WHO REPRESENTS WHOM, AND DID OUR FOUNDERS SUPPORT TERM LIMITS?

It is a sound and important principle that the representative ought to be acquainted with the interests and circumstances of his constituents.” James Madison, ~ Federalist #56

Article I Section 2 of our Constitution states in part, “The number of representatives shall not exceed one in every thirty thousand.” This number had been originally set at one representative for every 40,000 population in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, but at the recommendation of George Washington, the number was lowered to the numbers presently in Article I Section II. Washington stated that one representative for every 40,000 citizens was too large to “secure the rights and interests of the people.”

During the various state ratification conventions, the Anti-Federalists voiced their concerns the number of representatives per constituent would not rise as the population increased and it would be impossible for a single representative to adequately represent an ever increasing population. To which James Madison responded, “The number of representatives will be augmented from time to time in the manner provided by the constitution.” And so it was until 1910.

In 1910, the Congress reapportioned the House of Representatives from 393 members to 435, the same number we have today. Since 1910, the congress has repeatedly violated the provisions of the Constitution by not reapportioning the number of members in the House according to the census. Consequently, today, each member of the House of Representatives supposedly knows and understands the “rights and interests” of all of his/her 741,981 constituents.

Obviously, those in Congress way back then, understood if the number of representatives increased according to the Constitution, their individual power would become diluted and the campaign donations and special interest bribes would have to be split more ways. Is there anyone outside of the government cabal who believes any one person can truly represent the rights and interests of 742 thousand people? Our founders certainly didn’t think so!

Campaign costs have risen dramatically over the past few decades. In 2016, Colorado representative Mike Coffman spent over 3 and 1/4 million dollars to be reelected to a job for two years that pays 175,000 per annum. Whose “rights and interests” will be supported by this member of congress: the special interests who contributed the majority of that 3.25 million, many of whom do not live in this man’s district or even the state of Colorado, or the common citizen who is fighting to keep their head above water in this economy? No brainer, huh?

The price of admission into the political matrix is much too high for any ordinary citizen to contemplate. Therefore, the “rights and interests” of the common citizen which so concerned George Washington in 1787, are of little to no value to our current congressional membership, or by default, the voters who continue to elect them.

While the question would be: how could we ever afford to pay 10,000 members of the House of Representatives? My answer would be: convert them into citizen-politicians with strict term limits and drastically reduce their pay and the ability to play to special interests. What about more representatives for the people and less welfare and warfare? After all, it is in the Constitution.

With all of the new technology today, why should our representatives have to move to the District of Criminals? Would not representation be much better if the representative actually lived among those they are tasked with representing? If we scattered the covey, would it not make it harder for the lobbyists to wine and dine them all?

A possibility could be: rather than increase the number of members of the House of Representatives to absurd numbers, we could allow the states to resume some of the expressly delegated powers that have been seized by the federal government and bring us back in accord with our 9th and 10th Amendments.

Now, about those term limits. Let us venture back a moment to those Articles of Confederation, specifically Article V.

“For the most convenient management of the general interests of the United States, delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the legislatures of each State shall direct, to meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in every year, with a power reserved to each State to recall its delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to send others in their stead for the remainder of the year.

No State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor more than seven members; and no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the United States, for which he, or another for his benefit, receives any salary, fees or emolument of any kind.”

It is safe to say, especially so for those known as Anti-Federalists, our founders did not in any way support “career politicians.” One year terms and no delegate shall serve more than 3 years in any 6 year period is proof positive. I personally doubt you will find any member of Congress today who would agree with Article V of the Articles of Confederation.

Term limits were a part of James Madison’s “Virginia Plan” which was repeatedly voted down in the Convention of 1787, not because of the term limits provision but primarily because of the nationalistic position which would have made the states totally subservient to the central government. As a stand-alone provision term limits were rejected at the Philadelphia Convention “as entering too much into detail for general propositions.” As in many other aspects of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, the loss of state’s rights and the idea of a strong central government has been established by usurpation and tyranny.

Several of our founders, especially the Anti-Federalists, were very much in favor of term limits for those in government, some even insisted. A former officer in the Revolutionary Army responded to James Wilson of Pennsylvania, a federalist/nationalist concerning term-limits or “Rotation” as it was referred to during our founding era, “Rotation, that noble prerogative of liberty, is entirely excluded from the new system of government, and great men may and probably will be continued in office during their lives.” Another Patriot stated, “There is no provision for a rotation, nor anything to prevent the perpetuity of office in the same hands for life. which by a little well-timed bribery will probably be done to the exclusion of men of the best abilities from their share of offices in the government.

Melancton Smith, a staunch Anti-Federalist who wrote under the nom de plume of the Federal Farmer, stated that rotation/term limits “have a tendency to diffuse a more general spirit of emulation and to bring forward into office the genius and abilities of the continent.” Smith also stated, “A numerous body of  enlightened citizens stood ready to serve, if the Constitution, through rotation would limit the power of the rich and influential.”

Thomas Jefferson was most upset that no provision for rotation/term-limits was included in the Constitution believing that after a Bill of Rights, rotation was the most important item that should have been included. In a letter to James Madison, Jefferson stated the Constitution, “abandoned in every instance the necessity of rotation in office.”

The rightful concerns of the Anti-Federalists were exemplified in the passage of the 22nd Amendment.

Candidates/incumbents for reelection to the US Congress will state overwhelmingly the need for “experience and seniority” and declare forever the wisdom of re-electing them over and over.  Considering the current state of the economy and social unrest in this country, one might want to ask themselves “experience and seniority” at what: stealing, plundering and making themselves and their political cronies rich? At giving away their constitutional powers and duties to the Executive branch? At spending other people’s money?

Career politicians are anathema to Liberty and Freedom. But, we must all remember, we can’t depend on someone else to “drain the swamp” for us. We must do that ourselves. Voting every set number of years for a new master does not remove one from the perils of slavery, to paraphrase Lysander Spooner.

The overwhelming brilliance and knowledge of history led those known as the Anti-Federalists to strongly oppose several provisions of our government that have made them appear psychic to many students of the founding era. The things they warned of and the things they wanted included in our Constitution, which were not, have proved to be very prophetic.

It would be most productive if all American citizens would take the time to read and understand this group of American founders. Then, instead of listening to campaign lie after campaign lie and placing a vote based on hope or political party affiliation, we quite possibly could see real progress in the battle for Liberty against tyranny. BUT,——-I’m not holding my breath. Asking most Americans to both think and read seems an effort in futility.

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

  • Much of the information listed in this article can be found in “The Crossroads for Liberty: Recovering the Anti-Federalist values of America’s first Constitution” by William J. Watkins Jr.

 

EVEN A BLIND HOG…

Once, when a completely irrational relative did something commendable which was totally out of character, my grandfather declared that “even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while.” It would appear to the unjaundiced eye that the state of California has found the proverbial acorn and a committee or whatever the people to the left of Marx and Engels in that state call it, have hit upon the idea of secession. They did though take one giant step back in declaring such a move would require an amendment to our Constitution. We must excuse them for this mental lapse considering most cultural Marxists know little to nothing of history, much less the Constitution.

People who seem to know everything there is to know about how to extricate themselves from a failed marriage do have issues attempting to remove themselves from a government from which they have lost that loving feeling.

Of course, there is no mention of secession in our Constitution for the people of our founding era were well acquainted with the concept having just seceded from Great Britain and the Articles of Confederation. Perhaps that is why Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address, being fully cognizant of the ill will his election had created in the New England states with those of the Federalist persuasion, stated the following: “If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.” Notice, if you will, Jefferson said nothing of raising an army to invade those states or killing hundreds of thousands of folks to prevent secession from occurring.

One can be reasonably sure that the newly elected President Jefferson was also aware of the document his home state of Virginia had signed when they had ratified the Constitution in the summer of 1788. That document read in part,

“… the powers granted under the Constitution.” being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression…”

Ironic as it may seem, New York and Rhode Island placed similar statements in their ratification agreements. Considering Article IV Section II para I of our Constitution states, “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states” all states have the right to secede, even Californians.

