Our country and perhaps the entire world is doomed because the overwhelming majority of people have lost their ability to think cognitively instead of basing their strongly held convictions on emotionalism. Most people on this planet are more fearful than knowledgeable. The sheer lack of knowledge concerning human behavior is overwhelming. Could it be this fear and lack of historical knowledge has created an environment in which freedom and liberty cannot possibly exist?

Shortly before the November election of 2014, a poll was taken concerning the confidence of the people of this country in their members of Congress. Only 11% of the people expressed confidence in the ability of Congress to do their jobs, yet, in that year’s congressional election over 96% of congressional incumbents were reelected. The only way this can be explained is in most areas of this country Americans are fine with the crook they know, it’s just everyone else’s crook who should not be elected.

So, should the average American voter be in fear of Congress? After all, it’s just 535 people on their team and over 300 million people they supposedly represent, the majority of which does not trust them. Does the mere thought or image of Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Chuckie Schumer, Tammy Baldwin, Jared Polis, and David Cicilline strike fear into the hearts of mortal men?

Each and every elected official and most of those appointed to government bureaucratic positions take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Ostensibly, the Constitution should be the prime directive for all of those who take this oath. Unfortunately for freedom and liberty, our members of Congress do not regularly follow their oaths to uphold and defend. As a matter of fact, of all 535 members of the House of Representatives and US Senate, less than one percent (.0693%) of these members vote in support of their sacred oath at least 70% of the time. 46% of the members of Congress vote constitutionally just over 50% of the time while a whopping 32% vote with our Constitution less than 25% of the time.

For the record, Hillary Clinton’s VP running mate, Tim Kaine, as a member of Congress, voted constitutionally only 1% of the time, yet her campaign, via CNN, has voiced concerns that a Trump presidency will destroy the Constitution.

Considering the above, I believe it would be logical to state less than half of the laws passed by our Congress are constitutional in nature. Perhaps this is why we fear these people; because they have the ability to destroy our individual freedoms, but they do not have within themselves the ability to force compliance with those unconstitutional mandates. That is where the people with uniforms and badges come into play. As paradoxical as it appears, most Americans fear those who pass unconstitutional pieces of legislation but worship at the feet of those who have/will enforce those unconstitutional laws.

And, if you believe for a millisecond that cops and soldiers will not come to your door to seize constitutionally owned firearms if ordered to do so by those who refuse to abide by their own sacred oaths, you are ignorant/delusional beyond comprehension or help.

Pursuing the same points, there appear to be tens of millions of people who are petrified of the thought that Hillary might become our next president. Why should anyone fear a 69-year-old crime family moll who needs help walking up stairs, has obvious seizures and is otherwise mentally deranged?

If we had a constitutionally operating government, Hillary could do little to nothing criminal or tyrannical, even if elected, because she would be surrounded by those who hold that document to be important enough to follow it unconditionally despite threats or promises of financial gain.

A good case can be made that considering the absolute criminal nature of our present government, Hillary Clinton is by far the most qualified candidate to run such a criminal enterprise as criminal-in-chief. Many people fear what Hillary will do with the current powers of the office of president of this country, but almost all of those unconstitutional powers have been accumulated in that office many years prior because the voters of this country were OK with creating a political criminal enterprise as long as that enterprise was run by a candidate of the party of their choosing.

Voters–stand and behold the criminal enterprise of your creation which was constructed under the two major political party paradigm and the millions who have for decades rationalized away voting for the lesser of evils. A constitutional form of government is incompatible with any level of evil; to expect a different outcome is to be delusional or psychopathic.

Millions of gun owners fear that Hillary might be able to push through draconian, unconstitutional gun confiscation either through our corrupt congress or perhaps through executive order. I state again: if Hillary were to do so, neither she nor members of congress or the Supreme Court will be coming to your door to demand you surrender these firearms. No, she and Congress will send the standing armies our anti-Federalist ancestors warned us about and they will strongly resemble those who went door-to-door in New Orleans after Katrina and Boston after the bombing. Will you still be licking their boots and making excuses for their unconstitutional behavior as they terrorize your family and neighbors and carry off your legally owned firearms? What happens to you and your family if you refuse to comply?

The police are all too happy to remind you that you have no right to resist an unconstitutional act performed by a government employee in uniform. Actually, you do–but don’t forget how many times you voted for the unconstitutional lesser of two evils which has delivered as advertised, obscuring this constitutional right. Your votes have eliminated “the law of nature and nature’s God (Common law) as contained in the Declaration of Independence and our Bill of Rights and replaced it with the laws of the international banking cartel.

“nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” ~ 5th Amendment.

Everything you see happening in this country today that brings fear to your heart was brought about by voting for candidates who would or had violated their sacred oath. Now, that you have repeatedly voted for evil of the lesser variety, please stop complaining about having to live with an evil enterprise of your own creation.

The one issue that continues to confound me is how so many Americans who claim to support our Constitution and Bill of Rights continue to stand in awe of those who make up the standing army. How can a member of Congress who writes or votes for unconstitutional, therefore illegal legislation, a president who signs this illegal act into law or a clown in a black gown who says that law is legal because of precedent be held in such foul regard but the person who enforces that illegal legislation is deemed a hero?

9/11 and its implausible cause, as explained by these people we do not trust, was the showpiece that completely destroyed the mirage of constitutional governance in this country. Shortly after the mass murder that was 9/11, George W. Bush’s Secretary of Homeland Security (an integral part of our standing army) Michael Chertoff, a man who is claimed was the author of the Patriot Act and who also holds dual citizenship with Israel, used his position within our standing army to mandate that all American law enforcement personnel be given training by Israeli entities including, of course, Mossad.

Our government, with this training, intended for all US Citizens to become members of an “occupied territory” and not citizens with unalienable rights. The citizens of this country were to be treated as the Palestinians are treated by the Israeli Defense Force and Mossad. Since the implementation of this Mossad backed LEO training, shootings of unarmed civilians in this country have risen by 500%.

Please understand that in no way do I support the movement called “Black Lives Matter” nor do I ignore the stacks of white money behind them. But, one must give the devil his just acclaim. We constantly hear of blacks being the victims of police shootings and the subsequent protests by those within BLM. Whether motivated to attend out of philosophical or moral interests or to receive money promised to protesters on Craigslist, black people assemble nationwide to voice their displeasure with the rapidly increasing number of black people dying, many unarmed, at the hands of members of our standing army.

While it is true that proportionate to population, a higher percentage of blacks are shot by police than are whites, in real numbers, more whites are shot by police than are blacks. Yet, where are the protests by whites? Considering the majority of cop worshipers are of the white persuasion, perhaps they would rather ignore or rationalize away what should be obvious to Ray Charles: we live in a heavily militarized police state where individual, unalienable rights are a thing of the past.

As can be found in the book by Milton Mayer titled “They Thought They Were Free” all too many Americans believe they are free, or at the very least–safe. Like the Germans of the 1930’s and early to mid-1940’s, we are anything but free and Liberty is an illusion.


Our government is a completely criminal enterprise as has been seen recently in the ability of Hillary Clinton to avoid criminal prosecution for serious crimes over several decades and the failure of our government to indict members of the standing army who routinely shoot unarmed citizens.

Our government is not constrained by the limits of a Constitution as the great majority of those whose job is to legislate, completely ignore their sacred oaths when it comes to the performance of their jobs.

The law enforcement personnel in this country, at all levels, do “protect and serve” but they only protect and serve the government agencies they represent. The people of this country have all become “perps” and will be treated accordingly, regardless of race. All members of law enforcement have become members of the “standing army” or “federal and state sheriffs” we were warned about consistently by many of our founders. Worship, honor, and refer to them as “heroes” at your peril. They will consistently enforce the unconstitutional laws passed by various legislatures because they see “duty” to the criminal government as a higher calling than their oaths to uphold and defend our unalienable rights. Besides, honoring one’s sacred oath is not a path to success in this standing army.

Black citizens at least have the courage to stand and protest the uncalled for shooting of innocent black folks. Whites routinely ignore the members of their own race who are shot and killed at the hands of members of our standing army. Perhaps the blatant murders of LaVoy Finicum and Jack Yantis by members of the standing army would have received more attention and outrage had Finicum and Yantis been black instead of white? Why are there no activists groups known as “White Lives Matter?” Lavoy Finicum was shot in the back and the evidence of the murder of rancher Jack Yantis is overwhelming but ignored and condoned by the “authorities.” Please take the time to read William Grigg’s excellent work on the murder of Jack Yantis in the link above.

As previously stated, it is more and more obvious our central government is completely criminal in most of its functions, as witnessed by their unconstitutional votes and actions. Therefore, this government will not allow anyone to interfere with their goals or agendas which line their pockets and the pockets of their criminal supporters. It matters not whom you vote for.

This criminal enterprise will do whatever necessary to ensure the continuity of their plans. Simply stated, should Trump be elected, he is acceptable to the criminal cabal that controls this government. More than likely criminals will do what they do best and fix the election in their favor. The evidence of past crimes in this arena is abundant.

Lastly, the criminals will not be denied. Justice cannot triumph in a society where justice is negotiable.



Any semi-conscious individual with a modicum of intelligence would advise anyone caught up in an abusive relationship of any kind to sever all ties to the opprobrious partner. Yet, almost to a person, these same people would readily inform you that secession by a state is unlawful and should be met with the appropriate force and violence to prohibit such an irresponsible act on the part of a state and its sovereign people, regardless of the proclaimed reasons for the separation.

One of the most critical subjects which our founders faced both in the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 and the subsequent state ratification conventions was where did sovereignty reside, was it with the people, the states or the newly proposed government? In the vernacular of today, who would be the boss of whom?

It is of significant import that one view the wording of the Treaty of Paris when discussing this topic. In Article 1, the United States was acknowledged to be 13 “free, sovereign and independent states.”

