Unquestioning Allegiance Makes Not A Free Man

Recently the National Football League, or NFL, passed some new rules regarding the actions of the players during the playing of the National Anthem. Apparently, and I may be wrong because I don’t pay that much attention to football, every player on the field MUST stand during the playing of the National Anthem, but players do have the option of remaining off field while it is being played/sang.

The NFL chose to implement these new rules after the backlash that ensued when Colin Kaepernick began kneeling during the playing of the National Anthem. Shortly after Kaepernick began kneeling during the National Anthem players from other teams started doing it as well; causing fans to become upset at this public display of, what they believed to be, unpatriotic behavior.

Now I can’t say one way or the other whether the NFL did this because the managers are truly patriotic and felt the players behavior was disrespectful or whether the backlash by fans was sufficient to force them into enacting these new rules, all I can say is that I am torn over their decision.

On the one hand I believe, as owners of the NFL, or the individual teams, they have the right to impose certain restrictions upon the actions of their employees, (the actual players), I also believe that by implementing these new rules they are violating a person’s right to protest. Aside from fan backlash, what those players were doing did not harm or cause problems for anyone; unlike many protesters who choose to block off city streets and highways. I have a sneaking suspicion that the NFL did this more out of concern that if this type protest were to continue it would cut into their bottom line, (their profits), and they decided to take action before the situation got any worse; but then again I have grown quite cynical in my old age.

I know some people who believe this was too little, too late, and I know others who couldn’t care one way or the other if players kneeled during the playing of some silly song; as long as the game was played afterwards.

Regardless of all that, the other day I read, and shared a post on Facebook, written by a former U.S. Army veteran who served 2 tours in Iraq, discussing the reasons why he will not stand during the National Anthem. While I agree with most of what he said, I also feel that there are a couple other things that I believe that have caused me to no longer sing, or stand during the playing of the National Anthem, as well as recite the Pledge of Allegiance. I know this might offend some people, but either you’ll get over it or you won’t. But that’s not my problem, it’s yours; and as long as there is still some semblance of freedom of speech I’m going to explain why.

The National Anthem

While there may be many reasons one might choose not to stand during the playing of the National Anthem, my reason comes down to the last two sentences in the lyrics, “O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

The flag, or that star-spangled banner may continue to fly, but America has long ago ceased to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. Now I know that many people relate disrespect for the National Anthem to disrespect for our fighting men and women, but what is it these fighting men and women are fighting for? While I respect their decision to enlist and put themselves into a situation where they may, at any time, be asked to lay down their lives for their country, I also have some serious questions about why our government sends them off to these godforsaken countries in the first place.

You may say, but there are terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. Well good for Iraq and Afghanistan; if they want to fight terrorism, let them go for it; but it isn’t our job to be sending our fighting men and women all over the planet to fight other people’s battles.

I know I have a certain quote before, but the question is, have you really read and understood it? So I’ll repeat it for you to re-read. It comes from an address given by, then, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams celebrating the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, “America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.”

People want to be safe, but many also want to keep their precious politically correct feelings intact as well. It is safe to say that almost all these acts of terror are committed by radicalized followers of the Islamic faith; (that is if they aren’t false flag incidents caused to maintain a constant state of fear and justify more intrusions upon our liberty). If that is the case, why are we allowing immigrants, or refugees from the countries that practice Islam into the United States? That would have been like FDR opening the door and allowing SS or Gestapo forces to emigrate to the U.S. during WWII. After all, it’s nearly 6,000 miles from New York to Iraq; are they going to attack us from there if we stopped letting their immigrants come to America? I think not, so why are we OVER THERE fighting against them?

Yet people say you cannot discriminate, that we have freedom of religion and people are free to practice whatever faith they want, and that we cannot stereotype all Muslims. Is that so? Why is it then that whenever someone speaks out against how Islam is a danger to our way of life, or speaks out against the Zionist Jews they are quickly attacked and their views silenced, yet there has been an ongoing effort to take the Christian faith out of our culture and nobody has any problems with that?

Why is it that we cannot stereotype all Muslims and restrict their rights, yet every time there is a mass shooting the media and the brainwashed dead who believe them, want to stereotype every gun owner in America and further restrict OUR rights?

The hypocrisy is so thick you couldn’t cut it with a chain saw! No, there is much more to our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan than just terrorism; but I doubt I’ll ever break through that patriotic bubble that shields people from the truth that our military men and women are being used by special interests to further their goals and make them rich. I’m all for a capable military to defend our borders from attack, but the fact that they are being used as pawns to further the agendas of special interests is no reason to honor their sacrifices.

But I don’t think the National Anthem was written just to honor the sacrifices made by our fighting men and women; it was written to honor the bravery of the people who inhabit this country of ours; but then again that is just my own opinion on the matter.

I bet many people think the Star Spangled Banner was written during the American Revolution; it wasn’t. The Star Spangled Banner was written during the War of 1812 and was in response to Francis Scott Keys witnessing the attack upon Fort McHenry while being held captive by the British.

Yet the lyrics say the land of the free and home of the brave; they do not specify that the brave are only those who were engaged in the actual fighting at the time. I truly believe Key was referring to the overall bravery of the American people; which has a correlation to the bravery the patriots of 76 exhibited when they sought their independence from Great Britain.

Where is that bravery today? Sure, there are some who oppose our government; some more than others; but where are those who are willing to lay down their lives or risk imprisonment by refusing to obey unconstitutional laws which violate the liberty government was instituted to protect? While I’m not saying I’m out there resisting every law I believe to be unconstitutional, I at least recognize these laws as being unconstitutional and obey them under duress. I am not a sheep who meekly obeys the law simply because it IS the law. I recognize that my rights are being violated and that the government established to serve us has become our master; our enemy.

Can you say the same? Naw, there are few truly brave people in this country anymore; not at least as I believe Key’s lyrics were referring to bravery anyways.

Then there is the fact that this is no longer the land of the free. What can you do today without requiring a license or a permit, or have some law or regulation attached to it; dictating how you must obey the laws of your government? Nothing, that’s what. The clothes you wear, the food you eat, the bed you sleep in, the TV you watch all have rules and taxes imposed upon their usage. On top of that, try building a home, starting a business, growing crops for public consumption, hunting, fishing, operating a motor vehicle, or carrying a sidearm on your person without a license or permit and you’ll see how truly UN-FREE you are.

That is why I refuse to stand, or sing the National Anthem anymore; because it honors a country that no longer exists. We are not free, and we certainly aren’t very brave; because if we were every member of our government would be in prison or dangling at the end of a noose and we wouldn’t have all these laws which restrict the liberty government was supposed to be protecting.

The Pledge of Allegiance

It took me awhile to come to this realization, but the word allegiance implies servitude; or at least unquestioning loyalty. I may not be the best Christian in the world, but my allegiance is to God only; and maybe my wife and family. I certainly do not pledge allegiance to an object, or the country that object represents…especially when the country that object represents has abandoned the principles it was founded upon.

Can you imagine Thomas Jefferson or Patrick Henry standing up and pledging allegiance to the Union Jack, (the British flag)? Neither can I. Their allegiance was to the principle of liberty, and that when government sought to diminish that liberty it was the duty and obligation of the people to resist. That is where my allegiance lies, not in some flag; especially when the Republic it represents has become so corrupt our Founders wouldn’t even recognize it.

Besides, and this is more a personal issue than anything else, the American flag is the flag that was flown by the conquering armies of the North when they invaded the South to subjugate them and compel their loyalty to a government that sought to tyrannize and oppress them.

If I were to pledge allegiance to a flag, and I’m not saying I would, I would pledge my allegiance to the Confederate Battle Flag and the principles the Confederacy were fighting for; the right to self governance and freedom from an oppressive government.

I don’t know if the pledge is still recited every day at the beginning of class, but it was when I was in school. I have come to the realization that this was a form of conditioning, or indoctrination in which students are slowly, through repeated recitals of the pledge, molded into submissive little drones who obey the dictates of their government without question. That is NOT the nature of a free man, and I refuse to acknowledge my loyalty, or allegiance, to any entity which seeks to take away my liberty.

So there you have it, the reasons I do not stand during the National Anthem, or recite the Pledge of Allegiance. I know this may cause some to despise me even more, but as my friend Jeffrey Bennett so often says, “Phuok em!”

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Categories

Jim Morris, the vocalist for the rock group the Doors, once sang, “People are strange…” I couldn’t agree more; people definitely are strange. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t particularly hate anyone; it’s just that they confuse and frustrate me sometimes.

