its authority?

The second quote is even more powerful: If the people of this country wish to maintain such a government as the Constitution describes, there is no reason in the world why they should not sign the instrument itself, and thus make known their wishes in an open, authentic manner; in such manner as the common sense and experience of mankind have shown to be reasonable and necessary in such cases; and in such manner as to make themselves (as they ought to do) individually responsible for the acts of the government.

As those you elect are supposed to represent you, you are ultimately responsible for what they do while serving you. Therefore, if your representatives deprive me of life, liberty, or property, without my consent, it should be those who support them who are held accountable; as they are merely agents acting on your behalf. How would you like it if I was arrested for violating one of the laws enacted by your government, yet when I went to court you found yourself held accountable because your government had deprived me of my rights, liberty, or property? I bet that wouldn’t sit too well with you, would it. That is why government gets away with all that it does, because neither it, or those who elect tyrants, are held accountable for the crimes their government commits against the rights, liberty and property of the people.

Government today is like the ground we walk upon, or the air we breathe. That may not make any sense to you, so let me explain. When we are born, the ground is always there for us to put our feet upon, and the air is always there for us to breathe. So it is with government; it is something that exists; something we do not question the existence of, the purpose for which it was established, nor the abuse of power it is guilty of. We just accept that government is there, and we hope, (getting back to that point I asked you to remember earlier) that we can improve our lot in life, or improve it by voting for a better quality of candidate.

It’s just like the news media broadcasting all this doom and gloom, with a ray of hope included; it keeps people in a state of apathy and complacency; hoping that their vote will make a difference. But, as Patrick Henry said in 1775: …it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I don’t know if the story I’m about to relate is true, or not, yet the analogy, (just like the analogy of a frog in a pot of water) is still an accurate description of what has happened in this country. The story revolves around a young man in a college class who asked his professor if he was aware of how to capture wild pigs. He then went on to say that you put out some food for the pigs. The pigs come and begin eating the offering. Then, you erect a wall alongside where you put the food. The pigs may notice the wall, but eventually return for the free food. Once they’ve become accustomed to the one wall, you build another. The pigs may again be hesitant, but eventually become accustomed to that wall. Then you build another. The process repeats itself, and the pigs come back. Finally, you erect the final wall, with a gate; and when the pigs enter to eat, you close the gate upon them; trapping them inside the cage you have erected.

That is how government has successfully enslaved us; by promising us all these goodies, while at the same time erecting walls, or restrictions, upon our rights and liberty. We were too happy to accept the free stuff, (which isn’t actually free; it comes at the expense of your tax dollars or the debt your government has accumulated on your behalf), while it has slowly, but surely, taken away almost all your rights and liberty. As we speak, those in power are erecting the final wall, the one with the gate, that will enslave you, and your posterity, forever.

Have you ever been bitten by a fire ant? It may hurt, but you can easily brush it off and stomp on it. Have you ever been swarmed by fire ants? It’s not so easy to brush them off when there are thousands of them crawling over your skin. Jesus used to use parables in his preaching, and would often say: He who hath ears, let him hear. So, for lack of a better description, let us call this, Neal’s parable of the fire ants.

Your liberty is the person whose skin a fire ant crawls upon. The fire ants themselves are the many laws and taxes imposed upon you by government. The ant colony is government itself. One single law, or tax, is not sufficient enough for you to panic; although it may prove uncomfortable. Yet our rights and liberty are being swarmed, and have been, for generations now by a multitude of laws and taxes that are slowly, but surely, depriving us of the freedom that government is supposed to secure for the governed.

According to some sources, depending upon the health of the victim, anywhere from 80-100 fire ant bites is sufficient to cause death in the victim. The question is, as I’m using fire ants as a parable, how many bites/laws/taxes can liberty endure before dying forever?

We believe that government serves us, and that it is only because what the ‘other’ party is doing that we have so many problems in America today. That hope that we can make things better by voting, is their most powerful tool; aside from the fear they use against us. The truth is, no matter whom we elect, government does what it was designed to do; what Samuel Bryan warned us about over 200 years ago; it serves the wealthy aristocracy; business and banking interests.

Much, if not all of our foreign policy is based upon the dictates/needs of the military industrial complex. The FDA is the partner to the big drug companies who push their poisons upon us. The bankers control our money; devaluing it at will by their constant printing of new currency; without any tangible backing, such as gold or silver. Our news media is owned and operated by these same people, and our schools, therefore what we learn about government, is determined by government itself. Finally, as I mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court gets to decide what powers the government shall be permitted to exercise.

This Covid scandemic is the final wall which will trap us into a cage we cannot escape. What began as 14 days to flatten the curve has been extended now to, take the vaccine or you won’t be able to participate in life itself. Due to Covid, many small businesses have not recovered from the forced lockdowns. I have a website bookmarked that shows a state-by-state breakdown of what percentage of small businesses have not recovered from the lockdowns. California, my home state, has seen 39.1% loss; with those businesses closing their doors forever.

To compound matters, the government has been handing out subsidies to those who have stayed home out of fear over Covid; making it hard for many businesses to find workers to staff their operations. This, in some instances, is leading to backlogs and shortages in the food supply chain; which creates an even bigger dependency upon government services for people’s survival.

It was our fear that caused us to obey these mandates and these lockdowns; and government took full advantage of Rahm Emmanuel’s statement of not letting a good crisis go to waste. If they are successful in forcing the vaccine upon those who do not want it, or depriving them of their ability to shop, attend events, or travel, the final wall of our cage will be erected; and the few stragglers who aren’t inside the cage can easily be dealt with by those who enforce the laws these tyrants impose upon us.

