My Thoughts On The Seattle Autonomy Zone

Unless you’ve been living under a rock you’re probably aware that protesters have taken over a six block area in downtown Seattle. The area currently under their control spans from East Denny Way on the North to East Pike Street on the South, with Broadway on the West, and 13th Street on the East. The area is just South of the capital and contains one police precinct; which is currently unoccupied.

Those who have taken over this segment of Seattle are comprised of a mix of Antifa and Black Lives Matter who have turned the so-called autonomous zone into a cross between a commune and a street festival. They are armed, but so far they seem not to be overtly hostile towards their neighbors on the outside of their autonomous zone, although they are now patrolling the streets in an effort to keep outsiders, and this includes journalists, out. That may be because local area homeless came in and looted most of the food supply within the area they have taken over.

I have yet to form a concrete opinion on the group itself; I will wait and see what happens to do that; but I do have a few random thoughts I would like to share about them.

Aside from abolishing the police, and it isn’t clear if they are limiting their demand to the city of Seattle or if their call is for nationwide disbandment of all police forces, and that Mayor Jenny Durkan be fired, they haven’t said much about what their ultimate goal is.

What I mean by that is, let’s say that their demands that the Seattle Police Department be disbanded and the Mayor fired – what then? Would they pack up and go home, or would they continue to remain on the land they took from the city?

I hear some people calling this a secession, which in my opinion it isn’t. To me, a secession is a section of the country, whose lawful residents pass a resolution declaring that the bonds which had previously held them to a political association, are broken, and that the seceding party resumes all the rights they had surrendered to become a part of that union; including their right to self-govern.

First of all we don’t know the identity of those who have taken possession of this section of Seattle; they may be citizens of the city, but then again some of them may be from outside the city. We simply don’t know. If they are outsiders, then this comes very close to insurrection; with their having denied the lawful government, (as bad as it may have been), their right to govern within that section of Seattle.

For the time being, officials are leaving them alone; I suppose they will continue this strategy until something happens; such as those within the zone become violent; or run out of food and go out on scavenging runs to areas outside their safe zone; then I imagine the police may take some kind of action, such as rounding them up and arresting them. This in turn might cause a violent reaction by those remaining in the zone, but I think the police would be justified in taking those steps should they begin looting outside their autonomous zone.

Listen, I’m not a big supporter of the police; I think much of what has happened lately can be laid upon their shoulders for abusing the people’s trust, for enforcing laws that deprive the people of their rights, and for simply treating the public as if we were lower class citizens to be herded around like farm animals. I’m not saying all that is true about every police officer on the force throughout the country, but the system is such that the good ones are hesitant to speak out against the bad ones; so the bad ones go unpunished; which is what got us to where we are today, institutionalized thuggery in which the people have no recourse. The system protects itself; and the courts and district attorneys, more often than not, take the side of law enforcement.

That said, these protesters, if that’s what you insist upon calling them, have marked off the boundary of the area they have taken possession of, and everything outside that boundary is still under the authority, and protection of duly elected and sworn in officials. So, if members of the CHAZ, as they have taken to call themselves, go outside the boundary of their autonomous zone, in search of food to loot, then they ought to be treated just like the criminals they are. If they leave and have money to purchase food, then I would consider that an act of free trade between bordering communities, and they should be left alone. But if they attempt to loot or steal, then throw them in jail.

I have heard that the city has shown its cowardice by allowing these so-called protesters to take over a portion of the city, but I think for the present moment their policy of leaving them be might have been the best move they could have made. I’m not agreeing that they should have fought a war to maintain authority within that section of the city; had they done so it would have only added fuel to the fire and most likely would have incited those protests going on in other cities to increase their level of violence and looting. So overall, I think, if they wanted to maintain peace, (for the time being), they made the right decision. There may come a time when violence, or some manner of mobilized force against the CHAZ, may become necessary, but that time isn’t right now as far as I’m concerned.

Depending upon how this plays out, there are three outcomes that could happen. The first is that the CHAZ simply give up and go home; at which time I believe some of them might be arrested and charged for criminal behavior. The second is that force may be used to disperse them; which in and of itself could have two possible outcomes. First they could turn tails and run home, or they could stand and fight; making them martyrs for their cause – which is not the outcome I’d like to see happen.

It’s the third outcome I’d like to discuss in a certain degree of detail. First of all, if these protesters are truly claiming that the area occupied by them is under their control, and that they are free from all outside authority, then I say shut all utilities and services to that area of the city off; let them provide their own electricity and running water; or pay for continued services. Oh, and that would also include shutting off all wifi to the area under occupation; nobody else gets it free, why should they?

Next, and this may sound like it’s an emotional reaction to the matter, I would halt all shipments of food into the occupied area. If they truly want liberty and justice, then let them assume the responsibility for their own survival that accompanies real liberty. Let them grow their own food, or starve – that’s real liberty, and if they don’t like that then there is the possibility that they are pretenders, fakes, frauds, who don’t want liberty; they just want to make a name for themselves on the news. Let’s put them to the test and see what they actually stand for.

I’m almost certain that if this goes on for any length of time without their demands being met that there will be those who bring food and supplies into them. I’m just as certain that there will be men behind these charitable movements; men possibly like George Soros, or maybe Bill Gates. But I think if this thing goes on, people will donate supplies to them just like they give supplies to the victims of natural disasters.

Yet still they will remain in an occupied portion of a city in which they are surrounded on all sides by the very people they call their enemy; in essence, while they may control the occupied territory, they are in fact the ones under siege, as they are surrounded and without any allies.

If this goes on for any length of time, and if their demands are not met, I would urge those within the CHAZ to think about what happened to a compound near Waco Texas that was placed under siege by forces that were hostile towards them. The outcome of that siege did not end well for the Branch Davidians, and the CHAZ ought to keep that in the back of their minds if this protest goes on for weeks…months. I mean, you don’t spit in the face of your enemy and expect them to not retaliate at some point, and these protesters, whether you agree with their cause or not, have spit right into the face of the beast they are protesting against!

As for the groups comprising this CHAZ, I also have a couple of thoughts. First of all, fuck them for defacing monuments and statues of those who are part of our countries history. They have torn down Civil War monuments, and they defaced statues of George Washington and Ben Franklin…so fuck them! You don’t get to erase history simply because it is offensive to you; that crosses a line for me and once crossed makes those who commit such acts my enemy.

I don’t really care if these acts were committed by the Antifa faction of these protesters, or the BLM faction; it is beyond acceptable, and the problem is that corporations such as NASCAR, the NFL, and even the U.S. military are pandering to them. That, to me, is symptomatic of a much larger problem; a lack of concern for historical truth. If you sympathize with this group solely because you believe that the police have oppressed them, then you do not recognize that the police are only part of the entire system that subjugates and oppresses us all.

It would not surprise me if most of those protesting inside the CHAZ are Democrats. Now I don’t want to get into a discussion of political parties; for I think both of them suck, but the primary policy of the Democratic Party is to provide things to people who are in need. This, at least as far as I’m concerned, does two things. First it denies liberty; for with liberty comes responsibility for all your own needs. Secondly it creates dependency; which makes their protest somewhat hypocritical; as they are the ones who, most likely, have relied upon government handouts for most of their lives…and now they want to sever that dependency to defend social justice? Like I said, let’s see how this plays out, but if it goes on for any length of time, I’m betting that their empty stomachs, (especially if this lasts into the winter months), will override their demands for justice, and they will disperse to where they came from, so that they can feed at the government teat again.

As I said at the beginning, I have no concrete opinion upon what’s going on in Seattle right now; and that’s primarily because I’ve yet to receive enough data to form an actual logic based opinion. I do think that there is a good chance this is a media stunt; and by that I mean I think these protesters, although their hearts may be in the right place, are looking more to make a statement, and get a little media attention as well, rather than actually go the distance and lay down their lives for the cause they claim to be supporting. But again, those are uninformed opinions; and I could be proven wrong.

But when our Founders said, “Give me liberty or give me death” they meant every word of it. Let’s see if the CHAZ has that same resolve…I don’t think they do.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

A Heartfelt Plea to Stop and Think About What You’re Doing

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every
picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been
renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing
day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists
except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

~George Orwell~

A few days ago I told a dear friend of mine that I was born a Southerner but had the misfortune of having been born in the wrong State. During my 3 enlistments in the U.S. Air Force I had the opportunity to travel to various regions of this vast country of ours; although thankfully I was never stationed anyplace where it got really cold in the winter. Of all the places I was stationed at, or sent on Temporary Duty (TDY) to, I always felt at home in the South; more so than when I was back home in California, in fact. On the other hand, when I was stationed in places outside what we consider to be Southern States I always felt like I was an outsider; someone who didn’t belong there but was treated graciously; while they were secretly wishing that I’d just go back to California where I belonged.

I could never explain why I felt so comfortable in the South, and why I seemed to be accepted among the Southerners, while some from my home State of California hated it down there, and were not accepted to the extent I was. I’m not saying those who lived in the South weren’t warm and friendly towards those who hadn’t been born on Southern soil, they were; but it was the same politeness you would give a total stranger; a tourist. For me it was different, I felt a kinship with them; and I think they may have felt that way too; for I always seemed to ‘fit in’ down there as if I had been born there.

It wasn’t until I began studying the history of the Civil War that I began to understand why.

Prior to all this anti all things Southern madness that is sweeping across the land I’d see a lot of people displaying the Southern Cross, (or Confederate Battle Flag for all you unenlightened folks), and it would be something cool they’d wear on a T-shirt or a hat, a sign of rebellion against authority, or even worse, as a symbol denoting white supremacy. I never felt any of those things when I gazed upon that flag; instead I felt a sense of yearning that permeated every cell of my body; as if that flag were calling to my very soul. That was another thing I couldn’t understand until I began studying the history of the Civil War.

To me that flag represents honor, bravery, loyalty to a cause and a way of life that was under attack at the time by forces that did not understand those who bore it, and didn’t care either. Although I believe the downfall of America began when the Constitution was ratified in 1789, I believe the final nail in the coffin was hammered in with the defeat of the Confederacy in 1865; for it was then that the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence were laid to rest forever. It’s all been downhill ever since.

Those who wore the uniform of the Confederacy, and who bore its standard in battle, stood for something pure, something noble; and it wasn’t the perpetuation of slavery either; that is just a lie you have been taught to by those who claim to be providing you with an education. You need to get this through your thick skulls; even if it means drilling a hole in them and pouring it in with a funnel, slavery was LEGAL under the Constitution, and the Supreme Court had upheld that fact in Dred Scott v Sanford in 1857…THREE YEARS BEOFRE THE CIVIL WAR BEGAN!

So even though slavery was an evil institution, it was legal under the Constitution. If that be the case, then weren’t those who fought in defense of that institution fighting to uphold and defend the Constitution, while those who fought against them were the ones who were actually in rebellion against it?

What the South fought for was for the ability of a State to regulate its own internal affairs without outside interference, and for newly admitted States to be able to decide for themselves whether or not they would allow slavery to become an institution within their borders; something radical Abolitionist/Exclusionist Northerners refuse to allow them to do. Not to mention the fact that the South was being drained of its vast wealth by burdensome tariffs that sucked the lifeblood from them to be used to subsidize Northern business interests.

The defeat of the Confederacy forever laid to rest the principle espoused by Jefferson in his first Inaugural Address, “…a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government…” Upon its grave was erected the government sought by men like Alexander Hamilton; one that was used by and controlled by wealthy industrialists, bankers, and business interests; it is no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people; no matter what Lincoln said it was.

So while my education may be incomplete, I think I can say that I understand both the heritage and the history of the South, and I feel a kinship; an affinity towards it. It is therefore with an overwhelming sense of dread and dismay that I watch as all things related to the history and heritage of the South are torn down, defaced, and denigrated by people who don’t have a clue as to what they represent. It makes me physically ill to watch it, yet I am powerless to get people to see the truth; that no matter how much they disagree with what those things represent, you simply can’t erase history by toppling a few monuments and hiding from the truth. All I can say is that George Orwell must be rolling in his grave as a modern day Ministry of Truth rewrites and perverts the history of the South and their just cause.

It is with those sentiments/feelings in mind that I watched the mid-day news on my local NBC affiliate yesterday, (something I should know better to not do), that I saw the Botox Queen herself, Nancy Pelosi, stand and say that the monuments in the Capital building showing the likeness of men like Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis should be removed; for their represented treason. I was so incensed when I heard those words that I’m surprised my increased blood pressure did not cause blood to pour forth from my eyes and nose. I immediately got online and sent the Speaker of the House a piece of my mind on that. Yet I feel the topic is worthy of a bit more discussion.

I think treason is one of those words that is bandied about by people who don’t truly understand what it means. Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution states, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” The dictionary defines it as: the crime of betraying one’s country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.