As long as people are friendly towards me I will be friendly in return; but I am very particular as to who I attach the word friend to. To me a friend is someone you can count on; anytime, anywhere, and under any circumstances. A friend is someone you can call at 2 a.m. and they will come to your aid. A friend is someone who will stand by your side when the odds are against you. A friend is someone you can trust with your life without reservations. As the saying goes, “A friend is someone you call to help you bury a body and they show up with shovels.” Now I’m not saying I have any bodies to bury, or that I will ever have the need to, but that’s the nature of a true friend; and I have but a few people I consider to be my friends; everyone else is an acquaintance.

As I have made it a habit to put people through a sort of screening process before designating them as friends, I have developed the habit of studying people; their actions and, more specifically, how what they say compares to what they actually do. And that is why I say that people are strange.
Ever since I was in the 5th grade, when a certain event in my life made me a social outcast in school, I have been somewhat of a loner; never really having or needing a large circle of friends. I always felt like someone staring into a fishbowl monitoring the behavior of the fishes inside. When I began studying politics, government and the history of my country I, foolishly I might add, thought that people would be overjoyed to have someone share the info I had learned with them. I was quickly disappointed; and this has led me to categorize people into 3 categories.

For lack of a better name I will simply call them Categories A, B, and C. Now I cannot speak for the entire nation, simply because I do not interact with the entire nation on a daily basis. However, these categories apply to the people I encounter on a daily basis and I am relatively sure that they probably apply to people across the country as well.

From what I’ve seen Category A people are those who simply don’t care that much about history, the form and purpose of our government, or what their government is doing for that matter. These are the people who are content to live their lives; trudging away at their jobs, then going home to do whatever it is they do to keep themselves occupied and entertained. To them football, Facebook, cooking, their pets, or whatever, are far more important than the dull study of politics and history. From what I’ve experienced I have come to the conclusion that there are more Category A people in America then there are Category B and C combined.

Category B people are the next largest group, and they consist of people who care more about politics and governance, but they are primarily followers of one of the two political parties in America, and therefore have no concern as to what powers the Constitution actually authorizes the government to exercise on their behalf. These are the people who stand behind their candidates, no matter what they do; unless of course their candidate is caught with their hands in the cookie jar, so to speak, and they are forced to admit that he/she is a crook. However, this does not stop them from voting for the next candidate from the same political party; or to use a popular colloquialism; someone cut from the same clothe. To Category B people party loyalty is of much greater importance than the Constitution or the principle of individual liberty.

Finally, there are the Category C people; who are the smallest category of all. Category C people are those who, by circumstance or choice, have encountered the truth, have accepted the truth, and base their actions upon that truth. Category C people typically vote Independent, Libertarian, or don’t vote at all because they realize the entire system is corrupt. Category C people are also those who don’t particularly care one way or another how you live your life, as long as you leave them alone in the living of theirs. For Category C people there is only one thing of any importance in life, the quest for the truth in all things. Category C people are shunned and ridiculed by those from the other categories because the truth threatens their beliefs; and that’s one thing people WILL fight to maintain regardless of whether those beliefs can be supported by any factual evidence.

Why am I talking about this now? Well it’s because back in 1776 there were also 3 categories of people living in the Colonies. There were those who believed in the principle of individual liberty, and that governments should protect that liberty. These people believed that their current form of government, (the King of England and Parliament) was detrimental to their liberty. Their names are well known to us all, or at least I would hope they are. Just to name a few of them; there was Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Hancock, Paul Revere, and the cousins, John and Samuel Adams. It was these men and others like them who drove the Colonies towards independence, and freedom from the oppressive laws of a tyrant. It was men of this nature who risked everything they had, including their lives, for their cause. To best sum up their attitude, allow me to quote from one of them, Patrick Henry, who on March 23, 1775 uttered the immortal words, “Give me liberty or give me death.”

Then there was the next category, the British Loyalists, who chose to remain loyal to the Crown no matter what laws it passed. They were those, who stood against the Patriots when they rebelled against their established government; some of them moving out of the country because they felt threatened, or they simply did not want to live in a country that stood against its government. There were Loyalists who joined up with the British Army and fought against their own countrymen, and there were Loyalists who informed the British regarding the activities of those they felt were committing treason; which in effect they were.

Finally there were those who didn’t care about the outcome of the Revolution one way or the other. There is no real telling how large this group consisted of, but some say it was as high as 1/3 of the entire population at the time. These are those who, for one reason or another, chose to remain neutral in the conflict.

Starting at the bottom now, I think those who remained neutral during the Revolution can be likened to those today who don’t care about politics or government; those who care more about football and Facebook than they do the things their government is doing.

Next up on the list are the Loyalists, who I compare to modern day loyalists who vote along political party lines; regardless of whether or not the things their government is doing violate their rights and infringe upon their liberty.

Finally, there are those who know the truth, stand for the truth, and who are likened to the Jefferson’s and Henry’s of 1776.

However, in today’s modern world these categories are not equally divided into thirds, the apathetic and complacent in America vastly outnumbers those who are somewhat active in politics; i.e. voting and supporting this candidate or that candidate; and they dwarf the group that actually knows about how our system of government was actually designed to operate, and how it has become so corrupt that nothing can be done to repair it at the voting booth.

What I’m trying to get at by all this is that America is divided into 3 types of people. There are those for whom self-gratification, entertainment, and ignorance are all that matters. Then there are those who believe they are doing their civic duty and participating in the democratic process; but who are misguided and misled because they choose not to learn, or accept the truth. Finally, there are those of us on the pathway to knowledge that realize how corrupt our system is, and that almost every single candidate put forth for our selection comes from the same rotten cesspool of candidates that caused our system to become corrupt in the first place.

Nonetheless, America became a free and independent country because of people like us, it was because of those who understood what liberty was, and who chose to defend it, that America gained its independence; regardless of how the rest of the country felt.

If we are to truly make America great again, it will not be done at the voting booth; the corruption is too extensive, and too pervasive to be rooted out by a single candidate chosen to hold the office of President. If we are to make America great again it will only happen when a sufficient number of Category B people realize that their government has failed them, and then choose to join the ranks of Category C people…but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

In closing, I would like to leave you with 3 quotes from Samuel Adams. The first comes from an essay Adams published dating back to 1748, “Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man.”

The next comes from an essay penned by Adams under the pseudonym of Candidus, in the Boston Gazette in 1771, “The liberties of our Country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have receiv’d them as a fair Inheritance from our worthy Ancestors: They purchas’d them for us with toil and danger and expence of treasure and blood; and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle; or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.”

Finally, in a private letter to James Warren, dated October 24, 1780, Adams writes, “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

That is the nature and mettle of those who established America as a free and independent country; shaking off the shackles of tyranny for the freedom that only true liberty can bring. Our country is in dire need or more experience patriots, not more willing sheep, or apathetic drones that just live their lives ignorant of what is going on around them.

You can chant Make America Great Again, or Hope & Change until you are blue in the face and your voice fails, but until you begin fighting for the principles this country was founded upon you are simply wasting your time and efforts.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

The Grand Experiment In Self-Governance Has Failed

The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government, are justly considered deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.

George Washington spoke those words shortly after being sworn in as our nation’s first president under the newly ratified constitution. I have often wondered, if Washington, Jefferson, Madison, or even Patrick Henry were alive today, what message would they have for the American people? I wonder would Washington turn to the others and say, “Well boys, it looks like this experiment of ours failed miserably.” I wonder, would Patrick Henry turn to the others and say, “I told you this would happen if you ratified that constitution of yours.”

The funny thing about it is, it began failing during the Washington administration. Not only that, but I believe it was doomed for failure, if not possibly designed with no possible outcome other than failure. I think there were too many loopholes inserted into the constitution that allowed for government to expand its power and deprive us of the liberty it was supposedly designed to protect. Then there was the fact that there was no means of punishing those who did abuse their power; no penalties attached to violating the constitution as there are with most other laws. Now whether this was intentional or simply a flaw in the system is anybody’s guess; but I’m inclined to think it was intentional.

You may have heard of Thomas Paine and his pamphlet Common Sense which brought the subject of independence to the forefront in public discussions prior to the Revolution. But did you know that in 1796 Paine sent Washington a scathing letter of condemnation, stating, “This is the ground upon America now stands, All her rights of commerce and navigation are to begin anew, and that the loss of character to begin with. If there is sense enough left in the heart to call a blush into the cheek, the Washington Administration must be ashamed to appear. And as to you, Sir, treacherous in private friendship (for so you have been to me, and that in the day of danger) and a hypocrite in public life, the world will be puzzled to decide whether you are an apostate or an imposters; whether you have abandoned good principles, or whether you ever had any.”