But, where does the “ultimate sovereignty” sit in residence? Is it with the federal government, the state governments or with the people? Most of the colonists understood the belief in Great Britain, prevalent since 1640, that the ultimate sovereignty resided in Parliament. This concept is confirmed in the words of Sir William Blackstone in his description of Parliament, “the place where that absolute despotic power which in all governments reside somewhere, is intrusted by the constitutions of these kingdoms. The power and jurisdiction of Parliament” was so “transcendent and absolute that it cannot be confined… True it is that what Parliament doth, no authority upon Earth can undo.” Using this same paradigm, the majority of people in this country today, especially cops and judges, believe that our central government has the ultimate sovereignty, that nothing can undo its will and often point to Article VI Section II of our Constitution (Supremacy Clause) as the basis for confirmation of their beliefs. But to believe thusly is to completely dismiss a crucial element in why the colonists fought an eight-year war in order to gain their independence from such a Parliament.

We also have those who believe that true sovereignty, in some cases ultimate sovereignty, lies with the states.  To believe that ultimate sovereignty lies with either the central or state governments is to discount the very concept and purpose of our Declaration of Independence.

Our basic organic document, The Declaration of Independence, is a document of secession, the proof of which can be found in its words and phrases. “dissolve the political bands, … assume among the powers of the earth, declare the causes which impel them to the separation … it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and institute new government … it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government and to provide new Guards for their future security … that all political connection between them is and ought to be totally dissolved.” 

To refuse to accept the Declaration of Independence as an article of secession is to call attention to one’s own ignorance. The demanded separation contained in our Declaration is a complete refutation of any government being the ultimate sovereign over the people.

Our founders, including those on both sides of the Federalist/Antifederalist divide, wrote and spoke often of the ultimate sovereignty of the individual. James Wilson of Pennsylvania was a delegate to the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 as well as a delegate to the Ratification Convention of his state. It was during that ratification debate James Wilson stated the following as to the forms of government that might be created.

“The United States may adopt any one of four different systems. They may become consolidated into one [National] government, in which the separate existence of the states shall be entirely absorbed. They may reject any plan of union or association and act as separate and unconnected states. They may form two or more confederacies. They may unite in one federal republic. Which of these systems ought to have been formed by the Convention? To support, with vigor, a single government over the whole extent of the United States would demand a system of the most unqualified and the most unremitted despotism.” (All emphasis mine)

Patrick Henry also addressed the issue of a consolidated government during the Virginia Ratification Convention when on June 5, 1788, Henry rose to speak and said this about the new proposed government.

“Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: And cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case?”

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both stated the actual meaning of the Constitution was to be found in the debates at the various state ratification conventions. Reading through these debates one will find the descriptions and meanings of the proposed constitution are very well stated by those who advocated for ratification and were “selling” the constitution (Federalists) to those who had questions (Anti-federalists) or those who opposed ratification outright. The Federalists were most clear; the government would not be a national government, the powers “delegated” to the government would be few and limited; the states would at the very least have an equal say in the actions of the government. I list below just a sampling of what form of government was promised to the states and to the people.

“It is the opinion of the greatest writers, that a very extensive country cannot be governed on democratical principles, on any other plan than a confederation of a number of small republics, possessing all the powers of internal government but united in the management of their foreign and general concerns. It would not be difficult to prove, that anything short of despotism could not bind so great a country under one government; and under whatever plan you might, at first setting out, establish, it would issue in a despotism.” ~ George Bryan of Pennsylvania

In this one simple paragraph, George Bryan describes not only what was happening at the time of the ratification conventions but also perfectly describes how unconstitutional and tyrannical our government has become since its creation. Mr. Bryan mentions first “a very extensive country.” Please remember that at that time our “country” only contained the 13 original colonies. Then there is the mention of “democratical principles’ which is a reference to a democratic form of government which if you asked the common person on the street what form of government we have today, the majority would answer “a democracy.” If 13 colonies or states would be too large for a democracy, what makes anyone believe a democracy would work for 50 states? (57 if you believe our current chief magistrate)

Mr. Bryan then spoke to the proposition that all smaller parts of this confederacy (the states) would possess all the powers of “internal government.” Is that true today? Absolutely not! Bryan then states “nothing short of despotism” would issue from the implementation of any other form of government other than what the people were guaranteed would be created with the ratification of the constitution.

“Any law … of the United States, for securing to Congress more than a concurrent right with each state is usurpation and void.” ~ Theophilus Parsons, Massachusetts, 1788

“Any law,” says Mr. Parsons, is void if passed by Congress and does not provide a “concurrent right” to the states. I would begin to cite for you the hundreds of laws that should be void and unenforceable, but time and logistics of such a listing prohibit such.

“If the gentleman will attend, he will see this is a government for confederated states; that, consequently, it can not meddle where no power is given.” ~ Archibald Maclaine, North Carolina, 1788

Mr. Mcclaine states very clearly that the government cannot meddle where no power is given. Again, time and space do not permit an accurate listing of all of the laws passed by Congress that “meddle” where no such power was ever delegated by the states and the people to the central government. Of, course any such list would include the Affordable Care Act and the many variations of the Patriot Act.

“The State governments can put a veto, at any time, on the general government, by ceasing to continue the executive power.” ~ William Richardson Davie, North Carolina, 1788

Is what Mr. Davie so clearly stated in 1788 true today? If, not our government has been perverted, stolen and used to enslave us all. Are we any more subjects than were our founders in 1775 and who declared their grievances and separation in our most famous of founding documents?

John Adams predicted what would occur should the tenets and principles of what the people of their respective states were promised if these principles were violated and usurped by the central government.

“It is not even said in our Constitution that the People shall be guarranteed in a Free Republican Government. The Word is So loose and indeffinite that Successive Predominant Factions will put Glosses and Constructions upon it as different as light and darkness, and if ever there should be a Civil War which Heaven forbid, the conquering General in all his Tryumphs may establish a Military Despotism and yet call it a constitutional Republic as Napoleon has already Set him the Example. The only Effect of it that I could ever See, is to deceive the People: and this practice my heart abhors, my head disapproves, and my Tongue and my Pen have ever avoided.” (Spelling and capitalization in the original)

John Adams was most knowledgeable of history and he correctly predicted usurpations on the part of the government which included the assumption of powers the states and the people were guaranteed would never occur would eventually lead to a “civil war.” Adams also predicted a triumph in such a “civil war” by military forces of the central government would lead to a military despotism such as that of Napoleon. He also correctly predicted that such a government would continue to call itself a “constitutional republic.” This is precisely why the Pledge of Allegiance, written by an avowed socialist, is embraced by those who support a continuation of the Napoleonic constitutional republic mentioned by John Adams.

The type and form of government promised to the people and the states in their ratification conventions ceased to exist well before the election of Abraham Lincoln and the assumption of power by the so-called Radical Republicans. The election of Lincoln simply brought all of the simmering resentments to a full boil in 1860. With the assumption of power by the Lincolnites, the government promised 72 years prior to the people and the states had ceased to exist.

The people from Virginia who ratified the Constitution by a very slim margin in 1788, were still very suspicious of the intentions of those who would be assuming the mantle of power and possible future usurpations of the powers of the individual states by an overreaching central government. To this end, they placed the following in their ratification agreement.

“Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that 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 and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will …” 

Here, in plain and simple words is established the authority of the states and the people to withdraw from a government of their own creation “whensoever that government shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” The wording also clearly indicates the people of the states are the ones to determine when that injury and oppression has occurred; not the Congress of that government, the executive of that government or the judicial element of that government.

The original ratification documents were presented and discussed during the first Convention of Secession in Virginia in which the people of Virginia, acting the same as those who had ratified the Constitution in 1788, at first voted to remain in the Union. It was the actions of Abraham Lincoln and his radical republicans who forced the acts of secession on Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Missouri.

The states who seceded, did so in an effort to recapture and retain the form of government promised to them 72 years prior. Yet, Lincoln chose to deal with a constitutional issue, not with the courts, mediation or reconciliation, but through the use of force and coercion, both of which comprise the very essence of tyranny.

The only path left to those who wish to oppose the overreach of government enforced tyranny is first nullification, as well outlined in Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolution, and should that fail, a full and complete withdrawal from the forces of tyranny: Secession.

Regardless of who is elected in November, the tyranny and oppression will continue to increase. Such is the natural course of history, for the form of government promised at the ratification conventions totally ceased to exist under the fusillade of bullets, bayonets, and cannons, delivered courtesy of Abraham Lincoln to the people of at least 12 states who only wanted the form of government their ancestors had been promised in 1787-1788.

Delaware Senator James Bayard III stated on the floor of the US Senate in 1861,

” … to warn gentlemen that the system of government adopted in 1787 is inconsistent with the prosecution of war for the subjection of the South: and yet you cannot execute the laws as you claim to do within the Confederate States without their entire conquest and subjugation. You must, if successful, convert, and it has been threatened by many leading papers, and at least one leading member of the administration, that you will convert this government into a single government, and absolve all the state lines. In answer to such a purpose, and as an all-sufficient objection to it, I give you the general truth enunciated by Mr. Wilson, that a government of that kind, to exist over the extent of the this country must be a system of the most unqualified and unremitting despotism.”

The government employees, media shills and useful idiots in academia and the common street idiot, all of whom would guarantee the right of an individual to escape an abusive relationship, would deny the same to the states and its citizens. The government that was promised to our ancestors has long since ceased to exist—-Nullification and Secession are our only options.














The soap opera that is the presidential election of 2016 is coming into full bloom. Chances are before we get to the first Tuesday in November, this soap opera will become a full-blown Shakespearian tragedy.

The very last thing most Americans want to hear is the truth, especially if the truth makes them uncomfortable. Like most liberal progressives, even those who call themselves “conservative” rush immediately to a “safe place” where the truth is denied and comfortable lies are the menu of the day.