The sad thing about it is, those of us whom they will come after are not just defending our freedom, we’re defending yours too; even though you are too blind and ignorant to see it. Once we’re gone, there will be nothing standing in the way of government doing whatever it wants to you. As Pastor Martin Niemöller said during the reign of the Nazi’s in World War II Germany: 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 not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and 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.

The problem with society today is that they believe that people like me are their enemy. That is due to their conditioning at the hands of the state run and operated school systems and media. People such as myself seek to deprive you of nothing that is rightfully yours; we only seek to defend what is rightfully ours. Unfortunately, you have been taught that our rights, our liberty, our income, our property is subject to the will of the majority, and that anyone who seeks to defend those things is an enemy of the state.

Rights, liberty and property are individual qualities; they do not belong to the majority, they belong to the individual, and it is the individuals right to defend them against all attacks: Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can–Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature. (Samuel Adams, 1772)

What people support and believe today goes against the Law of Nature; that the rights and property of the individual are subject to the will of the majority, enforced by law passed by a government whose purpose is clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence. Yet due to people’s ignorance, and compounded by their unwillingness to stand up to tyrants, government has pushed us to the point where freedom no longer exists in America.

This Covid crisis is the end game; they began by saying that 14 days would flatten the curve and then we could go back to normal. Those 14 days became a year. Now we’re told that we have to take the vaccine and all can return to normal. Normal is a carrot dangling upon a stick; while they are sitting upon the horse and the stick keeps moving further and further down the pathway to tyranny. The only way we can prevent what’s coming is to stop chasing the carrot. That’ won’t undo the damage that has been done, but it will stave off what’s coming if we don’t.

Liberty is ours for the taking; if we only had the courage to reach out for it. We are millions in number, while those who seek to enslave us are few in number. They derive their power by your consent. Take away your consent and they are just men and women with an appetite for power and no ability to impose it upon you.

I do not see the former land of the free surviving this; I truly don’t. There are too many who support this system as it exists today; too many who are willing to give up their freedom for the promises of comfort and security; and we all know what Ben Franklin had to say about that: Those who would surrender essential liberty for a little temporary comfort and security will deserve neither and lose both.

I do know one thing though; once the reality of what is coming finally hits you square in your face, there won’t be anyone left to save you, (see the Martin Niemöller quote). If freedom means anything to you, then you better stand up in its defense NOW; before it’s too late. For, as Edmund Burke once said: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. And, as Etienne de la Boetie wrote in 1576: Let us therefore learn while there is yet time, let us learn to do good. Let us raise our eyes to Heaven for the sake of our honor, for the very love of virtue, or, to speak wisely, for the love and praise of God Almighty, who is the infallible witness of our deeds and the just judge of our faults. As for me, I truly believe I am right, since there is nothing so contrary to a generous and loving God as tyranny — I believe He has reserved, in a separate spot in Hell, some very special punishment for tyrants and their accomplices.

And make no mistake about it, if you do nothing to support and defend liberty, or you actively support those who take it from others, you are an accomplice, and will be treated as such when they come after those who do have the courage to make their final stand.

Once, after a particularly vivid dream, I did a bit of research as to what dreams are; what causes your mind to create such realistic, and often bizarre, images while you sleep. I can’t recall who said it, but in one of the articles I read, the author proposed the premise that a person would go insane if they did not dream every night. I don’t know about that; I’ve often wondered if people don’t go temporarily insane while they sleep; which is what causes them to have such bizarre dreams.

Whatever the case may be, this morning I awoke rather abruptly from a dream I was having, and before the memory of it faded off into the recesses of my mind, I scribbled down a bunch of short notes to help me remember the gist of it later. While the dream has faded, like so much fog on a warm spring day, my notes will help me recreated the gist of what I dreamt. Of course, I’ll have to take a certain amount of creative license with the details, but since it was my dream, I don’t foresee any legal problems with that.

It’s kind of funny that my dream began with me asleep in bed; being awakened by a sea of flashing red and blue lights in front of my house, and an army of law enforcement officers standing around in riot gear with automatic weapons drawn. (This is the dream now, not reality) A few of the officers approached my front door, about a dozen or so, with a battering ram. I knew what that meant and I pondered making a final stand, or just going with the flow to see how it all ended.

I chose the latter option; not because I lacked the courage to go out in a blaze of glory, rather more out of curiosity over how things would play out. So, as they approached my front door, I calmly sat on the couch, turned on the TV, and waited for my door to come crashing off its hinges.

It didn’t take long, and soon I was staring down the barrel of a dozen or so rifles, while the one in front screamed, DON’T MOVE! I was zip tied and escorted outside and placed in the back seat of a police cruiser, while I watched with detached amazement as they went straight for my garage.

I knew what they’d find in there; prepper shit, a gun case with all sorts of rifles, and a heavy-duty tote; packed to the gills with marijuana. (Remember, this is just a dream, so don’t think about breaking into my garage, looking for guns and drugs; you won’t find any and you’ll probably get shot) Apparently, that was what they came for, because the guy who’d screamed for me not to move came back out, read me my rights, and told them to take me to the station and put me into an interrogation room.

Eventually, possibly an hour or two later, (remember, this is dream time, and things happen much faster in dreams), two plains clothed detectives came in and sat down opposite me. They seemed quite polite in comparison to the savagery I’d just witnessed by the jack-booted thugs who’d broken down my door and held me at gunpoint. One of them asked me if I’d been read my rights, and I responded in the affirmative. He then asked if I wanted a lawyer present, to which I responded: That won’t be necessary as I do not intend to answer any of your questions. You may as well book me, lock me away, and prepare your case against me. I’ll be representing myself, and I’ll see y’all in court.

The other guy then chimed in, saying: You do realize the seriousness of the position you find yourself in, don’t you? I said, I most certainly did; the question was, did they. That left them with a puzzled look on their faces, but seeing as how I did not respond to any more of their questions, I was booked and placed into a holding cell to await my arraignment.