Patrick Henry foresaw the destruction of the principles America had fought for in the Revolution and Paine saw that this process had already begun under Washington’s administration, and condemned Washington for allowing that process to begin. Today people are so used to this monstrosity we call our government that they wouldn’t recognize, or accept for that matter, a truly constitutional limited form of government. Yet our government is evil; there is no other word to describe it. If you truly believe, as did Jefferson, that our rights and our liberty are gifts to us from our Creator, then any institution that seeks to restrict or deprive us of them is evil.

To understand how our system has failed you must understand how our country was set up prior to this system being implemented; and you MUST understand the concept of sovereignty. Let me begin by discussing sovereignty. Sovereignty, simply defined, is the supreme and absolute political authority in a society. In America that supreme or absolute political authority resided in the people–or at least it used to.

In 1793 the Supreme Court heard the case of Chisholm v. Georgia, a case in which a lawyer, Alexander Chisholm attempted to sue the State of Georgia, with the case being heard in the Supreme Court. The SCOTUS ruled in favor of Chisholm, the plaintiff; although their decision was later overturned by the ratification of the 11th Amendment. But it is not the outcome of the case that is of germane to the current discussion, it is something that was said by the Justices in their rulings, ” …at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, 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.”

If you were to look at the hierarchy of political authority in America at that point in our nation’s history it would look like a triangle or a pyramid, with the base being we the people. The base of any triangle or pyramid is always the widest point, signifying that we the people have the MOST political authority. The further up the triangle you go the political authority diminishes, or gets narrower in its sphere of operation. This is due to a concept explained by John Locke in his Second Treatise, “Though the legislative, whether placed in one or more, whether it be always in being, or only by intervals, though it be the supreme power in every commonwealth; yet: First, It is not, nor can possibly be absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people: for it being but the joint power of every member of the society given up to that person, or assembly, which is legislator; it can be no more than those persons had in a state of nature before they entered into society, and gave up to the community: for no body can transfer to another more power than he has in himself; and no body has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life or property of another.”

I hope I have made that clear enough so that I can move on to the state our nation was in prior to the ratification of the constitution. At that point in America history we were not the United States; a single entity; a nation; at least not per se. Rather, we were 13 sovereign and independent States united together in a confederacy; a loose alliance of sovereign nations for the purpose of providing for the mutual benefit and defense of all. This can be affirmed by simply reading the text of the Treaty of Paris, 1783, which officially ended the American Revolution, “His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States…”

Think of it this way, Africa is not a country, it is a continent consisting of many sovereign and independent countries; such as Libya, Sudan, Ghana, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, and Chad, just to name a few. America, at least in 1783 was the same, and not even a complete continent as far as that goes, as it did not consist of all the land which comprised the American continent. But what did exist as America consisted of 13 independent sovereign nations; each with their own culture, their own religious beliefs, their own economies, and their own system of government. The fact that they had united together into a confederation to fight a common enemy had not changed that in the slightest degree.

Then along comes this thing called a constitution, establishing a more perfect union. Now I can see, as all political authority is derived from the people, why the drafters of our constitution would want it ratified by the people, but how did this affect the relationship between the three entities; the people, their State Governments, and the central government the constitution was establishing?

In his arguments against ratification of the constitution Patrick Henry brought this point to the attention of his fellow delegates when he said, “The fate of this question and of America may depend on this: Have they said, we, the States? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation: It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, Sir, on that poor little thing-the expression, We, the people, instead of the States, of America.”

If the central government, or federal government as we call it today, were to solely have authority over the interaction between, and the defense of the States, then why did not its ratification depend upon the acceptance of the representatives of the people in the various State Legislatures? However, if the authority which was to be granted to this new system of government was to extend to the lives and liberties of the people themselves, then yes, I can see why it would need to be accepted by them directly.

When examining this question we must not look at it from the perspective of the powers our government wields today; rather we must look at it from the perspective of how the relationship between the federal and State authority was explained to those who made the decision to adopt the government proposed by this constitution. As the driving force behind the convention which produced the constitution, and one of the authors of the essays which were written to convince the people to accept the form of government they had produced, James Madison is quoted as saying, “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.” (Source: Federalist 45)

How anyone can say that what Madison explained even remotely resembles the balance of power between the federal government and the States is beyond me. So, either we have allowed our government to exceed the powers given it, Madison lied when he promised that the authority of the States would remain intact against federal intrusion, or we were sold a lemon in the form of a constitution with so many flaws inside it that all but guaranteed the failure of the system of government it produced.

Our system of government began to stray from that vital principle of State and individual sovereignty from the moment George Washington assembled his Cabinet and began spewing forth legislation. Driven primarily by his Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, Washington forsook the preservation of our liberty and sought to establish a mighty American empire with a European form of banking and commerce which favored the wealthy. This was another fear of Patrick Henry’s and he expressed it to the Virginia delegates of the ratifying assembly as follows, “You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.”

Conservative columnist George Will once wrote, “There is an elegant memorial in Washington to Jefferson, but none to Hamilton. However, if you seek Hamilton’s monument, look around. You are living in it. We honor Jefferson, but live in Hamilton’s country, a mighty industrial nation with a strong central government.” But it is not just Hamilton who is to blame, the Supreme Court itself that is to blame for expanding the power and authority of the federal government far beyond what was promised to the people. Jefferson had some scathing words of condemnation for the SCOTUS, saying, “The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone.” (Source: letter to Thomas Ritchie, 1820)

Let me ask you something. As a free and independent person, let’s say you and some friends or colleagues decided to form a club. Let’s say you formed this club and paid dues towards its maintenance; elected members to manage it and pass its bylaws. Would you therefore be bound for all eternity to this club should you ever disagree with the direction it was taking?

Why then would sovereign and independent States be forever bound to a Union that they felt was invading their sovereignty, or which was harmful to their best interests? Does the Declaration of Independence not say 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.” If the Constitution was ratified by the consent of the individuals within each State, acting in their sovereign capacity, then does it not seem logical that if the government created by the constitution became destructive of the purposes for which it was established that the people of the States could revoke their consent and resume their status as independent nations?

Why then did we have a Civil War? Oh, that’s right, to free the slaves. But slavery, as evil as it was as an institution, was perfectly legal under the Constitution; and therefore without a Constitutional Amendment abolishing it, there was nothing the Northern States, or the government for that matter could do to stop it. You see, there’s something else Washington said that you need, and I mean REALLY need to understand; that being, “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.”

The 13th Amendment did abolish slavery; but it was not ratified until 1865. The Civil War broke out in 1861; so what again was the cause for which the North invaded the South if it was not to use military force to compel the Southern States into adherence to the Union against their will?

Yes slavery was wrong; it was and is an evil practice; but did not the government use force to create slaves of the entire South by forcing them to remain in a Union that they felt was destructive of the ends for which it was established? Has this same government not made slaves of us all by the laws it has passed in our ‘best interests’, and I say that with a large amount of sarcasm.

Yet the concern of most voters today is not whether or not the government is adhering to the limits imposed upon it, or whether or not it is safeguarding their liberty; rather it is whether Republicans or Democrats are the ones violating the constitution and infringing upon our rights.

James Madison once wrote that knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who wish to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power that knowledge gives. Yet people today go to the voting booth unarmed with the knowledge of how our system of government was supposed to work. Not only are they unarmed, they reject the knowledge when anyone tries to present it to them; proving that Van Loon was right when he said, “Any formal attack on ignorance is bound to fail because the masses are always ready to defend their most precious possession – their ignorance.”

George Orwell once said that “In a time of universal deceit–telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” How is it that a people who claim to love the truth, love liberty, sit back and reject evidence which clearly proves they have no love for either? Historian Charles Austin Beard also wrote, “You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence.”

This grand experiment, of which Washington spoke of in his Inaugural Address has been a dismal failure for one reason only; it relied too heavily on the desire and willingness of the people to preserve it in its purest form.

There is not a soul alive today who can say that they have lived when their government has been respectful of the limits imposed upon its authority, and cared one whit about preserving our liberty…not one! This government is all we know, and we are accustomed to its transgressions; nay, we take them in stride as business as usual. It is only through extensive study can one come to the truth; that truth being that the great American experiment in self governance has failed, and that by supporting this government through the election of people to it is to accept your status as a slave to it.

They say that the truth will set you free, but you have to be willing to go out and find it, and have to be willing to accept it when you do find it; otherwise you may as well not care about the truth in the first place. However, I have found the pursuit of the truth to be akin to peeling away the layers of an onion. You peel one layer away only to find another one awaiting you. And like peeling onions; which make some cry, seeking the truth often produces uncomfortable feelings; or cognitive dissonance when the truth threatens all you believe in.