The leader of the New England secessionists was Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, who had served as George Washington’s chief of staff, his secretary of war and secretary of state, as well as a congressman and senator from Massachusetts. “The principles of our Revolution [of 1776] point to the remedy – a separation,” Pickering wrote to George Cabot in 1803, for “the people of The East cannot reconcile their habits, views, and interests with those of the South and West.” “The Eastern states must and will dissolve the Union and form a separate government,” announced Senator James Hillhouse. Similar sentiments were expressed at the time by such prominent New Englanders as Elbridge Gerry, John Quincy Adams, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy, and Joseph Story, among others.

The New England secession movement gained momentum for an entire decade but ultimately was abandoned at the Hartford Secession Convention when the war of 1812 ended. Throughout this struggle, wrote historian Edward Powell in Nullification and Secession in the United States, “the right of a state to withdraw from the Union was not disputed.”

 

Now, one might ask themselves how Abraham Lincoln managed to get the whole thing so wrong in 1861? This is a most relevant question considering Lincoln stated the following in 1848, “Any people whatsoever have the right to abolish the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right.” Lincoln biographers and idolators never seem to get around to quoting this particular speech. Of course, in 1848, Lincoln was not bound to the industrialists of the North who had profited greatly from the institution of slavery* and their economically debilitating confiscatory tariff. Funny how the passion for other people’s money changes things in the eyes of a politician.

Ironically, even one of the abolitionists agreed with the Southern states when it came to secession. On December 17, 1860, abolitionist Horace Greeley wrote, “if tyranny and despotism justified the American Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861″** Then again in February of 1861 Greeley wrote, “Nine out of ten people of the North, were opposed to forcing South Carolina to remain in the Union, for the great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration . . . is that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed. Therefore, if the southern states wanted to secede, they have a clear right to do so.”

Similar statements were made by newspapers all throughout the North on the eve of the war, and are perhaps best represented by an editorial in the Kenosha, Wisconsin Democrat, which on January 11, 1861, wrote that “Secession is “the very germ of liberty” and declared “the right of secession inheres to the people of every sovereign state.”

“If military force is used,” the Bangor Daily Union wrote on November 13, 1860, “then a state can only be seen as a subject province and can never be a co-equal member of the American union.”

Most of the top military commanders in the war (on both sides) were educated at West Point, where the one course on the U.S. Constitution was taught by the Philadelphia abolitionist William Rawle, who taught from his book, A View of the Constitution, what Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, and others were taught about secession at West Point was that to deny a state the right of secession “would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.”

Lincoln never attended West Point, but he supported secession when it served his political plans. He warmly embraced the secession of West Virginia from Virginia, which was a violation of our Constitution*** and was glad to permit slavery in West Virginia (and all other “border states”) as long as they supported him politically. If, as was true in Missouri, the government did not support him, Lincoln simply invaded that state militarily and replaced the legislature, an act of Treason.****

After the war, Jefferson Davis was imprisoned in the harshest of conditions but was never tried for treason, and for good reason: The federal government knew that it had no constitutional case against secession, as Charles Adams described in his brilliant book, When in the Course of Human Events. After his release from prison, Jefferson Davis wrote what would have been his legal defense of secession in the form of a two-volume book, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government.

The centralization of governmental power not only leads to the looting and plundering of the taxpaying class by the parasitic class; it also slowly destroys freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas. One of the first things every tyrannical government does is to monopolize the educational system in order to brainwash the young and bolster its political power. As soon as Lee surrendered at Appomattox, the federal government began revising history to teach that secession was illegitimate. This was all a part of Lincoln’s “revolution” which overthrew the federal system of government created by the founding fathers and put into motion the forces of centralized governmental power.

Peaceful secession and nullification are the only means of returning to a system of government that respects rather than destroys individual liberty. As Frank Chodorov wrote in 1952: “If for no other reason, personal pride should prompt every governor and state legislator to take a secessionist attitude; they were not elected to be lackeys of the federal bureaucracy.” Of course, California does not mind being the lackey of Hillary Clinton, it is Donald Trump they object to leading that federal bureaucracy.

So, it does appear that the blind hog which is the Marxist state of California has indeed stumbled upon an acorn. We shall see if they have the mental acuity and foresight to eat it.

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

*Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery.

**New York Daily Tribune

***Article IV Section III

**** Article III Section III

 

 

 

 

 

SECOND VERSE SAME AS THE FIRST

 

“The value of history is, indeed, not scientific but moral: by liberalizing the mind, by deepening the sympathies, by fortifying the will, it enables us to control, not society, but ourselves — a much more important thing; it prepares us to live more humanely in the present and to meet rather than to foretell the future.” ~ Carl Becker, 1873-1945 (All emphasis is the author’s throughout)

If a person or a political entities goal is to create a strong centralized government which operates basically as an oligarchy, it will become necessary to disguise those intentions. The best disguise for an oligarchy is to clothe that form of government with the costume of a democracy. But, in order to have the masses actually believe they are involved in their own governance, any comprehensive study of history must be perverted or abandoned altogether.

For any government to transform from a government operating with the consent of the governed to a tyrannical and oppressive government directed and controlled by the powerful few, two elements must be created and developed within the governed populace. These elements, though different in composition, must be complimentary in nature.

First of all, a tyrannical government needs a totally compliant majority within the masses who, no matter what atrocities the government commits, will be rationalized away much as a battered wife defends and denies the acts of an abusive spouse. The oppressive government can take a majority of what these people earn and give it to others who refuse to work; shoot unarmed mothers in the face; shoot 14-year-old sons in the back; incinerate young children and adults in their church and lie about it; provide explosives to so-called terrorists which were subsequently used to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993: withhold evidence in the investigation of an assassinated president, a civil rights leader, two presidential candidates; evidence in the case of TWA-800; withhold evidence in the OKC bombing; constantly monitor all forms of communication involving its citizens without the whisper of probable cause and other various assortments of violations of our Constitution and Bill of Rights while the country’s borders are wide open, offering unfettered access to our families by the relatives of those whose countries we have invaded immorally and unconstitutionally, killing hundreds of thousands in the process.

While the above indictments of our government’s tyrannical actions barely scratch the surface of what has taken place in the past few decades, the paradoxical actions of the masses defies all logic. A majority will question domestic actions of their government which destroys the concept of consent of the governed, yet overwhelmingly support that same government when it lies for justification to go to war. Somehow a government that steals your money destroys your God-given rights and refuses to protect the states from invasion must be totally supported when it prevaricates about the reasons for putting our sons, daughters, mothers and fathers in harm’s way when they illegally and immorally occupy the country of others and kill any who resist. Government’s very existence requires those who blindly follow the dictates of that government to be perceived and celebrated as heroes to the ignorant but compliant masses.

Then, of course, there is the second element that guarantees a despotic government continued support and blind allegiance to its agenda. This is the enforcement arm of that government which usually takes the form of a standing army— something our founders feared more than foreign invaders and the police at all levels. When a government steps outside its legal mandates it must possess the ability to rule by force instead of consent. Laws formulated to destroy rather than protect the Natural Law and concomitant restrictions on those who govern requires the threat of violence and coercion while Natural/Common Law is accepted by most and does not require the standing armies and militarized police forces of today.

To gain broad acceptance among the historically ignorant, members of the enforcement arm of the government must be viewed as “heroes” for their dedication to protecting the freedoms of the masses. The fact the very opposite is occurring; the government is being protected by this enforcement arm and not the people’s rights is lost on the idolaters of unrestrained power, willing dupes and the historically challenged.

Would there ever have been an America if folks like Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, George Washington, Ben Franklin, John Hancock, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and others would have decided to “support the troops” instead of demanding their God-given rights from a government acting not at all unlike the one we have now? Would they have supported the forces and called them heroes that shot down a child and several others at what we refer to as the Boston Massacre because the enforcers were “just doing their jobs” or would we justify the killings because the government’s enforcers thought the mob was armed and didn’t show their hands on command?

A study of history reveals that somehow the government of the few is able to “rally the masses” to their agenda as they go about mass murder, private property destruction and genocide against those with the audacity to challenge their actions. Statements throughout history reveal a basic theme of demonization of many who just want to be left alone or as the Declaration of Independence states “assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them.” I can assure you the enforcement arm of our present government will be unleashed on any individual or group that attempts to assume “their separate and equal station” just as they have on many occasions in our country’s history.