This country has been completely run by a cabal led by international bankers since 1862-63. We have jumped from war to war and boom to bust in order to accommodate those in this cabal since the end of the War for Southern Independence. This cabal owns most politicians of both parties and is instrumental in picking their most devoted followers for the most powerful political positions.

After the 2012 election, the power cabal became concerned at the steady drop in the number of eligible voters who were participating in presidential elections. In 2000, just a little over half of those eligible to vote exercised their right to do so. In 2004, 60.4% of eligible voters voted while that number increased to 62.3% in 2008. But, in 2012, voter participation dropped to 57.5% of those eligible.

To better understand this dynamic it is important to observe the number of eligible voters and how that number had increased from 2008 until 2012. From the election in 2008 until the election in 2012 the number of people eligible to vote in this country had increased by 8 million. Yet, the actual number of people voting had dropped from 131 million in 2008 to 126 million in 2012. This means 93 million eligible voters stayed home in the 2012 presidential election.

Ostensibly, this problem could be blamed on the fact the only real discernible difference between Obama and Romney in 2012 was one of skin pigmentation. We should not forget that Judge Andrew Napolitano lost his show “Freedom Watch” (he was still kept as a consultant) for pointing out this embarrassing fact on FAUX News.

The power cabal realized after the 2012 election, an event in which the international banking arm of their organization spent over 6 billion in order to create interest in the voting process, most of this money going to the cabal’s allies in the media, that a consistent drop in voter turnout was eroding the very basis of credibility and legitimacy in the two-party system and our ever-growing tyrannical government. After all, if there is no philosophical difference in the two candidates, why even have an election?

Thomas Jefferson was right when he coined the phrase “consent of the governed.” All governments, whether they be benign, limited as ours is supposed to be, über tyrannical or somewhere in between, all require in some form or another consent of those being governed. That consent can take many forms, it can be passive consent or acquiescence or it can be based on force or coercion. Passive consent is much more palatable to the masses but it always morphs into force and coercion just as we see happening in this country today.

Possible the most damaging kind of consent is that which is based on deception in which the populace provides consent based on the erroneous belief that they are actually participating in their own governance. In this form of consent, the people believe that their participation can actually reverse the course of crime and tyranny being visited on them by an out-of-control government. As long as there remains this illusion of change which can allegedly be accomplished by participation in the process, tyranny will continue to reign supreme.

The latter is the kind of consent that is brought on with the process of voting. People believe they can alter the course of government with their participation. All of this is but a practiced illusion, people have been voting in this country for hundreds of years but those votes have been unable to alter the natural progression to a complete tyrannical and oppressive ending.

Criminals and tyrants who form the power cabal that controls our government could care less who you vote for because it doesn’t matter. All that matters is that a significant number participate in the process for it is only through this procedure that the government can claim legitimacy and the illusion of consent of the governed. How one votes is of little consequence to a government which counts the votes, for the illusion of choice has been accomplished.

You know comrades,” says Stalin, “that I think in regard to this: I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this— who will count the votes, and how.” ~ Memoirs of Stalin’s Former Secretary, Boris Bazhanov

I don’t care who does the electing as long as I get to do the nominating” ~ “Boss” Tweed of Tammany Hall fame

The very corrupt power cabal that controls our government cares not how you vote for it controls the counting of the votes and the nominating of the candidates just as Boss Tweed did in New York. What the power cabal does fear is a perceived loss of legitimacy for their government should sufficient numbers of the species Ignoramus Americanus catch on to the scam and stop voting at all. It would appear that line of demarkation settles in at 50%.

After the 2012 election, those in positions of power began to realize if they presented another “twiddle dee versus twiddle dum” election in 2016 the voters might possibly stay away in sufficient numbers to drop the voter participation levels below the 50% threshold. So, the problem became how to reenergize a significant number of those 93 million who stayed home in 2012 and refused to participate.

Doesn’t take a real rocket scientist to determine how to pull people back into the process, the logical answer is to bring in an outsider who appears to have no political connections to the power cabal and the two political parties that are simply evil twins of corruption. The template for such an action had been set in motion in the presidential election of 1992. A non-politician in the form of Ross Perot had completely energized the election process until such time as the power cabal pulled the plug and removed Perot from the process. Of course, considering the well entrenched two-party system, just like Perot, the new candidate had to have influence bought with his personal wealth and the ability to create the illusion of being anti-political establishment.

Well, without a doubt Donald Trump has met all of the requirements surrounding a revitalization of the political model in this country. To the well established “conservative” voter it only matters what a candidate says they will do while anything contrary to the chosen perception is routinely dismissed or completely ignored.

Now, the powers that be have created their desired model which they have parlayed into a plethora of rejuvenated voters, the problem now becomes how to convert that success into acceptance of a return to business as usual in the political theater.

Tough facts are hard for most folks to comprehend. If Trump could possibly deal a realistic blow to the goals or agenda of the military/industrial/congressional/banker complex in this country he wouldn’t live long enough to begin the process. These people are no strangers to taking out prominent enemies on the national stage. The Kennedy brothers learned that lesson the hard way. The plethora of filled body bags which lay in the political wake of the criminal Clintons are also a grim reminder.

If this government really cared about the illusive “rule of law,” the Clinton’s would have been placed behind bars or executed years ago–they sure as the dickens would not be sitting where they are today. That they have risen to the positions they hold today is prima facie evidence of the complete criminality of this government.

In the two plus decades that I have been putting out these Rants I have had many people ask as to how we stop this insane madness that is destroying the very essence of what a select group of our founders wanted this country to be. I believe my answer has been consistent: “stop doing what you are doing, it obviously does not work.” Yet, our masters have convinced enough of Ignoramus Americanus that voting is a duty, an honor and a privilege of living in a “democracy.” Many have been convinced that a non-vote is in reality a vote for the candidate they do not support. We have been told only the people who vote have a right to complain–but how do you complain except by voting again? Is this just another form of the “hair of the dog” theory?

Einstein’s well-worn definition of insanity has been used over and over again to perfectly illustrate the futility of voting in this society, yet many voters have grown comfortable as well as addicted to their insanity. Nothing is more destructive of liberty and freedom than enough people who are comfortable with the corruption of their leadership.

If Donald Trump is for real, he is not long for this world and will never win the presidency. Those in power will not permit anyone to interfere with a corrupt government they have worked for so long and so hard.

The Neocons in the Republican Party are separating themselves from Trump in rapid succession and vowing their support for the person who best represents their interests–Hillary! They care not about their political party, they know it is only a vehicle in which they rode to power. The agenda is all that matters to these people because it is that agenda which fills their pockets.

Trump will only win the presidency if that is the end goal of those in control. To believe otherwise is to be ignorant of history and the very nature of criminals. I have had numerous folks over the past few weeks tell me the way to win in a crooked game is to keep playing (voting). I rest my case and pray that I am wrong.

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” ~ Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.









Somewhere down the road of history, someone will write of this period in America and make the observation that most of our population had to be either, drugged, delusional or insane, for this alone could explain people who hold tightly to several conflicting ideas at the same time and others who were so mentally weak they require a “safe” place when confronted with facts they chose not to deal with on an intellectual level.

Millions are the delusional among us who believe that a new pilot inserted into an airplane whose engine is destroyed and in a steep dive toward earth at terminal velocity, can somehow order the necessary parts, have them delivered while in flight, fix the dead engine, climb into the cockpit and save the plane before it crashes. I refer to these people as Trumpians.

We have also the obviously insane who believe a dyed-in-the-wool female crime boss who would make Carlo Gambino envious along with a psychotic husband who is also a serial rapist are just what the doctor ordered when it comes to the November election.

300 million mentally incompetent people are too absorbed in feel-good socialism, kick ass fascism, or, as Patrick Henry once stated, have “indulged themselves in the illusion of hope” until it has “transformed them into beasts.” Hope among the Trumpians seems to be more addictive than crack—and just as harmful.

To illustrate my point, let me recount a recent conversation with an otherwise outwardly appearing intelligent person of a mature age. This man and I had been engaged in a conversation about voting. He was obviously a Trumpian and was also a victim of the “illusion of hope.”. When I told him voting for the lesser of two evils is no answer for the dilemma this country is presently in, he stated,”voting for the lesser of two evils will eventually eliminate evil and bring us back to a constitutional form of government.” He had no answer when I asked him to please relate for me when that has ever happened in history.

There are millions of people in this country who claim a close fealty and admiration for many of the founders of this country. Yet, they ignore the majority of warnings left for us by the group of founders known as the anti-Federalists. To be more specific, these people worship and idolize anyone who wears a uniform. Their mental illness, brought on by an overdose of the illusions of hope, has them holding anyone in a “standing army” in such a reverence it has become a beatification.

That standing army so many of our founders feared and those “federal and state sheriffs” Patrick Henry warned about have morphed into one large standing army. Our local, state and federal police have been militarized since 2001 to the point a group of police in America on the news mimic almost exactly the soldiers seen on patrol in Iraq or Afghanistan.

People—those in Iraq and Afghanistan are not one iota a more occupied people than are the citizens of this country. The citizens of those two countries and many more fear the same forces we fear here in this country. Standing armies are the reason many of our founders believed our Second Amendment rights were critical. These are the same people in uniforms and badges who followed unconstitutional and illegal orders and went from door to door in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina seizing constitutionally owned firearms, most of which were never returned.

I am most troubled by those who claim Southern Heritage and continue to idolize our standing army. Folks, it was this standing army that stood by Lincoln and helped as he destroyed the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not only in occupied territory in the South and Border States but also in states in the North. Read here the excerpt from a speech by a U.S. Senator in 1862,

“Their intent [Republicans in Congress] is the devastation and obliteration of the Southern people as the means of retaining power, and yet I doubt in the history of the world has ever, with the exception of the French reign of terror, shown so imbecile, so corrupt, so vindictive rulers over any people as those with which this country is now cursed.”