But if the truth matters, if the future of this country matter to you, then I beseech you to start that journey for yourself; stop relying on others, such as me, to provide you with the facts. I have never asked that you accept what I say without verifying it for yourself. To do so is to admit that I am thinking for you, filling your head with thoughts. Is that the nature of a free man/woman; to let others do their thinking for them?

If you really want freedom you must begin by breaking free of the lies which bind you in slavery to a government that no longer gives a damn about your rights and your liberty. That is the first truth you must accept; and after that it all becomes much easier. But as the old saying goes, “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” It is my sincere hope that you start that journey for yourselves.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

If You’re Going to Celebrate Memorial Day (Celebrate it Right)

Today is Memorial Day; the day in which we honor those who have fallen in defense of this country. Many have fallen over the course of our short time on the world stage, but my sentiments are that the first real Americans fell on April 19, 1775. Did these men give their lives in some far away foreign land fighting a foreign enemy? Did they fall when a foreign invader threatened America? The answer to both those questions is a resounding NO!!!

Those who fell on April 19, 1775 were fighting against officers of the law who came to take away their guns. That little skirmish between the British Redcoats and the local militia outside Boston is what eventually led the remaining Colonies to see that there would be no peaceful resolution to the ever increasing tyranny of King George III.

When General Gage sent his troops to Lexington and Concord the Colonists were faced with a choice; surrender their arms peacefully and submit to tyranny, or resist and retain the right and ability to stand up to tyranny. They chose the latter option, and some gave their lives in the defense of their right to keep and bear arms.

Today I hear all manner of nonsense coming out of the mouths of people regarding the right to keep and bear arms. Some say you don’t need an AR-15 to hunt deer, others say the Founders could not have foreseen the advancements in military weaponry; therefore the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the modern weapons available today.

I don’t think I could even begin to count the number of laws we have in this country which, in some form or another infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms; and the people still call for more restrictive gun laws every time there is another deadly shooting with multiple casualties.

How ready people are to surrender their means of standing up to tyrants for the promise of safety and security! Do they not see that these disturbed people are already in violation of numerous laws when they commit their horrific crimes? Are people honestly that naive that they think one more law will prevent people from committing these crimes?

You cannot legislate away the evil that lurks in the hearts of men; but you can legislate away their right to defend themselves against evil; and that’s what is happening with every gun law that is passed.

Thomas Paine once 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…” It is against this evil that the 2nd Amendment was designed to give us the right to defend ourselves against.

Let’s say the Founders were not able to foresee the huge advancements in the weaponry that would be available for use in wars. So what! If you truly understood the reason we have a 2nd Amendment that argument would not fly. The reason we have a 2nd Amendment is so that we could be a force of armed citizens that could stand up to any army that our government might raise against them. With that in mind, do you honestly think that they would have wanted to give future tyrants the advantage by allowing them to own weapons that the citizenry was prohibited from owning?

This was affirmed by Noah Webster in 1787 when he wrote, “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.” (Source: An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution)

Even Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, who I have come to despise, believed that was the purpose for the 2nd Amendment, “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” (Source: Commentaries on the Constitution)

To understand the significance of what occurred on April 19, 1775 one must look at it from a modern perspective. In the time of our Founders the British Redcoats were the law enforcement arm of their government; the Crown. Therefore, when these Colonists picked up their arms and stood up to the Redcoats it would be like the people of America today grabbing their guns and resisting any attempt by local law enforcement, or agents of the BATF from confiscating their privately owned firearms.

Can you imagine the people of America doing that today, and how the media would report it, or how the public would view such actions by the people against what they considered to be legitimate law enforcement? Yet that is EXACTLY what those men who stood on Lexington Green did; they opposed law enforcement when it had come to take away their guns.

Yet that is the character of those who fought and died on that day in April so many years ago. They understood the nature of their rights and they realized that if they surrendered their arms they may as well accept the fact that they would become slaves without any means of recourse against a tyrannical government.

In less than two decades after that fateful day, Patrick Henry already saw the erosion going on in the hearts and minds of the people as to their rights and the liberty they had so recently fought to obtain. In their quest to establish a system of government they were already willing to surrender far too much power to a proposed system of government designed by the delegates to the Philadelphia Convention in 1787.

Arguing against that proposed system of government Henry states, “I am fearful I have lived long enough to become an fellow: Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man, may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old fashioned: If so, I am contented to be so: I say, the time has been when every pore of my heart beat for American liberty, and which, I believe, had a counterpart in the breast of every true American.”

Later, in the same speech, Henry went on to say, “Oh, Sir, we should have fine times indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people. Your arms wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical; no longer democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?”

Believe it or not there is a concerted effort behind every push for stricter gun control laws; and the goal of those behind these measures seek a complete and absolute disarmament of the American people. They have stated their goals numerous times and their message has gone unheeded by the vast majority of those who support stricter gun control because they think something needs to be done to prevent crime.

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme 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. ” (Source: Nunn vs. State)

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.” (Source: Cockrum v. State, 1859)

Then in Arkansas the Courts 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.” (Source: Wilson v. State, 1878)

That’s 3 court rulings that make it pretty clear that lawmakers cannot deprive the people of the right to keep and bear arms…of all kinds. Yet our right to do so is being chiseled away by lawmakers who are exercising authority that simply is not theirs to exercise.

Our Founders knew the importance of an armed society, and they had the courage to stand up to those who would tamper with their right to be armed. Therefore, if you want to celebrate Memorial Day, celebrate it by honoring what those men at Lexington Green were fighting for; their right to keep and bear arms.

Now you can go enjoy your barbecues and beer…

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Memorial Day 2018

Memorial Day quickly approaches; the day in which America honors and remembers those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in the defense of their country. It is sad that this day is marked more by savings on new cars and appliances than it is the respect for those who gave their all for their country.

I remember the first time the real significance of Memorial Day hit me like a ton of bricks. It happened in 1981 when I was in the middle of transferring from my first base, (Castle AFB, outside Merced, CA) to Inoges Radio Relay Link in Spain. My flight to Spain was scheduled out of Philadelphia, but before I flew out I spent a week with a friend who was stationed at the Pentagon, and he showed me around Washington D.C.

One of the places he took me was to Arlington National Cemetery. I recall being awed at the endless rows of grave markers covering the sloping hillsides. But it was something he said that drove the point home. My friend told me, “Just think, one day we could end up here.” I had never thought of that, and it stopped me dead in my tracks as I pondered the enormity of that statement.

Are you aware that over the course of our nation’s history over 1.3 million American fighting men, and women, have paid the ultimate price in defending their country? I’d be willing to bet that you did not know that over half of them died during a 4 year period defending their country against the government we currently have. That’s right; out of 1.3 million, roughly 600,000 died fighting for the Confederate States of America.

On this day which we honor the sacrifices these people make, I want you to take a few moments, (if that’s not asking too much) to ask yourself what these people gave their lives for.

As an example of what I’m trying to get you to do, roughly 4,500 Patriots died during the American Revolution; some from disease and others from casualties inflicted on the battlefield. We all know what they were fighting for; American Independence and the liberty that would come to them should they achieve it.

Are our fighting men and women dying to spread democracy; to make the world a safer place, or could they be furthering the interests of certain special interests who have an interest in setting up shop in, or obtaining access to the natural resources possessed by these countries we are fighting?

I want you to read a quote from someone, but before you read it I need to preface it so that you don’t assume it comes from some left-wing anti war nut. Smedley Butler was an officer in the United States Marine Corps. At the time of his death he had attained the rank of Major General; the highest rank possible, and was the most highly decorated Marine in U.S. history. By all means, Butler was a true patriot and a real American hero who loved his country.

Therefore, why did Butler say the following:

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

I was but a 3 yr old infant when this speech was given, but as most presidents do, on the eve of his stepping down from the presidency Dwight D. Eisenhower delivered an address to the American people; laying out his thoughts and hopes for America. In this particular address Eisenhower stated:

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

How many wars have we fought, how many have died just to perpetuate the need for the armaments the military industrial complex provides the Department of Defense; how many have fought and died so that U.S. business interests could get a foothold in formally antagonistic countries; how many have died fighting in wars where the country we were fighting never directly attacked the United States?

How many of you who claim to support our troops ever stop to ask yourself why we are sending our troops into harm’s way? And why is it that the patriotic fervor that accompanies wars so often lead to the enactment of laws that end up trampling all over the very things America stands for?

How many of our liberties have we lost in the War on Terror alone? In 1967 the United States Supreme Court held, “It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of the liberties … which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile.” Or, to quote Ben Franklin, “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

It’s funny that so many people today believe that our U.S. military fighting men, and women, are off fighting for America and American values, yet they are so ignorant of history that the last time a war was fought on U.S. soil the losers of that great conflict were the ones who were truly fighting for American values.