Let’s look at the similarity of the words of those deployed against those who just wanted to be left alone to determine their own destiny instead of kowtowing to tyrannical rule. Of course, all of the government’s assets, including a bought and paid for media must be employed to demonize those who would resist the will of the government aggressor.

From our Second War for Independence, known to the great unwashed as the Civil War:

“Extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the [Southern] people.” (This continues to this day.)

“To the petulant and persistent secessionists, why death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better . . . . Until we can repopulate Georgia, it is useless to occupy it, but the utter destruction of its roads, houses, and people will cripple their military resources” 

“Government of the United States” has the “right” to “take their lives, their homes, their lands, their everything . . . . We will take every life, every acre of land, every particle of property . . .” (can you see here the possible origins of thought of those who now populate and wear the uniform of the BLM, Oregon State Police, FBI, and USFS?)

“…the war will soon assume a turn to extermination not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the people . . . . There is a class of people, men, women, and children, who must be killed…” Union General William Tecumseh Sherman

Sherman’s wife Ellen wrote of her wish for a war “of extermination and that all [Southerners] would be driven like the Swine into the sea.”

Then this same philosophy was turned on the American Indian who stood in the way of “progress.” Well, in reality, not progress so much as lining the pockets of the controllers of the oligarchy. Time spent studying the book “Hear that Lonesome Whistle Blow” by Dee Brown will illuminate your path to the history in that regard.

“It is my purpose to utterly exterminate the Sioux. They are to be treated as maniacs or wild beasts, and by no means as people with whom treaties or compromise can be made.”  ~ Union General John Pope, 1862

“We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to the extermination, men, women, and children” ~ Union General William Tecumseh Sherman

“The more Indians we can kill this year, the less will have to be killed next year,” Union General Sherman to Union General Sheridan.

Now, let us look at our government’s current villain de jour: Muslim extremists.

 “You go wherever in the world the terrorists are and you kill them, you do your best to exterminate them, and then you leave, and you leave behind smoking ruins and crying widows.” ~ Lt. Colonel Peters on FOX News

How Shermanesque of the good Colonel? Would he object to those he seeks to exterminate having the same thoughts about him and his family? Are these “terrorists” he speaks of his personal enemies or just the current enemy of the government he blindly supports? Perhaps he believes taking away all our freedoms at home would prevent future attacks perpetrated against us “because we are free.”

“We need to kill them. We need to kill them, the radical Muslim terrorists hell-bent on killing us. You’re in danger. I’m in danger. We’re at war and this is not going to stop.” ~FOX News’ Jeanine Pirro

Well, I’m no theologian, but I suspect Jesus would tell that god-fearing, red-blooded American Sniper, ‘well done, my good and faithful servant, for dispatching another godless jihadist to the lake of fire.’ But then again, I’m no theologian.” FOX News’ Todd Starnes

Does anyone see a pattern here? How very convenient is historical amnesia or just historical ignorance when it comes to supporting the enforcement arm of our tyrannical and oppressive government as it goes about its daily task of robbing the people, destroying their rights and property and by threat, coercion, or willful ignorance demanding allegiance thereto?

Would Colonel Peters, Ms. Pirro or Mr. Starnes dare comment on the fact our government has provided billions of our tax dollars to these “Muslim terrorists” and “godless jihadists” for decades and continues to do so even now? We could begin with the 500 million provided to these forces back in 1978 by the CIA, the funding for ISIS and al Qaeda, or the fact we supported these very same forces in Kosovo. Has FOX News forgotten their own reporter spoke with Senator John McCain on his support for arming ISIS in 2013? Have they forgotten McCain’s proud moment displaying his picture made with these “terrorists” (Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Muhammad Noor) on his “secret trip” to visit and support them (ISIS) on Memorial Day in 2013?

Ignorance of history and moral decay is destroying our country. How convenient is it to forget that our country provided funding to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao? How many millions of innocent lives are these three responsible for? Did our dollars contribute in any way to their wanton acts of genocide? Did our dollars buy the guns or the bullets?

This continued ignorance and blind patriotism directed toward the enforcement arm of our tyrannical government serves only to accelerate our loss of Liberty and eventual enslavement: spiritual, mental, economical and physical.

It might be time to look backward in order to better understand moving forward.

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

DANCING WITH THE SUPREMES

Prior to last week’s election, much was stated and printed concerning the appointment of new members to our Supreme Court and how that decision should be used as some form of litmus test reference a voting choice for president. My question concerning both a choice for president and for the Supreme Court is this: if our government acted constitutionally, what difference would it make who was elected or appointed to either position?

Do we truly expect those elected to president and those appointed to lifetime positions of power over others to follow their sacred oaths or do we just pick and choose candidates based on who is the most convincing liar? No need to answer; voters actions over the past 5 or 6 decades provides all the evidence needed. We did not get in the mess we are in, in this country, because we have intelligent, informed voters who cherish Liberty and their Natural rights.

“The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine our Constitution from a co-ordinate of a general and special government to a general supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet. … I will say, that “against this every man should raise his voice,” and, more, should uplift his arm …” — Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Ritchie, Sept. 1820

Well, it would appear that ignorance of our Constitution and the intent of the framers of that document has reached an all-time high. The majority of responses coming from the species Ignoramus Americanus, especially in dealing with the Nazi-like actions of the Bureau of Land Management and the FBI in Nevada and Oregon, directed against ranchers Cliven Bundy and his sons Ammon and Ryan, is that the Federal Courts have “so ruled” in one manner or another and therefore their decisions preclude any Natural or Common rights Mr. Bundy, his sons, and supporters, and by default, “we the people” might have.

The public fool system in this country has worked its intended magic; the majority of people in this land subscribe to the entitlement paradigm even when it comes to their basic rights. Broken down to its lowest common denominator, the belief is: there are nine people wearing black gowns who sometimes meet in the District of Corruption who will provide you with the proper interpretations of your Constitution and the Creator granted rights included in the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence. If you partake of their handouts, you must abide by their laws, regulations and executive orders.

This is such a great help because it requires absolutely no effort from the common citizen; no need to read or study the intent of our Founders or our country’s history. Everyone is entitled to a proper understanding of their rights as interpreted by those with more intelligence than the masses and therefore nine-lifetime employees of the guvmint will provide them for you. Their decisions and rulings are as direct deposit as your welfare, Obamacare, and food stamps. You are entitled to them and by damn you’re going to get them no matter how much it costs your working neighbor.

Has anyone taken the time to parallel the decline of this country and the loss of freedoms with the accepted belief that the US Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of all things constitutional? Give it a try sometimes instead of watching your favorite TV show, ballgame or cars going fast in a circle. Amazing what a little knowledge can do to one’s acceptance, or lack of same, reference government sponsored tyranny.

One only has to look back in time to discover the innate wisdom of these oracles in black gowns from on high and why we should bow at their feet and marvel at their knowledge and understanding. Below are just a few examples.

  1. Early in our history, the federal oracles supported the Sedition Act (United States v Callender) which made it a federal crime to question or criticize the actions of the government. (Ironically, this has been supported by every tyrant in history.)
  2. 1857- Dred Scott v Sandford where these black-robed bastions of wisdom declared members of the Black Race, “non-persons.”  The Chief Justice and the court said Blacks were: “beings of an inferior order and altogether unfit to associate with the white race” with “no right which the white man was bound to respect.” This ruling destroyed the Missouri Compromise and for all practical purposes led to the Civil War and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. The Dred Scott decision pumped new life into the rapidly dying institution of slavery.
  3. 1903- Lone Wolf v Hitchcock. Supreme Court basically said that Congress can do anything it wants to with an Indian tribe, including steal its land. Sounds good I’m sure unless of course, you are an Indian.
  4. 1944- Korematsu v United States. This was a decision which declared it was constitutional to deprive an American Citizen of Japanese descent his Freedom and Liberty because of his nationality. It also legitimized the placing of over 100,000 such people in “internment camps.” Ironically, the late Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia stated that “during wartime legal norms (read the Constitution and Bill of Rights) can be swept away.”
  5. 1973- Roe v Wade. This decision, which sanctions infanticide, had no textual foundation in the Constitution itself, it struck down many state statutes, and it created new law. All of which was a Supreme Court ruling by fiat.
  6. 2000- Bush v Gore. In this decision SCOTUS deemed themselves smarter and more powerful than the voters in Florida and therefore our entire country. One must remember that just because you might favor an unconstitutional decision by the Supreme Court that does not make the unconstitutional act less egregious. The court snatched the power to decide the election away from not only the Florida court but also the Florida legislature and the US Congress. There was also disrespect of prior state law. The Constitution says that when you have a presidential election with either possible irregularities or a non-majority of electoral votes, the judge is to be Congress, in particular, the House of Representatives. Remember, in the Bush v Gore decision, the SCOTUS actually ordered votes stop being counted; the will of the people be damned.