Most have never heard of this Senator’s three-day speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate titled “Executive Usurpation.” You can count on having never heard of this speech if you attended any of the schools in the public fool system over the past three decades or the ivy walls of socialism known as academe.

This Senator was from Delaware and his name was James Bayard III. Senator Bayard also spoke of a situation in the North in the early 1860s that appears to be a mirror reflection of the streets of this country in 2016.

“We are living under a petty but ruthless tyranny and God knows what folly this admin and its members are not capable of….It is sad, very sad, to think and feel how low the nation has fallen, and how little reason, knowledge of civil liberty, or high tone sentiment or even humanity of feeling is left. [The people] are ready for any folly, barbarism or brutality those leaders chose to perpetrate.”

Read the above over and over again until it sinks in. As a citizenry we are certainly ready for “any folly, barbarism or brutality” our leaders choose to perpetrate on the people of other countries as well as their own citizens—need I repeat the actions of our standing army in New Orleans or perhaps Boston after the bombing?

The powers that be in this country have set us at each other’s throats. The republicans are divided, with one group obviously supporting Clinton because she more closely represents the values of the Neocons than does Donald Trump. (except Trump picked a Neocon for VP.)

Our economy, over 100 trillion in debt, if one counts unfunded government mandates, is based largely on the manufacture and creation of military implements of war. If we pulled government defense contractors out of the economic equation tomorrow, our economy would totally collapse. Therefore our government must create a constant need for these materials to keep the economy functioning. That requires perpetual wars for peace, with the rah-rah conservative faction in this country cheering on the macabre madness.

The U.S. Navy has “… thousands of surface, submarine, and aviation assets, the Navy can reach out and touch our enemies anywhere in the world” including a number of aircraft carriers whose cost is astronomical, but, at the same time, we have 22 veterans taking their own lives each day and many thousands who can’t get reasonable healthcare, not to mention the 48,000 veterans who are homeless on any given night and the 1.4 million described as “at risk of homelessness due to poverty, lack of support networks, and dismal living conditions in overcrowded or substandard housing.” (Source: National Coalition of Homeless Veterans.)

The mentally ill in our society believe our standing army is protecting our freedoms and defending our country when nothing could be more ludicrous. Our standing army is part and parcel of the tyrannical government in this country—this army enforces the tyrant’s will. Without those in uniforms and badges, the tyranny would die on the vine.

If Hillary is elected and issues an executive order banning private ownership of firearms—I assure you it will not be Hillary, Bill, Loretta Lynch or Paul Ryan who comes to your door demanding you surrender your firearms. As the late Jack McLamb stated, “When tyranny comes to your door it will be wearing a uniform.”

Those with whom I have discussed the above, are, I believe, delusional on two points. First of all, they do not believe the military and police will execute the orders of their leaders and actually participate in disarming Americans—dream on broomstick cowboys—it has happened repeatedly in our history. It happened during the War for Southern Independence, it happened in New Orleans in 2005, and it will happen again—sooner than you think.

Secondly, they believe if the military and police come to confiscate privately owned firearms there will be a bloody revolution. Never happen!! There will be many strategic moves taken before the door-to-door confiscation begins. Most folks have extended families; before your guns are demanded and confiscated, strategic moves will be conducted by members of the standing army which will include detention of your loved ones prior to any attempts at confiscation. GPS tracking devices in cell phones will allow the government to pinpoint the location of your loved ones in an instant. Those who most clearly represent a threat to this tyrannical government will have several members of their family held until all guns are turned over to authorities. Imagine getting a picture on your device of your children or grandchildren being held in some unknown location with promises of harm or even death if you don’t surrender your guns. Done, weapons confiscated—game over.

The way to ensure this will surely happen is to continue to believe it never will. Do you have a workable plan for such an event? Bet you don’t. Unless it happens to be voting! Voting is the magic elixir—it cures everything.

The government and their willing dupes in the media have worked their magic. The races have been set against each other—this ensures they will not combine forces against tyranny. The police shoot anyone who even resembles a threat. The legal authorities back them up in their crimes. What we have devolved into are groups that cheer when a black person is shot by authorities and believe when the same thing happens to a white person it is an anomaly—a mere accident. If you think I’m nuts, who has been charged with shooting LaVoy Finicum in the back and killing him? Who was charged with the unnecessary deaths of 76+ people at Waco, including 26 children? Who was charged with shooting 14-year-old Samuel Weaver in the back in Idaho? Who was charged with shooting Samuel’s unarmed mother Vicki in the face a couple of days later? Who has been charged with killing nine bikers in a parking lot in Waco a year ago this May in an obviously pre-planned event? (Hint: police snipers were in place before the majority of bikers arrived)

If you really need a dose of reality check out this great article by True American Patriot William Grigg. Be sure and check out the actions of one of the officers who took Mr. Yantis’s life and attempt to rationalize in your mind why he still has a badge.

Folks, you don’t live in the land of the free and home of the brave—you live in an occupied country in which you are ruled by a government no less tyrannical than the government of King George III in 1775, the countries occupied by the Nazis in WWII or the Russians under Stalin. You live in a country hauntingly familiar to the 10 Southern states that were under military rule during the period called Reconstruction. Voting is the placebo they give us to make us believe everything will get better as long as we keep visiting the polls on a regular basis.

For a people to be truly free they must be able to recognize when they are slaves, especially to their own government. We have not approached that level of historical discernment in this country since 1860-61.

The human brain is a complex organ with the wonderful power of enabling man to find reasons for continuing to believe whatever it is that he wants to believe.”  ~Voltaire






Author’s note* As previously noted, discussions with readers and friends brings up subjects I have previously written about. Recently, I had an email exchange about those who are in and those who seek political office in this country are by and in large Sociopaths with a strong leaning toward Psychopathic behavior. I wrote the following article last year but considering this election season has brought out so many instances of sociopathic and psychopathic behavior in political candidates and so-called law enforcement entities who are bound by their sacred oaths to the Constitution to protect us from these “domestic enemies” to our Constitution, freedoms and individual liberties, I believe it to be worthy of review.



“Some have said that the individual is important and the government is merely the servant of the individual. But, let the evidence be presented and we discover that this assertion is only a pleasant fiction. The servant has the power and the strength. The individual bows before the might of the servant, who is, despite the platitudes, a master, not a slave to men. Governments rule. Individuals are ruled.” ~Robert LeFevre


The above words are terribly hard for most people to digest. We claim over and over our individual rights and proclaim how our government is subject to “consent of the governed.” This is all a mere pipe dream. As long as the majority continues to toil under the misconception that individuals actually have rights that supersede the wishes of the government, we will continue to be slaves to the wishes of the autocratic minority.


Governments do what all governments throughout history have done; governments continue to increase in size and power over any efforts by individuals or groups of individuals acting as factions or political parties. Political parties exist not to fight for the rights of the people they claim to represent but instead work tirelessly and endlessly to grab a larger portion of the government power pie. To political parties, it matters little the destination of the bus called government, the only important issue is that their party gets to drive.


It is very difficult for most Americans to comprehend and even harder to accept that the first step in our history to free government from the restrictions of “consent of the governed” was the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. The proponents of that convention were those who sought to free government from the restrictions and restraints of the Articles of Confederation. Article XIII of that act of Confederation required that for the government to impose laws and regulations on the people required the “consent” of all of the 13 states (colonies). The resultant constitution from the Philadelphia Convention provided the government with more power and the people with less control. It has been downhill ever since.


“The natural order of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.” ~Thomas Jefferson


Sure, the government acquiesced and gave the people the Bill of Rights in 1791, but very conveniently for the government, they left out any enforcement mechanism the people could employ should the government decide to usurp the rights as guaranteed. We witness this over and over in our country today. “Congress shall make no law…” begins the First Amendment to our Bill of Rights which allows “freedom of expression.” There are so many violations of this mandate I would not know where to begin; it began early in our history; within 7 short years the Congress passed and president John Adams signed into law the “Alien and Sedition” Act and our government continues today with the denial of freedom of expression by those who want to uphold their heritage when it comes to the Confederate Battle Flag and the denial of the right to express oneself if it offends someone who really deserves to be offended.


The problem is: there were no enforcement mechanisms attached to the Bill of Rights or the Constitution for that matter which would allow the people to have their rights protected. A prime example of this lack of an “enforcement mechanism” is to be found in the First Amendment. The wording of the amendment is, “… guarantees the rights of citizens to assemble peacefully and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Sure, you can assemble peacefully, but only in “zones” of which the government approves and providing you secure the proper government blessing in the form of a permit. Ah, but you have the right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Of course, you do, but those petitions must be made to a government entity and there is no enforcement mechanism which requires the government to redress those grievances unless one again refers to the government owned and controlled judicial process. When a court such as the U.S. Supreme Court maintains the right to decide whether it will hear a certain case or not, is there truly a right to petition that court for a redress of grievances?


But, we the people have the 10th Amendment, you exclaim! Yes, we do; but again there is no enforcement mechanism that requires the government to adhere to the rights supposedly guaranteed to the people with that amendment. Two great examples are: Obamacare and blocking the importation of refugees into a state by the central government. Ironically, according to available records, there are 27 states that oppose both Obamacare and the importation of immigrants into their states. Here is a good place to note that had the provisions of the Articles of Confederation not been obliterated by those seeking a government of “more energy,” there would be no Obamacare, no forced importation of immigrants, no Patriot Act and way too many other acts of tyranny which space and time prohibit listing. All of those would have required “consent of the governed” in every state.