Yet today those who fought for, and those who continue to stand for the values of the Confederacy are considered unpatriotic, racist, or just plain un-American because they fought against the Union Army raised by Abraham Lincoln to save the Union. Yet Lincoln, more than any other president up to that point, was guilty of violating the Constitution numerous times; yet he has a monument erected in his honor while those monuments erected to honor Confederate heroes are being taken down and put into storage because they offend people.

If you truly understood the principles this country was founded upon you would know that those fighting for the Confederacy were the ones fighting for those principles, and that the Union Army was fighting to impose the same kind of tyranny upon the South that King George sought to impose upon the Colonies. If you understood these things, Memorial Day, of all days, would be the day when you honored those who died fighting for American values, and mourned the fact that when Lee surrendered at Appomattox, those values died along with the defeat of the Confederacy.

And, as Forrest Gump said, “That’s all I’m gonna say about that.”

Posted in General | Leave a comment

What A Crock of Shit!

“If you don’t vote you can’t bitch.”

I don’t know where that phrase comes from, but you wouldn’t believe how many times I have had it, or some variation of it, shoved into my face since I stopped voting in presidential elections. For once and for all, if you are among those who truly believe that; y’all are full of shit! Let’s say you’re in a movie theater and some family comes in and the parents let their kids run wild; making all kinds of noise, interfering with your ability to enjoy the movie. Using YOUR logic, YOU don’t have the right to complain because YOU didn’t raise those kids.

Albert Einstein is purported to have said that the definition for insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting a different result. Every four years the circus comes to America in the form of a presidential election. Millions of dollars are spent on campaigns with the ultimate prize of someone winning the golden ticket to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Yet for all the hoopla, how much has truly changed over the course of your lifetime?

The problem, at least as I see it, is that it is not due to a lack of participation in the voting process that causes America to have all the problems it currently has; it is the core beliefs of those who participate in the voting process; why they choose the candidates they do from among a wide field of potential nominees. What leads you to make your choice is at the root of all our nation’s problems.

A long, long time ago a man named Patrick Henry said the following about the purpose of government, “You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.”

If you were to make a list of the things your favorite candidate campaigns upon, (and this goes for both Republicans and Democrats), and then put a Yes and No column on the right side of the page and compare what they campaign on against what the Constitution authorizes government to do, I bet you’d find that 99.0% of the things these presidential hopefuls are campaigning upon would fall into the No Category.

Why does this not bother people; the fact that the people they are being given the choice to vote for have no concern for the limitations placed upon government by the document which created our government?

I have also had the old, “If you don’t vote for THIS person, THAT person is going to win” thrown at me as well; and just like the other saying, it is also a crock of shit. Imagine you are on a bus being driven by a Democrat that is speeding towards a cliff; do you think that by replacing the driver with a Republican, who then slows the bus down by 10 mph you are in any less danger? The only thing that changes is the length of time you finally reach the abyss.

To be truly safe you would need for the driver to turn the bus around and head away from the cliff towards safety. In the same way we need to stop voting for candidates who campaign upon, basically, the same tired old promises made by every Republican and Democrat who has sought the presidency for the past 100 years; we need to start voting for candidates who fully intend to do uphold the Constitutional limitations upon government.

The reason I don’t vote is twofold. First off I would vote if I truly found a candidate whose belief meshed with mine. Although I had some questions about Ron Paul, I still voted for him when he sought the Republican nomination; because I agreed with him on an overwhelming majority of the things he campaigned upon. If you truly consider yourself a conservative, why didn’t you vote for him as well; propelling him into the actual election? Why is it that you, instead, voted for a tried and true REPUBLICAN over a candidate who campaigned upon supporting and defending the Constitution?

The other reason I don’t vote in Presidential elections is because I truly believe our government has become too big and too corrupt to have any hope of changing that at the voting booth. If you can, and this goes for both Republicans and Democrats, I’d like for you to name one federal agency, one huge government program that candidates from your party have abolished or repealed.

Ronald Reagan was a consummate actor in that he carried on in typical GOP fashion, but did so with such panache that America, even if you hated what the stood for, loved him. That was Reagan’s saving grace; his likeability. I’ll admit it, back then I was sufficiently naive and ignorant that I supported Reagan while he served; but I’ve grown in my knowledge and understanding and now see the error of my ways.

Nevertheless, Reagan knew how to say things that made it sound like he was a true conservative; when in reality he was just another Republican masquerading as a Constitutional Conservative. For instance, Reagan once 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!”

That right there is why I say that our government has grown too big and too corrupt to be changed by voting for a single candidate for the Presidency; the whole damned thing needs to be flushed down the toilet, scrubbed clean of all the toxins, and then hopefully it can be rebuilt upon true constitutional principles.

I can’t begin to count how many government agencies there are which violate the limits the Constitution imposes upon our government; so I’ll limit my thoughts to just one; The Department of the Interior. The website for the Department of the Interior claims that its mission is to manage America’s vast natural and cultural resources. According to their own data, the DOI employs an estimated 70,000 people to perform this function. The Department of Interior was established in 1849, sixty years after our government went into operation. It was first established to perform a variety of functions; including managing the water supply of the nation’s capital, managing all federal territories, and exploring the Western Wilderness being but a few of them.

Since its inception the DOI has grown into this monstrosity that manages what is considered all federal lands. The thing is, what does the Constitution authorize the federal government to own and manage?

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution is where all legislative authority for our government is found; so if there is the authority for government to own and manage land, it would be found there.

Clause 17 of Article 1, Section 8 states, “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”

That clause states that the federal government may own up to 10 square miles for the locating of the central government, and any and all other locations WHICH WERE PURCHASED FROM THE STATES for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings.

Where, if I may be so bold to ask, does it authorize the federal government to set apart huge tracts of land and designate them National Parks; granting them exclusive jurisdiction; setting aside vast tracts of land as wildlife preserves; or just flat out owning other vast tracts of land which prohibit private citizens from managing them as they see fit.

I’ll wait while you research that…

I have had Article 4, Section 3 thrown at me in defense of the governments owning of these lands, but Article 4, Section 3 merely states, “The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.” It does not say what lands the government may own, only that the government has the power to dispose of and make all needful rules regarding the property it is ALLOWED to own; and that is found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.

I have also had all the laws passed by Congress which organized agencies such as the Department of Land Management, or the National Park Service, but again, if the land being managed by these agencies is not in strict pursuance of those specific instances which authorizes our government to own land; then those laws are blatantly unconstitutional and effectively null and void…although try standing up to federal authority while on these lands and you may end up like LaVoy Finicum…dead!

Here are just a few of the huge government agencies that have been established which exceed the specific powers granted our government by the Constitution:

The Department of Agriculture; The Department of Education; The Department of Energy; The Department of Homeland Security; The Department of Labor and The Department of Transportation; and those are just the Cabinet level agencies. What about the all the other agencies our government has established?

There is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, The Central Intelligence Agency, That National Security Agency, The Federal Bureau of Investigation; and those are just a few; there are many, many more.

And I didn’t even mention Social Security and Medicare; both of which are also unconstitutional programs, but are political hot rails; meaning that you even hint at taking away people’s benefits under them and you are basically committing political suicide.

People say that, these agencies need to exist, that someone must manage these things, or provide the services they provide. Maybe, but there are two quotes from Daniel Webster that you need to consider. The first states, “A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures.” The other is, “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.”

I know a great many people who voted for Donald Trump based upon his promise to ‘Drain the Swamp’, but the swamp is Washington D.C., and it is not just a few rogue elements in that city that are the problem, it is the entire corrupt entity we know as our government. The swamp is populated by monsters of our own making because we have refused to hold government to the limits imposed upon it by the Constitution…and you think voting for a single candidate is going to change any of that?

Look at what happened when the Congress, (when the Republicans had a majority) attempted to block funding for the unconstitutional Affordable Care Act and a government shutdown was impending; the people freaked out because all the OTHER services our government provides would also lose funding. People are more concerned with keeping a corrupt government in operation than they are weeding out unconstitutional programs and agencies; and that right there is the problem in America.

Nobody, or at least very few people actually care about actually reducing government in size; all they care about is having candidates from their party at the helm of the Starship U.S. Government. As long as their party is in control most people turn a blind eye to the fact that government routinely violates the Constitution or infringes upon their rights.

The Patriot Act has been in effect for 17 years now, and I’ve yet to hear a widespread call for it being repealed; the same goes for the NDAA, (National Defense Authorization Act), or the Military Commissions Act.