No problem says Boobus–but they haven’t taken the time to read who the government has declared its enemy. Are you a constitutionalist, a second amendment supporter, stocking food and ammo, in fear of an economic collapse, believe in a “new world order,” do you homeschool or fear runaway government? If you do, according to the Department of Homeland Security, you might be a domestic terrorist and subject to future internment camps according to the Supreme Court. You could be one Executive Order away from confinement, just like the American citizens in 1942, Blacks in 1857 or the Indians in 1903.

There are countless other examples of Supreme Court usurpations of the Constitution, including the creating of law out of whole cloth (Obamacare) and it would take hours to cover these acts in print.

The point was made most succinctly by Jefferson when he stated, The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” (Letter to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804)

If you believe for a moment that the Judicial branch of our government is not despotic then count yourself among the millions of Americans who are willfully ignorant of their own history and more importantly of their own Natural rights as granted by their Creator. Christians especially might want to recheck the First Commandment if they consider the Judicial branch to be the arbiter of their God-given rights.

Instructive also is the beliefs of those who sit on high and make decisions that will ultimately control their very lives. Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia once told a playwright that the brute force of military action and the subsequent deaths of over 800,000 Americans settled the controversy over Secession (not the Constitution) and Associate Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsberg stated in her work, Sex Bias in the US Code, that “The age of consent for sex must be lowered to age 12; prisons must be sex-integrated; Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts must be sex-integrated; Mother’s Day and Father’s day must be integrated and the words husband and wife must be eliminated from legal language and discourse.”

If you think for a moment that these oligarchs care one iota about your constitutional rights, you could not be more mistaken. To believe that a majority of nine have the authority to rule over 300 million people is the repudiation of all things constitutional and the complete destruction of Natural and Common law.

The ignorance of the majority should never control the destiny and lives of true Patriots and those who cherish Liberty. Institutional ignorance is a blight on humanity and was never intended to be its controlling element.

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

WHAT WILL THEY DO NOW????

All last week social media was alive and crawling with various renditions of how the “good” folks down at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) were bringing and had brought pressure on their director, a political hack if there ever was one, one James Comey, to step up to the plate and do what is morally and constitutionally correct. From that point forward, post after post had to do with all of the politicians, shills, and sycophants who would shortly be indicted, on what charges, and whether or not they would all die in prison.

Ah, but yesterday reality reared its ugly head and Comey again became nothing but a useful idiot for the legions of criminals who control much, if not all, of our government. He said, supposedly after perusing some 650,000 emails in less than a week (the FBI did not obtain a warrant until the night of October the 30th) that lo and behold, Hillary was still innocent, now doubly so for she had been twice vetted. All this in spite of numerous Wikileaks released emails that are prima facie evidence of corruption, immorality, pay for play, possible pedophilia, and pure criminality which we could all read for ourselves, without the assistance of our betters in government.

Faced with this disgusting turn of events, what will those “good” agents in the FBI do now? Will there be mass resignations? Possibly, but very doubtful. When these people weigh the cost of standing up against tyranny and oppression and honoring their oaths to “uphold and defend” our Constitution against all enemies, “foreign and domestic” on the one hand and a good paying job, power over the peons, prestige, and a great pension on the other hand, simple logic tells us which will prevail. Honoring one’s sacred oath takes character. I believe character to be in short supply, if totally non-existent in the halls of government, especially at that level.

But, I believe there is a great lesson in all of this, especially for those among us who have contracted the blue virus. Constantly, on social media, there is the tribute for this or that “hero” who is in the government’s employ and wearing the proper costume. All of these folks also took a sacred oath to uphold and defend the same Constitution as those in the FBI. Are they better or worse at honoring their respective oaths?

Who will the criminals like Hillary and her minions send into our towns and cities to enforce their draconian, unconstitutional laws? Who do they send now? A check on congressional votes as they comport with our Constitution and Bill of Rights shows that well over half of the votes cast in Congress are for laws that are blatantly unconstitutional. Need I say more than Obamacare and The Patriot Act? Who are the people who are enforcing these laws now in your town, city or county? Are they the “heroes” mentioned above?

Has any of your “heroes” ever arrested a man or woman for exercising their Second Amendment rights to protect themselves without the proper government permission? If they have, they are “domestic” enemies to our Constitution. Do they arrest themselves or each other for this miscarriage of justice? Why not? Why should anyone be obligated to obtain permission from the government to exercise their Creator granted rights? If you still believe your heroes have the authority to enforce unconstitutional laws, who is your god, really?

If you need a litmus test on which to check out your “heroes,” try this simple couple of questions. First, ask if they will participate in the illegal confiscation of firearms if ordered to do so by any government official. Be forewarned, their canned answer is: “it can’t/won’t happen here.” Never mind that it has already happened, be persistent in obtaining an answer, after all, it’s your Creator granted right to protect you and your family from harm or even death you are inquiring about. If, after insisting on an answer to the first question, you are still not under arrest and on your way to booking, ask the follow-up question. If all in the law enforcement profession are ordered to confiscate legally owned firearms by any government official and you claim you will not enforce such laws, will you protect my rights from your fellow folks in uniform? Will you use deadly force against these folks if necessary to ensure my Creator granted rights are protected inviolate? Chances are, you will never receive a truthful answer to this question from your professed “hero,” if you receive an answer at all.

In the early 20th Century, a much more constitutionally astute Congress, much more than any in our recent history, proposed the 18th Amendment which, once ratified by the states, outlawed the manufacture, transportation, sale or possession of intoxicating liquors. Here, Congress proposed a terribly failed concept: legislating morals. But, at least they knew it would take a constitutional amendment to do so. This precipitated the birth and growth of one of the largest criminal enterprises in our country’s history. Finally, realizing the error of their ways, the Congress then proposed, and the states ratified, the 21st Amendment which repealed the 18th.

Years later, with a much less constitutionally aware Congress and a dumbed-down populace, there was passed and accepted the criminalization of certain substances without the required constitutional amendment. How many of your “heroes” have been involved in enforcing these unconstitutional laws? How many of you wonderful “constitutional conservatives” support these unconstitutional edicts? What is the difference in the “chemical medication” you get by government permission and the ones that are considered criminal, especially those that grow naturally? Please don’t tell me they are safer until you watch all of the commercials out there for suing legal drug companies for the health damages and even death their “legal” products have produced.

Might legal or illegal have anything to do with who has the money to lobby congress to achieve their goals and protect their financial bottom line? Could the reason these “good folks” and “heroes” support and enforce unconstitutional drug laws be because the pharmaceutical industry has more political clout than the combined totality of citizens in this country? Why, in your mind, is someone granted “hero” status for enforcing laws that are contradictory to our Constitution?

Hey, if you want laws against these substances, do it the proper way—by constitutional amendment and not by usurpation. And stop calling those who willingly enforce unconstitutional laws—-heroes. The true heroes would be those who refuse to enforce these laws until there is a constitutional amendment which supports that enforcement.

Our founders repeatedly warned us of the dangers of a “standing army” and legions of “federal sheriffs.” We have ignored them all because our current rulers are much more intelligent in our eyes than were Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Yates and many others.