(Now this is where dreams can get a bit bizarre. I don’t recall my time in the holding cell, nor my arraignment; that period of time is as if it never existed. The next thing I know I’m in the courtroom and the prosecuting attorney is finishing up his closing argument. Once he finishes, the judge asks me if I have anything to say in my defense; which is where the dream picks up again)

I rise slowly, with a sense of calm, and slowly turn and take in the entire courtroom as if I were searing it into my memory. I then turn to the jury and look each of them in the eyes. Some of them look away, as if they were gazing into the eyes of the devil himself, others look at me to try and see if they can read anything into my expression. Once I have made eye contact with each of them, I begin to speak:

Ladies and gentleman of the jury, everything the prosecution has told you is true. The police did enter into my home and find large quantities of marijuana, rifles, and ammunition. Those items were mine; I won’t deny that fact. Apparently, the possession of those items is against the law; the law I’ve been charged with violating.

I realize that y’all are not allowed to ask questions of me, or the prosecution, but when you begin your deliberations, I would ask that you ask the court to provide you with any records they may have as to past criminal activity on my part. It may come as a surprise to you that, aside from a couple of minor traffic violations, I have led a crime free life; and I believe the charges for which I’m now standing trial are a farce, and a threat to, not only my rights, but each of yours as well.

I would like for each of you to now ask yourself what you consider a crime. I believe that most of you will probably think that murder, assault, theft, and rape are all crimes; and you’re right, they are. I now ask you to think about what it is that constitutes a crime. For a crime to have happened, two things are necessary; a victim and a perpetrator.

According to the law I’m accused of violating, I am the perpetrator. But I ask, where is my victim; who have I killed, harmed, or stolen from? The rifles and the marijuana the police found at my home were mine, as I’ve said; they were for my own personal use. I doubt that he’ll deem to reply, but I would ask the prosecutor to name one crime I have committed with those rifles; other than the mere fact that their possession is considered a crime by the law.

So, I would like to ask you, what is the law; what purpose should it serve? I know this isn’t France, but in 1850 a Frenchman by the name of Frederic Bastiat wrote: What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.
Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?
If every person has the right to defend—even by force—his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right—its reason for existing, its lawfulness—is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute.

Then of course, there was the esteemed Founding Father, Samuel Adams, who said: Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.

I know that is a lot to remember, and if you wish, I can have copies of those printed out for you to re-read while you deliberate my fate.

Were the rifles I had in my possession hurting anyone? Was the marijuana? If not, then what crime have I committed. Would it not have been within my rights, according to the definition given by Bastiat, to use force to protect my property; and make no mistake about it, those rifles and that marijuana was my property! It did not belong to any of you, did it? It did not belong to the officers who arrested me, or the judge presiding over my case. No, it was mine, and according to those men, would I not have been within my rights to defend them against confiscation; especially considering that they had not been used in the commission of a crime?

I did not do so for the same reason I refused to answer the questions of the detectives who interrogated me after my arrest; I wanted to plead my case to a jury of my peers; for they are not part of the system; a system that no longer serves the function of protecting and defending both the people AND THEIR RIGHTS! I wanted to appeal to your sensibilities rather than give the system valid justification for accusing me of an actual crime by assaulting the officers who uphold the laws this system enacts.

I do not know whether or not any of you have read our Constitution, or the Bill of Rights for that matter. This may come as a shock to you, but I believe the document to be worthless; aside from creating an entity that has ultimately led to me standing here before you, charged with a crime without any victim.

Nevertheless, we are told that each of the 3 branches of our government is delegated with certain powers and specific functions; that there are supposedly checks and balances placed upon each branch so that they cannot infringe upon the powers held by the others. Congress is the branch of government that has been delegated with the power of writing our laws. Of course, the president may either concur or veto them, and the Supreme Court may hold them unconstitutional; yet neither of those two branches can write a law; that power rests solely with the Congress.

The powers given Congress are found in Article 1, Section 8, and they are much fewer than you’d imagine. Nowhere among the powers listed in Article 1, Section 8, does it give Congress, or the Executive for that matter, the authority to make it a crime to own, or use drugs – of any kind.

Are you aware that alcohol is a drug? Are you also aware that it took a Constitutional Amendment to make the sale and transportation of alcoholic beverages illegal? It was the 18th Amendment that did so, which was then codified with the passage of the Volstead Act by Congress. I’m almost certain that you weren’t aware that the Volstead Act was vetoed by President Woodrow Wilson; although his veto was overridden by both houses of Congress; making it the law of the land.

Regardless, it took a Constitutional Amendment to give Congress the authority to make alcohol illegal; and look at the crime wave that happened once they did so. Organized crime, bootleggers, and violence in the streets came about as the result of their effort to prohibit the consumption of alcohol. Eventually, after it became apparent that the people were not going to stop drinking, and in conjunction with the rise in crime, the 21st Amendment was ratified; repealing Prohibition.

No such amendment, criminalizing the possession or use of marijuana, has ever been ratified; therefore, the Congress has no legal authority to make it a crime for me to own, and use the marijuana presented to you as evidence of my guilt.

You may not like the fact that I smoke marijuana, but as long as I bring no harm to others, I am perfectly within my rights to do so. I don’t particularly care for the fact that some people listen to rap music, or eat certain foods; that does not justify me pushing to make it a crime for others to do so. That principle lies at the very foundation of liberty; what this country supposedly stood for…at one point in its history, anyways.

I grow and smoke that marijuana for my own use; it helps me relax and sleep and night, and it helps me appreciate music a bit more. But sir, you say, you were found in possession of over 4 lbs of it! You’re right. Tell me, if you were a rancher and you craved a steak, would you slaughter a cow and throw away the rest of the meat? Yes, I had 4 lbs of it, but that was only because that is how much my plant produced last year. I have no intention of selling it; in fact I probably won’t need to grow it for a great many years; that’s assuming I don’t spend the remainder of my life in prison on the charges that have been brought against me.