The government’s spying upon us to prevent terrorism, (at least that’s what they tell us is the reason), has been going on for decades, and only increases in its capability and the width and breadth to which we are spied upon…yet I don’t hear anyone calling for that to come to an end either.

That has been going on forever it seems. When I was but a junior in high school Senator Frank Church appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press, where he said, “That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide.” Church then added, “If a dictator ever took over, the N.S.A. could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back.”

How many of you have ever watched any of those shows on television such as NCIS: Los Angeles, Criminal Minds, or even saw the movie Enemy of the State, starring Will Smith and Gene Hackman? Have you ever stopped to think about the total surveillance you are under; both inside and outside your home? Our government certainly knows everything about us, but we tell ourselves that in the name of national security they need to keep secrets from us.

Isn’t that why Edward Snowden has been forced into hiding in Russia; because he had the courage to expose the illegal collecting of information on the American people? Yet most call him a traitor; which only shows that they care more about government doing whatever it takes to keep America safe than they do their privacy.

And you think voting is going to change this attitude? If you do, you’re out of your mind.

But don’t you dare tell me that if I don’t vote I lose my right to bitch. I just refuse to participate in selecting which candidate from the same cesspools that have spawned the corrupt government we have today.

America will not change for the better until the people change their beliefs and attitudes as to the purpose their government should serve. As long as those beliefs reflect political party platforms America will remain on the tracks towards an ever expanding government that eventually ends up being despotic and tyrannical. And the sad thing is, if they keep pushing for stricter gun control, once they finally realized what they’ve allowed to happen, they won’t have the means to fight back.

Lysander Spooner once said that “A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.” If you truly want to make America great again you need to stop voting for those who seek to rule over you and start voting for those who seek to drastically downsize our government and loosen its control over our lives.

But they won’t do that without the threat of us rising up against them. As long as a majority of the people in this country are fat, happy and kept entertained, they will allow their government to deprive them of every vestige of the liberty our Founders fought to secure; both for themselves and for their posterity.

If that’s what you want, fine, be happy in your chains; but don’t tell me I can’t bitch about it. I’d vote if I believed it would make a difference, or if there were any candidates worthy of my vote. But I refuse to vote for anyone who doesn’t pass my litmus test. If you’re willing to settle for less than that, then enjoy your slavery; just don’t ask me to quit bitching about the mess those you elect have made!

Posted in General | Leave a comment

How Well Has Voting Worked Towards Restoring Your Liberty?

None are so hopelessly enslaved than those
who falsely believe they are free.

~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe~

While it might not be explicitly stated, hidden behind every law lies the threat of deadly force for its enforcement. Even something as minor as a ticket for not wearing a seat belt has the use of deadly force behind it if a person refuses to pay, or to surrender themselves into custody for refusing to pay the fine attached to that infraction of the law.

In 1788 Alexander Hamilton made reference to this premise when he wrote the following, “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 COERCION of the magistracy, or by the COERCION of arms.” (Source: Federalist 15)

The definition of coercion is: the use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal (as discharge from employment) or other intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will. (My emphasis)

I now want to ask a two part question; what is the definition of the word law, and what purpose should the law serve? In answer to the first part, Merriam Webster’s defines the word law as: a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority.

In answer to the second part of my question I’ll let Frederic Bastiat answer for me, “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. 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.”

If what Bastiat said is true, then the purpose which all laws should serve is the protection of the lives, liberty and property of the people. While he may have worded it somewhat differently, Thomas Jefferson said basically the same thing when he wrote 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…”

If government is, in fact, instituted to secure our rights, then doesn’t it make sense that the laws government passes should be in pursuance of that purpose as well? If that is the case, then what would you call any government, be it local, State, or federal that passes laws that restrict those rights?

James Wilson, one of the signers of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution once wrote, “Government … should be formed to secure and enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government which has not this in view as its principal object is not a government of the legitimate kind.” (Source: Lectures on Law)

Jefferson says that our government derives its authority from the consent of the governed; you and I. Our Founders wrote a Constitution which outlines the structure this government shall take and the powers it shall have. They declared that this Constitution is to be the supreme LAW of the land. Therefore, does that not make you and I the ‘controlling authority’ over our government?

How is it then that they can create all these agencies with the power to enforce their laws upon us, but we have no authority to enforce our law upon them other than by voting them out of office? Almost every law I’ve ever read comes with a fine or penalty attached for the violation of that law; every law except the Constitution that is.

Was this intentional, that the supreme LAW of the land was to be written in such a way that those elected to public office could violate it with impunity? Patrick Henry sure seemed to think so, “…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.” (Source: speech before Virginia Ratifying Assembly)

Our Founders did not win their liberty at the voting booth; they won it because they had the courage to stand up against those who sought to deprive them of it. In his Declaration of the Causes and Necessities of Taking up Arms, Jefferson writes, “Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage on them.”

Two years prior to that Jefferson 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.”

I find it somewhat hypocritical that people will stand up and condemn slavery, then turn around and vote for candidates who have no qualms about restricting our liberty and reducing us to slavery…just as Jefferson described. Then, to make matters even more laughable, they turn around and condemn those of us who refuse to participate in our own enslavement by choosing who will rule over us. As Daniel Webster once said, “There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but government is not our master, it is our servant. It’s time we grew a pair and stop letting government trample all over our rights. It’s time we reasserted our sovereign right to tell government that it cannot violate our rights with impunity; and if they don’t listen they must pay the consequences.

We have tried the voting booth but government keeps getting bigger and more powerful. We have tried petitioning them, (at least I have), and they send me form letters in response. I’m tired of the bullshit, it’s time we gave them an ultimatum; obey the Constitution and respect the Bill of Rights…OR ELSE!

If these words scare or offend you, let me remind you of something Thomas Jefferson said in a letter to Abigail Adams, “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere.”

America was not founded by cowards who sit back and allowed their government to trample all over their rights; it was founded by men who had the courage to stand up to tyrants. As Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty or give me death.” Today’s motto may as well be, “Take my liberty and give me football, Facebook and beer.”

Y’all ought to be ashamed to call yourselves Americans…In closing, I’d like to leave you with one final quote from Ben Franklin, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
If you don’t want to fight for your liberty, then you deserve to be slaves.

But maybe Van Loon was right when he said…

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Is This Too Much To Ask?

I find it pretty hypocritical that the majority of the people in this country claim to value honesty, then turn around and shun those who tell them the truth. I hate to stereotype people but I think there are 3 types of people living in this country. There are those who value the truth above all things; there are those who don’t care about the truth; and there are those who seek to silence the truth when it conflicts with their beliefs or agendas. The question is, which of those categories do you fall into?

I cannot count the times I have had to revise my opinions on a subject because I have encountered new information which contradicted my existing beliefs at the time. I also cannot count the times I’ve, figuratively that is, run into a brick wall when trying to change the minds of others with mountains of facts which contradict their positions on a variety of issues. People either don’t care one way or the other about facts, or they fear facts because they shoot down their agenda; and therefore seek to silence those speaking the truth by whatever means they can.

Is that what passes for thinking these days? I was raised to believe that one should examine the facts on both sides of an argument with an open mind, and then base your decision upon the facts provided; not the emotional response generated by a certain position. This skill, otherwise known as critical thinking, used to be taught in our public school systems. Now those school systems are have become indoctrination centers designed to teach our children what to think; not how to think.

I may be wrong in this but I believe our country was well on the way to becoming the tyrannical mess it is today when I was born in 1958. But I believe our school systems were relatively unaffected by the changes this country was undergoing, and that my generation was the last to be taught how to think. Sure, there may be those younger than I who are born rebels and who choose to think for themselves; but for the most part, the skill of critical thinking went by the wayside during the period which saw the Baby Boomers make their way through the public school system.

But I also grew up in the era which saw the rise of the hippy movement and the influence of communist ideology upon our youth. As those hippies came of age they may have abandoned their hippy attire, but they retained their beliefs and ideologies while becoming teachers and professors in our universities. The school system which they became a part of became the perfect breeding ground for spreading their liberal ideologies. It is just as Lenin purportedly said, “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will not be uprooted.”

Our children are now being taught all kinds of things which go against all that our Founding Fathers believed in. Facts no longer matter to those graduating from our high schools and universities; feelings are what matter. If you believe that a person should be able to keep the money they earn, and not have it stripped away from them and given to others who have not sweat and bled for it, you are cruel and uncaring. If you believe the un-Civil War was fought not over slavery, but over a State’s right to sever the ties which bound it to the Union, then you are a racist pig. If you believe the people have the right to keep and bear arms without restrictions or limitations, then you don’t care about the children who are killed by nutcases wielding guns.