For the past 4 months, you have witnessed one of your primary “federal sheriffs” in action in the person of Jim Comey. Now, who was right; Jefferson and Patrick Henry or Obama and Loretta Lynch? Have you chosen the wrong side? Do your so-called heroes enforce and protect your Creator granted rights or the laws of the tyrant? What does it take to be a hero in your mind? A uniform and a badge or an unwavering commitment to constitutional governance? Your answer says much more about you than you realize!

Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it shall pass to destruction, to wit; by consolidation of power first and then corruption, its necessary consequence.”

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

 

THE SOUTH, REAL DIVERSITY, AND THE WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION

 

Author’s Note* Somehow revisionist historians would have us believe Abraham Lincoln perpetrated an unconstitutional war on the people of the North and the South to free an oppressed people of color. Considering Lincoln’s open war on the American Indian and his subordinates attitudes towards the various tribes, one would have to be extremely naive or just downright ignorant to believe those court historians who simply parrot the state provided socialist mantra.

This war will be pursued against you if it takes years or until you cease to exist or move.” ~ Union General James Henry Carleton before beginning his Abraham Lincoln ordered campaign against the Navajo, 1863-4

It is my purpose to utterly exterminate the Sioux. They are to be treated as maniacs or wild beasts, and by no means as people with whom treaties or compromise can be made.” ~ Union General John Pope in 1862 on beginning his campaign against the Santee Sioux. The campaign was ordered by Abraham Lincoln

“Ordered that of the Indians and Half-breeds sentenced to be hanged by the military commission, composed of Colonel Crooks, Lt. Colonel Marshall, Captain Grant, Captain Bailey, and Lieutenant Olin, and lately sitting in Minnesota, you cause to be executed on Friday the nineteenth day of December, instant, the following names, to wit… “Text from President Lincoln to General Sibley ordering the execution of 39 Santee Sioux in Minnesota. 1862

The great debate on whether the so-called Civil War was fought to free an enslaved people or to collect an oppressive, confiscatory, protectionist tariff will continue as long as there are people who seek to justify the destruction of the South and the deaths of over 800,000 Americans in order to cover for an avoidable, unnecessary war in which the “consent of the governed” was destroyed and became mere words on a piece of parchment.

Almost totally forgotten are the American Indians and their role of resistance in this great crime against humanity, initiated and managed by a man who violated our Constitution more than any other president in our history. Obama is a rank amateur when compared with “Honest Abe.”

“This [Lincoln’s] amazing disregard for the Constitution was considered by nobody as legal. One man was the government of the United States,” wrote historian Clinton Rossiter, who also referred to Lincoln as a “great dictator.”

US History shows that if you are a bold enough tyrant to violate multiple tenets of the Constitution, wrongfully imprison those who disagree with your planned invasion and subjugation of a people who wished to peacefully separate from a government they saw as being oppressive to Liberty; the tyrannical government you led will place a large marble monument and statue in your honor and glorify your crimes as being just.

Within days of his death, Lincoln’s life was being compared to that of Christ. Future president James A. Garfield would say at Lincoln’s death, “It may be almost impious to say it, but it does seem that Lincoln’s death parallels that of the Son of God.”

Lincoln destroyed the office of president as intended by the founders and converted the office into a virtual monarchy, blatantly suppressing both Congress and the courts. For those who coveted a stronger central government which would allow the enslavement of all the people, Lincoln’s actions were indeed seen as an act of God. Children in the Public Fool System, members of the Republican Party and politicians of both parties have been worshipping Lincoln ever since.

What part did the American Indians play in this tragedy, you ask? First of all, there were the Five Civilized Tribes who joined the Confederacy, with the exception being one small band of Creeks who sided with the Union.

Below is an excerpt from the “Unification with the Confederacy” document written by Cherokee Chief, John Ross. Please pay special attention to the reasons the Cherokee nation joined ranks with the South. Nowhere can there be found a better description of the atrocities visited on the South by Lincoln’s criminal hordes. Please bear in mind these words came from the pen of a man who was the chosen chief of men of color, not a revisionist historian nor a cultural Marxist.

“…Disclaiming any intention to invade the Northern States, they [Confederacy] sought only to repel invaders from their own soil and to secure the right of governing themselves.

They claimed only the privilege asserted by the Declaration of American Independence, and on which the right of the Northern States themselves to self-government is formed, of altering their form of government when it became no longer tolerable and establishing new forms for the security of their liberties.

Throughout the Confederate States, we saw this great revolution effected without violence or suspension of the laws or the closing of the courts, The military power was nowhere placed above the civil authorities. None were seized and imprisoned at the mandate of arbitrary power. All division among the people disappeared, and the determination became unanimous that there should never again be any union with the Northern States. Almost as one man, all who were able to bear arms rushed to the defense of an invaded country, and nowhere has it been found necessary to compel men TO SERVE, or to enlist mercenaries by the offer of extraordinary bounties.

But, in the Northern States, the Cherokee people saw with alarm a violated constitution, all civil liberty put in peril, and all rules of civilized warfare and the dictates of common humanity and decency unhesitatingly disregarded. In states which still adhered to the Union, a military despotism had displaced the civil power and the laws became silent amid arms. Free speech and almost free thought became a crime. The right of the writ of habeas corpus, guaranteed by the constitution, disappeared at the nod of a Secretary of State or a general of the lowest grade. The mandate of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was at naught by the military power, and this outrage on common right, approved by a President sworn to support the constitution. War on the largest scale was waged, and the immense bodies of troops called into the field in the absence of any law warranting it under the pretense of suppressing unlawful combination of men.

The humanities of war, which even barbarians respect, were no longer thought worthy to be observed. Foreign mercenaries and the scum of the cities and the inmates of prisons were enlisted and organized into brigades and sent into Southern States to aid in subjugating a people struggling for freedom, to burn, to plunder, and to commit the basest of outrages on the women.

While the heels of armed tyranny trod upon the necks of Maryland and Missouri, and men of the highest character and position were incarcerated upon suspicion and without process of law, in jails, in forts, and prison ships, and even women were imprisoned by the arbitrary order of a President and Cabinet Ministers; while the press ceased to be free, and the publication of newspapers was suspended and their issues seized and destroyed.

The officers and men taken prisoners in the battles were allowed to remain in captivity by the refusal of the Government to consent to an exchange of prisoners; as they had left their dead on more than one field of battle that had witnessed their defeat, to be buried and their wounded to be cared for by southern hands.”

Museum of the Cherokee. 
Thomas Legion Flag.jpg
The Thomas Legion Flag in 2007.
 Anyone care to wager whether Cherokee Chief Ross’ Declaration has been read or mentioned to the students down at the local high school–ever? Could they name General Stand Watie or Colonel Thomas and recite their history? Have you ever read of them before?

The Confederacy promoted a man of color, Cherokee Stand Watie, to the rank of General. At no time was a man of color given such high regards, responsibility, and rank in the Union Army. In fact, the majority of Black units in the Union Army during the war were commanded by White officers and enlisted Blacks in the Union Army were paid less than their White counterparts performing the same duty.

Neither should we ever forget the largest execution of American Indians (Santee Sioux) whose guilt was entirely in doubt on 26 December 1862; an execution ordered by the so-called “Great Emancipator.” 39 members of the Santee Sioux were hanged with their trials lasting less than 10 minutes each.

Our history continues to be distorted and great men such as Stand Watie, and William Holland Thomas, who led the only legion (69th North Carolina) on either side during the war, are unknown to many simply because those who destroyed our Constitution and Bill of Rights in order to implement a Marxist form of government could only do so with lies and an unholy ascension to the moral high ground.

In February we celebrate President’s Day, a holiday for two former presidents; one of whom led this country to freedom, the other who destroyed consent of the governed and implemented a Socialist regime at the point of a bayonet. He issued worthless paper money, instituted an income tax and created the IRS. Karl Marx wrote to Lincoln complimenting him on his destruction of the South and Hitler praised Lincoln’s justification of war against the South in Mein Kampf. Can there be any wonder why he is worshiped by big government idolaters of both current political parties?

When is the next Lincoln Day dinner? Have you bought your tickets yet?