The government is very careful and vigilant to ensure they place in each piece of “man’s law” an enforcement mechanism which can only be ignored at one’s peril. To violate a law of man is to face coercion, imprisonment and possible death. Of course “we the people” are subject to a judicial process conducted by the very government we hold in contempt. While there is no enforcement provision that can be employed against government and “man’s law,” the government freely and frequently completely ignores the “laws of nature and nature’s God” as cited in our Declaration of Independence.


There is a theory, stated by several throughout history, that there are basically two groups of people; a minority who seek only to be left alone; to succeed or fail on their own, without the unsolicited help of others. Then there is the majority of people who seek, throughout whatever means available, dominion and control over others. Of course, in the majority of instances, it is people from this last group who aspire to use government to achieve the maximum dominion and control. There are of course good people who truly believe they can serve their fellow man through government. These people do not understand the history of government and are many times victims of the entity in which they seek to reform.


Again, I revert to the wisdom of Robert LeFevre:


“Government is an agency of force which can and must be employed against every deviationist. And this is only to say again that the government must oppose the individual. Therefore the “good” man in government is like a priest with a machine gun. The mechanism does the harm. The man who operates it merely pulls the trigger.”



Recently, in an email discussion with a reader, I was questioned on a previous statement I had made that I believed an overwhelming majority of those in positions of power in our central government are, in fact, psychopaths. I ask all to please read the following and ask yourself: is this factual and if not, can I dispute it.


“Is the problem, therefore, we the people? Are we at fault for having been seduced by those in power to sell us a blank bill of goods, drugs, products and policies that are more harmful than beneficial? Are we at fault for having deceived ourselves by being convinced that their illusion is the truth? Or is the elite, the best and brightest in Wall Street, Washington and throughout the top stories of the multinational corporate networks, the real obstacle to the promising future for all? Are the oligarchic elite, including corporate Democrats and corporate Republicans in all the branches of government, not, in fact, a special breed of psychopath with no moral compass, striving solely to maintain their power control and wealth?” ~Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null


Dr. Martha Stout described sociopaths thusly: “those whose grand schemes of contrivance, manipulation and deceit, seek to undermine and manipulate simply because they can.” Have you ever seen a more perfect description of those in power (Bill and Hillary Clinton and members of the Bush family are great examples) in this country and those seeking to join the cabal either as an elected official or a bureaucrat?


So, we have a government that continually grows and takes more and more of our liberty and freedoms, just as governments throughout history have done and we have a group of people with psychopathic tendencies, if not full blown mental illness running that government.


In early 2005, I wrote the following concerning government, I am convinced of that assessment even more today.


“I believe that government contributes nothing of value to the individuals it governs. No matter what political party is in control, like a leech or a tick, government attaches itself to the body of freedom and feeds on the life-giving blood of that body, while imparting the Lyme disease of corruption, fear, pestilence, and war. Finally, that decaying host/body of freedom and liberty is totally destroyed by the parasite called government.

People of a wicked and criminal nature are drawn to the stench of government like flies to manure. Even those of integrity who engage in service to the State find themselves administered and controlled by those who are wicked and criminal. They eventually learn that if one is to advance in this government service, they must take on the characteristics of their leaders.”

As you look around at what is happening in this world today and try to find answers as to how wars we have initiated unconstitutionally create more and more terrorism to go along with more and more immigrants and are puzzled when those who control our government state the answer to the problem is more of what caused it, I believe you can find an answer to your questions in the above.




Could a knowledge of history be considered a curse? Would one’s life be much less complicated if they had the equivalent of historical Alzheimer’s? I have been asking myself that question more and more recently, especially after the response or lack of same to my article yesterday.

Those who have responded to my most recent offering have cited their belief in the fact Trump might be for real and why have I given up hope, for “without hope, we are lost.”  Such responses really increased after Trump’s acceptance speech last night, a speech I am forced to admit I did not watch or hear. Trump certainly has given birth to new waves of hope across this country, to that I must admit. But, having a knowledge of history, which prevents waking every day to a new world of hope, I look instead to the facts of history for my political perspective.

My study of the founding era of this country has many times focused on the knowledge of history and the understanding of the “nature of man” by so many of those we refer to as “our founders.” Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence is based almost entirely on his understanding of the past. Without that understanding of history and the frailties of man, Jefferson could not have written such a powerful document.

When in the course of human events” is the lead phrase. This indicates a knowledge of those events. Jefferson refers to “governments long established” and “all experience has shewn” are other indicators of Jefferson’s knowledge of history. “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States” is Jefferson’s lead into what I refer to as his bill of indictment in the third paragraph in which he details those “injuries and usurpations.”

James Madison spent countless hours studying the histories of ancient governments before preparing for the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

Americans today are more ignorant of their own history than possibly any other generation in this country’s lifespan. While they can recite chapter and verse of many sports statistics or events surrounding current celebrities, many don’t have a clue as to the founding of their own country; why we separated from Great Britain and when that actually occurred. If you doubt this for a minute just check out this video. Ignorance is truly bliss and I’ll bet these people vote.

A great majority of Americans have no historical basis on which to make informed decisions when they do vote, so all they have to go on is emotion and whatever lies the politicians can dream up. The fact these promises of what a candidate is going to do almost never happen doesn’t seem to deter the ever “hopeful” voter.

Emotions certainly play a big role in this process. Proof positive is how many people vote for one candidate whom they are not entirely sure of so as to not vote for the other one whom they really hate. They claim a vote not cast is a vote for the candidate they oppose and frequently claim this election is the most important in history. Were they to truly know our history they would realize probably the most important election in history was the congressional election of 1789 in Virginia between James Madison and James Monroe. To know why is to understand your country’s history. * Hint—it’s importance is the direct opposite of what most revisionist historians claim.

We haven’t voted for a political candidate for president because he stood squarely on the Constitution and made that the paramount subject of his candidacy in our lifetimes. Yet, millions write and proclaim on social media their hope that once elected their chosen candidate will somehow adopt constitutional principles. How has that worked so far? Since a sacred oath to uphold and defend our Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic constitutes the main requirement of their oath after an election, why does it not matter before the election? If the people who vote for a candidate do not insist on a complete understanding and support for our constitutional underpinnings before the election, only hope would make one believe the Constitution will matter to anyone who has acquired the office without it.

Then there is the matter of voter fraud. How does hope prevent that? How does hope prevent the US Supreme Court from ordering the votes stop being counted in order to influence an election in favor of the power cabal’s chosen one? Yes, that happened in 2000, but many folks did not care if the Constitution was trashed because they hated Al Gore and hoped Bush would be better. How did that work?

How does hope prevent voter fraud that was plainly evident in Ohio in the 2004 election? How does it prevent the voter fraud that was obvious in the GOP primaries in 2008 and 2012 which was aimed at Ron Paul? How does hope prevent the voter fraud that was obvious in the most recent primaries both on the Democrat and GOP sides? How can you claim a vote I don’t cast is a vote for the opponent of your candidate, yet ignore the rampant proof of voter fraud in election after election? If you know the game is rigged, why do you keep playing?Hope is not a method! How can you continue to gamble with the future of your children and grandchildren betting in a game you know is fixed?

Voting is said to be an “obligation” in a democracy—many hang their hats on that declaration. Yet, history tells us our founders despised a democracy. Ah, historical Alzheimer’s is so comforting. Every election is a new experience where the masses are not troubled with the past failures of their hope or the warnings of those who founded this country.

I have been asked repeatedly in the past couple of days: “without hope what do we have? My answer is this: with hope exhibited in election after election, what do we have now?

In the 1960s, Georgetown professor Carroll Quigley wrote a masterful book titled “Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time.” In this book, Quigley documents how our government is totally controlled by the banking elite and one world government folks and how elections are nothing but a sham designed to provide the masses with hope. (Pay close attention to the title of the book) Ah, but that is in the past and our historical Alzheimers makes every election a new experience. That is why the writings and lectures of Quigley are ignored or quickly forgotten.

“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.”  

Most Americans are mentally astute enough to understand organized crime, the Black Panthers or the Black Lives Matter movement cannot be changed to any extent by adding or appointing new members to the organization. Somehow, the same principle is lost when it comes to voting in new members to the criminal cabal that is our government.

One of our founders, the one known to many of his fellow countrymen as having the most devout Christian faith, Patrick Henry, was faced with a similar dilemma as what we face today. Henry had shown up at St. John’s Church for the Second Virginia Convention where many had traveled to avoid the prying eyes and ears of British governor, Lord Dunmore. Attendance was heavy at this meeting with those who did not fit into the church, standing outside the windows in order to hear the proceedings. Peyton Randolph was elected president of this convention.

During these proceedings Patrick Henry offered three resolutions, the first was for ” a well-regulated militia” to be formed to preclude the need for a “standing army” of British troops. The second of his resolutions dealt with how the militia would be constructed etc. His third resolution would prove to be the most provocative. This resolution set off a very intense debate. Here is the wording of that controversial resolution. “Resolved therefore that this Colony be immediately put into a posture of Defence” and a committee be appointed “to prepare a plan for embodying, arming and disciplining Such a Number of Men as may be sufficient to that purpose.” (Capitalization in original)

The debate over this resolution raged on until Patrick Henry stood to address those in opposition. While this speech is famous or used to be for the last sentence, the main volume of wording is much more powerful and addresses the illusion of hope which permeates today’s political landscape.

“Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging the future but by the past.”

Henry described so eloquently what happens to a people who listen to the siren song of hope until they are transformed into beasts. Watching the various political protests, riots and shootings around this country one would be hard pressed to argue with Henry’s assessment. He also states he would “rather know the truth and provide for it” and he knows of no way to “judge the future but by the past.” For those with ears to hear and eyes to see, my point about participating in the voting sham should be obvious.

I have been told that if I do not vote I have no right to complain. But, I believe just the opposite; only those who do not participate in a criminal endeavor have a right to condemn it.