As for my guns; well let’s look at what the 2nd Amendment says. The pertinent part reads: … the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Tell me jurors, do you understand the meaning of the word infringe? Infringe means to encroach upon; to limit or restrict. Is not the law I am accused of violating an encroachment upon my right to keep and bear arms?

Now you may be thinking that at the time the 2nd Amendment was written, the weapons I was arrested for possessing were not in use at that period of our history; therefore, they are not covered by the 2nd Amendment. Let me ask you something, do you believe that you have freedom of speech? Do you believe that right includes your right to speak your mind in chat rooms or on the telephone? Why, those implements did not exist at the time the First Amendment was written, so why does your right apply, and mine does not?

The 2nd Amendment does not say what kind of arms I have the right to keep and bear, only that I have that right. Every gun law that tells me what kinds of guns I CANNOT own is an infringement upon that right. In the past the courts have ruled in support of that belief; that is before they were overrun with progressive judges who do not understand, or care, about preserving the rights of the people.

For instance, in 1846 a Georgia court held: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.

Then, in 1878, an Arkansas court held: To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege. If you’ll take note, in this ruling the court held that it was the right of a citizen to carry a war arm; or what you would call today, an assault rifle.

This right, these rights, may not concern you. You may not own guns, or smoke marijuana; and that is your choice – but you’re free to make that choice, while the law says I am not. The problem, and history proves this, is once a government begins to infringe upon the rights of certain people, it eventually gets around to infringing upon, or denying the rights of all the people. If you won’t stand up for my rights now, who will stand up for your rights if they impose mandatory military service, or make it a crime to watch professional sports, or eat certain foods.

In the beginning of my statement, I called these proceedings a farce; and now I’d like to tell you why I said that. If you were to visit the office of the prosecuting attorney, I’m pretty sure they have a room filled with legal volumes. Those books go by the name of American Jurisprudence; the codification/encyclopedia of law in this country. If you were to ask him to show you what it says in 16 Am Jur 2nd Section 177, if he was willing to show you, you would find: Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

I believe that the laws I’m guilty of violating are unconstitutional. Therefore, the officers who arrested me acted without authority, and the judge presiding over this case is presiding over a farce; a circus; a travesty of justice. Since 16 American Jurisprudence says that no one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, I chose to ignore the laws that say I cannot keep 4 lbs of marijuana, or own the weapons found in my possession.

We are told that the Constitution was written to secure our rights. If that is so, then aren’t we the ones who know best when those rights are being violated; not the jack-booted thugs posing as law enforcement officers. During the American Revolution the Redcoats were King George’s law enforcement officers; yet the patriots fought them when their rights were being violated. Hitler had his own law enforcement as well; it went by the name, Gestapo. Putting a uniform and a badge on does not give one unlimited power to enforce any law that our elected representatives enact; they too swear an oath; meaning they are obligated to protect the rights of those they serve, not subjugate them by enforcing laws that are blatantly unconstitutional.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, in 1789, Thomas Jefferson, the author of our Declaration of Independence, wrote: I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution. Why would he say such a thing about the power you now hold in your hands?
The question is simple, and eloquent. As all political power is derived from the people, those who serve as jurors are the final check upon a system that may, or may not, become abusive. You, as jurors, although I’m certain that the judge and prosecuting attorney won’t inform you of this, have the right to nullify a jury…

(At with point in my dream the prosecuting attorney screams, I OBJECT, and the judge bangs his gavel, telling me to go no further or he’ll charge me with contempt)

I stop my oration and face the judge. I then say: Your honor, I hold you, and the system that has placed me in the position where I must defend my rights in a court of law in contempt. No sir, I will not be quiet, it is you sir who must sit the fuck down and shut the hell up!

It is your right, even though I am guilty of doing the things I am accused of doing, things I freely admit to have done, to find me not guilty nonetheless; based upon the fact that you find the law itself repugnant. In 1972 the D.C. Court of Appeals heard the case of U.S. v. Dougherty. In their decision they held: The jury has an unreviewable and irreversible power… to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge… The pages of history shine on instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law.

Although the court held that it is your right to disregard that law I am accused of violating, they also held that the judge, (pointing towards the judge presiding over my case), is under no obligation to inform you of your rights as jurors.

If the tables were turned, and it was one of you standing here fighting to stay out of prison, and I was in the jury box and found out that the prosecution and the judge had not made me aware of my rights as a juror, I would be furious.

I ask you to look deep within your hearts when deliberating my fate. You do not have to like me, or the things I’m accused of doing, but the very basis of liberty is to live and let live. I have done no harm to no one; I have neither assaulted, stolen from, or killed anyone. Therefore, in all fairness, I have committed no crime. I humbly ask that I be allowed to leave this courtroom a free man. I now rest my fate in your hands; and know this, it only takes one juror with the courage to do what’s right to set me free.

Thank you for your time and patience.

(The sad thing is, I woke up before I found out how the jury ruled…) In any case, these are the kinds of dreams I have. So now you have a glimpse into my subconscious; what makes me tick. I hope I haven’t frightened you too badly…

“These wretches have no wealth, no kin, nor wife nor children.
not even life itself that they can call their own.”
~Etienne de la Boetie~
(The Politics of Obedience)

Years ago, I read an article about how we take our vision for granted. In the article the author described how difficult it is to describe things to people who had been born blind. As an example, he talked about how hard it would be to describe something as simple as a cloud to someone who had never seen one. Imagine how difficult it would be to explain a cloud to someone who had never experienced color; only darkness.