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

 

 

 

 

MISSOURI AND OUR SECOND WAR FOR INDEPENDENCE

 

“In Northern Missouri the irregularities of the soldiers—such as taking poultry, pigs, milk, butter, preserves, potatoes, horses, and in fact everything they want; entering and searching houses, and stealing in many cases; committing rapes on the negroes and such like things—the effect has been to make a great many union men inveterate enemies…Then drunkenness is a great curse of officers and men…I can fully substantiate all I have written.” ~ John T.K. Hayward, Unionist and general agent for the Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad, August 13, 1861, in a letter forwarded to Secretary of War, Simon Cameron as found in War of the Rebellion: A compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Volume 3 page 459

(Authors note: I was fortunate several years ago to meet a gentleman, Robert Arnold of St. Louis, Missouri, who, as a fellow ancestor of those who valiantly fought for Liberty in our Second War for Independence graciously provided me with the following account of  the actual events as they occurred in Missouri during this sordid period in our history. Rest assured Mr. Arnold’s revelation will not be included in the history books read or studied by your children and grandchildren. My thanks to you, Mr. Arnold)

“Missouri had voted to remain in the Union but refused Lincoln’s call to arms.  Here’s Gov. Claiborne Jackson’s reply to Washington DC, during April 1861:

“Your dispatch of the 15th instant, making a call on Missouri for four regiments of men for immediate service has been received.  There can be, I apprehend, no doubt but that the men are intended to form a part of the President’s army to make war on the people of the seceded states.  Your requisition, in my judgment, is illegal, unconstitutional and revolutionary in its object;  inhumane, diabolical and cannot be complied with.  Not one man will Missouri furnish to carry on such an unholy crusade……(signed) Claiborne F. Jackson, Governor.”

Immediately upon receipt of the above, Lincoln ordered an unconstitutional military invasion and take-over of Missouri.  Gov. Jackson activated the Missouri State Guard in his state’s defense.  The Guard was placed under the command of Sterling Price, himself a former Missouri governor.  The Union army of invasion consisted of mostly Germans from the East, placed under the command of Gen. Lyons, who was stationed in St. Louis at the time.  Lyons was ordered to oust Gov. Jackson and the duly elected legislature from the capital and to occupy the state.  Union forces took over Jefferson City at bayonet point, Jackson and the legislature escaping ahead of the invaders.  They traveled along with Price and the State Guard.  Lincoln appointed a temporary governor, Hamilton Rowan Gamble.

Following several skirmishes between the Missouri State Guard and the Union army invaders, there ensued the Battle of Wilson’s Creek near Springfield, Missouri, or as we prefer to call it, the Battle of Oak Hills.  Lyons was killed and the Union army defeated.   It was the first major battle of the war west of the Mississippi.

Following that battle, Jackson and the state legislators convened near Carthage, Missouri, and submitted an act of secession from the Union.

“Whereas the government of the United States, in the possession and under the control of a sectional party, has wantonly violated the compact originally made between said government and the State of Missouri by invading with hostile armies the soil of the state, attacking and making prisoners of the militia while legally assembled under the state laws, forcibly occupying the state capital and attempting through the instrumentality of domestic traitors to usurp the state government, seizing and destroying private property and murdering with fiendish malignity peaceable citizens, men, women and children, together with other acts of atrocity, indicating a deep-seated hostility toward the people of Missouri and their institutions, and…

Whereas the present administration of the government of the United States has utterly ignored the Constitution, subverted the government as constructed and intended by its makers, and established a despotic and arbitrary power instead thereof:  Now, therefore,

Be it enacted by the general assembly of the State of Missouri, that all political ties of every character now existing between the government of the United States of America and the people and government of the State of Missouri are hereby dissolved and the State of Missouri resuming the sovereignty granted by compact to the said United States upon admission of said State into the Federal Union, does again take its place as a free and independent republic amongst the nations of the earth..

This act to take effect and be in force from and after its passage.

Passed by the Missouri State Senate October 28, 1861

Passed by the Missouri State House of Representatives October 30, 1861

Signed into effect by Gov. Claiborne Fox Jackson October 31, 1861.

Following its announced secession from the Union, Missouri applied for admission to the Confederate States of America and was admitted into the CSA by an act of her Congress during November 1861, as the 12th state in the CSA and as the 12th star in her various flags.

Nay-sayers to this very day will contend the legislature that passed the above act of secession from the Union was not in quorum.  It has been counted that they were in quorum, and to the contrary, it doesn’t make sense that they would take such action without a quorum.  Nay-sayers will then argue that they’d been ousted from the capital in favor of Federal appointees and were therefore not the legitimate state government, but we argue that they were the elected state government.

Price took the State Guard into Arkansas where they were merged into the regular Confederate army and he was commissioned a Brig. General. Gov. Jackson died during the war, in Little Rock, and the Lt. Gov. took the legislature to Marshall, TX, where he continued to conduct the affairs of state until war’s end.  To this day, Marshall, TX, brags that it’s the only city in America to host another state’s government.  During the war, Price was asked to assume command in the East, under Lee, but Price refused his president by saying that his only concern was his home state.  He twice led armies back into Missouri.  The first attempt was repelled and the second was still underway when the war ended.  Price went to Mexico after the war, then to England, before returning to St. Louis after things calmed down where he was greeted with a ticker-tape parade. He originated the Price Mercantile Company, but died in St. Louis at a relatively early age.  He’s buried beneath a large monument in St. Louis’s Bellefontaine cemetery.

The Union army had camps in nearly every county in Missouri for the duration of the war, occupying the state under martial law.  Lincoln appointed representatives to the United States Congress from Missouri while at the same time Missouri sent representatives to the CSA Congress.  One of Lincoln’s cabinet members was from St. Louis – I believe it was Blair. So both countries claimed Missouri during the war, and I suppose that had the South won its independence, Missouri would have been part of the new country.”

“There is a Southern Accent, where I come from.

The young’uns call it country, the Yankees call it dumb.

I got my own way of talkin, but everything is done

With a Southern Accent, where I come from.”

Southern Accents, lyrics by Tom Petty, performed by Johnny Cash
IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

DID SECESSION HASTEN THE END OF SLAVERY?

*Author’s note: There is a question which deserves much more attention than it receives: Considering Lincoln was willing to make slavery perpetual and to remove it from even congressional action with the Corwin amendment in order to “preserve the Union,” had the Southern states repealed their secession, when would slavery have ended? Not rejoining a Union in which slavery would be perpetual is proof positive the war was not about slavery, nor did the South secede to protect slavery. I believe a substantial case can be made that had the Southern states not seceded and had in fact rejoined Lincoln’s precious Union, slavery would have existed much longer in this country than it did.

“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.” Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.

When Abraham Lincoln took office in March of 1861, this country had observed as legal the institution of chattel slavery for its entire existence. President Lincoln, having secured not one electoral vote from the Southern States declared in his First Inaugural Address that it was his full intention to use the power of the presidency to perpetuate and protect that onerous institution “in the states where it exists.”

Certainly not taught in our government schools is the fact that two days before Lincoln took the Oath of Office of President, a proposed amendment to the Constitution referred to as the Corwin Amendment passed both houses of Congress and was being sent to the states for ratification. Lincoln spoke of his support for this amendment in his Inaugural address on March 4.

“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

History shows that Lincoln was not being truthful when he stated he had not seen the proposed amendment which had passed both houses of congress. Author Doris Kearns-Goodwin in her “political biography” of Abraham Lincoln titled Team of Rivals states the following on page 296.

“He [Lincoln] instructed Seward to introduce these proposals in the Senate Committee of Thirteen without indicating they issued from Springfield. The first resolved that ‘the Constitution should never be altered so as to authorize Congress to abolish or interfere with slavery in the states.’ Another recommendation that he instructed Seward to get through Congress was that ‘all state personal liberty laws in opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law be repealed.”

Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo, author of The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked declared that Lincoln not only was aware of the proposed amendment but, was in fact, its author. Below is the text of that amendment which was authored/endorsed by Lincoln, passed by both houses of congress and sent personally to the governor of each state by Lincoln himself, proof of which was discovered in 2006 in a museum in Allentown, PA.  This critical piece of history is available in the records of the U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, The Constitution of the United States of America, Doc. No. 106-214.