History tells us that historical Alzheimers is fatal to freedom and liberty.











“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” ~ Mark Twain

Recently, I read somewhere that there were no funerals for the dead principles of Liberty. Obviously, the author of this statement has never watched a political convention. Where else can one see an event which costs millions upon millions of dollars where all the political celebrities make an appearance and their words are applauded to the rafters time after time, yet the founding principles established by our founders along with the reasons which buttress those principles are never mentioned?

Americans labor falsely under the insane belief they live in the “land of the free and the home of the brave.” I believe author Richard Kegley was correct when he stated, “…with respect to the government and union of states… [this] has led to the greatest confidence game ever played in the history of man. Most everything you believe about your ‘country’ is a lie or is at least factually incorrect. Because arguably, you do not live in a Republic, you are not a citizen of one, and you have no God given unalienable rights under your current citizenship status, rather you have civil rights given by and at the whim of the present government.” ~ U.S. of A vs U.S. The loss of legal memory of the American State by Kegley, Henderson, Wahler, HKW Publishing, 2006.

Possibly nowhere can the absolute proof of this statement be better found than in perusing what is called “social media.” Using a nom de plume, I spent several hours in recent weeks browsing through the posts of people who claim to love this country and honor its founding principles. (self-proclaimed conservatives) Once I read their posts or statements, which in many instances were just repeats or “likes” of what others had posted, I would simply ask a relevant question. What is relevant to me was obviously not relevant to others. The axiom that insults are the arguments of those who have no answers was many times the dominant theme of my correspondence with these “patriotic” folk.

One person had gone into detail about his anger when he learned that Hillary Clinton had not been put under oath when she was questioned concerning her email server irregularities. Hillary is nothing if not cunning. She remembers her husband and former president was disbarred for lying under oath. A politician can stand and lie openly to the American people with few problems (I did not have sex with that woman) but being placed under oath is somewhat more restrictive (at least it used to be). Seeing how angry this man was about the FBI not placing Hillary under oath, I dared ask him if he was as equally disturbed when George W. Bush and VP Dick Cheney refused to testify under oath to the 9/11 Commission? Oops, I should not have gone there for his almost immediate response was to “get that liberal crap out of here” followed by a barrage of invectives that I will not repeat on this medium. He became even more upset when I asked him if he believed the truth was “liberal crap.” Oh, the conflicted state of the conservative mind.

I also happened upon a group of folks who were posting comments about the wonderful “democracy” that is our government and its advantages over all the others. When I asked how they justified their love of “our democracy” with the unassailable fact that our founders despised a democracy and provided quotes from John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and even included Karl Marx’s quote that “democracy was the road to Socialism,” I got nothing—Nothing but crickets—at least they didn’t hurl insults.

I became nauseous with all the adoration and praise for the “thin blue line” and how these people put their lives on the line every day for others and how their jobs are so dangerous. Of course, these folks were not interested in the fact being a police officer in this country does not even rank in the top ten most dangerous professions according to the US Department of Labor statistics. Garbage collectors, farmers, and ranchers are at greater risk.

There was a picture of a large cop of the black persuasion wearing a “T” shirt which said, “the police are here to protect your ass not to kiss it.” Got just one comment when I stated I didn’t want them to protect me, I would handle that myself and also questioned if this could have been one of the cops who went door to door unconstitutionally and unlawfully collecting privately owned firearms in New Orleans after Katrina, might have been with the FBI at Waco or Ruby Ridge or might have pulled the trigger on LaVoy Finicum in Oregon. More crickets.

One of those posting their “unquestioned’ support for law enforcement in America was puzzled somewhat when I asked if he supported the police when they enforced unconstitutional laws. When questioned, he stated that even though the police took a sacred oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, they were far too busy to take the time to study and understand what laws were or were not constitutional. He stated those decisions should be left to the courts. Oh, happy day!!!! This conservative trusts the judicial system, perhaps even Judge Posner of the 7th Appeals Court who one week ago posted this:

“I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries—well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments). Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today.”  

But, the judge, once confronted with his blasphemy, said that his statement above was misunderstood and blamed it on his “lack of clarity.” One can only wonder about the judge and his knowledge of the English language. Can’t help but wonder what his definition of “absolutely” might be and how his use of that word lacked clarity? I also can’t help but wonder if his decisions affecting the lives of others issued from the bench are as convoluted as his weak attempt at contrition for being blatantly stupid?

Judge Posner would find many kindred souls on social media. They seem to be as confused and lacking clarity as he.

Of course, there was one man who claims conservative principles on social media who was full of insults but was unaware conservatives and constitutionalists should be on the same side politically. He was most disdainful of “historians” and thought the famous painting by Don Troiani of the “Boy Colonel” Henry Burgwyn at Gettysburg was a “cartoon.” This is the battle we true Southrons face when we know the truths of history and try to share them with others.

Another gentleman who claims conservative values stated his support for “Tort reform” in the battle currently taking place in Arkansas concerning the Seventh Amendment. This man is perfectly willing to dispense with the guarantees of the Seventh Amendment for expediency and what would equate to protecting the financial interests of owners of nursing homes in his home state as opposed to those who were injured at the hands of employees of these nursing homes. When I asked him if he disagreed with our founders on the importance of Trial by Jury and what other of our Bill of Rights he was willing to trade away for political expediency, I got no answer.

People, we in this country are in serious trouble if these folks on social media are any representative of the average “conservative” in our country. We have truly lost all understanding of why many of our founders fought so hard to provide a government that would protect the rights of individuals down through time.

One of the warnings of our founders we continue to ignore happens to be the dangers of a “standing army.” With the militarization of law enforcement at every level that standing army has grown significantly in numbers since 2001.

The late, highly decorated, Phoenix police officer Jack McLamb once said, “when tyranny comes to your door it will be wearing a uniform.” I’m sure the people in New Orleans who had their privately owned firearms seized unconstitutionally and illegally by members of law enforcement, National Guard, and Coast Guard and physically abused if they refused can readily attest to the accuracy of McLamb’s prediction. By the way, absolutely no one I asked on social media about this event, even when referencing the video vividly showing these acts made by the NRA, could explain why it happened and could guarantee it would not happen again. Hey, Southern Poverty Law Center, if it has already happened it cannot by definition be a “conspiracy theory.”

Going back to 1980, then Attorney General of the United States, Edwin Meese stated, “I think now the American people are ready to give up some of their Bill of Rights so that we can do something about the drug and crime problem in America.” The people have complied, the guarantees of the 4th Amendment are a distant memory and people are being murdered in large numbers every day in the inner cities of our country. Would this stop if we gave up all our rights?

Readers, the funeral for the principles of Liberty was held long ago. Liberty was murdered by those who claimed most to support those principles. Conservatives today are just dancing on the grave. Tune in tonight for the final episode.

Every election is a sort of advance auction on stolen goods.” ~H. L. Mencken

And the most valuable stolen good has to be our Liberty and that of our posterity.








(Revised edition of article originally written in August of 2015 but never posted to this blog)

By legal definition, the government of this country has been a criminal enterprise since April of 1865. When the Confederate States capitulated, “Just” government as defined in our Declaration of Independence ceased to exist in this country. One can blather on about slavery and racism, both of which have replaced baseball as the national pastime, until pigs fly—it will not change the fact that at the time the Southern states voted to secede, slavery was constitutional in this country; reprehensible and unconscionable yes, but still constitutional. Therefore, it would have been impossible for the Southern states to have seceded to protect slavery, for slavery legally existed before and after articles of secession were voted on and passed by the people of those states.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 1857 in the Dred Scott opinion, confirmed the constitutionality of slavery. Of course, that opinion was morally bankrupt, just like a number of recent decisions rendered by the sacerdotal nine such as the Affordable Care Act, the Patriot Act, The National Defense Authorization Act and many more.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1776 that a “Just” government required the “consent of the governed.” In 1861-62 several states withdrew their consent to be governed by what they viewed as a tyrannical government. While indeed a case can be made that South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Texas seceded, in part, because of slavery, the same is certainly not true of Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee. (It should be noted here that Texas actually submitted the articles of secession to the people of that state for a popular vote. The final vote was 44,317 in favor of secession, 13,020 opposed.

It is also of particular note that when the Texas legislature voted to secede and included an amendment to submit the final vote to the people, there was in San Antonio a US government arsenal with a 3,000 man garrison. When the Texas committee on public safety authorized the seizure of all federal property in the state, the garrison was allowed to leave peacefully. Lincoln did not in any way attempt to retain this post or resupply the government forces there. Compare this please with the events which later occurred at Ft. Sumter.

So, if slavery was not the reason for the vote to secede by the four states mentioned earlier—then why did those four Southern states, all of which initially voted to stay in the Union eventually vote to secede? Let’s look at each of them.


When a compromise could not be reached among the delegates to the initial secession convention, it was agreed the issue of secession would be put to a vote of the people. This vote was scheduled for August of 1861. Of course, debate continued around the state.

Then, on April 12, Fort Sumter was fired upon in response to resupply efforts by Union ships. Subsequent to Ft. Sumter, Lincoln ordered governor Rector to provide 780 men to assist in invading the states that had seceded previously (to put down the rebellion). Governor Rector promptly refused.

The secession convention reconvened on May 6, 1861, and at 10 minutes past 4 that afternoon the Arkansas delegates “declared their independence from the United States” by a vote of 65-5 with 4 of the opposing votes later changing their votes to the affirmative.

Therefore, many of the delegates who were anti-slavery and voted consistently to remain in the Union changed their votes almost unanimously when Lincoln ordered the state to supply troops to invade the Southern states. Arkansas seceded, not to support slavery, but seceded rather than supply troops to invade their sister states.