For some reason, that article stuck in the back of my mind somewhere; until a day or two ago when I began to think about how it correlates with how I feel sometimes when I try to explain rightful liberty to people. It has been my experience that most people cannot grasp the concept of rightful liberty; possibly due to the fact that they’ve never experienced it.

In his book, The Politics of Obedience, Etienne de la Boetie writes: One never pines for what he has never known; longing comes only after enjoyment and constitutes, amidst the experience of sorrow, the memory of past joy. It is truly the nature of man to be free and to wish to be so, yet his character is such that he instinctively follows the tendencies that his training gives him. A few paragraphs later, he writes: There are always a few, better endowed than others, who feel the weight of the yoke and cannot restrain themselves from attempting to shake it off … These are the ones who, having good minds of their own, have further trained them by study and learning. Even if liberty had entirely perished from the earth, such men would invent it. For them, slavery has no satisfactions, no matter how well disguised.

How would you react if I were to tell you that the purpose of government is not to create jobs or provide you with anything; the purpose of government is to secure your rights and liberty against attack from others? I think the very thought of a government like that scares the hell out of most people; they cannot conceive of having to accept complete and total responsibility for all their wants and needs. Yet I could prove that statement; if only people would forget about what they’d been taught and open their minds to the truth.

I’ve heard it said that the Independence Day holiday celebrates the birth of America. If that be the case, then an argument could be made that the Declaration of Independence is America’s birth certificate. Yet that document does not establish any system of government; it merely outlines the principles they believed were ‘self-evident’, and the reasons why they felt it necessary to sever the political bands that had tied them to Great Britain. Those beliefs are found in the following passage from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Does that passage say anything at all about creating jobs, stimulating the economy, providing you with benefits or subsidies, or funding any of the other programs people today take for granted as part of the function of government? If so, I’d like for you to explain where exactly it says so.

Thomas Jefferson was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, and when he was elected to the presidency in 1800 he delivered an inaugural address in which he said: 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.

Would you vote for a candidate for president who made such a comment?

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

Both those men played significant roles in the drafting of two of our country’s most important documents; the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Therefore, if anyone understood the intent of those documents, it would be them.

So, do what either of them said conform to your beliefs as to the function of government? If not, then may I ask you to kindly reconsider your beliefs, because you’re reciting what you’ve been taught in school, or heard on the news; not what those who established this country believed.

I know this will seem like I’m backtracking somewhat, but I feel it is important that I discuss this so that you’ll get a better understanding of what the Declaration of Independence means. The history of our Declaration of Independence is fascinating; at least it is to me.

First of all, the Declaration of Independence was not the actual resolution presented to the Continental Congress seeking to sever the bands that tied them to England; it was the Lee Resolution, presented by Richard Henry Lee that did that. The Lee Resolution was presented on June 7, 1776, and came in three parts. It was the first of them though that discussed independence: Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

As the delegates to the 2nd Continental Congress were acting on behalf of their respective Colonies, they had not been given the authority to vote in support of such a measure; which is why nearly a month passed before they voted to support it. During that time, it was suggested that a committee be formed to draft a more formal declaration, should the vote upon Lee’s resolution be in the affirmative. That motion was approved, and Thomas Jefferson was tasked with drafting that formal document. When Jefferson asked why him, John Adams replied: Reason first—You are a Virginian, and a Virginian ought to appear at the head of this business. Reason second—I am obnoxious, suspected and unpopular. You are very much otherwise. Reason third—You can write ten times better than I can.

I love to write, there’s no denying that. Yet I don’t know if I would want to be shouldered with the responsibility of writing a document of such importance; as Jefferson was when he was asked to write a document that would change the course of his country’s history. Regardless, aside from the speeches of Patrick Henry, I think Jefferson’s prose in the Declaration of Independence rates among the most eloquent things I’ve ever read.

While the wording of the Declaration of Independence was, for the most part, Jefferson’s, the ideas expressed in it came from a multitude of sources. Jefferson was an avid reader, and one of the books that influenced him was Locke’s Second Treatise. I’ve often wondered why Jefferson did not paraphrase Locke when referring to our rights – Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Locke always referred to Life, Liberty and Property; so, it surprised me when Jefferson traded property for the pursuit of Happiness.

I’ve heard it said that Jefferson derived his inspiration from George Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights, which states: That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Yet, even Mason included acquiring and possessing property in his Declaration of Rights; so why Jefferson left property out remains a mystery. I have heard that he chose not to include ‘possessing property’ in his wording due to the fact that he opposed slavery, and slaves were treated as property; but that’s something I’ve been unable to disprove or confirm.

Yet four years before Jefferson was tasked with writing our country’s most important document, Samuel Adams wrote: Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can–Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature.

Therefore, regardless of whether or not Jefferson chose to include property in his list of rights, the fact that it was considered a right is well established by other Founders. Even after the Constitution had been written and ratified, James Madison would state: It is sufficiently obvious, that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted.

So far, none of the passages I’ve presented refer to any kind of benefits or subsidies to aid the people in their ‘pursuit of happiness’; merely that it is the function of government to protect our rights from infringement. The problem is, whenever there is a system that gives men the power to enact law, it will attract those who seek control and dominion over those the system governs; it is a historically proven fact that this is the case. To think that our system was created so perfectly that this could not happen shows how naïve and gullible people can be.

For most of my adult life I have watched as your government, (I no longer claim it as my own), has grown more powerful, and in the process of gaining that power I have watched as my rights have increasingly come under attack. I have watched with both horror and a growing sense of anger as the public has supported measures that deprive me of my unalienable rights and liberty.

I don’t know whether people do not know the meaning of the words inherent and unalienable, or if they don’t care, but nonetheless they mean that my rights are mine, and that nobody; not the public sentiment, not a gaggle of politicians, or nine black robed bandits calling themselves Justices, can infringe upon them!

