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.