      First, it should be noted the people of North Carolina had refused to include Abraham Lincoln on the presidential ballot in 1860. The majority of voters supported John C. Breckenridge and Constitutional Union Party candidate John Bell in that election because both candidates had expressed allegiance to the Union. It was obvious the people of North Carolina were desirous of staying in the Union, but a union without Lincoln as president.

Those who favored Union in the Tar Heel State; the yeoman farmer (who seldom owned slaves) of the piedmont and mountainous western part of the state were in the majority and when secession was first put to a vote the supporters of remaining in the Union prevailed 47,323 to 46,672.

Then came Ft. Sumter. On April 15th President Lincoln called for troops from North Carolina to which Governor Ellis responded, “You can get no troops from North Carolina.” A convention met in Raleigh in May to revisit the issue of secession. The enthusiasm and fervor of the initial debate was gone. The convention was characterized by speeches of those who had previously favored union to secession and their denunciation of Lincoln’s “aggression.” Former Unionist, George Badger, introduced a resolution for separation based on “the right of revolution” but it was defeated by a resolution to “dissolve the Union by repeal of ratification.” Delegate Jonathan Worth stated, “Lincoln has made us a unit to resist until we repel our invaders or die.” It has been stated by the North Carolina History Project that “Tar Heels of North Carolina seceded as an act of self-defense.” Is self-defense “racial?”

It should also be noted that North Carolina provided more supplies and men to the Confederate States and lost more men killed on the field of battle than any other state. This they did, not to support slavery, but as an act of self-defense. Revisionist historians, government lackeys, cultural Marxists, a majority of teachers, college professors, and race-baiters ignore this fact completely.


      According to documents at the University of Middle Tennessee, “[Tennessee] residents exhibited little support for secession until the April 1861 firing on Ft. Sumter and Lincoln’s call for troops.”

It should be noted here that like North Carolina, Abraham Lincoln did not appear on the presidential ballot in Tennessee in 1860. Carrying all of Tennessee’s electoral votes was John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party who secured 48% of the popular vote.

In February of 1861, after seven states had voted to secede, voters in Tennessee voted overwhelmingly against convening a state convention on secession. But, after Ft. Sumter and Lincoln’s order for Tennessee to provide two regiments of troops to invade the seceded states, Tennessee voted to secede on June 8th of 1861. Interesting note: the citizens of Eastern Tennessee unsuccessfully petitioned the state to remain in the Union.

Here again is documented proof another state which initially refused to secede, voted to secede rather than provide troops to invade their sister states.


      On February 13, 1861, delegates representing every county in the state of Virginia met in convention and voted to remain in the Union. In an early exhibit of transparency in government, the governor and legislature of Virginia invited the newspapers of the day to witness and report on the convention with the Richmond Enquirer selected to “publish a full record of the proceedings” for public consumption.

On April 17, after receiving orders to provide troops to “put down the rebellion,” Virginia governor John Letcher responded to Lincoln’s request directly to Simon Cameron, Lincoln’s Secretary of War:

SIR: I received your telegram of the 15th…in which I am requested to detach from the militia of the State of Virginia “the quota designated in a table,” which you append, “to serve as infantry or riflemen for the period of three months, unless sooner discharged.”

In reply to this communication, I have only to say that the militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers at Washington for any such use or purpose as they have in view. Your object is to subjugate the Southern States, and a requisition made upon me for such an object — an object, in my judgment, not within the purview of the Constitution or the act of 1795 — will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war, and having done so, we will meet it in a spirit as determined as the Administration has exhibited towards the South. Respectfully,

JOHN LETCHER. (Emphasis mine)

I highly recommend you read the entirety of Governor Letcher’s communications with Secretary of War Cameron which can be found here.

Documented history reveals four (4) states did not secede because of slavery but due to the unconstitutional acts of Abraham Lincoln. Several of these states viewed Lincoln’s call-up of troops to “put down the rebellion” an act of war and certainly unconstitutional as the Congress had not been consulted when Lincoln’s orders were issued to the states to provide troops. Lincoln was clearly in violation of Article III Section III of the Constitution which defines Treason. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them…”

Lincoln issued an order calling up troops unconstitutionally in order to “put down the rebellion” which would require “levying war against them (states),” for, according to Lincoln, all states that had seceded were still in the Union. Therefore, Lincoln ordered up troops unconstitutionally in order to commit an act of Treason. At least four states saw it this way and withdrew their consent to be governed by tyranny. It should be noted that according to our Constitution (Article IV Section IV) the governor or legislature must request the federal government to intervene in a domestic disturbance (rebellion) within a state. If the Southern states were still in the Union as Lincoln declared, he violated the Constitution by sending troops into those states without the proper request by the governor or legislatures of those states.

The battle flags that flew over the soldiers and sailors from these four states cannot logically be called “racist.” To do so conforms only to the wishes of the cultural Marxists who currently control our government, our media and the emotional minds of the grossly uneducated/socialist indoctrinated in this country, known to Rebels as useful idiots.

If you stand for “resistance to tyranny” and oppressive government, by default you stand for the principles of the Battle Flag of the Confederacy, for as it appears on a gate at Jefferson’s Monticello: “Resistance to Tyranny is Obedience to God.”

Clear battle lines have been drawn in our country. They represent on one side the principles of Thomas Jefferson and on the other those of Abraham Lincoln and his penpal Karl Marx. Unfortunately for Liberty and our country, the majority have sided with Lincoln, Marx and our current criminal enterprise called government.



Author’s note: I wrote this article several years back and was most fortunate to have it published in the Navajo Times, the newspaper of the Navajo Nation. Our children’s, as well as our own experiences while we lived among these people are still treasured today. Being immersed in another culture was enlightening and challenging. We still treasure the friendships molded in the high plains of New Mexico among several families it was our pleasure to spend so many hours with. When our son left for Iraq in 2004 these people held a native ceremony for his safe return. Our lives have been so much richer for the time we spent with these wonderful people.

A multitude of memories swarmed in my head as I prepared to head for the Four Corners area of New Mexico, Utah, Arizona and Colorado and this year’s cattle drive. Has it really been 10 years since I first had the opportunity to play cowboys with the Indians?

Ten years ago, my family and I moved to the Navajo Indian Reservation. My wife had accepted a job there teaching in a Bureau of Indian Affairs School. Even though she was transferred to the Tohono O’Odham Reservation two years later, we have maintained contact with our Navajo friends. Some years our contact is centered on the spring or fall cattle gatherings and drives.

Actually, being invited that first year was quite a task. Our next-door neighbor in the school housing was one of the bus drivers. His name is Daniel Yazzie. Daniel and I had begun conversing over several games of horseshoes. Daniel told me about the upcoming fall cattle drive that was to take place that weekend. I asked if I might participate and was quickly, but politely, told no. It seems the Yazzie family had not had very good experiences with the “bilagaana” [Whites] when it came to cattle round-ups and drives. A year previous, one of the Anglo teachers had gone along and failed to last until midday of the first day. Daniel told me they just did not have the time or the personnel to bring me back when I got tired. He did reluctantly agree to allow me to go along after repeated requests. Although there was a gleam in his eye when I said to him; “you might kill me, but I will not quit.”

That first morning before daybreak I was pointed to an experienced cattle horse named Kim. The tack shed was pointed out and I began to saddle my horse in preparation for the day ahead. Several male members of the family were present and were talking rapidly and humorously in Navajo. I quickly realized, without understanding a word, that I was the topic of conversation. I turned to Daniel and asked what was being said and he told me that bets were being made as to “how long I would last.”

The fall drive is begun high in the Chuska Mountains. I was paired with Ray, the youngest of the Yazzie Clan and his young son who was called “Fudge.” We proceeded to work the draws and canyons, gathering the cattle and starting them in the direction of the main corral. The going was extremely rough. The cattle were hiding in the rough ravines between some very steep portions of the mountains. Ray and Fudge were mostly silent throughout the morning, only pointing and gesturing as to what I was to do.

About midday, I heard a high-pitched scream coming from somewhere on the mountain above us. I looked toward Ray and Fudge but they seemed oblivious to the sound. Moments later I heard the scream again. Little did I know that I was about to be introduced to the wonderful Navajo wit. I gave Ray an inquisitive look. He rode near and whispered what were to be the only words he said to me that day; “ You have to be quiet, there could be Indians around here!” I was to learn later it was his sister Fannie, using that scream to pierce the canyons as she beckoned us to lunch.

Even though this plethora of memories came rushing in, reminding me of the wonderful experiences, I knew in my heart that this drive would be different. The family patriarch had passed away this past November. He had fallen and broken a hip, and succumbed, as many do, to that lethal dose of pneumonia contracted in the hospital in Durango. Because of his age, he had never really taken part in any of the gatherings or drives in the past ten years, but he was always there. It would indeed be different without “Acheii.”

The 400- mile trek from Southern Arizona to Sanostee, New Mexico was uneventful except for a flat on the horse trailer as we approached the Zuni reservation. We made a couple of stops along the way to get the horses out of the trailer and walk them around to let them stretch out and relieve the monotony of the ride.

The first day of the drive is the gather of the cattle at the winter pasture. To accomplish this we break up into teams of two and go in all directions to drive the cattle back to the water hole. By the time we arrive there, the oldest daughter of the family has arrived with her crew to provide lunch to a group of hungry and thirsty cowboys and cowgirls. During the meal, a lot of good-natured kidding goes on. No one is immune to the merciless tirade of jokes. After everyone’s appetite is satiated, the 11-mile drive to the home corral begins.

This year the temperature is unusually warm. Somewhere about half way, the heat and dust combine to take their toll on the entire group. There is a lot of switching off from horseback to the cabs of the trucks. These trucks are pulling the trailers containing the calves that have tired to the point of exhaustion and would otherwise bring the drive to a standstill.

Relaxing under the pinons.