In 1792 James Madison wrote an essay discussing property; defining it as: that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual. However, it is something else that Madison included among the things a man can call his ‘property’ that I would like to draw your attention to: He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

In his Second Treatise, Locke speaks frequently about the state of nature; which is: a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man. That sounds strikingly similar to what Jefferson would write over 100 years later: Liberty then I would say that, in the whole plenitude of it’s extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will: but rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.

So, if liberty means that ability of an individual to dispose of their person and their possessions according to their will, without being dependent upon the will of others, then how in God’s name can you justify denying a person the right to hold down a job, allow them entry into a business, or the ability to travel, unless they first submit to having something put into their body against their will?

If we cannot call our bodies our own, then we must accept the fact that we are slaves; for what is slavery but one person owning another in all regards? I do not care that the Supreme Court has held that it is permissible for government to mandate mass vaccination; they are part of the government, and the government is supposed to secure liberty, not annihilate it! I don’t care if a business requires the vaccine because the government says it is necessary; they should be more concerned with defending the liberty of their employees than they are upholding the mandate of some tyrant!

But Neal, Covid is a serious threat. You think Covid is a threat? You ought to start asking yourself what life will be like when the government gains complete and total control over your body. It is your fear, combined with your ignorance regarding the function of government, that allows government to grow, while your rights and liberty diminish; and I, for one, have had about all I can stand of it!

Our Founders spoke often about those who would give up their rights, or liberty, for the promises of comfort and security. Here are a few of their thoughts:

– I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery. Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Jan 30, 1787

-Those who would surrender essential liberty for a little temporary comfort and security will deserve neither and lose both. Ben Franklin

-If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

And finally, one of my favorites, from Thomas Paine: When I contemplate the natural dignity of man, when I feel (for Nature has not been kind enough to me to blunt my feelings) for the honour and happiness of its character, I become irritated at the attempt to govern mankind by force and fraud, as if they were all knaves and fools, and can scarcely avoid disgust at those who are thus imposed upon.

I don’t care what you think if you cannot support your opinion with historical fact; and I’m talking about history from the period that saw America become and independent country, not what some ass clown president said two days ago. If you want to live in chains, cower in fear over every real, and imagined crisis, be my guest – just don’t ask me to join you.

As I said, I have watched with growing horror, and anger, as my rights and liberty have come under attack over and over again by the entity created to secure them. I have also grown weary of trying to open the eyes of people who, quite honestly, aren’t fit to call themselves my countrymen.

There are some who are as angry over this whole vaccine mandate thing as I am. The problem is, they see this as an isolated incident, while I see it as another in a long train of abuses designed to reduce us under absolute despotism. Hopefully these people will see government for what it is supposed to be, not what it has become. The question is; will it be too little, too late; is the damage that has been done to our rights and liberty irrevocable, or is there still a chance that we can regain what we have allowed to be taken from us?

Only time will tell. Just know this; as Popeye used to say: I’ve had all that I can stands, and I can’t stands no more.

When I was young, you used to be able to buy firecrackers at any fireworks stand. That was before some busybody politicians decided to make them safe and sane; taking the fun out of fireworks entirely if you ask me. Although I never counted how many firecrackers I had set off, I’d venture to guess that the number was in the thousands. After all, what young boy doesn’t like things that go BANG? And, I’m pretty sure that I was not alone when I decided to cut into one of them to see what was inside; what made it go BANG when you lit it.

There is not much powder inside a firecracker; so, what causes them to explode with such force when you light one of them? The explanation is simple, and can be explained in one word – pressure. If you were to take that small amount of powder and place it on the ground, then light it, it would fizzle away without any explosion at all. However, if you take that same amount of powder and wrap it tightly in paper, the gas created by the lit power builds up until it becomes enough to overcome the pressure placed upon it by the wrapping; resulting in that satisfying BANG.

You may not realize it, but pressure is all around us. It is the pressure created by your beating heart that causes the blood to flow through your veins. When you get into your automobile, it is the pressure created by exploding gasoline, or diesel, that is transformed into energy; propelling your vehicle down the road. When you heat water for your coffee it is the heated water overcoming atmospheric pressure that causes the water to boil; which is why if you enclose that water in a pressure cooker you can heat it to a much higher temperature; allowing you to cook food much faster.

As you can see, pressure can be useful, however, it can also be destructive. Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are both examples of how pressure can bring about disastrous results. Yet there is another kind of pressure can also be harmful; that being the kind that is produced by anger and stress.

People deal with the pressures of life in different ways. Some find hobbies that take their minds of the stress of day to day living; such as gardening. Others find relief through the use of mind-altering substances; such as alcohol or drugs. Then there are those who relieve the pressure of life by going to the gym; lifting weights or punching it out of their system on a heavy bag. The point is, life induces a certain amount of emotional pressure upon us, and if we don’t find a way of relieving it, we snap; often violently.

My concern is that, sometimes people have no means of escaping the source of their pressure, or a means of relieving the stress it causes them. For instance, when one enlists in the military, they become government property; that their ass belongs to Uncle Sam 24/7. When I was making my way through basic training, I saw a full-grown man begin weeping like a baby when our Drill Instructor told him he was so stupid he couldn’t lace his shoes properly.

My wife and I are polar opposites in regards to how we handle certain types of pressure. My wife blows her top frequently; lashing out at any, and all, around her. However, she quickly recovers and goes back to being her cheerful self. I, on the other hand, hold things in until I explode; which from what I hear, is not healthy. While I was stationed in Spain I had one of my blowups; when the pressure inside me could no longer be contained and I snapped. When I finally blew, my supervisor sent my friend, (who happened to be a 4th degree black belt), to try to calm me down. My friend later told me that he’d never felt fear for his life until he saw the look in my eyes that day.