None of the arguments provided by those seeking to undermine the American belief system can be supported by historical fact; they all rely upon an emotional reaction to events and circumstances rather than the truth.

Just look at how Americans overall supported, and continue to support all that is being done under the banner of George W. Bush’s War on Terror. That fact that 99.9% of what has been done is blatantly unconstitutional doesn’t even cross most people’s minds; all they care about is keeping America safe from terrorism…the old ends always justify the means ploy.

Fear is a powerful emotion, and we have been indoctrinated into believing that if a majority of the people fear something, then the best way of providing for the public safety and the general welfare of the country is to remove that which people fear the most; be it guns, or our rights to protect us from terrorism.

The sad thing is, people do not realize that path that this county is upon, that eventually all that made America great will have become a thing of the past and America will become a land without liberty. People should fear that far more than they do criminals with guns or some raghead intent upon blowing himself up in a public place.

Way back in time when our constitution was being argued over in the State ratification assemblies a man named Patrick Henry told his fellow Virginians, “You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government.”

Liberty is what drove our Founders to risk their lives their fortunes and their sacred honor to fight the mightiest empire on the planet at the time. Liberty is what lived in their hearts and was the cause for which the Colonies united together to obtain for all. It was only after it had been obtained that vain and aspiring men sought to create a government with the ability to forge a great American empire that things began to go south.

We are taught that the Constitution is the greatest thing since sliced bread; but very few actually know what it says or what purpose the system of government it created was intended to serve. I have heard countless arguments that our Constitution is old and outdated, that it no longer fits in this modern world. Fine, abolish it, but abolish the government it created as well; let the States go back to being sovereign and independent entities if that’s what you want. See how fast those who love liberty move out of the more progressive Socialist States like California…see how long California survives when the income needed to fund their programs vanishes into the night.

You see, that’s part of the problem, these people speak about liberty; they pay lip service to it, but they don’t understand what it truly means. Liberty is such that I am free to live my life the way I choose without interference, as long as in so doing I don’t restrict anyone else from doing the same. How can anyone say that I have liberty when they are demanding that I agree to their beliefs; that I support their agenda with my tax dollars?

Everyone speaks of equality, but they fail to speak about the equality of effort required to obtain equality in all other things. I am neither rich nor am I poor; I am what they call middle class. I had to work for everything I own and if people understood liberty they would not demand that I be required to subsidize anyone else’s existence without my consent. Yet isn’t that what our system of government was founded upon; consent of those governed?

How is it then, that regardless of why they withdrew their consent, the Southern States were not allowed to leave the Union and form a system of 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.” (Source: Declaration of Independence)

How is it that a government created by the people could tell a segment of the people that they must obey its dictates in all things or face the consequences of a military invasion? Is that not what Jefferson warned of when he wrote the Cause and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, that the King had declared the, “…right make laws to bind us in all cases whatsoever.”

Is that not the very definition of slavery; being bound to anyone or anything without the ability to resist? Is that not how we live today with all these laws and all these regulations which tell us what we can and cannot do?

Why is it then that people continue to support a government that so blatantly restricts the liberty it was established to protect?

I truly think that people think that I am trying to incite a revolution; to overthrow our government. Although it may come to it that is the last thing I want. I do, however, want our government to restrain itself to the powers originally given it. I do want to see the ties between it and the special interests that control it severed for all eternity and the will of the people and the States become the guiding influence in its actions; as long as they conform to the specific grant of powers to the government by the Constitution.

I want people to stop using government as a tool to tell me how I should live; how I should spend my money; how and when I can defend myself and my property. That is all I want; to be left alone.

Is that too much to ask of you people…

Posted in General | 1 Comment

Where Has The Spirit of Resistance Gone?

April of 1775 is the day historians say that the American Revolution began, when the militiamen of Boston squared off against the Redcoats at Lexington and Concord when they attempted to confiscate their privately owned firearms. The leader of those militiamen, Captain John Parker, is quoted as saying, “Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”

Although that may have been the first actual combat engagement between the two opposing sides, I’m inclined to agree with John Adams, who said, “As to the history of the revolution, my ideas may be peculiar, perhaps singular. What do we mean by the Revolution? The war? That was no part of the revolution; it was only an effect and consequence of it. The revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected … before a drop of blood was shed.” (Source: letter to Thomas Jefferson, Aug. 24, 1815)

The revolution, as Adams says, was in the minds of the people; in the fact that they chose not to submit meekly to tyranny; that they were willing to do whatever was required to protect and defend their God-given rights as freemen. When the word went out that the King’s men were on their way to confiscate their arms they did not hesitate to grab their own guns and show up, in masse, to prevent the King’s law enforcers from confiscating them.

We, well at least most Americans, view them as patriots and heroes. Now let’s say SWAT, or maybe the DEA or ATF were to send in swarms of their so-called law enforcers into a section of some city or town to arrest someone and confiscate their privately owned firearms only to be met by a large group of armed citizens, how would people today react to those who stood up to these law enforcement officers; especially if they opened fire upon them and killed a half a dozen of them?

I’ll tell you how people would react, they would be shocked and outraged at these lawbreakers, and they would be condemned by the public and the media for their actions. Yet aren’t the two scenarios EXACTLY the same, private citizens standing up against what they considered to by tyranny? Did the Colonists wait for the legal system to hear their case against the Redcoats; did they wait until the process had been completed, and then accept whatever decision was rendered by the judge? No, they saw that their rights were being violated and they picked up their guns to defend those rights.

In literary terms I am now at a fork in the road. I can choose to go one way and make this article entirely about the 2nd Amendment, or I can go the other way and speak about the spirit of resistance to tyranny that is vital if people wish to remain free. I think I’ll choose the latter, but with the caveat that this is why we have a 2nd Amendment; so that the people can be ready, at all times, to rise up and fight tyranny wherever it may raise its ugly head.

It is why Patrick Henry admonished his fellow Virginians when he said, “Oh, Sir, we should have fine times indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people. Your arms wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical; no longer democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?”

It is why Joseph Story said, “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

But it is that spirit of resistance to tyranny that I wish to speak on today. In a letter to Abigail Adams, Thomas Jefferson writes, “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere.”

The thing about tyranny is that if people do not know the legitimate powers of their government, how are they to recognize it when our government becomes tyrannical? If people don’t know what their rights are, how are they to recognize when those rights are being taken away from them? And possibly even more important, how are people to remain free when they care more about partisan loyalty than they do limiting their government to its specifically listed powers and defending their rights?

We have been conditioned to be so passive and unresponsive when our government exceeds its authority or when our rights are being violated. Is it because those in power often claim that to preserve the public safety our rights must be curtailed to a certain extent; that it is all in the public good? I believe it was Daniel Webster who said, “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.”

In 1785 James Madison would write, “It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties–we hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle.”

There is a lot of meaning in that paragraph, and I don’t think people recognize the implications of what he said. First of all he said it is proper to take alarm at the FIRST experiment upon our liberties. Today people consider it improper if anyone resists the laws passed by government; they have been conditioned to accept that government is omnipotent and that if it passes a law, it is the duty of every law abiding citizen to obey it.

He then goes on to say that it is not the right, it is the DUTY of every citizen to resist laws that violate their liberty. How many people have you heard about who have actually resisted the laws being passed which violate their rights; and if you do hear about them, how are they portrayed?

Well, Edward Snowden is living in exile because he stood up for what was right and told you the extent to which your government routinely spies upon you. Among a freedom loving people that alone should have been sufficient to cause an uprising, but it didn’t.

Then there was the mass murder by our government of men, women and children at a small compound in Texas commonly referred to as Waco. All these people wanted was to be left alone to live their lives as they saw fit, but the government wouldn’t let them. They resisted, and they were killed, and the people watched their Nightly News and called them a cult and said they got what they deserved.

But Madison continues by saying that the freemen did not wait until usurped power had ‘…strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents.’ He then says that they saw the consequences of that principle and denied the very principle itself; that government can usurp, (or assume for those of you unfamiliar with the word usurp) powers that are not legitimately granted government.

I’m willing to bet that over 99% of the people who turn out to vote in elections believe that government can, and should exercise power that goes beyond those specifically listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. I’d also be willing to bet that the only time people complain about the unconstitutional exercise of power is when the ‘other’ party is exercising it.

How many of you Trump supporters complained about Obama when he was attempting to push his Affordable Care Act through Congress, yet applauded your man when he sought, not to repeal it, but to rewrite it in a manner which reflected a more conservative position? Does it not matter that government becoming involved in the management of health care is NOT among its enumerated powers? Of course it doesn’t, your party allegiance is ALL that matters.