The fantastic scenery of the high desert plateau with its beautiful mesas and vistas, surely makes all the aches and pains recede to the back of the mind. Finally, the corral comes into sight. The cattle are driven into the corral with the help of several from the family who have remained at home. Horses are unsaddled, rubbed down, watered, fed and led to the corrals. Tired, worn out cowboys and cowgirls grab something liquid, collapse and wait for nourishment. The meal is eaten and the preparations for sleep occur almost immediately.

Dawn of the second day finds us feeding horses and making preparations for a long day of riding. In the first matter of business, the family matriarch makes the selection of barren heifers and steers to be saved for market. Then, all the remaining cattle are released and the drive for the summer pasture and much welcomed water begins. We traverse the flat dusty plains through the Pinons and Junipers to the magnificence of the Aspens and Ponderosa pines.

Lunch is a grand affair. The “old sawmill” is the sight as many members of the Navajo family accompany the Navajo ladies who prepare the meal and arrive to feed the many assembled there. The cuisine varies from the traditional Navajo fare, mutton stew and frybread, to hamburgers and hot dogs. Memories and experiences of those in attendance are painted and spread on the canvas of time as we nourish our bodies for the last part of the drive to the summit.

A wholesale transition takes place as we prepare to continue. Many of the family who only arrived for the midday meal, now take the mounts of those who have been working since dawn. How wonderful it is for many, who have wondered how they will be able to remount, considering their intake of the delicious meal. Bessie Lansing, oldest daughter of the Yazzie Clan, is lethal to anyone hoping to count calories. Just ask any of the thousands who passed through the BIA schools where Bessie prepared meals for over 30 years!

Before we know it, the day is waning and the summit reached. Time is taken to relax and visit with members of the extended Navajo family and then we begin the return trek to the point of origin for the day.

This is the time I take a relaxing reflection on the total experience. How wonderful it is to visit with the nicest folks on earth. The Navajos are a unique and wonderful people. My life, and the life of my family have been made so much fuller and richer by knowing this family and being allowed to be a part of this experience through the years.

As I ride my chosen path, alone in these beautiful surroundings, I welcome this time to offer my thanks to the spirit of the wonderful grandfather, “Acheii” who meant so much to everyone who had participated in this gathering. Although, as long as I knew him, a spoken language separated us, a common one, the love of this land and the family that is his, united us.

Nearing the corral, my horse senses food and rest are just over that next rise. She quickens her pace. I am left with just enough time to thank the creator for allowing me this journey that provides an opening into peace and harmony and a relationship with true friends.


Authors note: Often, in conversations with good friends, subjects arise that take me back to the memories of previous articles I have written. Yesterday was just such an occurrence. Below is an article that I wrote before I began this blog. I was also struck by a comment I recently read about the upcoming election in which the subject of “foreign policy experience” was brought up. Considering the fact we have been mired in a perpetual war for the past 15 years that has brought death and destruction on a global level, a suffocating debt, unprotected borders and millions of refugees, who if brought to our shores will totally destroy our culture and bring untold violence to our streets, I really don’t want someone as chief executive who has that kind of “experience.” (Please do not interpret that statement as support for Donald Trump, because it is not.) Our government is not run by any person elected by the people. It is run by a power cabal which also owns and controls our electoral process. Professor Carroll Quigley in his seminal work “Tragedy and Hope, A History of the World in our Time” informed us of that most adroitly half a century ago. Yet, we continue to plod along as if overwhelming evidence which corroborates this fact does not exist. It was this power cabal that ordered the assassination of one of our most brilliant battlefield commanders. What can be said of a government that participated in that assassination but also worked to conceal the facts surrounding their crimes from their constituents? So, here it is, my writing on the subject some two years back. As a point of clarification, it should be noted I once served as a board member for the “American Foundation for the Accountability of POWs and MIA’s (AFFA) in the 1980’s, a position which brought me in contact with several of our returned POWs from Vietnam and recollections of their experiences. Please pay close attention to the quotes which begin this article, especially the words of Aristotle and how those words pertain to our country today. How many of the aims of Aristotle’s tyrant have been achieved? (Rebel)

“For you see, the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.” ~Benjamin Disraeli

“The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes.” ~Justice Felix Frankfurter

“The three aims of the tyrant are, one, the humiliation of his subjects; he knows that a mean-spirited man will not conspire against anybody; two, the creation of mistrust among them; for a tyrant is not to be overthrown until men begin to have confidence in one another — and this is the reason why tyrants are at war with the good; they are under the idea that their power is endangered by them, not only because they will not be ruled despotically, but also because they are too loyal to one another and to other men, and do not inform against one another or against other men — three, the tyrant desires that all his subjects shall be incapable of action, for no one attempts what is impossible and they will not attempt to overthrow a tyranny if they are powerless.” ~Aristotle

I openly admit I do not believe our government or their media lapdogs when it comes to what really happened involving TWA 800, the Oklahoma City Bombing, 9/11, Waco, the shootings in Aurora or Sandy Hook, the bombing in Boston or the bombing at the fertilizer plant in Waco and many other of their False Flag operations.

Sure, the easy way out is to believe anything the government says is gospel; that requires very little cognitive discourse and of course the last thing the species Ignoramus Americanus wants is anything that might require the use of a few cells in the gray matter.

There are a multitude of reasons I disbelieve our government and the media when it comes to events such as those named above, but, for brevity’s sake, I will mention only one in this writing. What positive can be said or what integrity granted to a government that willingly leaves its military personnel behind in the hands of the enemy, then, not only makes no attempt to gain their freedom but instead fabricates lies to cover their crimes of omission and discredits those who attempt to reveal the truth. A government that would leave its own behind to face torture and death at the hands of their enemy is totally undeserving of not only trust but even the slightest benefit of the doubt.

This pattern of overwhelming and continuous mendacity reference our missing military personnel began almost 100 years ago, back in 1920. Shortly after WWI, Russia was in the midst of a terrible famine. Although previously denying they held any American POWs from WWI, when offered food and medicines, the Russians released 100 captive Americans after the first shipment of provisions. Although more food was shipped to Russia, no additional POWs were released. Rather than admit to their lack of diligence in securing the release of those POWs after the war, government officials simply declared there were no more being held; a tactic that would continue for decades.

In 1945, while marching to take Berlin, in large part due to political/military considerations granted to the Soviets by the socialist dominated FDR administration, some 25,000 American POWs were “liberated” into the hands of the Russian Army. Of that 25,000 only 4,165 of our military personnel were actually repatriated from the camp at Reisa. The Russians put the remaining 21,000+ on troop trains and took them into Russia where they were used for slave labor, medical experiments, human guinea pigs and other fates much worse than death on the battlefield. Allied political sources then went to work to alter intelligence reports to cover up these heinous acts. Both FDR and Truman issued directives that there would be “no criticism of treatment by the Russians” and “no retaliatory action to Russian failure to cooperate.” (Source: A Chain of Prisoners: from Yalta to Vietnam, by John Brown and Ted Ashworth)

General George Patton knew of this betrayal of American military personnel and is reported to have confronted General Eisenhower at a train station in Germany where the argument became most heated according to an eyewitness. (Bert C. Roosen an interpreter on Eisenhower’s staff) Speculation exists that this may have been the reason for Patton’s assassination. (Source: Target Patton: The Plot to Assassinate General George S. Patton by Robert K. Wilcox) Our political leadership fell all over themselves to assure the Russians were never accused of anything untoward and that millions in Eastern Europe were delivered into their hands at the end of the war.

The release of the information about 21,000+ Americans being left to a terrible fate at the hands of the Russians would have been a death knell to any political aspirations of those covering up these crimes; obviously, Eisenhower would have never been elected to the presidency.

As president, Eisenhower would continue to cover up the fate of those left to the Russians which would later necessitate a similar cover-up of those left to the Chinese and North Koreans during the Korean War. These prisoners too were used for torture, biological and chemical agent experiments as well as mind control operations. Colonel Phil Corso, a member of Eisenhower’s White House staff would later speak to these cover ups. He would state it became a matter of national policy to ignore all intelligence concerning these acts and to simply deny any POWs were left behind.

Then came Vietnam and the madness and deceit would continue. In 1973, after Operation Homecoming, Dr. Roger Shields of the Department of Defense would tell President Nixon, “Mr. President, we have two missing for every man who came back home.” Nixon ignored the statement and then like those lying bastards before him, issued a statement that “all our POWs are home.”

To completely cover the POW/MIA issue would require a volume of books. The mendacity, prevarication and possible assassinations by our government surrounding this subject is emotionally overwhelming; that is if you care one scintilla about what happens to those we blindly send into the jaws of hell for political expediency after being driven into a patriotic frenzy by the same devils who create False Flag events which have taken the lives of tens of thousands, many of them innocent children.

Hand me my Tin Foil Hat; I wear it proudly. I do not blindly believe the words of master politicians who have never seen a shot fired in anger and who are more than willing to see their fellow Americans not only die in battle, but be used for torture and medical experiments after the wars are “over” for others, all in the name of “national security.” Always remember when they speak of “security” it is always their security and never yours they speak of.

If you feel compelled to believe everything the politicians and the lapdog media tell you about Aurora, Sandy Hook, 9/11, OKC bombing and the Boston Marathon bombing because you lack the courage to face the truth, you have become one of the “splendid dupes” mentioned by Chesterton in this quote: “Evil always wins through the strength of its splendid dupes, and there has in all ages been a disastrous alliance between abnormal innocence and abnormal sin.”

I find little truth or consolation in the facts presented by a government who would leave its military personnel in the hands of their enemies to be tortured and subjected to all forms of heinous experimentation. Perhaps, if it had been your brother, sister, father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, or friend who had been left to this fate worse than death by the government you view as trustworthy, you might not blindly believe everything you hear coming from the mouths of politicians and talking heads on the lobotomy box.

“The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” ~William Colby, Director, CIA.