The point I’m getting at is, pressure exists, and each of us deal with it differently. The reason I bring pressure up is because there are times when government is the cause of pressure, or stress, and when it reaches a boiling point, violent change occurs. For cryin’ out loud, the American Revolution was one such example; if you’d just put your mind to use and think about it!

Read, and I mean think about what the words say when you read them, what the Declaration of Independence says: 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, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Isn’t that what I have been describing; a long train of abuses that create a form of pressure that needs to be relieved? Do you think the signers of the Declaration of Independence wanted a war; that they wanted to kill others to achieve their goal of having a country they could call their own? I could be wrong, but I think they would have preferred that the British government would recognize the legitimacy of their claim and let them become independent without having to resort to violence to obtain it. Yet they were also willing to resort to arms, or give up their lives, in defense of their cause.

Years later, in arguing against religious assessments, James Madison wrote: Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. Thinking back to how I described how my wife and I deal with pressure differently; I would think that Madison’s words are more along the line of how my wife deals with pressure; she reacts to each instance immediately; while I let things build up until I erupt.

I don’t know how people, acting individually, react to pressure; I do know that from where I sit, it seems that many allow their government to get away with doing things they don’t like; hoping that the next election can bring them some form of relief. While that may provide some temporary relief, the source of their stress – government – still exists; meaning that whatever temporary relief they may feel they’ve obtained is based upon which political party holds power.

Unfortunately, there is a flaw in that way of thinking. What typically happens is that, from people’s perspective, things stop getting worse; but they don’t get any better either. Although it may happen, typically whatever laws the other party passed, the ones you disliked so much, never go away; they remain in place. What that means is that the stress caused by those laws also remains; building and building until eventually it will reach a breaking point.

Maybe a few quick examples will aid in showing you what I mean by that. The Affordable Care Act was singed into law during the presidency of Barack Obama. Did Donald Trump repeal it? No, so it is still there; festering away and violating our right to choose for ourselves whether or not to purchase health insurance. Then there are the laws enacted following 9/11; the Patriot Act, the establishment of the Dept. of Homeland Security, the increased surveillance of the American people. Has any President, or Congress, repealed any of those laws; curtailed any of the right and liberty infringing programs they established?

Of course not. So, these could be considered a long train of abuses; could they not? Thomas Jefferson once wrote: Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers (administrators) too plainly proves a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery. Can you not see that we have been sitting idly by while a ‘series of oppressions’ have been forced upon us; that these oppressions have but one goal in mind; to reduce us to slavery?

In the film V for Vendetta, there is a scene where the character V addresses the people of London via their televisions. In his address he states: I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn’t be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you… Yet if we, the people alive today, were of the same mold as our ancestors were, we would not let fear deprive us of our rights and liberty. At Jefferson liked to say: I prefer dangerous liberty to peaceful slavery. Hell, the state motto of New Hampshire is: Life free or die. Then of course, there was Patrick Henry, who said: Give me liberty or give me death.

What happened to this country where people of such character have become an endangered species; where they are insulted by the majority; who prefer peaceful servitude over the animating contest for liberty?

Part of the problem is that nobody alive today has ever really experienced rightful liberty; they were born into a world where almost every aspect of their existence has some rule, or law, governing it. Another part of the problem is that the government run schools do not teach our children what rightful liberty is; that it is the duty of each individual to resist invasions upon it. Then there is this; the fact that people have lost the desire to be self-sufficient; they have become dependent upon the benefits and services government provides them. When that happens, people are highly unlikely to resist the authority of government in other aspects of their lives when it might threaten them with the loss of their benefits; the old, you don’t bite the hand that feeds you conundrum.

When you combine all three of the above, you have the perfect recipe for the enslavement of an entire country by its system of government. For years I wondered why it was that there were some who saw what was happening, while so many others could not. Then I was introduced to a book by a friend of mine; The Politics of Obedience, by Etienne de la Boetie. In that book I found a partial answer: There are always a few, better endowed than others, who feel the weight of the yoke and cannot restrain themselves from attempting to shake it off: these are the men who never become tamed under subjection and who always — like Ulysses on land and sea, constantly seeking the smoke of his chimney — cannot prevent themselves from peering about for their natural privileges and from remembering their ancestors and their former ways. These are in fact the men who, possessed of clear minds and far-sighted spirit, are not satisfied, like the brutish mass, to see only what is at their feet, but rather look about them, behind and before, and even recall the things of the past in order to judge those of the future, and compare both with their present condition.

These are the ones who, having good minds of their own, have further trained them by study and learning. Even if liberty had entirely perished from the earth, such men would invent it. For them, slavery has no satisfactions, no matter how well disguised.

What I find truly interesting, or saddening, depending upon how you look at it, is how little people understand their system of government. Take for example the presidential elections; people get all excited about who will become the next president; yet the president has very few actual powers; or at least they are supposed to have very few powers. It is Congress that makes the laws; the president can only reject them, or sign them; making sure they are faithfully executed.

Since people get so worked up over presidential elections, I’m assuming they think that the Executive Branch is the most powerful of the 3 branches. In my opinion, the Judicial Branch is the most powerful. While the Supreme Court, and all the inferior courts, do not wield any direct power over you, they do get to decide what the law means, or even the extent of governments power.

As the Judicial Branch is ‘part’ of the government created by the Constitution, isn’t giving that branch the authority to determine the powers held by the other branches similar to letting the fox guard the henhouse? In 1823 Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter expressing his fear over the powers given the Judiciary: At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account.

If government, any government, truly derives its authority from the consent of the governed, it should be the right of the governed to decide which laws the government enacts are constitutional, and which aren’t; not a branch of that government, as is the case with the Supreme Court. When they hand down one of their decisions, it is final; as if it were written in stone by the hand of God himself.

Let me ask you something. If the Justices on the Supreme Court are unbiased and impartial, why is there such a fuss as to whether replacements are chosen by a Republican President or a President who is a Democrat? It shouldn’t make any difference if they are unbiased, should it? Let me ask you another question. Do you know that, over the course of its history, the Supreme Court has overturned its own decisions over 200 times? Aside from the times they have done so due to an amendment to the Constitution, that begs the question as to which of their rulings was constitutional; the original ruling, or the ruling that overturned it? Could it possibly be neither; that both rulings were based upon the existing sentiments of either the Justices, or the American people?

Why do I bring this up when I began by talking about pressure? Well, I believe that we are at a point in our country’s history where people are going to have to choose, as Washington told his men before the Battle of New York: …whether Americans are to be free men or slaves. Due to our, (and I’m speaking in general terms), refusal to stand up to the increasing tyranny of our government, we are now at a point where almost all of our rights have been severely curtailed, and liberty is all but non-existent.

Yet for all of that, we could still go to work, (if we chose work over government subsidies), and we could still travel, go shopping, and attend events for our entertainment. Covid, and how governments have responded to it, changed all that; our very right to exist is now being threatened by the laws and mandates coming from government. We are at a point where, if we do not stand up for our liberty now, we will lose whatever vestige of freedom we may have had. If you can’t work without taking the vaccine, if you can’t go shopping without providing proof you’re vaccinated, if you cannot access your money without a vaccine passport, (something I think is on the way), then you are not free – YOU’RE A SLAVE!

Yet people think this is all something new; something that has happened due to Covid. While the extreme measures undertaken by government in response to Covid is new, the groundwork for it was laid nearly a century ago – you guessed it, by the Supreme Court!

In 1902 Massachusetts was one of 11 States that had mandatory vaccination laws. So, when an outbreak of Smallpox occurred, Massachusetts required that everyone be vaccinated for it, or pay a $5 fine. A Massachusetts pastor by the name of Henning Jacobson refused to take it, and his case ended up being heard by the Supreme Court. In their decision, the court held: …the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.

I do not know how many of my readers are familiar with the legal term precedent, so I’d like to take a moment to discuss what a precedent is. Basically, a precedent is an act that can be used as an example to justify other things later on down the line. Therefore, you might say, since the Court held that mandatory vaccinations were not a violation of our rights and liberty in 1905, they aren’t now. If only we could pay a $5 fine to avoid them; but precedents are much worse than that; they also act as building blocks for further enlargements of the power held by our government.

Allow me now to introduce you to the case of Buck v. Bell, 1927. Before I go into the specifics of the case, let me share with you a part of the Court’s decision. In their ruling they cited Jacobson v Massachusetts as a ‘precedent’, stating: The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11. Three generations of imbeciles are enough. Now to the specifics of the case.

Buck v Bell was a case in which the Supreme Court upheld the right of the government to forcefully sterilize anyone it deemed unfit, or feeble. Included in their definition of unfit were those we might call learning disabled, or mentally retarded, as well as those suffering from epilepsy. All the state, meaning government, had to do is declare you to be unfit, and they could sterilize you; deprive you of your right to have children.

If they could do that back in 1927, then what makes you thing that something like that, or far worse, could not happen today; perhaps to those of us who choose to resist being forced into taking the Covid vaccine. Could we not be deemed unfit, or dangers to society, and have our remaining freedom stripped away from us because the general public feared people who had the courage to be free; to resist laws that violated their rights and liberty?

I may not think you are making the wisest decision in the world if you choose to take the vaccine, but I don’t care if you do or if you don’t; it’s your body, your choice. Just don’t force me to do it due to your fear! When you threaten me with the deprivation of my ability to work, or to go to the store and buy the essentials necessary for survival; or worse, have me locked away in a Covid quarantine camp, you’ve crossed the line, and that pressure I was talking about earlier; well, you’re going to find out what happens when I explode.

If I might add something, specifically targeting my Republican friends, if you think this is all Biden’s fault, you’re wrong. It was the Republican President, George W. Bush who signed the PREP Act into law. The PREP Act authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to issue a declaration; this declaration does many things. For one, it provides immunity to vaccine manufacturers for any side effects caused by their vaccines; you can’t sue them if you get really sick, or die from it!

Remember, that was signed into law by a REPUBLICAN president. It was Donald Trump that gave us Operation Warp Speed, saying he would use the military to distribute this vaccine. That wasn’t Biden, it was Trump, who also stated: When somebody is president of the United States, that authority is total. And that’s the way it’s got to be. The governors know this. It’s total, it’s total. (April 13, 2020) Seems more like the words of a dictator, not a president limited in his authority by a constitution.

So, my Republican friends, do not blame this crisis we find ourselves in upon Biden. While he certainly isn’t alleviating things, he is no worse or better than anyone who came before him. Furthermore, he is only utilizing the system, and the precedents it has established, to do what government ALWAYS does; expand its own power while depriving us of more of our freedom. Biden just happens to be the one in power while we face the most serious threat to our freedom we’ve ever known.

I think this country is at a tipping point; a point where we have reached critical mass. I think that if they really push this thing to the inevitable end, they are going to experience a backlash the likes of which this country has not seen since the Civil War. Only this time it won’t be North vs South, it will be neighbor vs neighbor; as people all across the country fight those they used to work, and be friends with, over whether or not they will live as free men, or die trying.

Of course, all that could be avoided if people would BACK THE FUCK OFF – RIGHT NOW! I don’t see that happening though; people have been apathetic and complacent for far too long, and those in power have grown confident; cocky even. They think we no longer haver the spirit our ancestors had in 1776; the spirit to stand up to tyrants.

Believe me when I say this, if they keep pushing, they’re going to find out how seriously mistaken they were…