How many of you reading this are ready to put your lives on the line defending the principle that “…whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”

All one has to do is to look at how people react when a homeowner exercises their right to shoot and kill an intruder in their home to see the extent to which people are willing to submit to the authority of their government. If you feel that a private citizen has no right to shoot an intruder, that they should instead dial 911 and await the police, then you have been conditioned into surrendering your fundamental right to defend your life, your property, and your very liberty against any and all who threaten these things.

If you feel that a private citizen cannot, and should not use force to defend their home and possessions, then you are highly unlikely to believe that people have the right to use that same force against their government when it abuses its authority.

Yet that is EXACTLY what the American Revolution was; a people who used force against those who sought to establish an absolute tyranny over them. We call those men patriots and Founding Fathers, yet we call people today who exercise those same principles as rebels, criminals and domestic terrorists.

The fact that you submit willingly to so many laws that violate your most basic rights, the fact that you participate in choosing who will rule over you only goes to show the extent to which you have been conditioned to submit to a system that enslaves you.

To once again quote Daniel Webster, “There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.” A free people do not have masters, they have representatives who are elected to act on their behalf and constrained by a written law which limits what can be done on behalf of those they represent.

In 1775 Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty or give me death.” Today people may as well say, “Give me football, Facebook and beer and you can have my liberty.”

People say I’m subversive, that I’m trying to incite a revolution or overthrow the government. Well, I am trying to incite a revolution, but not in the manner that you are thinking. I am not trying to cause people to pick up their guns and begin shooting at people, (although it may end up coming to that); what I am doing is simply trying to get people to see how far their government has strayed beyond its legitimate authority, and how it is restricting the very liberty it was established to protect. I am trying to incite a revolution in your thinking; that’s all. As Morpheus repeatedly told Neo, “I’m trying to free your mind.”

Unfortunately, as long as people believe that candidates from their party are better than the candidates from the other party, as long as people support government no matter how far outside its legitimate authority it goes, there can be no hope that America can return to a truly constitutional government. If we continue believing as we do then the only path is the path forward to the eventual loss of all your rights.

In case you weren’t aware, John Adams once had a message for y’all, ” Posterity! You will never know, how much it cost the present Generation, to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good Use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it.”

While Adams may have sought to admonish those of the future to fight to keep the liberty they were fighting to secure for them, his cousin Sam had words for the people of his time that ring as true today as they did when he spoke them in Philadelphia in1776, “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.”

Our country was established by those who were willing to resist the laws being passed by their government, it is now occupied by people who refuse to even recognize that their government has become far more tyrannical than the one our Founders fought to free themselves from.

The last time a truly freedom loving people sought to free themselves from the grip of tyrants was in 1860 when the Southern States seceded and formed the Confederacy; and look how people today view them. What that shows me is that people today have little to no understanding of what real freedom is, and that they are content to be slaves.

The truth is out there for all those who are inclined to seek it out. But, as Samuel Johnson once said:

And until that changes Americans will continue the slow slide into tyranny and oppression…

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Herein Lies the Problem

The other day a friend posted a graphic on Facebook showing the 4 types of people you will meet in your life. There are those who try to teach people that they are slaves; and the means to free them from that bondage. There are the slave-masters; those who seek to keep people in bondage to them. There are those who don’t know they are slaves; which typically consists of a majority of the people. Finally, there are those who prefer slavery over freedom; most likely because it alleviates them of any responsibility for their own actions.

Now I don’t know how many of my readers are Christian, but the Bible is filled with times that prophets tried to warn people of the consequences of their actions. Although these prophets did not come up with their prophecies themselves, (being that they were merely the mouthpieces of God), they did predict, often, dire consequences if the people did not change their ways. And more often than not their warnings went unheeded and the people paid the price for not listening to them.

I’m certainly not a prophet; at least as far as me hearing the voice of God in my head telling me what to say; but I do believe that I fall into the category of those who try to warn people of the impending consequences of their actions. And, like the prophets of old, my words go pretty much unheeded.

Although I will probably never find out how you answer this, I’d still like to pose a question to you: “What would you define the United States of America as being.” As I said, I have no idea how you answer that question, but I’m certain that some of you may have said that the United States is the 50 States of the Union. Technically, and geographically, that answer is correct; but I believe the United States is much more than a simple land mass you can point to on a map or a globe.

It is my belief that the United States is a group of people, a rather large group of people, who war united together by common beliefs and values. In the recent Marvel Universe film Thor: Ragnarok, there is a scene when Thor has to destroy his home planet Asgard to save his people. Heimdall, the gatekeeper for the Bifrost, tells Thor that Asgard is not a place, it is a people. I feel the same way about America; it is not a place, it is a people holding similar beliefs and values.

In Federalist No. 2, John Jay writes, “With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.”

If you had spent as much time as I have reading the writings of our Founding Fathers you would have seen the word Providence quite frequently in reference to both the cause they were fighting for and in regards to the blessings of Life and Liberty that they enjoyed. Providence is often defined as the protective hand of God over a people.

The Bible is filled with the record of what happens when a people disobey the laws, or commandments handed down to them by God; He withdraws His protective hand and the people usually end up suffering all manner of hardships. Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

Now you do not have to believe in God to live in this country, but you must accept that most of those who founded this country did, and it was basic Christian principles that led them to establish a country based upon individual liberty; and that when we begin to stray from the principles held by our Founders there are bound to be serious consequences.

You see, Jefferson also said, “Time indeed changes manners and notions, and so far we must expect institutions to bend to them. But time produces also corruption of principles, and against this it is the duty of good citizens to be ever on the watch, and if the gangrene is to prevail at last, let the day be kept off as long as possible.” (Source: letter to Judge Spencer Roane, 1821)

We, as Americans, have forsaken the principles that made this country great; which made this country the one those living in other countries wanted to come to for the freedom and opportunity it provided. I hardly recognize this country anymore; and if the values held by most people today are what it means to be American, I’m ashamed to call myself one.

Not only do most people not know what the values and principles of our Founders were, they don’t care to learn. To a majority, the beliefs, or more precisely, the platforms of their respective political parties are of greater concern than the thoughts of a bunch of guys who have been dead for over two centuries. It does not matter how many time we change leaders; switching between Democrats and Republicans, it is only by returning to the values and principles held by those who established our country that we can hope to make America great again.

Many of you have probably never heard the name Richard Price, but he was a leading British philosopher and preacher during the time when America was seeking its independence. Price is quoted as saying, “In America, every inhabitant has in his house (as part of his furniture) a book on law and government, to enable him to understand his civil rights; a musket to enable him to defend those rights; and a Bible to enable him to understand his religion.”

You see, those we call our Founders did not allow themselves to be led around by the noses; their thoughts and beliefs manipulated by those seeking to control them. Instead, they spent a great deal of time studying politics, philosophy and religion; forming their own opinions based upon a careful examination of differing ideas and ideologies.

How unlike Americans today who, once they establish their own beliefs, refuse to look at any information which threatens those beliefs. How many of you reading this have had your opinions on the history of this country, or its system of government formed by what you were taught in a textbook in school rather than a serious study of the events and the thoughts of those who participated in those events?

Yet people say that they are informed; or worse, that they don’t care enough to waste time studying what people from the past thought and said. With attitudes like that people may as well accept that they are not thinking, they are being told what to think by others who are revising and perverting the truth to fit the agenda of undermining all that America once stood for.

If being American means adhering to and defending the principles and values of those who established this country, then America, for all intents and purposes, is dead. Yes, the geographical land mass still exists, and it is still occupied by people who call themselves Americans, but the vital spirit which gave this country life is all but dead in most people; and those few in whom it still burns brightly are condemned and ridiculed for clinging to values that have no place in the modern world we live in.

It’s just as historian Charles A. Beard said, “You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence.”

America cannot, and will not be fixed by expecting government to do it for the people; government is the problem and America won’t be fixed until the people of this country fix themselves and what they believe the purpose of their system of government is. America will not be fixed by one man, as many who support Donald Trump like to think; it will be fixed when we place the preservation of our liberty and the concept of a truly limited government at the top of our list of priorities in life; above even our very lives. After all, did not Patrick Henry say, “Give me liberty or give me DEATH“? (My emphasis)

Our 6th President, John Quincy Adams, once said, “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” The only problem with that is that the principles for which people today vote for are not the ones held by those who established our system of government in the first place; and therein rests the problem.

Although the context may be different, the sentiments spoken of by former President Reagan are as true today as they were when he first spoke the following words, “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

Either you see that or you don’t; either you are blind to the fact that you are a slave, or you enjoy slavery. Just don’t ask me to join you. In fact, I will fight against you to my last dying breath if that’s what it takes to truly make America great again.

Posted in General | 1 Comment