Did the South levy war against the North? Aside from the shots fired upon Fort Sumter, (which was in response to a provocation by Lincoln’s attempt to resupply it), the only ones levying war against the other was when Lincoln raised an army to invade the South. The South acted in self-defense; as would any sovereign nation when foreign troops invaded them to subvert and subjugate their legitimately established system of government.

Was the South considered enemies to the North? Well according to the speeches of certain key Republicans prior to the Civil War, the Southern Democrats were already enemies whose beliefs and culture were under attack by them. It would seem to me, (but then again I actually study and think about history), that the South was the one that had seen war levied against it; militarily, economically, and politically.

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

Do those sound like the words of someone who sought to become an enemy to the North, or one who sought to topple their government? No, they do not. In fact, they sound quite similar to what the Colonists wanted from England when they issued the Declaration of Independence; the ability to determine for themselves as to how they should be governed. Is it so difficult for people to understand things these days? The Declaration of Independence states that governments derive their just authority from the consent of the people, and that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.

The compact which was the Constitution was an agreement, not between the government and the governed; rather it was an agreement between the people of the sovereign and independent States to form a system of government. Government was created by the consent of those living in the States, and it continues to exist only because people continue to consent to its authority.

Three States had included, in their Declarations of Ratifications, clauses that said they retained the authority to revoke their consent to the government they were consenting to; Rhode Island, New York, and Virginia. If that authority was present for those three states, it was present for all of them; for the government being established could not have more power than those who created it; lest you want to also state openly and candidly that it is superior to the will of those who created it; i.e. tyrannical. After all, what other word would you call if it a people, or any portion thereof, were left without recourse if the government they had participated in establishing sought to subvert, subjugate, and oppress them?

Even Lincoln himself said as much back in 1848 when he spoke to following words before the House of Representatives, “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, most sacred right- a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to excercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize and make their own, of so much territory as they inhabit.” (Source: Lincoln’s War With Mexico Speech, January 12, 1848)

If the Southern people only wanted to be free of a government they felt no longer represented them, if they only wanted to be left alone in peace to govern themselves, and if Jeff Davis was chosen to be the President of the government they sought to establish, why was he not tried for treason after the war ended; after all, he had been captured and held in federal prison for 2 years; so they had plenty of time to do so; if in fact he was guilty of it.

The reason they did not bring Davis to trial for treason is best explained by former Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, “If you bring these [Confederate] leaders to trial it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion. Lincoln wanted Davis to escape, and he was right. His capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one.” Secession is merely the revocation of a sovereign state’s consent to the compact that bound them to the Union; much like the Declaration of Independence was an act of secession by the 13 British Colonies. Of course the government would seek to call them treasonous, for governments require subjects to govern, and if the people were given a choice to live with or without government, most would choose to live free of it. Well, that used to be so, I’m not so sure about people today.

That brings me to my final thought. This morning I read an article my friend has posted on his website The Federal Observer in regards to the pardoning of Jefferson Davis by President Jimmy Carter back in 1978. From what I’ve learned about Davis, and his time in federal confinement, (which is due to the fact that I have sought to learn more than what was taught to me in school), is that Davis must have rolled over in his grave when Carter issued his pardon.

A pardon is defined as the act of being forgiven for an offense. To his dying day Jefferson Davis never felt that the South had committed an offense; he felt that the law supported the right of a State to secede from a voluntary Union; that it was not, as Madam Botox said, treason.

During his time in federal confinement the subject of a pardon came up, and Davis was opposed to being pardoned; he wanted a public trial where he could lay out for all to see the justification for secession; for he knew that in a trial it would be held that secession was not treason. Let me repeat that, HE KNEW THAT IN A COURTROOM POPULAR OPINION WOULD HOLD THAT SECESSION WAS NOT TREASON!!!

Hell, when the Southern States seceded New York City considered seceding too, and joining the Confederacy; for they not only relied upon the cotton being sent to their textile mills from Southern Plantations, they also agreed with their justification for doing so. After all, New York was one of those 3 States that had included wording in their ratification statements saying that the people of a State could resume the powers of government they were agreeing to by their ratification of the Constitution, “That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness…” (Source: New York Declaration of Ratification, July 26, 1788)

I see all these monuments being torn down or defaced, I see how professional sporting institutions such as the NFL and NASCAR, and even the U.S. military with their considering renaming bases named after Confederate leaders, and all I can do is weep for the loss of history and the pandering to those who do not understand what they are doing to their country.

George Orwell, author of the classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, once said, “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” All one has to do is to look at what is happening in this country to understand the truthfulness of that statement.

If political correctness and the feelings and emotions of the ignorant are to determine what is historically accurate, then we are doomed; because history can then be rewritten to suit the popular agenda, and it has lost its value as both a tool to learn from past mistakes, and as a remembrance of what ‘actually’ happened in our past.

I know it is futile in saying this, but I ask that people stop what they are doing, (destroying monuments, records, and the truth regarding our past), and think about what will happen to future generations when they have been denied access to the principles and beliefs their ancestors once held dear; what it meant to be an Ameri

Posted in General | Leave a comment

The History of Political Parties in the U.S. Part 4

On April 9, 1865, at Appomattox Courthouse, Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant; the Civil War was over and Lincoln and his Republicans had won-but at what cost? The South lay in ruins and well over half a million were dead, with many more being crippled for life. In less than a week after the surrender at Appomattox, Lincoln himself would be dead; felled by an assassin’s bullet at Ford’s Theater.

Prior to the Civil War, apparently in an effort to stave off the secession of the Southern States, both houses of Congress had passed a proposed amendment which was to be sent to the States for their consideration. However, this amendment never became part of the Constitution; yet its consideration is important if we are to also take into consideration what happened afterwards.

The Corwin Amendment, named after the Congressman who introduced it, Thomas Corwin, was an amendment that would have made slavery permanent in the United States; but ONLY in the States where it already existed.

With the history of infighting in Congress over whether to allow new States to enter the Union as either slave or slave free States, (beginning with the Missouri Compromise in 1820), you would think that those in the North would realize that slavery in the Southern States was not the only reason slavery was an issue; many in the South wanted a State to be able to decide for itself whether to allow slavery within its borders; not have that decision made for them by Congress as part of the requirements for attaining statehood.

Both President James Buchanan and Abraham Lincoln endorsed ratification of the Corwin Amendment; believing that it would end the secessionist movement and prevent a war. Lincoln even addressed this amendment in his Inaugural Address, stating, “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service … holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

Now if Lincoln was truly the great humanitarian people seem to think he was, why would he endorse a constitutional amendment that would make slavery permanent in the South? Then, towards the end of the Civil War Lincoln saw that some in the South might be amiable to re-entry into the Union, so he issued an Executive Order known as the Ten Percent Plan.

Seeing that the South was most likely going to lose the war, Lincoln switched positions on slavery again. His Ten Percent Plan required of States seeking re-entry into the Union that 10% of the people living within them take an oath of allegiance to the Union, and that they abide by emancipation. This infuriated those on the extreme right of the Republican Party, for they feared that the South could conceivably re-enter the Union with the wealthy Southern aristocracy intact, and in power; and the extremists in the Republican Party wanted to completely dominated the South.

With the status of slavery still in question; as it was uncertain what would happen when the war ended; would Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation hold if it were tested in court, or would it be rescinded; leaving slavery intact in the South. So Congress began debating a proposed amendment to permanently abolish slavery throughout the Union.

I won’t go into why I despise the 14th Amendment as it relates to what it says and does, but I will go in to the fact that it was shoved down the throats of the conquered Southern States as part of Reconstruction. The proposed amendment ending slavery passed Congress less than 3 months before Lincoln was assassinated, but he never lived to see whether it would be adopted or not.

People are taught that Reconstruction was the efforts made by the North to bring the seceded Southern States back into the Union and to heal the wounds of war. Well at least they got one part right, it was about bringing the South back into the Union, but as for healing the wounds of war…it was anything but that.

If you want my definition of Reconstruction is would be the complete subjugation of a conquered people, along with the demolishment of their political institutions and ideologies. As the North had sought to deny popular sovereignty in territories wanting to become States prior to the Civil War, they sought to impose a complete denial of State Sovereignty in those States re-entering the war after their defeat.

If you will recall, one of the requisites for a territory becoming a State was that it right a constitution which would be reviewed by Congress before it was allowed to become a part of the Union. Well this was not necessary in the South as they had once been a part of the Union, with constitutions already having been written. Under Reconstruction the States not only had to rewrite their constitutions, they would be re-written by delegates that had not participated in the rebellion against federal authority during the Civil War…of which not very many native born Southerners could make that claim.

I could go in to great detail of how the North sought to punish and subjugate the South during Reconstruction, but it is enough to say that Reconstruction was basically this, Radical Republicans telling the South, “Listen, you guys left the Union, started a war, and lost that war. Now we’re gonna make you pay. You are unfit to exercise the right to self government; we will govern over you until we determine you are ready to govern yourselves again. Since you are unfit, we will fill your offices with those sympathetic to our views and beliefs. You will hand over your land so that we can divide it and give it to those you formerly held as slaves, and you will have no say in these things.”

Were there moderates who sought a more lenient attitude towards the South? Yes, and Lincoln may have been one of them. In fact, there is speculation that some within the Republican Party were responsible for Lincoln’s assassination because he would have resisted the efforts of men like Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner from punishing and subjugating the South. But that is the realm of speculation and conspiracy theories, and has no place here.

A couple more things and I’ll finally move on; leaving the subjects of slavery, the Civil War, and Reconstruction behind. After the war ended and Reconstruction began, the Union was divided into military districts, overseen by Union Generals. Each general was responsible for ensuring that their district adhered to the Reconstruction policies coming out of Congress; one of which was the election of new State officers.

In Mississippi black men constituted 99% of the Republican vote, yet even those who were well educated and established as free men were being denied office by Republicans. Case in point is Reverend Mr. Futzbugh, a well educated black man who had lived free in the North and had participated in Mississippi’s constitutional convention under Reconstruction. Mr. Futzbugh was upset over the inability of black men to obtain office under Republican run Reconstruction and he wrote a letter to the Woodville Republican stating, “…garbed in the disguise of friends to us, [they] are imposters, and will cause more blood to be spilt than the [Federal acceptance of a Mississippi Government] is worth.”

It would seem that Mr. Futzbugh had seen through the veneer of friendship and caring that the Republicans put on in public, and gazed at the truth; that truth being that the plight of the former slaves had been a political talking point used by the Republicans to further consolidate their strength without really caring about elevating the black man from its state of bondage to true equality with the whites.

The next thing I need to discuss is the Freedman’s Bureau; which established by Lincoln before his death. The purpose of the Freedman’s Bureau was to purportedly give aid and assistance to those former slaves who had been made free after the 13th Amendment was ratified.

Robert Lewis Dabney was a Southern theologian and the Chaplain of the Confederate Army. Sometime after the establishment of the Freedman’s Bureau he wrote a lengthy letter to them, and I’d like to share with you.

First Dabney reminds Chief Howard of the sacred obligation placed upon his shoulders, “Your high official trust makes you, in a certain sense, the representative man of the North, as concerns their dealing with the African race in these United States. It is such that I venture to address you, and through you all your fellow citizens on behalf of this recently liberated people. My purpose is humbly to remind you of your weighty charge, and to encourage you to go forward with an enlarged philanthropy and zeal in that career of benevolence toward the African which Providence has opened before you. Rarely has it fallen to the lot of one of the sons of men to receive a larger trust, or to enjoy a wider opportunity for doing good. At the beginning of the late war there were in the South nearly four millions of Africans. All these, a nation in numbers, now taken from their former guardians, are laid upon the hands of that government of which you are the special agent for their protection and guidance.”

Before I continue with Mr. Dabney’s letter, let me remind you that Thomas Jefferson felt that before the blacks be freed from bondage they be taught the skills needed to survive on their own without becoming burdens upon society. It would seem that Mr. Dabney is reminding the Chief of the Freedman’s Bureau of that fact; that it was his sacred duty to ensure that the former slaves be given the skills needed to make it on their own in the world they had just been freed into.

Dabney continues his letter by saying, “At your back stands the great, the powerful, the rich, the prosperous, the philanthropic, the Christian North, friend and liberator of the black man. It must be assumed that the zeal which waged a gigantic war for four years, which expended three thousand million of dollars, and one million of lives, in large part to free the African, will be willing to lavish anything else which may be needed for his welfare.”

Now I can’t tell if Dabney was being serious or somewhat sarcastic in his comments, but nevertheless he speaks the truth; if the war was fought to free the black man from bondage, then it falls upon those who waged that war to ensure that the black man, once freed, be provided with the means of survival and success.

Yet that is not what happened, the former members of the Confederacy, already beaten down and defeated, their land and homes in ruin, were further humiliated by having their lands taken from them by their conquerors to be given to the former slaves. In a speech delivered in Lancaster, Pennsylvania on September 6, 1865, Thaddeus Stevens laid out his plans for confiscating the land of the former rebels, and giving it to freed slaves, “There are about six millions of freedmen in the South. The number of acres of land is 465,000,000. Of this, those who own above two hundred acres each number about 70,000 persons, holding, in the aggregate, (together with the States, ) about 394,000,000 acres, leaving all others below 200 each about 71,000,000 of acres. By thus forfeiting the estates of the leading rebels, the government would have 394,000,000 of acres, besides their town property, and yet nine-tenths of the people would remain untouched. Divide this land into convenient farms. Give if you please, forty acres to each adult male freedman.”

All I can say about Stevens, and his fellow radical Republicans, is that they were adding insult to injury; rubbing salt into the wounds of a defeated and conquered people. Sure, they wanted to free the black man, they wanted them to have a home of their own, but they didn’t want to have to pay for these things themselves; so they plundered a people even more; a people who had felt that one of the reasons they fought the war was because their wealth was being plundered by the tariffs imposed upon imported goods by the government that had just freed their slaves.

My final comment on this period of the development and evolution of the two political parties in America regards a letter written to President Andrew Johnson in which he states, “The [conquered States section] unequivocally ‘accepts the situation’ in which she is placed. Everything that she has done, has been done in perfect good faith, and in the true and highest sense of the word, she is loyal. By this I mean, that she intends to abide by the laws of the land honestly; to fulfill her obligations faithfully and to keep her word sacredly. And I assert that the [northern States region] has no right to demand more of her. You have no right to ask, or expect that she will at once profess unbounded love to the [Federal Government], from which for four years she tried to escape, at the cost of her best blood and all her treasure. Nor can you believe her to be so unutterably hypocritical, so as to declare that the ‘Flag of the [United States]’ has already usurped in her heart the place which has so long been sacred to the ‘Southern Cross.’ The men [of our section] who make such professions are renegades, or traitors and they will surely betray you if you trust them. But the brave men who fought to the last in a cause which they believed and still believe to have been a just one, who clung to their colors as long as they waved and who, when their cause was lost, acknowledged their defeat and accepted the terms offered to them ―as they were true to their convictions in the one case, they will prove their obligations in the other. Many sacrifices have been demanded of the [conquered States], as the price of [being accepted back into the Union.] These she has made; but she will abase herself for no earthly consideration. She will accept no left-handed alliance. She regards herself as fully the peer in honor, in reputation, in character, and in glory of any other portion of the Republic, and she will never consent to tarnish her name, by inscribing on her escutcheon with her own hand, that she has been guilty.”

I include that because I feel it is pertinent to what is currently happening in America today with the tearing down or defacing of monuments dedicated to the Confederacy. America, particularly Southern America, has forgotten, or never been told the truth, regarding what the Civil War was fought for, and that ignorance has led to these outrages against brave men who fought for a just cause; while the monument dedicated to the two faced initiator of violence against a people who just wanted to be free from the tyrannical power of a sectional political party remains standing. While Lincoln is praised as one of the, if not THE, greatest president ever, monuments dedicated to men who fought under the shield of protection given them by the Declaration of Independence are vandalized and torn down.

It makes me physically ill to watch what is happening in America today when a people, ignorant of their country’s history, allow propaganda and emotions to guide their actions, and to call for the destruction or removal of historical monuments. History isn’t always pretty, but it remains a crucial part of how we understand the present; and to see it being torn down is an offense against all that was once good in this country.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

The History of Political Parties in the U.S. Part 3

Before I continue my narrative I want to make a brief statement. I know it may seem like the majority of my discussion has focused on the evolution of Northern political parties that eventually produced the Republican Party. That is due to the fact that, for the most part, the Southern States had remained pretty much united together without the divisive factions that had plagued the Northern States up to this point. That is why, aside from Washington and Adams, the Democrats had been able to secure the presidency with the only exceptions being William Henry Harrison, (who died in office and was succeeded by John Tyler), and Zachary Taylor, (who also died in office and was succeeded by Millard Fillmore). So, out of the 71 years since the Constitution was ratified, Democrats had held the presidency for 50 of them. The tables would turn in the election of 1860, with the Republicans uniting together, while factions within the Democrats would lead to the sectional election of Abraham Lincoln.

There is one final comment I need to make which will tie in to the policy, or platform, of the new Republican Party that had emerged out of the consolidation of the factions which had divided Northern politics for years. After the Republican candidate for President, John Fremont, lost to James Buchanan, a political activist wrote the following in a letter to William Seward, (who would become Lincoln’s Secretary of State), “I have never before seen anything at all like the present state of deep, determined and desperate feelings of hatred and hostility to [permitting bonded African Americans in another new State] and [to the] political power [that would derive from that State.]”

There is a lot to be gleaned from that statement if one would just examine it carefully. Ever since the early days of the Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists, (or Jeffersonian Democrats), the real issue had been which policy would control politics in America; a strict interpretation of the powers delegated government by the Constitution, or a loose interpretation which would allow government to be used to help, (i.e. provide benefits, subsidies, tax breaks) the party faithful.

The issue of slavery was just that, an issue which was used by both parties to rally the faithful behind them; but the true battle was being waged over the original two ideologies; limited government or a powerful one capable of doing things the Constitution did not specifically authorize it to do. The anti-slavery Northerners effectively used anti-slavery sentiments to cement their power in the years preceding the election of 1860, and although they lost the election of 1856 to Buchanan, they were on sound footing going into the election of 1860; especially since the events in Kansas were still being used to rally support for their newly established Republican Party.

To understand this division between Northern and Southern ideologies requires that you have a certain understanding of the economies of the two regions of the country; and the issue of slavery plays a key role in that understanding.

From the very earliest years the Southern States were primarily agrarian; meaning they valued land ownership and were predominantly agricultural. This was due, in part, to the fact that they had longer growing seasons, and the fact that the soil was better suited to agriculture than the land up North.

The North, although there were small family owned farms, was predominantly mercantile, or business, banking and later, industrial oriented. As a new country these fledgling young business interests would be competing on a world stage against well established competition in Europe, and to give them a fighting chance against those competitors the Northern political interests sought to gain control of government so that it could implement tariffs upon certain imported goods which would balance the playing field, so to speak, for them.

The Northern economy did not require slave labor; although many of the workers did work in, what we might call today, sweatshops. What they really needed was protection from foreign competition; which they got in the form of subsidies and tariffs upon imported goods to the U.S. So, since slavery was not an essential component of their economy, it became a moral issue in the North, even though the majority of slaves brought into the U.S. came via ships owned and operated by Northerners.

The South, however, was were slavery was used extensively to fuel their economy; which put them right in the crosshairs of Northern abolitionists who professed to hold the moral high ground; even though some of the Northern States, such as Lincoln’s home State of Illinois had enacted strict laws regarding the emigration of blacks, (both bonded and free) into their State.

During the politics of the time there were two predominant ideologies in the North, abolition and exclusion; and they sometimes existed hand in hand with each other. Pure abolitionists believed in the principle that all men are created equal, and therefore slavery was a rejection of that fundamental principle. Their only belief was that slavery denied the principle of equality by placing one race of men in bondage to another; yet prejudice among them for the blacks was just as strong, if not stronger than it was in the States were slavery was a part of life.

In 1835 Alexis de Tocqueville published his book Democracy in America, reporting his findings after an extensive study of America, it’s political system and social conditions. In his book de Tocqueville writes, “I see that in a certain portion of the territory of the United States at the present day, the legal barrier which separated the two races is tending to fall away, but not that which exists in the manners of the country; slavery recedes, but the prejudice to which it has given birth remains stationary. Whosoever has inhabited the United States must have perceived that in those parts of the Union in which the negroes are no longer slaves, they have in no wise drawn nearer to the whites. On the contrary, the prejudice of the race appears to be stronger in the States which have abolished slavery, than in those where it still exists; and nowhere is it so intolerant as in those States where servitude has never been known.”

I’m not saying that there weren’t those in the North, or Republicans if you prefer, who did not feel that blacks were their equals and should be given the same chances for success as whites, but they were not the controlling faction in Northern politics, and therefore those who controlled the politics controlled the policies of government when they rose to power; and their policy was that slavery was evil, but the slaves themselves were not equal to the white man.

Thus they sought a policy of exclusion; meaning the two races should be kept apart, with slavery confined to the Southern States were it was needed to run their economy, and the remainder of the country, (including all new territories), being left for white settlers.

While I realize I’m getting a bit ahead of myself here, that sentiment is best supported by something Lincoln said in his first Inaugural Address, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” The key words there are, “…where it exists.” Lincoln had no desire to end slavery in the South, he only sought to contain it there; keep it from spreading into new States, or the North for that matter.

Lincoln may have hated slavery, but he recognized that under the Constitution it was legal, and therefore he sought to contain it to the South; minimize its spread into other States. He also may have despised it based upon moral issues, but he did not feel that blacks were his equal either. In his fourth presidential debate against Stephen Douglas, Lincoln stated, “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

Can you imagine the outrage had Donald Trump said something like that in a presidential debate? Yet that was the mindset of many Republicans in the North at the time.

Now if you will recall, in Part 1 of this series I mentioned that Thomas Jefferson had said, “It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expence of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.”

I had asked that you remember that, and now is the time when I explain why; for it was a belief that Lincoln, (the Great Emancipator and liberator of the slaves), also held. In 1862, while serving as President during the Civil War, Lincoln held a meeting with predominant leaders in the black community in an effort to convince them to support his plans for the colonization of blacks outside of the United States.

Lincoln’s words to the delegates are strikingly similar to those spoke by Jefferson years prior, “You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.”

One of Lincoln’s crowning achievement is his Emancipation Proclamation. Yet if you were to read Lincoln’s letter to editor Horace Greeley, you would understand it for what it was; a wartime maneuver designed to further his cause and force the South to submit to domination by a government controlled by Republicans. Lincoln states, “I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.”

Again, paying close attention to what is said is crucial in understanding the meaning of certain passages found in historical documents. Everything that Lincoln did during his war against the South was done with one goal in mind, to restore the national authority. For all these years preceding the secession of the South and the Civil War, the North had fought amongst itself over control of the government, and now that they’d gained that absolute control with their sectional Republican Party, they saw that they had no one to govern but themselves; as the South had divorced itself from the Union.

I find it a bit ironic that the Northern Republicans spoke so often, and so harshly against chattel slavery as an institution, yet they sought to place the entire South in bondage to a government that they had no say in what laws, or taxes, would be imposed upon them.

All the years of political bickering up to this point led to the simple question of whether a people, or a portion of the people, must submit to a government that they, not only had no say in what laws it passed, but also whether those laws sought to subvert the principles governments are established among men to secure – the preservation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The North had finally triumphed and coalesced its political power, only to find that the South had left the Union; leaving them with no one to dominate and control. They could not abide that; leaving Lincoln no choice but to wage an unjust war to force the South to accept a system of government they felt no longer represented them.

The South was merely exercising its prerogative as found in the Declaration of Independence, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Lincoln denied that they had that right, proving himself to be a hypocrite; for years earlier he had spoken the following words as a young Congressman, “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, most sacred right- a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to excercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize and make their own, of so much territory as the inhabit.” (Source: Lincoln’s War With Mexico Speech, January 12, 1848)

Well we all know the South lost the Civil War, but they lost more than the war itself; they lost the ability to self govern as well; as will be explained in Part 4 of this continuing series; when I discuss how the Republicans treated the South during the era known as Reconstruction.
Stay tuned…

Posted in General | Leave a comment

The History of Political Parties in the U.S. Part 2

Picking up where I left off in Part 1, the year was 1865 and, although the newly established Republican Party had amassed a great deal of power in the Northern States, there were still pockets where the other factions still held a great deal of sway amongst the voters. So, until they could consolidate their power they needed a cause celebre to rally behind; which for them was what was happening in the Kansas Territory between Exclusionists and Free State Southerners.

I need to divert from that for a moment to discuss the concept of Popular Sovereignty. Popular Sovereignty refers to the belief that the people of a State, or territory be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to permit slavery within their borders.

In the earliest years of our young nation slavery had existed as an institution throughout most of the Colonies, and it wasn’t until after the Constitution was ratified that some of the Northern States undertook measures to ban it within their own borders. While there may have been abolitionists within those States who felt that slavery was a sin, the fact remains that the banning of that institution within those States was accomplished by the various State Legislations acting according to the popular will of the people; it was not an act by the federal government seeking to interpose upon the right of each State to decide for itself whether to permit or abolish slavery.