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”

Prior to Lincoln’s military invasion of the South, Lincoln had done everything within his power to make chattel slavery perpetual throughout the entire country. He had also instructed his Secretary of State William H. Seward to work on federal legislation that would outlaw any attempts to nullify the Fugitive Slave law. Several states in the North had passed laws to prohibit the federally mandated return of fugitive slaves. Lincoln wanted a federal law that would counter such legislation by the states.

Lincoln was more than willing to make the enslavement of the black race perpetual–if it would preserve the Union.

Looked upon by an intelligent eye rather than an emotional one, Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, which he issued twice, must be seen as simply another political maneuver to preserve/restore the union.

If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it. …What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union.” ~Lincoln in an open letter to Horace Greeley, which appeared in the New York Tribune on August 22, 1862.

Here, again, in his own words, Lincoln states that Slavery was not his primary interest. Lincoln’s primary goal was the preservation of the Union which would protect the interests of the Socialists in his cabinet and armed forces who were the founders of the Republican Party.

The now grossly misunderstood and misrepresented Emancipation Proclamation was political BS plain and simple. The edict freed only the slaves in the states in which Lincoln had no control. It did not free any of the slaves that were currently under the control of the Union Army in occupied territory in any of the Southern states. The questions must be asked: if the Union forces had not achieved what Lincoln considered to be a victory at Antietam, would he have issued the proclamation? If the Army of Virginia had won a demonstrative victory at Antietam, when would Lincoln have issued such a proclamation, if ever?

In Lincoln’s own words to Greeley, he stated he would willingly continue slavery if it would lead to the preservation of the Union. Prior to the beginning of the war, Lincoln wrote and endorsed a proposed amendment to the Constitution which would have prohibited Congress from ever abolishing or interfering with the institution of slavery. In addition, he ordered the effort be made to create a federal law that would nullify any state law that prohibited the return of fugitive slaves. The fact this same man is now referred to as the “Great Emancipator” is a great illustration of the gullibility and ignorance of the masses in our country. Adolph Hitler had the misfortune of coming to power in the wrong country.

Still, the most important question that could be asked is this; If the Southern states had not seceded; if the Union had been preserved without a war; at what point in the history of this country would a new constitutional amendment have been proposed and passed that would have freed the slaves?

Simply stated, if the South had not seceded and defended themselves from the invasion of Union forces, slavery would have been extended in our country indefinitely; the Corwin Amendment guaranteed that. It was the threat of a break-up of the Union and not any act by Abraham Lincoln and his socialist cronies that led to emancipation.

The credit for emancipation should be given to those who challenged and fought against Lincoln, not to the president who “destroyed the Constitution in order to preserve it.” Lincoln’s actions and a war that killed almost a million Americans; a war to ensure a country indivisible, were praised by Karl Marx and Adolph Hitler–need I say more?

Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo:

“Lincoln used war to destroy the U.S. Constitution in order to establish a powerful central government…” This is certainly a strong statement, but in fact Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus; launched a military invasion without consent of Congress; blockaded Southern ports without declaring war; imprisoned without warrant or trial some 13,000 Northern citizens who opposed his policies; arrested dozens of newspaper editors and owners and, in some cases, had federal soldiers destroy their printing presses; censored all telegraph communication; nationalized the railroads; created three new states (Kansas, Nevada, and West Virginia) without the formal consent of the citizens of those states, an act that Lincoln’s own attorney general thought was unconstitutional; ordered Federal troops to interfere with Northern elections; deported a member of Congress from Ohio after he criticized Lincoln’s unconstitutional behavior; confiscated private property; confiscated firearms in violation of the Second Amendment; and eviscerated the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.”

Lincoln and the radical republicans who put him into office held our Constitution in contempt. They knew the Southern states were seceding because of the government’s unconstitutional actions. The South was willing to leave the Union in order to protect their rights under the Constitution.

OK, Rebel, where is your proof Lincoln and the republicans held our Constitution in contempt and as an impediment to their goals and agenda? As the saying goes, “read em and weep.”

Members of Lincoln’s cabinet referred to the Constitution as “the tail of a paper kite” and “the rotten tail of a Virginia abstraction.” The above are credited to Lincoln’s Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, as is this quote from Stanton, “A written constitution is dangerous to those of the North, for the South is using it as a shield.”

Wendell Phillips, a Boston lawyer and abolitionist said this of the North and the US Constitution, “We confess that we intend to trample underfoot the Constitution of this country.”  Phillips also quoted Daniel Webster as saying the “people of New England are a law-abiding people.” To this Phillips stated, “But I say we are not a law-abiding community. God be thanked for it.”

Thaddeus Stevens, a radical republican member of the US House of Representatives from Pennsylvania was even more emphatic. “The talk of restoring the Union like it was, and the Constitution as it is, is one of the absurdities which I have heard repeated until I have become sick of it. There are many things which make such an event impossible. This Union never shall, with my consent, be restored under the constitution as it is …” “The Union as it was and the Constitution as it is–God forbid it. We must conquer the Southern states and hold them as conquered provinces.”

So, the war was not about slavery, it was about collecting a protectionist tariff and the destruction of the country “under the Constitution.” Those who continue to parrot the opposite are physical slaves to a godless, constitution–less, government and its willing shills and sycophants. More alarming, they are also mental slaves.

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

 

 

POSITIVISM AND INTELLECTUAL COWARDICE: AMERICA’S KRYPTONITE

 

“As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose–that it may violate property instead of protecting it–then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder.”  ~Frederic Bastiat

Positivism is the legal philosophy that laws need not pass any type of muster such as adherence to a constitution, justice, fairness or the laws of humanity, sometimes better known as Natural rights, to be binding and enforceable on the citizens of the affected country. The belief that law is whatever the legislature proposes, the executive signs and the judicial approves, or in other words, law is whatever the government says it is, has been the precursor to the most tyrannical and heinous regimes in history. Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Mao’s China and Kampuchea under Pol Pot are prime examples. It is not mere coincidence that positivist regimes eventually involve mass execution of the innocents at the hands of those in charge of the government.

Bastiat wrote the quote that began this article something over 160 years ago; so how was he able to see with such clarity the type of oppressive government we have in America today? How did he know that “…everyone will want to participate in making the law…?” How does the government get those who are the most adversely affected by its policies to “participate” in the creation of laws that basically enslave them while destroying their Natural rights?

The history of the past 60 or so years in our country alone illustrates how easy it is for the government to entice everyone to participate in making laws and regulations that are the very basis of the destruction of their individual liberties. All that is required is either an emotional or a financial attachment to the actions of that governing body.

A great example of financial attachment to government is the wonderfully failed Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. This odious piece of progressive, socialistic legislation has had to be revamped (read bailed out) over 20 times since its inception. Yet, if one were to judge from the political ads on TV, even the so-called “conservative” Republicans support overwhelmingly the continuance of an obviously failed concept. Republicans and Democrats are more than willing to financially obligate our posterity to this program because they believe they should be able to recover their investment made over many years, even though they had no choice in the matter. Had these same people lost their money in real estate or the stock market, to whom would they look for satisfaction? Tyrannical government perpetuates itself with the mistaken belief that it “guarantees” a return on monies seized by force and coercion from the masses.

Obviously, an openly despotic government that continues unabated in its destruction of our personal liberty, watches our every move, reads our emails and texts, sends our loved ones to die and be maimed in unprovoked wars, places us and our posterity in smothering debt and dictates how much water goes into our toilets is acceptable as long as we believe it owes us some money; money that will be stolen from our grandchildren, plus operating expenses of course.

While the financial aspect of wanting to be involved with and even support out of control government is understandable, possibly the most virulent form of support comes through the emotional channels. First of all is the polarization of factions within our country. The government is continually promoting hate and distrust among various groups. These can be political, race-based, religious based polarization or perhaps even heritage based differences. There is hardly anyone alive who would not embrace an unconstitutional act or law by our government if it was thought that act or law would be used against those we emotionally oppose.