As I stated in Part 1, the Constitution only said this regarding the authority of Congress to legislate upon the issue of slavery, “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight…”

The wording of that passage is important, so I’m going to take a minute to dissect it. That passage in no way gives Congress the authority to abolish slavery, it only states that prior to 1808 Congress could take no steps to halt, or limit, the migration or importation of slaves; meaning those who were already within the states, in a state of bondage, were beyond the scope of power delegated to Congress. That fact will become key when it comes to understanding certain things that Abraham Lincoln would later say, so keep it in the back of your minds when we begin discussing his presidency.

Getting back to Kansas now, towards the end of Franklin Pierce’s presidency, I suppose he’d finally had enough of the violence in Kansas, and the attempts by the illegitimate Exclusionist leaders attempting to install their own territory government, for he finally decided to send federal troops into Lawrence, Kansas to prevent their legislature from convening.

Colonel Edwin Sumner, (no relation to Charles as far as I know) led a company of 200 federal dragoons into Lawrence. The day their legislature was scheduled to convene was on Independence Day, so when Sumner arrived a band was outside playing celebratory music, when Sumner proudly rode up, dismounted, tethered his horse and strode into the building where the legislature was in the process of convening.

Sumner then spoke the following words, “Gentlemen, I am called upon this day to perform the most painful duty of my whole life … Under the authority of the President’s proclamation, I am here to disperse this legislature.” Then he strode out and left them alone. Oh, the legislature never did convene that day.

Of course Exclusionist newspapers in the North went wild with that story. Something New York Times reporter Wendell Phillips said though is of great importance, as it goes to straight to the hypocrisy of the fledgling young Republican Party. Here are Mr. Phillips words “It is a grave fact that must never be forgotten by the American people: military power is and must ever be [hostile] to popular institutions.”

By popular institutions he means institutions such as government established by the consent of the governed; a vital principle dating back to the Declaration of Independence; so keep that quote in mind as well when thinking how Lincoln ordered troops into the Confederacy to destroy the popular institution erected by the Southern States.

As the Republican Party was still in its formative stages it needed some kind of scandal, or perceived threat to rally support for it among those who still clung to old Whig policies, or were members of the other various factions that had branched off from the Whigs. One of those was the caning of Charles Sumner; which is why he remained in seclusion – to keep the outrage over his attack at a fever pitch. The other was the events going on in Kansas.

The sending of Colonel Sumner to Lawrence was just what the doctor ordered for Northern Republicans; who already had control of the House of Representatives – which if you know your Constitution is the body responsible for initiating all funding bills. So in retaliation for President Pierce sending Colonel Sumner into Lawrence, the House defunded the military by refusing to pass a military funding appropriations bill.

This little tactic could only be played out for a short while though, for if those from the North serving in the military stopped getting paid, it might backlash and reduce support for the Republicans. Yet they did get President Pierce to reassign Colonels Sumner out of Kansas Territory, along with a reprimand on his record. Once they’d achieved that minor victory they passed the appropriations bill and the military was once again funded. Spiteful little bastards, weren’t they?

While the ongoing violence may have suited the wants and needs of the Exclusionist Republicans, it greatly distressed those living in the South; for it was their settlers to the Kansas Territory that were suffering it at the hands of men like John Brown. Around the same time this was happening, Senator Robert Toombs of Georgia introduced a bill to admit Kansas as a State; hoping to end the violence going on there.

The bill was introduced and then sent to the Committee on Territories, of which Stephen Douglas was chairman. This bill greatly worried Republicans, for if Kansas were to become a State it would take away one of their biggest issues against the Southern Democrats, thereby weakening their power to attract new members.

Douglas’s Committee quickly drafted a report on the bill and submitted it back to the Senate Floor for approval. In part the document said that it would, “ensure a fair and impartial decision of the questions at issue in Kansas [and here’s the key part] in accordance with the wishes of the bona fide inhabitants of the Territory, without fraud, violence, or any other improper unlawful influence.”

That is key because a good number of the Exclusionists living in Kansas at the time were not true settlers, they were men who have migrated to the Territory, bearing arms, to tilt the balance of power towards the Exclusionists, while terrorizing those who sought for Kansas to become a state free to decide amongst the voters whether to permit slavery or not.

The bill for Kansas statehood overwhelmingly passed the Senate, and was then submitted to the House; where it’s fate was less than certain. The Republicans had recently won a key victory in having Nathan Banks, an Exclusionist, placed as Speaker of the House. When the Senate bill arrived, he scrapped it, and then the House, which was predominantly Republican, wrote their own bill saying that Kansas would be admitted as a state under the revolutionary constitution written by the extremist Exclusionists. That bill was then submitted back to the Senate, which then re-passed the original Toombs bill. So the issue of whether or not Kansas should become a State was deadlocked; allowing the Republicans to continue to use the events going on in Kansas as propaganda material.

I won’t harp any further on Kansas, as I fear I would bore you. I do have one final thing to say though before moving on. During 1856 both parties held their convention to select nominations for the upcoming presidential election. As the Republicans were maneuvering to get their choices on the ballot the remnant of the Whig Party chose ex president Millard Fillmore to be their candidate.

Although Fillmore didn’t stand a snowballs chance in hell of winning, (and he probably knew that), he did make a keen observation as to what was going on in American politics, “We see a political party presenting candidates for [President and Vice President], selected for the first time from the [northern] States alone, with the avowed purpose of electing these candidates by the [votes] of one part of the [Federation] only, to rule over [all of the States]. Can it be possible that those who are engaged in such a measure can have seriously reflected upon the consequences that must inevitably follow in case of ]their] success? Can they have the madness or the folly to believe that our [Southern States] brethren would submit to governed by such a [Sectional Party?]…[What if Southern States had a majority of electoral votes, and declared that they would have only [owners of bonded African Americans] for President and Vice President? … Do you think we would submit to it? No, not for one moment! And do you believe that your [southern States] brethren are any less sensitive on this subject than you are, or less jealous of their rights? If you do, let me tell you that you are mistaken. And, therefore, you must see that, if this Sectional Party succeeds, it leads inevitable to the destruction of this beautiful fabric, reared by our forefathers, cemented by their blood, and bequeathed to us as a precious inheritance.”

The Republicans would lose the presidential election of 1856, with James Buchanan winning, but over the course of the next four years they would consolidate their power and control in the North, leading to the fulfillment of Millard Fillmore’s prediction of, “We see a political party presenting candidates for [President and Vice President], selected for the first time from the [northern] States alone, with the avowed purpose of electing these candidates by the [votes] of one part of the [Federation] only, to rule over [all of the States]”

The election of completely sectional presidential candidate, (Abraham Lincoln), would be enough to cause the Democratic Southern States to secede from the Union; ushering in the Civil War.

I don’t wish to make this an essay in defense of the South in seceding, although I am firm in my convictions that they were justified in doing so. However, I must address certain key remarks made during the period known as the Civil War to show the latent hostility this new Republican Party had towards the Southern Democrats.

The first of these comments comes from Abraham Lincoln prior to his ascension as the Republicans chosen one in the 1860 presidential election. Lincoln was chosen to deliver a speech in Bloomington, Illinois as a newborn Republican. Prior to this speech Lincoln had remained on the sidelines, a hesitant Whig testing the political winds to see if this new upstart of a party would take wings and fly. His speech at this convention in Bloomington shows that he had joined the ranks of radicals who sought to oppress the Southern Democrats and deny States Rights over whether or not they should be free to choose for themselves whether or not slavery shall be permitted within their borders.

The full text of Lincoln’s speech that day is lost to history, but the Alton Weekly Courier published a brief analysis of it in their paper, stating, “Lincoln urged a union of all who opposed the expansion of [lands upon which bonded African Americans could live], and again he pledged that he was ‘ready to fuse with anyone who would unite with him to oppose [the political power of Southern States politicians].’ If the united opposition of the [northern states] caused [the people in the Southern States] to raise the bugbear of [State secession], they should be told bluntly. the [Federation] must be preserved in the purity of its principles as well as in the integrity of its territorial parts.”

While he did not come right out and say it specifically, Lincoln was hinting at the fact that the Northern Republicans would be justified in using whatever means possible, including force, should the Southern States choose to secede rather than be governed by a completely sectional political party. Lincoln would make his meaning brutally clear on April 15, 1861 when he called for the States to provide volunteers to form a 75,000 man strong army to invade the seceded Southern States.

Now would be a good time to take another break. I got a bit carried away with part 1 of this series, and I apologize for that. However, 5 pages is enough for now; so I’ll let this sink in and I’ll see you when I release Part 3.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

The History of Political Parties in the U.S.

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity;
and I’m not sure about the universe.”

~ Albert Einstein ~

Authors Note: The following is based solely upon my understanding of what I have uncovered so far by a study of history. If any of my facts are incorrect I beg that those more knowledgeable than I please correct me, and I will issue a statement reflecting where I have erred. However, if you disagree with anything I say simply because it is not what you were taught in school, or because it offends you, then I also kindly ask that you keep your comments to yourself.
Thank you,

Since the election of a new president is on the distant horizon, (that’s assuming we have an election this year), I thought it would be worthwhile spending some time discussing the origins of the two political parties in America today; the Democrats and the Republicans. I am still in the process of learning about this myself, so what I am sharing with you is just what I have learned for now. Nevertheless, I think you may find it enlightening; that is if you care about such things.

Although I could probably go into a rather lengthy discussion regarding the faults of both political parties in America, it is not my intent to do so here. Rather I would like to ask a question of those who still believe in the existing two-party paradigm; Do you know the origins of your political party, and how it has evolved?

An argument could be made that the origins of today’s political parties, (Republicans & Democrats), could be traced back to BEFORE our government came into being; with the verbal sparring between the Federalists, (those who supported ratification of the Constitution), and the Anti-Federalists, (those who either flat out opposed it, or felt it required modifying before being ratified).

I do not align myself with either of the political parties; I stand for liberty and a firm defense of my unalienable rights; which happen to be the rights and liberty of everyone else as well. I call out the faults wherever I see them, regardless of political party alliance, and I give credit where credit is due; although I don’t see much that our government does that is worthy of any credit.

People today fall into pretty much 3 categories. There are the liberals, the conservatives, and those who don’t give a shit about politics at all. There are, of course, those called the Swing Voters, who vote depending upon how they feel at any given moment on the issues at hand; regardless of political party allegiance. But for the most part, the Republican and Democratic Parties are the two primary movers and shakers in the American political theater. Yet how much do people know about the origin of their party? Not very much, I’m guessing.

I would hope everyone knows that George Washington was the first president to be elected under the newly ratified Constitution; but I’m not sure if people realize that Washington was elected on a non-partisan, or is it bipartisan ticket; meaning basically that everyone voted for him because of his status as the former Commander of the Continental Army. Yet even though he was not chosen under the banner of any party he still had strong Federalist leanings; choosing to listen more to Alexander Hamilton than he did Thomas Jefferson; who would go on to form the precursor to today’s Democratic Party.

One might think that since Jefferson was the impetus for the creation of the Democratic Party that Hamilton was the impetus for the eventual establishment of the Republican Party. That is both true and false. While it is true that the birth of today’s modern Republican Party was founded on opposition to Southern Democratic principles, the principles espoused by Hamilton himself have been adopted by both political parties today. I hope that makes sense for you.

Trying to learn, and explain early American politics is difficult, as it is not like things are today with caucuses and primaries electing a single candidate to run under the banner of the two parties. For many years there were factions within the parties that often disagreed with each other, but were united in their opposition to the ‘other’ party. Sometimes there were numerous candidates running for president under the banner of a single party; such as when both Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr both ran for president as Democrats.

Trying to explain all the internal divisions within the two parties would make this a tangled mess, but to truly understand how today’s parties came into being it is necessary that I go into a bit of detail regarding that; particularly as it applies to the Republican Party.

As previously mentioned, before our government came into being there were those that supported the ratification of the Constitution, and there were those who opposed it. Those who supported it formed the nucleus of what would become the Federalist Party. Many of the Anti-Federalists had felt that by adopting the plan proposed by the Federalists the sovereignty of the States would be threatened, if not completely annihilated.

Once the Constitution was ratified all these Anti-Federalists could do was work within the system in an effort to keep the government from making their predictions come true; thus creating a division in this country over those who felt the government should be strong and superior to the States in almost all things, and those who felt the States should be left alone to manage their own internal affairs as they saw fit.

During the Washington administration, Thomas Jefferson saw the direction the country was taking; primarily because of Washington’s tendency to follow the Hamiltonian thought process on what powers government should exercise. Jefferson, along with James Madison, (who flip flopped back and forth depending upon which way the political winds blew), sought to either slow down, or halt the policies taken by Washington, and later John Adams; which they saw as detrimental to the States and to the liberties of the people.

As stated, Washington was elected without allegiance to any political parties; as they had not yet truly been established as political forces. Taking that into consideration, out of the remaining 14 presidents prior to the Civil War, 9 of them were somewhat aligned behind the Jeffersonian belief of limited government, and the other 6 were Whigs; which is the precursor to today’s Republican Party.

Before I go any further I must bring up the subject of slavery; for it has a lot to do with what happens next. Although there are some who believe that slavery was justified by Biblical text, and R.L. Dabney’s book A Defense of Virginia and the South goes into great detail regarding that viewpoint, it is my belief that the holding of any man in bondage to serve as a slave for another is evil; denying the premise that all men are created equal.

Yet we cannot deny, or whitewash the truth about slavery either. Slavery existed and it must be taken into consideration when discussing how it affected political party platforms; but that discussion must be honest and thorough, without bias or prejudice.

Slavery came to America as early as the first British settlers, so to say that it was established by, and the fault of the South is disingenuous, at best. By the time the American Revolution took place slavery was pretty well established as an institution in the U.S. Yet there were those who felt that slavery was a sin against the rights of men. among them the drafter of our Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson.

I’m willing to bet that most people don’t know that the copy of the Declaration of Independence on display at the National Archives is not the one Jefferson wrote, it is an edited version. Of the many things taken out before being presented to the Continental Congress was a passage laying the blame for slavery at the feet of King George III himself, “…he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold…”

Yet numerous times Jefferson commented that the answer was not to simply abolish slavery, but to educate, free, then relocate the slaves outside the country. In his Notes on the State of Virginia Jefferson explained his reasoning as follows, “It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expence of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.”

Now that might sound racist and prejudicial, but hold on, I’ll get to that in a bit. In another instance Jefferson wrote, “As to the method by which this difficult work is to be effected, if permitted to be done by ourselves, I have seen no proposition so expedient on the whole, as that of emancipation of those born after a given day, and of their education and expatriation at a proper age. this would give time for a gradual extinction of that species of labor and substitution of another, and lessen the severity of the shock which an operation so fundamental cannot fail to produce. the idea of emancipating the whole at once, the old as well as the young, and retaining them here, is of those only who have not the guide of either knolege or experience of the subject. for, men, probably of any colour, but of this color we know, brought up from their infancy without necessity for thought or forecast, are by their habits rendered as incapable as children of taking care of themselves, and are extinguished promptly wherever industry is necessary for raising the young. in the mean time they are pests in society by their idleness, and the depredations to which this leads them. their amalgamation with the other colour produces a degradation to which no lover of his country, no lover of excellence in the human character can innocently consent.”

Again, that sounds racist in comparison to popular attitudes today, and again I’ll get back to that in a bit; just keep on reading.

Whatever your thoughts may be on slavery, those who fought our War for Independence were too timid to condemn it in their universal Declaration of Independence, and later those who drafted the Constitution also kicked the can down the road; so to speak, by not introducing language in it that would have abolished slavery permanently. If you’ll read the Constitution the only mention of slavery, and they don’t even have the integrity to call it what it is, is found in two places; the 3/5’s Clause, and Article 1, Section 9, where it states, “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight…” Keep that in mind as we continue our discussion, for it will become quite pertinent in regards to the formation of the Republican Party.

So slavery was legal under the Constitution; at least in the States where it already existed; and Congress could take no action to abolish it until 1808. During the early years of our young country slavery existed throughout the States, with the Northern States shipping interests doing most of the importation of slave labor.

At this time in our history the two political parties were not what you could call sectional; meaning confined to specific regions of the country. There were Democrats as well as Whigs in the North, and there were Republicans and Democrats in the South, although the South was predominantly Democrat.

As the country began to grow, first with the Louisiana Purchase, followed by Texas, then Oregon, then the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in which we acquired most of the Western States. Every time new land was added to the nation the question of whether slavery was to be permitted in these new territories/States came up, and always the Missouri Compromise came up; which had established Maine as a slave free State and Missouri as a slaveholding State. The Missouri Compromise also established the 36°30′ parallel as the dividing point between free and slave States; with all States North of that boundary being free, and all those below it being slaveholding States.

Yet every time a new territory was being considered as a new State the question of whether the 36°30′ parallel was applicable, with Northern abolitionists/exclusionists seeking to limit slavery to the States where it already existed. They did this for two reasons. First they wanted the new States to be, not only slave free, but black free as well. They wanted these new States to be while only States; for that is what the underlying principle behind exclusionism was, the exclusion of blacks. Secondly, they did not want slavery to be introduced into new States because it would lessen their power in government due to the 3/5’s Clause; because most slaveholding States typically voted Democratic.

As I mentioned earlier there had always been schisms, or divisions among the political parties, but it was in the 1850’s that these schisms were used to their advantage by those who would form the Republican Party. In the 1850’s there were many divisions among what would become the Republican Party; there was the Whig Party, which was slowly dying; there was the Free Soil Party that focused primarily upon the exclusion of slaves; and there was also the Order of the Star Spangled Banner, (and yes that was their name.)

Although these factions often disagreed with one another on which issues should be of primary importance, they had two things in common. First they were becoming increasingly sectional; meaning they were predominantly Northerners, and secondly, they all steadfastly opposed Southern Democrats. As these factions weakened their political power, a few designing men sought to consolidate all the factions into one single party which would focus primarily upon exclusionism, while also adhering to the concept of protective tariffs for Northern business interests. This consolidation was the genesis of the Republican Party. Those who sought Exclusionism were prone to lying, insults, and outright violence to achieve their goals. Sound familiar?

Some of you might not be familiar with the name Charles Sumner, but he was a leading Republican Senator during the period leading up to, and throughout the Civil War. In Volume II of Howard Ray White’s 4 part series on that period of history he writes the following regarding Charles Sumner, “And, although a brilliant man in many ways, Sumner’s mind had no capacity for judging what was true and what was false. The moral outrage that possessed Sumner’s ‘soul’ stemmed from his complete conviction that the propaganda he was receiving was truthful.”

I mention Sumner because he, and what was taking place in the Kansas territory at the time, were key in the Republicans consolidating power and establishing a purely sectional party. In May of 1850 Charles Sumner gave a two day speech in which he insulted the South, and many of his fellow Senators from Southern States. Northern newspapers, which were owned and operated by those sympathetic to the cause of Exclusionism praised Sumner for his fiery oration in defense of their cause.

Yet some of his fellow members of the Senate did not take so kindly to his insults to their colleagues. Edward Everett, a fellow Northerner from Massachusetts, stated, “Language equally intemperate and bitter is sometimes heard from a notorious parliamentary blackguard, but from a man of character of any party I have never seen anything so offensive.”

But it was Preston Brooks, a relative of Andrew Butler, one of the Senators Sumner had insulted, that elevated Sumner from just another loudmouthed politician to a hero for the cause. Two days after Sumner delivered his speech to the Senate Brooks confronted Sumner, and beat him repeatedly over the head with a walking cane. Although Sumner was bleeding profusely from the assault, his wounds began to heal rapidly under the care of Doctor Cornelius Boyle, but that simply would not do for the fledgling Republicans; they needed a martyr, and Sumner was their man.

Dr. Boyle was quickly replaced with Dr. Marshall Perry to take over as attending physician for Sumner. Sumner was quickly whisked off to the home of Francis Blair, another Northern Exclusionist, where he would remain out of sight until just prior to the 1860 Presidential election; the one that saw Abraham Lincoln elected as the first Republican President.

The other event that led to the consolidation of power was the struggle going on in the territory of Kansas; often referred to as Bleeding Kansas for all the violence that occurred there. Among those involved in the events was one John Brown, who would later attempt to confiscate the federal arms stored at Harpers Ferry, Virginia and to lead the slaves in a slave uprising. Brown would be hung for his efforts, but not before he left a bloody trail of corpses behind him in Kansas.

The story of how Kansas became a State dates back to the presidency of Thomas Jefferson when be bought the vast track of land known as the Louisiana Purchase from Napoleon Bonaparte. I don’t think people truly grasp the immense size of the land purchased by the government in 1803; it begins like the funnel of a tornado in New Orleans and widens as it travels northward, covering all of modern day Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and portions of New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Minnesota and North Dakota.

Little by little sections of that vast territory had been accepted into the Union as States, and it was with the entrance of Missouri that the Missouri Compromise which was signed into law by President James Monroe in 1820. But it was Kansas which saw fierce fighting between Southerners who sought to emigrate there and make it a slaveholding State, and Northerners who sought to do the same, only making it an Exclusionist State.

Typically when a territory wishes to become a State it makes its desires known to Congress, which then passes an enabling act that grants that territory the authority to establish a State Constitution and choose State officers. Once these acts are accomplished Congress then debates whether to accept or reject that territories request to become part of the Union.

What happened in Kansas is that pro-slavery settlers had written a constitution, but anti-slavery exclusionists wrote an alternative constitution which prohibited slavery within the territory. The anti-slavery faction was receiving aid, and arms, from northerners and sought to use any means at their disposal to ensure that their constitution was adopted, and hopefully chase off all pro-slavery settlers.

Enter John Brown. Brown was born in Connecticut and had lived in other places as well. He was a staunch, almost fanatical abolitionist/exclusionist, and he made frequent trips to the Kansas Territory to stir things up and ensure that it become a slave free State.

Violence often erupted between the two factions in Kansas, with beating, and even killings taking place when tempers flared. It was difficult to maintain law and order in Kansas; particularly in Lawrence which was the hub of Exclusionism as they had fortified the town and did not recognize federal authority to enforce the law.

Sheriff Samuel Jones had attempted to lead a posse into Lawrence to arrest those charged with violence against pro-slavery settlers, but was shot in the leg one evening while camped outside the town. Later, when Jones had healed, he returned to Lawrence with federal forces. The leader of the federal forces had told Jones to remain at the encampment, but he had a score to settle, and took some men, and cannon, into Lawrence. He destroyed the two newspapers in the town; which had been major sources of anti-slavery propaganda for men like Charles Sumner, and he burnt down the Free State Hotel and the home of Charles Robinson; who had been elected governor by the Exclusionists.

John Brown was infuriated after hearing of the events in Lawrence, and decided to make pro-slavery settlers pay dearly. On the night of May 24, 1856 Brown and two other men murdered 5 pro-slavery settlers in cold blood; cleaving in their heads with swords and piercing their sides; leaving their bodies outside their homes with the female members inside were left to wonder the fate of the men.

Brown and his men were never brought up on charges for these murders, and Northern newspapers swept the story under the rug, while the events in Lawrence horrified Southerners. The atrocities committed by Brown that evening were a glimpse into the bloodshed that would be spilled beginning 4 years later with the inauguration of the Civil War.

However, not only was Brown almost fanatical in his Exclusionist ideology, members of Congress from the Northern States were just as bad; and the events in Kansas Territory only strengthened the up and coming Republican Party. By the time the 1860 presidential election rolled around the Republican Party would have complete control of Northern politics, and Abraham Lincoln would be their chosen one to push forward the Exclusionist agenda.

I think now would be a good time to take a break. I knew this would cover a lot of information, and therefore be rather long, but I’m only about halfway done and don’t want to make this into a book. So ponder what I’ve said so far, and stay tuned for the conclusion…

Posted in General | 3 Comments

Are You Willing To Face The Consequences of Ignorance & Apathy

Last week I went to the mall to have a T-shirt made up celebrating my retirement. While I was waiting for it to be made I overheard two people having a discussion regarding the Covid virus, and all the steps taken to combat it. They were sitting outside one of those places where people go to get their nails done, and since they had face masks on and were practicing more than adequate social distancing guidelines they were almost yelling at each other so as to be heard.

One of them was a rather heavy set woman, (which is a polite way of saying she was fat), with 5 children; all of whom were going in to get manicures. I’ve never had my nails done, but my wife went into that place pre-Covid a few years back and she told me that it runs around $25 per manicure; so that woman was looking at somewhere in the vicinity of $150 to get her and her children’s nails done.

Now if people want to spend that much to have their nails done, then go for it; it’s not something I would spend my hard earned cash upon. However, one thing that woman said stuck with me; she said, “Trump needs to send out monthly stimulus checks, that $1200 ain’t gonna last long.” No shit lady – not when you’re throwing money away like that it ain’t.

Another thing I noticed while I was waiting to have my shirt made was that instead of that nail salon being packed to the gills, as it usually is, it was also practicing social distancing by reducing the number of stations that were servicing customers; hence the requirement that those awaiting an open booth had to wait outside.

The thing about all this is, neither of those two people were complaining about all the new rules imposed upon them to combat the spread of the Covid virus; rather they were complaining about how the government wasn’t doing enough to support and take care of them during these hard times. Occasionally they would both glance in my direction and give me the evil eye. Either they thought I was trying to listen in to their conversation, (which wasn’t hard since they were practically screaming at each other to be heard), or they thought I posed a threat to them because I DID NOT have a face mask on. The only thing I could think of while I waited for my shirt to be made is; if those people are representative of the mindset of most people in this country, America is absolutely screwed.

Before I made the decision to retire early I recall hearing a great many people complaining that they had yet to receive their $1200 stimulus check. While I can understand that people need money to survive; to buy food and pay the bills, I often wondered if they ever thought about where the money to give each and every American $1200 came from. Are people that naive to think that the government can just hand out that kind of money freely without there being consequences?

Prior to the outbreak of this Covid virus, (which I believe was intentional), our national debt was massive. I has spiked astronomically as the government has had to borrow huge sums of money to implement the stimulus package to subsidize those who were out of work due to the locking down of all non-essential services throughout the country.

Prior to Covid the debt to GDP stood at 80%; meaning the debt our government had accumulated to perform the services we expect from it amounted to roughly 80% of our countries entire Gross Domestic Product. (CNN, May 6, 2020) The news article goes on to say that those numbers are more than twice as high as the historical average, and double the level just prior to the Great Recession; which happened in 2008. The article also said that the Treasury Department will borrow $3 trillion due to this Covid outbreak; which is 6 times the record; which was also set during the Great Recession of 2008.

Yet through all this CNN calls these measures an ‘Absolute Necessity.” According to CNN’s reporting “Half a trillion dollars of forgivable loans have been handed out to small businesses.” Well I have a friend who runs a used car lot just up the hill from where I live, and he applied for one of those loans, and was denied. He has been pumping his own savings into his business in the hope that business picks up; but he said just yesterday that things haven’t picked up, and that he doesn’t think he will be able to keep his business going past October when his dealer’s license comes up for renewal.

The other day my friend drove around and took some photos of businesses that had gone under, with ‘For Lease’ signs in their windows. Entire strip malls had gone under, as had the neighborhood Jimboy’s Tacos. I think it would be fair to say that my friend’s story is not an isolated incident; that there are a large number of businesses across the country that were told to close down due to the Covid virus, that will never re-open again. These businesses created jobs; they provided tax dollars for government; which in turn could have been used to pay down the debt; instead of exploding that debt to astronomical proportions.

You can call me paranoid if you want to, but I believe that there is something going on here, something so evil that most people cannot imagine it; let alone wrap their heads around the possibility that it could happen in the land of the free and the home of the brave. I think that there is a plan that has been put into motion, a plan that has been formulated over the course of many years, to place the American people under the complete control of government, (under their thumb you might say), while at the same time giving government the authority to say which businesses are allowed to remain and which are forced to close; and which people are allowed to live, and which are not.

Those in government, and those behind it to pull the strings of your elected officials, may be evil, but they aren’t stupid. Through past experience they have seen how fear can be used to manipulate and control people; and it is through the fear of this Covid scandemic that they have put this plan into motion. I hear people talk about how Trump is playing 4D chess to defeat the Deep State. That’s utter bullshit, and I can’t believe people have fallen for it. Yet 4D chess is exactly what these evil sons of bitches have been playing for years…decades…and they have plenty of patience; playing the long game while most people are so ignorant and stupid they can barely play checkers, let alone 4D chess.

It doesn’t matter what the crisis is, I see people immediately look to government to end it, or at least protect them from whatever danger it poses to them. Is that self-reliance; every time something bad threatens you and you run to someone else to protect you from it? In his Virginia Resolutions, Query XIX, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.” What that means is when people become dependent upon something they also become slaves to it; as those who provide the things they depend upon grow greedy and lust for more power over those who depend upon them.

Ben Franklin once said, “Those who would give up essential liberty for a little temporary security will deserve neither and lose both.” How much liberty have we already surrendered due to perceived threats? Look at what happened after 9/11 with the passage of laws such as the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, and the Military Commissions Act; not to mention the expansion of both the TSA and the NSA’s unlawful surveillance of the American people.

Look what happens every time there is a mass shooting and Congress attempts to impose ‘common sense’ gun control laws; when common sense dictates that the means of preventing crime is not to disarm potential victims but to make the punishment for crime so severe that people think twice before committing them. As an obscure ruling in Wilson v State of Arkansas held, “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.”

The logic, or lack thereof, that people use simply astounds me; and people call themselves intelligent beings. Take for instance the argument over a woman’s right to choose whether or not to keep her baby or have an abortion. The argument they often use is that it is their body, their choice. Government has accepted that, with the Supreme Court upholding it in Roe v Wade. Yet turn that around and say that it is a woman’s body and she has the right to rent it out to men who are willing to pay for it, and oh no, that’s evil. What’s more evil; prostitution or the murder of an unborn child?

Getting back to the subject at hand; fear over perceived threats is what has caused us to willingly surrender most of our rights and liberty; and now we have this Covid virus, with people willingly surrendering not only their rights and liberty, but their livelihoods.

If one to rationally think about this Covid virus, (and yeah, I know, I’m asking too much of people again), they would see that the death rates from it are about equal to a bad influenza season. Yet they are saying that this is a global pandemic; something requiring drastic measures to combat. Well let’s look at that claim for a moment.

A pandemic is defined as an epidemic occurring worldwide; crossing international boundaries and affecting a large number of people. Does Covid fit those definitions? Thirty out of two hundred fifteen nations and territories have not had a single death attributed to Covid. Additionally, 50 nations have registered less than 10 deaths attributed to Covid. Sixty three more nations have registered less than 100 deaths due to Covid. Out of 215 nations, 187 of them do not fit the criteria for a pandemic; yet the world was essentially shut down for months on end over what; a lie?

For years now I have stopped believing in coincidences; and it is therefore highly suspicious to me that Dr. Anthony Fauci, who heads the Trump administration’s efforts to combat the Covid virus, was also in charge of the NIH, which had helped fund research at the Wuhan lab in China; where this virus supposedly originated.

It’s kind of like how, after 9/11, Senator’s Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy had opposed the policies of the Bush administration in response to it. Both senators got anthrax laced letters in their mail, and both miraculously switched their positions and supported legislation they had previously opposed.

What I find suspicious about that is the fact that the strain of anthrax in those letters was traced back to a military lab located at Fort Detrick, Maryland; and that one of the doctors being investigated for possibly sending those letters committed suicide by taking a toxic dose of acetaminophen. In other words, the guy killed himself by taking an overdose of Tylenol.

Coincidences? Sorry, don’t believe in them; not when the government is involved.

So, not only has the Covid virus not met the criteria of a pandemic by not spreading across the globe as the media has claimed, it has not even reached the criteria due to the fact that the mortality rate remains far under 1%; actually it is closer to 0.1%…far from the criteria required to be defined as a pandemic.

Yet look at what has happened because government officials said this was a pandemic, and the news media ran with that story; repeating the message over and over and over again. It kind of reminds me of what G.W. Bush said back in 2005, “See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”

My God, are people so dense that they can’t grasp the implications of that statement? Propaganda is defined as:

1. information put out by an organization or government to promote a policy, idea, or cause.

2. deceptive or distorted information that is systematically spread.

Bush basically told the people that they were being lied to, and the people were too stupid to recognize it. Hell, CIA Director William Casey told President Ronald Reagan in 1991, “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

Yet you trust them to tell you the truth about Covid, that their intentions are honorable; that they have your best interests in mind when they strip you of your freedom and deny you the ability to earn a living?

I could go into some speculations as to why this Covid virus happened; population control being one of them…but I won’t. What I want you to see, to recognize, is that for years you have been lied to by your government; with only snippets of the truth being hidden amidst a web of lies being broadcast by Big Brother’s Ministry of Truth…sorry, I meant broadcast news.

We’re just now coming out of the ass end of this lock-down and we’ve yet to see the reality of what has happened. Already meat prices are skyrocketing, and people are finding themselves without the means to put food on the table; and it is my fear that this is just the tip of the iceberg; that there is worse to come.

People you need to wake the hell up; take off your masks and your blinders, and start looking at what’s happening around you before it’s too late…if it isn’t too late already. Government, and when I say that I’m including lawmakers, law enforcers, and those who wear black robes and uphold the law in courts of justice, have no right, nor power, to deprive you of any of your unalienable rights or liberty unless you have been found guilty of violating the rights of others, or bringing harm to them through due process of law…and remember, Jefferson once said that law is often but the tyrants will.

If you don’t stand up for the rights of those you disagree with, then who will stand up for your rights when they are violated? If you want to wear a mask, stay home, practice social distancing because your fear of an imaginary pandemic has overruled your logic, then go right ahead; just don’t demand that everyone else submit to your irrational fears.

After all, if those masks truly protected you from Covid, why do you fear those who don’t wear them? Same goes for vaccines; why do you demand that everyone be vaccinated if the vaccine protects you from catching whatever it is you’ve been vaccinated for.

Our government wants us fighting amongst each other; seeking to deprive each other of their rights. They win no matter whose rights end up being lost; as they get to enforce the law, collect the taxes, and if my hunches are right, say who gets to live or die.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

An Open Letter to the Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps

Sir, as a veteran I am deeply disturbed by the policy recently enacted by the Marine Corps regarding the banning of all public displays of the Confederate Battle Flag; otherwise known as the Saint Andrews Cross. I understand that, as Commandant of the Marine Corps, you are ultimately responsible for maintaining order and discipline among the ranks, but I find it both offensive and disturbing that the Marine Corps would ban any public display of a historical image simply because it has been hijacked by racists and extremists.

We are told that the U.S. military, of which the Corps is an essential part of, stands for the principles this country was founded upon, and that it fights wars to preserve those principles. I feel that this recent move to ban any public display of the Confederate Battle Flag violates those principles the military claims to uphold and defend.

The freedom of speech and expression is the cornerstone of free political debate. It is a slippery slope one steps upon when they begin limiting what can be said or displayed simply because others find it offensive; or because certain groups have taken those images and words out of context and used them for evil purposes.

In 1919 Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis D. Brandeis held that speech could only be punished if it presented a clear and present danger of imminent hard. They further argued that mere political advocacy was protected by the First Amendment.

In 1787 Thomas Jefferson penned a letter to William Stephens Smith in which he said, “The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. … The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them.”

Although my time served in the military was decades ago, I recall how fond the military is of making service members attend briefings and classes. I had to go to numerous such classes during my 3 enlistments, so I know for a fact that they try to instill in their members justice, and equal rights for all their members.

I feel that your policy of banning the Confederate Battle Flag violates the rights of those who wish to display it. Could it be displayed by those who do not understand what it truly stands for; those who seek to pervert the cause of the Confederacy? Of course, but the argument that you must ban something because it has been used improperly is the same argument that has been used to enact laws that violate many of our other rights; such as gun control laws.

In 1943 Justice Robert H. Jackson held, “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

The Freedom of Speech, and expression are unalienable rights, one which you, as Commandant of one of the branches of the armed forces has taken an oath to support and defend. I feel that your actions are in direct violation of that oath; as they limit and restrict the rights of those whose right to display the Confederate Battle Flag has been denied.

I hope that you will reconsider your position, and instead of denying the rights the Marine’s claim to support and defend, that you might begin educating your Marines as to what that flag truly stands for; not the biased history they have been taught in school; and certainly not the misguided interpretations held by racists and extremists.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

Your Ignorance IS The Problem

“What are Men? Not rational Beings, surely, as they pretend to be, they bawl about Liberty, & only want the Liberty to make themselves slaves.”
~Thomas Tudor Tucker~
(May 13, 1789)

When I was growing up the older generation used to call the television the boob tube or the idiot box. I used to find that somewhat insulting, because when I was a kid being called a boob didn’t mean you were a woman’s breast, it meant you were an extremely stupid individual. Ever hear the saying, “With age comes wisdom”? Well, with the passage of time age has once again shown me that the ‘older’ generation may have been on to something I couldn’t see as a kid.

Now I’m not saying that those who watch a lot of television ARE stupid; what I’m saying is that watching a lot of television, (particularly the news), makes people stupid. This is doubly so if you happen to watch a lot of cable news on channels like FOX, MSNBC or CNN. You may as well inject yourself with horse manure if you honestly think than any of the news you’re watching isn’t biased or manipulated.

If you watch the news, especially if you do so to find out about major breaking news stories, then you’re most likely being pumped full of CIA fabricated misinformation. I can almost hear your thoughts now, “Here he goes again with those damned conspiracy theories.” Well a conspiracy is merely a plan by two or more people to commit an illegal or subversive act, and a theory is only something that has yet to be proved. However, there is plenty of evidence which supports this ‘conspiracy theory’ if you’d just unplug your TV and read about it.

Ever hear of Oscar Calloway? Calloway was a U.S. Congressman back in the early 1900’s, and one day he stood up on the floor of the House of Representatives and said, “In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interests, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States, and a sufficient number of them, to control generally the policy of the daily press….They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers.

An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper, to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature, considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.”

Now if you think that quote was fabricated by those who believe in these ‘conspiracy theories’, then I suggest you find a copy of the Congressional Record for the year 1917 and turn to page 2947. You’ll see it right there in black and white; part of the recorded history of Congress. So if the wealthiest of American businessmen can buy the newspapers, and decide what news they’ll print, what makes you think the CIA can’t do the same thing with television news?

Have you ever heard of Operation Mockingbird? Unless you’re a regular reader of my articles, you probably have not. Operation Mockingbird is a program by which the CIA, that began during the Cold War, (oh, I forgot, some of you kids were born after that ended), in which the CIA sought to utilize mass media to influence public opinion. Do you understand what that means; I mean DO YOU REALLY UNDERSTAND??? What that means is that if you get your news off the boob tube, then the information you are forming your opinions on is probably CIA disinformation – i.e. propaganda.

Operation Mockingbird did not limit its influence solely upon the television news; it also sought to exert its influence on newsprint as well. Both Time and Life Magazines were CIA run fronts, as was the New York Times, the Washington Post, and even the Christian Science Monitor.

The truth is that, if you want the truth you’re not going to get it from the boob tube or any of the major news papers; including USA Today, the New York and L.A. Times, the Chronicles, the Examiners, or any of the other fancy titles that imply they are filled with articles written by those possessing journalistic integrity.

These news stories you read and see on the news are designed to either shape your opinion for you or to limit what information you are being given on a story so that any opinions you form will be biased in a manner they control. I have to be so blunt, but if you watch the TV for your news, you’re a fucking dupe; someone whose thoughts and opinions are not their own; they are the fabrications of some twisted fuck who sits in a cubicle at the Central Intelligence Agency.

What you need to realize is, if there is a major story, with national implications, then there is a very real possibility that the coverage of that story you are watching is manufactured to shape your opinions; not provide you with the actual facts.

Just think about the stories that you see on the news; especially the ones that the news media latches onto like a dog with a bone; the mass shootings, terrorists attacks, or this Covid virus, they all are designed to get you to react a certain way in response to the information you are provided with; which 9 times out of 10 only contain a grain of truth to them.

They have gotten so good at this, aided a lot by the pathetic educations you have gotten at the hands of the public indoctrination centers; oops, I meant schools; which don’t teach you how to think critically; rather they teach you to think within the parameters of a box they create; imprisoning your mind. Anyone tries to reach you with truths that aren’t already inside that box, then you have been taught to reject them; to give them no consideration, and to label the person bearing those truths a nutcase, a cuckoo…a CONSPIRACY THEORIST.

Look at all this protesting and rioting over the alleged death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin. As I’ve said in other recent posts, I’m not saying events didn’t unfold exactly as that video showed they did, but then again I’m not saying they did either. I’m only saying is that the response to that video was predictable; because people have been programmed to respond to certain stimuli in certain ways. All they had to do was put out a story saying a (white) cop killed a (black) man and they knew the conditioning would kick in and there would be moral outrage, speeches, protests, and possibly even riots.


The problem with all this is that once people take a side on issues like this, once they form and opinion, the doors of their mind slam shut and they refuse to accept any information which might cause them to admit that they were wrong; force them to revise their position. It is the rare individual indeed who can, in the midst of an emotionally based state of mind, examine facts which cause them to forego their emotions and change their opinions. It happens, but not very often.

All people have been taught, [conditioned] to do is analyze basic facts, sometimes visual stimulations, and come to a conclusion based upon them. The people saw a white cop assaulting a black man, and they were triggered. Rage ensued, the desire for vengeance ensued, and those passions were expressed in riots and protests; which always draws out opportunists who seek the hide among the legitimate protesters to mask their desire to wreck havoc; to watch the world burn as a result of their actions.

If someone were to take a video of me saying something like, “I hate when people use the word faggot” but then only broadcast the part where I actually say the word ‘faggot’ people will call me homophobic; because they did not see the entire comment; a portion of it was taken out of context to cause you to hate me for being homophobic.

And, by the way, I am not homophobic; I don’t care what you do being closed doors with anyone else, as long as both of you are consenting adults. What I do care about is when those who engage in that kind of behavior try to make me accept it as normal, or subsidize it out the taxes taken from my wages.

My belief is that it is abnormal behavior; they call them reproductive organs for a reason you know; and men having sex with other men, or women having sex with other women cannot produce a life. So to me, that’s abnormal behavior; it violates nature. But if you want to do that kind of stuff, go for it, just don’t demand I keep my mouth shut about my thoughts on it, or accept it as normal behavior.
Sorry, got kind of side tracked there for a moment.

Getting back to the George Floyd incident which has sparked all this protesting and rioting, I have noticed that Mr. Floyd has been elevated from the status of a criminal to a martyr for the cause of justice. Should he have been killed, [that’s assuming anyone in that video was anything other than a paid actor], no, he should not have been killed in the manner he was. But the news media, and members of the black community, have elevated Mr. Floyd to a pedestal which is only a few steps short of sainthood.

George Floyd, although he shouldn’t have died in the manner that video shows, was no saint. Mr. Floyd was what we call a repeat offender; a career criminal. For crying out loud, the toxicology reports done during his autopsy show that he was under the influence of Fentanyl and Methamphetamines at the time of his death; meaning he was stoned out of his gourd.

Does that matter? Nope, white cop + black victim = outrage and martyrdom.

What about his criminal record, does that matter in disproving his elevation to martyr? Hmm, I’ll let YOU be the judge of that. In 1998 Mr Floyd spent 10 months in prison for theft with a firearm; or armed robbery. In 2002 he spent 8 months in prison for a drug charge. In 2004 he spent another 10 months in prison for a cocaine offense. In 2005 he spent yet another 10 months in prison for possession of cocaine amounting to less than 1 gram. Then in 2005 Floyd participated in a home invasion robbery in which he pulled a gun and held it to a pregnant woman’s stomach while his thug friends searched the house for drugs and money. Floyd spent 5 years in prison for that one.

But does any of that matter? No, white cop + black victim = outrage and martyrdom.

The BLM (Black Lives Matter) movement has taken the death of George Floyd and turned it into a movement to divide people along racial lines. But do black lives matter to them; really matter?

What about David Dorn, age 77 who was gunned down by rioters while he was trying to prevent looters from robbing a pawn shop in St. Louis Missouri? David Dorn, who’s he? Well Mr. Dorn was a retired police officer with a spot free record who just tried to do what was right; and he was gunned down by rioters for it.

Oh, by the way, David Dorn was black!!!

Where the fuck was the BLM when that happened? Where the fuck is their outrage over an upstanding BLACK citizen was gunned down in cold blood by rioters they supported? Black Lives Matter alright, but only when those lives are taken by cops or white men.

I remember when the Black Lives Matter movement became a thing, someone said All Lives Matter – and they were called racist for saying that. This is part of the programming people have undergone, one which keeps us divided along many lines; rich versus poor, black versus white, and anything else that can used as a wedge to keep people from uniting for one common thing; liberty and justice for all.

George Floyd has become the latest in a long line of poster boys for those in the black community who do not want to accept responsibility for the poverty and crime in their communities; who want to point their fingers at the big bad white man and his corrupt system that keeps them poor and oppressed.

Just look at what is happening to anything that represents the Confederate States of America and you’ll see that the racial divide that existed when slavery was still practiced is still there; and the fissure is widening constantly because schools do not teach the truth regarding that period of American history, and the news media keeps the fires of racial tension burning by pouring gasoline onto them with stories about injustice against blacks.

Yet if we were to look at the history of the Civil War we would see that going back to the beginning of America, a southerner named Thomas Jefferson, (and yes he owned slaves), sought to free them; to educate them, and then to relocate them outside the United States.

In his Notes on the State of Virginia Jefferson answers the question of why not free the blacks and let them live among the whites, “It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expense of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions, which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.” (Notes on State of Virginia, Query XIV)

Yeah I know, Oh My God, Jefferson thought blacks should be sent out of the country. So did someone else; someone who has been elevated to the status of one of our greatest presidents because he freed the slaves; none other than Abraham Lincoln.

In a publicized rebuttal of the Dred Scott decision Lincoln stated, “The enterprise is a difficult one; but “when there is a will there is a way;” and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.”

You see, Lincoln was an abolitionist; he thought slavery was evil; but so did George Mason, who in 1773 wrote, “That slow poison…is daily contaminating the minds and morals or our people. Every gentleman here is born a petty tyrant. Practiced in acts of despotism and cruelty, we become callous to the dictates of humanity, and all the finer feelings of the soul. Taught to regard a part of our own species in the most abject and contemptible degree below us, we lose that idea of dignity of man which the hand of nature has implanted in us for great and useful purposes.” Oh, Mason was also a southerner and a slaveholder.

But you see, what you aren’t taught in school is that not only was Lincoln an abolitionist, he was an EXLUSIONIST. Exclusionists, among which many of the northern Republicans were, are those who believe that the land of the United States was for whites only. They were what YOU might call today, the first White Supremacists.

Hell, in a debate for the presidency against Stephen Douglas, Lincoln stated, “While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great Laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

In fact, up until the years immediately preceding the nomination and election of Abraham Lincoln the Northern States had been divided into factions; with the Whigs, and the Free Soil factions dividing them and depriving them of political power. It was not until they united together into the Republican Party; whose platform was based upon Abolitionism and Exclusionism, that the Republicans were able to gain control of the White House after years of Democratic control.

Yet do any of these facts matter? No, Confederate Flag, Robert E. Lee, Southerners in general = Slavery = Evil = reason to hate them and deny their history and the truth. Forget about the beliefs of the North, forget about how the Northern States passed laws which would not allow freed slaves to move into their State, or how during the Civil War freed slaves were herded up by Union Forces and put into a concentration camp near Natchez, Mississippi, and left to die.

None of that matters, the South was evil because they OWNED slaves. Forget about the fact that Northern States, Northern ship owners profited mightily from slavery; that Brown University, a bastion of Ivy League learning, was built primarily off the profits made from the slave trade.

Lincoln, the Great Emancipator, throughout his political career, just wanted the slaves out of America so that America could be a land of WHITE Americans. History proves that to be true. Yet Jefferson, a southern slave owner, proposed a plan for educating them; providing them with the knowledge, the skills, and the tools required to become a self sufficient people. Then, and only then did he recommend that they be colonized outside the U.S.

But Jefferson was evil because he owned slaves, while Lincoln didn’t. Yet which of the two former Presidents had the best interests of the blacks in mind; Lincoln or Jefferson?

I know I’ll probably catch a lot of flack over this; but you know what, I don’t care. I stand for the truth in all things, and if the truth offends you, then too damned bad!!!

I stand for liberty and justice for all; not just for whites, and not just for blacks…FOR ALL MEN/WOMEN! If George Floyd actually did die in the manner shown in that video, then even though he was a career criminal he deserves justice. Yet at the same time, those who claim to be supporters of black lives, need to show equal outrage over the senseless death of David Dorn; but I’m betting you won’t hear a peep from them about it because it does not support their agenda.

Oh, and since we’re on the topic of justice for all, what about justice for Tony Timpa? Never heard of him? Why doesn’t that surprise me? Tony Timpa was a mental patient suffering from schizophrenia and depression. In 2016 Timpa dialed 911 and told the operator he had come off his medication and needed help.

The police arrived and pinned him to the ground, in a manner similar to that which supposedly caused the death of George Floyd. On a bodycam video taken from one of the officers you can see Timpa screaming, “You’re going to kill me” all while the officers laughed, told jokes, and kept Timpa’s face buried in the ground for 14 minutes.

Where were the riots and protests for Tony Timpa; or are blacks the only ones deserving of such things?

Like I said, I am for liberty and justice for all; but the sad thing is people don’t know what either are, and most don’t want them either. If you try to use facts, or common sense with people these days you find yourself targeted for insult by those who are incapable of critical thought, and are sorely lacking in common sense. To them it is their way or the highway.

Take the Pro Choice movement. They are all for a woman’s right to choose in deciding to terminate the life growing in her womb, but a woman’s right to rent out her body to men who are willing to pay for her time is wrong and should be criminalized. Yet the former is murder; no matter how you look at it, and the other is simply a business transaction between a person who has a commodity that she wishes to sell, or rent, for a mutually agreed upon price.

And not to leave out those on the conservative side of the coin, I hear all these pro 2nd Amendment groups whining about all the laws that have been enacted which violate, or infringe upon, their right to keep and bear arms. Yet not a one of them will go on record proclaiming their support for the purpose for which that right exists; to rise up and shake off a tyrannical government. What good is having a right if you don’t use it for the purpose it was intended for?

I’m woefully tired of people and their arguments in support of their positions on issues; positions that are founded upon the indoctrination they underwent in school, and which are reinforced by the media. I don’t look at things from the same perspective as most, I guess. I don’t see rich/poor; gay/straight; black/white, I only see people – individuals; each of whom has certain rights and liberty our system was supposedly designed to secure and defend.

Those who proclaim themselves to be supporters of minorities; be those minorities gay, poor, or black, should take to mind something Ayn Rand once said, “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”

I am a defender of the truth, and of the rights and liberty of the individual. It matters not to me whether those who seek to violate the rights, or deny the liberty of an individual are black or white; they are enemies to all that I stand for. And it does not matter to me who the victim of such oppression is; be they black, gay, or poor, I will defend them and their rights to my last dying breath.

It’s not about right versus left; rich versus poor; black versus white, it’s about liberty versus tyranny. So choose your side, but choose well; for if you align yourself behind a cause, an agenda, that seeks to impose tyranny upon those you disagree with, then you do not stand for what America once believed in, and you are my enemy.

It’s pretty simple actually, it just means following the Golden Rule; do unto others as you would have others do unto you. If you want me to defend and respect your rights, then you better make sure you defend and respect mine. You do that, we’ll get along just fine regardless of who you are, your social status, or your skin color. But if you don’t, then I don’t really care who you are, you are my enemy and I will defend my rights and liberty against you with whatever force I deem the situation warrants.

So tread lightly, you, your causes, and your agendas have pushed a large segment of this country into a corner; and if you have studied nature at all you will understand that the most dangerous animal on the planet is the one that is cornered and has to fight for its freedom.

So I would suggest to you that you unplug your TV’s, delete your Twitter accounts, and pick up a few history books and begin learning the truth; for what you’re saying now is just a repetition of the thoughts that have been planted into your minds by those who have controlled your indoctrination since the day you were born.

Posted in General | Leave a comment

An Open Letter to Law Enforcement (And Those Who Blindly Support It)

Before I get into the subject at hand I want to make it abundantly clear that this is not about the recent protests and rioting that has been going on, nor is it about the video that is the cause of these protests/riots. I’m not even sure that the account of what happened in Minneapolis is accurate; as there are things about it that don’t add up.

However, until I can prove my theories I’m going to go on the assumption that what people saw in that video is an accurate account of what happened; a Minneapolis Police Officer killed a handcuffed man by placing the full weight of his body onto his knee; which was placed across the neck of the handcuffed man, George Floyd.

You see, it’s not what I think happened that matters it is everyone else’s perception of what happened in that video that matters. So the question people must be asking themselves is, are they justifiably angered by what they saw in that video, or are they being played for fools because they reacted the way they did over a staged event designed specifically to cause these protests and riots. Again, I’m going to base this article upon the assumption that what you saw in that video is exactly what happened; nothing more, nothing less.

The perception many people have, particularly those in the inner cities and black communities, is that the police are thugs who abuse their power and authority. I find it interesting that the majority of whites in this country stand behind law enforcement unquestioningly; that is until they find themselves on the wrong side of the law.

I’d be willing to bet that the majority of those you see with stickers on their vehicles supporting law enforcement are white. However if you were to ask Randy Weaver or any of the survivors of the Branch Davidian compound whether they supported law enforcement unquestioningly, I’d be willing to bet that they’d say they didn’t; not after what they experienced at the hands of law enforcers.

Let me explain why I do not stand behind law enforcement. However, before I do I want you understand that I recognize the need for some kind of law enforcement; especially when we live in a country where the people have lost their moral compass and commit all manner of atrocities against their fellow human beings. That said, as an institution, I believe law enforcement is something we should not give our support to; not until they get their shit together that is.

I think that in 1850 Frederic Bastiat described to a T laws and law enforcers in America today, “The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!”

Let’s go way back in time to see if I can explain this in a manner that you’ll understand.

In 1776 fifty-six patriots affixed their signatures to a document that not only declared that they sought to sever the bonds which had tied them politically to Great Britain, it explained where our rights come from and the purpose they believed all governments should be instituted to serve. The words they risked their lives in support of were, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

That right there explains the purpose our founders felt government should serve, to secure the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, all laws passed by that government should serve that purpose, or else Bastiat’s words are true, “The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it!”

In 1787 another group of men, this time not so well intentioned, gathered together and drafted a document which would replace the existing one under the Articles of Confederation with one which they claimed would better serve the needs of the Union.

Three years after that document was ratified and put into effect one of the drafters of it, James Madison, wrote a short essay on property. I think what Madison said ties in quite nicely with our current discussion:

This term in its particular application means “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man’s land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho’ from an opposite cause.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own. (Source: James Madison, Property, 29 March 1792)

It is important that you understand that, particularly this last paragraph, “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.”

Therefore, as law enforcers, you must ask yourself who you serve, the people or those who right the laws you enforce. If you serve us, then it is your duty to not only protect our rights from citizens who might infringe upon them, but also to protect them from unjust or unlawful laws; for as Jefferson so aptly said, “…law is often but the tyrants will, and always so when it violates the right of the individual.”

So if all you do is enforce whatever laws government enacts, without giving any thought to whether those laws violate our rights or our liberty, then you’re exactly what some claim you are, jack-booted thugs who use force and violence against those who do not follow your commands or obey the law.

There is something you should consider when you decide whether or not to impose tyrannical laws upon the people you are sworn to protect, that being that 16th American Jurisprudence states, “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.” (Source: 16 American Jurisprudence, Section 256 137, 180)

It also states, “Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” (Source: 16 American Jurisprudence, Section 177)

You call those who do not obey the law, or your commands, lawbreakers. However, our country became independent because of lawbreakers. You would do well to undertake a study of the history preceding the American Revolution; particularly the actions taken by groups like the Son’s of Liberty in response to the Stamp Act of 1765.

These Son’s of Liberty demolished the offices of those charged with collecting the taxes imposed by the Stamp Act, they tarred and feathered tax collectors, and they looted and ransacked the home of the Royal Governor; Thomas Hutchinson. Oh, and let us not forget a little event outside of Boston at a place called Lexington Green where patriots refused to allow government agents to confiscate their arms.

I believe with all my being that were men like Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Samuel Adams alive today, they would be classified as domestic terrorists by the government you people serve.

If you truly were serving and protecting the people, as well as defending their rights and liberty, the majority of the laws you currently enforce would be nullified; for there would be no one enforcing them. I cannot see a State or U.S. Senator patrolling the streets enforcing the laws they write; it is law enforcement that does the dirty work of our lawmakers; and for that you should be ashamed.

I’m not saying every cop goes out and abuses the public, but I am saying that those who don’t are part of the system, and the system does contain many bad apples who treat the people as if they were sheep to be herded around; and if the people do not obey their commands they often find themselves brutalized by these law enforcers.

Why don’t the good cops speak out against those among their ranks who abuse their authority, or enforce laws that violate our rights and liberty? Is it because they are afraid of losing their job, or being reprimanded or chastised by their fellow officers? The Bible, in 1 Peter, Chapter 3 states, “Let him [man] eschew evil, and do good.”

Thomas Jefferson also took as his personal motto the following phrase, “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.” If I were to resist laws I believe were tyrannical; which deprived me of any of my rights or liberty; or were not in accordance with the specific powers delegated to government by the Constitution, I would be treated by you as a criminal. Yet aren’t those who write those laws the real criminals? Therefore, aren’t you either criminals yourselves, or at least accomplices for enforcing those laws upon the people?

If you are not among those who brutally assault the people you are sworn to protect, then your silence in response to those who do makes you as guilty as they are; for the legal maxim Qui tacet consentit translates to, “Silence implies consent.” Therefore, if you remain silent you are consenting to whatever abuses of power are committed by your fellow officers.

Four years before the Declaration of Independence was written Samuel Adams wrote a paper entitled The Rights of the Colonists for the Boston Town Meeting of November 20, 1772. In it he wrote, “Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can–Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature.”

It is our right as human beings to defend our rights, our property, and our liberty against all those who might seek to take them from us; including our government and those who enforce the laws it enacts; meaning you.

Getting back to Bastiat’s book The Law, in his chapter entitled What Is The Law, he writes, “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.”

We do not surrender our rights when we created government; we merely authorize them to enact laws to better protect them than we would have in a state of nature. Yes you have the authority to serve and protect us, our property and our freedom, but since you cannot be everywhere all the time, then we retain those rights as individuals, and can exercise them against any and all who might seek to deny us of our lives, our property, our rights, or our liberty.

In his Second Treatise on Civil Governments, John Locke writes about the state of war that exists when one man seeks to place another under his absolute jurisdiction, “And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me.”

Locke also explains what course of action a man thus subjected to has at his disposal, “I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.”

Finally, Locke states, “This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.”

I have the right to, not only, defend my life against those who would take it from me, but to also defend my property and my liberty with the same force I would use against an individual threatening my life; and any law that says otherwise is a violation of Natural Law and the purpose for which all governments are instituted among men.

Yet if government were to pass a law imposing a total ban on the private ownership of firearms, many of you would have no qualms about disarming the public in clear violation of their right to keep and bear arms, and their right of self defense; which as Adams said, is the first law of nature.

If government, and its enforcers, no longer serve the purpose for which government is supposed to serve, then the answer is not to vote for a better quality of candidate, or meekly consent to whatever tyranny it imposes upon the people, it is to alter or abolish that government, and to institute one which ‘shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.’ (Declaration of Independence)

It is our right to protest against those who would threaten or take our lives simply because we disobeyed some law that was fundamentally null and void, (recall what 16 American Jurisprudence said). It is our right to protest against those who enforce laws that violate our rightful liberty; which as Jefferson explained is, “…unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.” It is not only our right to protest against these things, it is our right to defend ourselves against them.

Robert Yates, writing under the pseudonym of Sydney, warned of the danger posed by our Constitution regarding our ability to defend our rights and liberty from attack by the government it established. His words stand in condemnation of those who both wrote and ratified that document, “What is to limit the oppression of the general government? Where are the rights, which are declared to be incapable of violation? And what security have people against the wanton oppression of unprincipled governors? No constitutional redress is pointed out, and no express declaration is contained in it, to limit the boundaries of their rulers.”

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

Those who write the law, those who enforce it, and those who see that it is upheld in our courts of law rule over us, as we have no power to punish them under the Constitution. Yet they can punish us with fines, jail time, and even death if we do not obey their commands. Does that not sound like tyranny to you?

I’m all for protesting, and if the situation truly warrants it, fighting against those who would oppress me. However, I am not for random and wanton looting and destruction of public property. If you’re gonna protest, then protest against those you feel have violated your rights. If you’re going to commit acts of violence, then commit them against those you feel have infringed upon your rights. Just know this, if you do bring violence against them, you cannot complain when they return violence upon you. I’m not saying people should commit such acts of violence; I’m only asking you to think about the repercussions if you do decide violence is necessary; and to not cry when you are met with equal, or more overpowering violence in return.

Believe me, I don’t want a civil war, or widespread violence and destruction. I see things from a different perspective than most, it would seem. I hear people say these protests are good, that they let government know the people are angry. Possibly, but they damned sure give the government all the justification it needs to enact even tighter restrictions upon our rights and liberty; and law enforcement will undoubtedly enforce them.

I even hear people calling for martial law and the suspension of the Posse Comitatus Act, which would give the President the authority to use the U.S. military against the people. I hear that they are working on revising the Patriot Act, and enacting even tougher gun control laws; such as a law that requires you to obtain a permit to own and operate your privately owned firearms.

How much you wanna bet those will be enforced by law enforcement as well?

If you are in the law enforcement community you need to ask yourselves who or what you serve, and are you willing to take responsibility for what might be coming to America simply because you obeyed the orders given you, or did not question whether the laws you were enforcing are constitutional? What we are witnessing now is partially due to the fact that you have become jack booted thugs who enforce whatever laws you are told to enforce, using whatever violence you deem the situation warrants, without ever thinking about the rights and liberty you may be violating by enforcing these laws.

The Nuremberg Trials set the standard that simply following orders does not exempt law enforcement from punishment when those orders resulted in the loss of a people’s rights, or their lives. Should such a trial be held again, you will be treated as a war criminal; not a peace officer or defender of the life, property and liberty of the people you are sworn to protect.

And, if you are among those who blindly support and defend law enforcement, and you have not changed your opinion after reading all this, I suggest you just crawl back into your ass; because you are an idiot.

Finally, for those of you who are used to reading my rants at work, this will be the last one you’ll ever see from me; I’m retiring. If you wish to continue reading them I suggest you bookmark this webpage; for that is where I post all my rants:

Posted in General | Leave a comment