(In theory) Republicans would gladly support any act or law that would depose our current president while any Democrat would have been equally as happy if the act or law had gotten rid of Bush. Blacks would gladly support legislation that would help them get even with the white oppressor and whites would be equally content to bring down those who believe they are owed a living because their ancestors of 150 years ago were slaves.

Author Andrew Napolitano accurately describes Positivism thusly:

“No matter how ill-advised, unnatural, or immoral; how unlawful, unconstitutional, or hateful; how biased, self-serving, or fraudulent; under Positivism, the majority that lawfully controls the government lawfully gets its way.”

The one emotion the government cherishes and uses more than others is FEAR! They keep the populace on edge with threats of terrorism from groups that our tax dollars have created and financed. We are engaged in a never-ending war on terror, yet how many are even aware that the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom, recently stated the following: “[B]y any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”

Now, of course, we face the threat of deadly viruses known as Ebola or Zika. Every news broadcast cites more and more the need for alarm and government mandated vaccinations. Does it concern anyone that the U.S. Department of Health holds a patent on an Ebola Virus? Here, take a look for yourself. Does it bother anyone that the Rockefeller Foundation owns the patent on the Zika virus? Seeing as how patents routinely cover inventions, what does this say about the US Department of Health, the Ebola virus and the Rockefeller Foundation and the Zika virus?

Now, for Intellectual Cowardice and how that plays into the mix: What is the definition of Intellectual Cowardice and how does that relate to how people rationalize their support of unconstitutional, tyrannical government?  Intellectual cowards are most often champions of Positivism which is simply Progressivism or Neoconservatism with lipstick. Seeing as how their religion is based on the principles of whatever the government says is gospel, their only arguments must be grounded in emotions rather than intellect.

When challenged on those beliefs with ideas, possibilities based on history, verifiable facts or our Constitution and Bill of Rights, the Positivist/Progressive must resort to emotional responses since their position is completely devoid of intellect. We have all encountered their patented responses. Ad hominem attacks are their weapon of choice. Anytime facts and evidence cannot be countered with intellect, the Positivist/Progressive seeks to destroy facts with emotionally based name calling. The most common are, conspiracy nut, racist, homophobe, Neoconfederate and the ever popular, anarchist. Once those magical words are uttered, the discussion is over in the mind of the Positivist/Progressive/Neocon.

We can succumb to the siren song of comfortable living espoused by the Positivist/Progressives until such time as our government, like all governments before it, becomes completely despotic. Positivist/Progressives/Neocons live quite comfortably supporting laws that take from others and destroy liberty until such time the government they support realizes the absolute need for concentration camps, firing squads, forced mass inoculations, and large ovens.

If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair” ~C.S. Lewis

COMPLAINING OF SYMPTOMS, IGNORING THE CAUSE

 

Arguably, the greatest form of mental illness in this country is cognitive disconnect. People get totally lost when it comes to being able to rationally address cause and effect. Of course, mental acuity, when saturated with liberal doses of emotionalism and group think becomes feeble to non-existent. The symptom I wish to address specifically is one that has been on the political table for decades: immigration. The causes, which are all too often ignored, are directly related to unconstitutional acts by our government. Many times these unconstitutional acts are wildly supported by a constitutionally ignorant population.

First, let us take a look at the out of control illegal immigration into our country from our neighbor to the South, Mexico. Almost all of this illegal activity can be attributed to our unconstitutional drug laws and the vaunted “war on drugs’ that has emaciated our Bill of Rights to a disease ridden skeleton of what was intended by those we call Anti-federalists in our founding history.

If there was ever a litmus test for those who claim to be “constitutionalists,” it would be their stance on drug laws. As stated in previous rants, as a country we believed an amendment to our Constitution was required to prohibit sale, possession, and consumption of alcohol; thus passage of the 18th Amendment. After 13 years of rampant crime and the establishment of very organized criminal elements who were buying cops, judges, and assorted politicians, the 18th was repealed by the 21st. The people of this country recognized the futility of any attempt to legislate morals but witnessed the accompanying loss of individual rights and the rise of the police state with more and more powers specifically designed to increase powers of the government at the cost of personal freedoms. We completely ignored all the lessons learned from this debacle in the prosecution of the “war on drugs.”

I believe it would be safe to say that people who simply illegally walk across our Southern border do so for one of three reasons. First, many are seeking to escape the Narco-state government of Mexico, a government that is predominantly bought and paid for by drug cartels, much as our government was bought and paid for by the organized crime during prohibition and its attendant violence. Violence directly related to the drug cartels in Mexico is pandemic. How could anyone not understand the basic human desire to escape such violence?

Secondly, many of those who illegally enter our country do so to profit from the drug trade. They bring the violence of Mexico to the streets of our country. If you doubt this for a second just tune into the news of any metropolitan area and watch and listen to the crimes perpetrated on good citizens and check the ethnicity of those who are charged with those crimes. I can remember at one time when our family lived in Tucson Arizona, the “10 most wanted” fugitives from justice were all illegal aliens. I would assume it is not much different in most towns and cities today.  Of course, political correctness demands such things as citizenship status not be mentioned in the reporting of these multitudes of crimes against legal citizens and their property.

Third, there are those who simply come to this country to feast and live on another unconstitutional act by our government; to wit, social welfare programs. As was stated by Libertarian writer Hans Herman Hoppe, when one lives in a country that has welfare programs, immigration rapidly becomes an invasion. There is a provision in our Constitution that requires our government protect each and every state from invasion (Article IV, section IV) but it has been ignored in favor of unconstitutional acts such as welfare and the so-called war on drugs.

Now, the internet and social media are alive with the discussion of immigrants fleeing to countries in Europe with our country now announcing plans to accept a few hundred thousand of these folks as well. But, there is very little discussion of why those folks are leaving their home country by the millions. Think about it: how hard would it be for you to just pull up stakes and start walking to another country? How bad would things have to be for you to undertake such an action? Could it be the illegal, unconstitutional, immoral wars you have been supporting for the past 14 plus years in the Middle East might be the root cause of this massive immigration? It is inherent in the human mind to flee from violence and migrate toward freedom. A close examination of why our ancestors migrated to this country might hold some answers. What is that inscription again on the Statue of Liberty by Emma Lazarus?

“Give me your tired, your poor, 
Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

Are we not even more responsible for those people considering our unconstitutional military intervention and the asinine belief in American exceptionalism which created the “tired, poor, huddled masses, yearning to breathe free?” For those of you who cannot seem to grasp the true meaning of American exceptionalism, it is when the acts of others, countries or politicians, are considered criminal, but if America does the same thing it is both correct and laudable.

The very real result of our support for unconstitutional acts such as welfare programs, drug wars and immoral military actions are the migration of vast numbers of people who do not simply seek to “breathe free” but seek to inflict retribution on the people they see as the ones who caused them to flee their home countries. Has anyone else noticed the large numbers of young military-aged men who are among those fleeing wars in the Middle East? One must ask themselves: are any of those young men relatives or friends of those who have died at the hands of those we support militarily in the Middle East or perhaps our own soldiers? Could there be relatives or friends of those who have perished during drone attacks such as those at a wedding in Pakistan or the hospital in Afghanistan? Does the story of the Trojan Horse or a study of 3rd or 4th Generation Warfare have validity here?

There are pertinent idioms pertaining to this issue: “You reap what you sow,” “Actions have consequences,” and “It is time to pay the fiddler.”

We have supported and defended unconstitutional acts because it gave us some emotional feeling of compassion, righting wrongs, leveling the playing field or that age-old prescription for destruction, “working for the greater good.” Unfortunately, ignoring the basic principles of our country for such an extended period of time has brought the “chickens home to roost.”

We will soon be awash in the results of ignoring our Constitution and Bill of Rights. All of these immigrants will bring on crime and violence of an unparalleled level which will require even more welfare and more police state activities with a subsequent total loss of individual liberty. Imagine if you will, Chicago on a summer holiday weekend played out in every community in this country.

We have traded away our rights as granted by our Creator for a few decades of feel-good emotionalism. The resultant “feelings” from our unconstitutional acts will require a very high price in the not too distant future. There will be much weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth and little consolation can be found in the fact we supported it all through blind passion, emotionalism, ignorance, and worship of the American state.

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY