SADLY, IT’S OVER

As hard as it is for me to say, and as hard as it has been for me to face the reality of it all, this once grand experiment in Liberty, without some form of divine intervention, is over. The grand old idea of individual freedom and what Thomas Jefferson once defined as Rightful Liberty has long since passed. But, who is to blame you ask; the very same folks this government was once designed to protect, none other than “We the People.”

Two events within the past week has brought home to me the hard reality of the above. First, I had the opportunity to attend a large function involving members of the State Bar Association. After that event, I was fortunate to engage a preeminent figure in the practice of law in a philosophical discussion of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. In the beginning of our discussion, our focus was on property rights and how that equated to freedom. Later in this discussion, this brilliant legal mind mentioned how the 14th Amendment changed, in his mind, the perception of how private property and citizenship were viewed legally. I quickly spoke up and stated “but the 14th Amendment was never properly ratified according to the demands of Article V of our Constitution.” This learned attorney’s answer was “well that is the ultra-conservative view.” Another attorney listening to our exchange chimed in with “good luck getting any judge to admit to that.”

Apparently, to adhere to the strict principles of our Constitution is to assume the status of “ultra-conservative” as opposed to the myriad of garden variety conservatives in this country who really don’t care if our lives and our liberty are being whittled away by an amendment to our Constitution which should be null and void on its face.

The statement, which by all accounts is factual, that one could never get a judge, at any level to admit the 14th Amendment was never properly ratified is a curse on the legal profession as much as it is society in general for they have a continuing opportunity, and a sworn duty, to challenge this wrong in the halls of justice.

All attorneys and judges take a solemn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Any attorney, or judge, who will not defend our Constitution against the usurpations of an amendment which should be null and void because it does not adhere strictly to the provisions provided in that document are not adhering to their oaths. Those who would cite that amendment in any legal opinion could arguably be called “domestic enemies” to that Constitution.

Are we in this current mess partially because we simply accept the right of the government to dictate policy based on amendments that were never properly ratified by the people? Where does this end and how are the people to be protected from a gradual decline into abject tyranny?

The second event that brought me to this point of despair occurred on social media. Someone had posted stating the date they had entered military service and also mentioned the oath they had taken upon becoming a member of this country’s armed forces. I posted and asked the question reference what was to be done if the orders of the president or an officer appointed over you violated the Constitution which was the primary item listed in the oath.

A spirited debate began on this question. Eventually, one contributor to the discussion made the claim it was not the duty of the soldier to question whether the order was “lawful or unlawful” but in essence it was the duty of the member of the military to carry out that order regardless.

This person was most proud of his service and his belief that lawful or unlawful was for someone else to decide, his duty was to simply do or die. Ironic is it not that many who wear the uniform and the badge have the same mindset? Also, there are many outside the military or law enforcement who willingly state that no law is unconstitutional until a government employee (judge(s) has so decreed.

What has happened to cognitive discourse in this country that we have accepted fully the very concept that brought many a despot to power over the past century? Are people not aware that after the Nuremberg Trials this country hanged several German military officers for using the concept of those mentioned above as a defense in their trials? The “I was just following orders” was not accepted in those trials at the end of WWII, so how can it be the accepted mantra of the day in America now?

How can we continually accept laws based on amendments that were not properly ratified and just move on as if they were, regardless of how much havoc is created and how many freedoms are infringed or lost completely? Are we to believe that tyrannical rules established by our government are to be followed and honored until some member of that self-same government rules against them? I’m sure Hitler, Stalin and Mao employed those very same rules during their reigns of terror.

Admit it people, you are just as responsible for the tyranny you face as the government you choose to blame.

A people who expect to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, want what never was and never will be. The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents, There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves; nor can they be safe with them without information, where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.” ~ Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, January 6, 1816

My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge: because thou has rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee…” Hosea 4:6

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

 

US FOREIGN POLICY FOR THE IGNORANT

(And Republican Warmongers)

Many, many, years ago our founders warned us of the dangers of maintaining a “standing army” and how that would hinder our pursuit of Liberty.

“In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans, it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”

Madison pretty well described where we are today in a nutshell; we certainly have the “constant apprehension of war” promoted by the media and most government employees. To believe we do not have an overgrown Executive is to border on insanity for has the Congress not relinquished their power to declare war to the executive branch and most “conservatives” defend their right to do so much more than they defend their own rights. Madison warned a standing army and an overgrown executive are not “safe companions to Liberty.” Need I say more than the Patriot Act or The National Defense Authorization Act?

Are we not pelted daily with claims of foreign dangers by those same forces: government employees and the media, and have they not become the instruments of tyranny here at home? Republicans finally got an “in your face” dose of this in the 2016 election cycle.

What about the Roman maxim of exciting a war anytime there exists a threat of a revolution among the people? Would one be out of line to mention the Oklahoma City bombing or 9/11? Did they both not excite war among the people and justify the existence of both a standing army and a more powerful executive branch?

Prior to WWII, America indeed did not have an organized armament industry as was stated by President Eisenhower in 1960. We also did not have the National Security Act and all of its attendant federal bureaucracies prior to 1947. In what could be considered President Eisenhower’s farewell address, he warned us of just such a combination of powers. He referred to them as the military/industrial complex. In all candor, he should have called them the military/industrial/banking complex.

Eisenhower said,

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

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

Unfortunately, another warning that has been ignored to the detriment of freedom and Liberty.

Were we warned even earlier than the warning from Eisenhower and after the warning from Madison? We certainly were. Writing in the early 20th Century, even before the winds of war in Europe that became WWI, a man by the name of Randolph Bourne admonished the people that war was indeed “The Health of the State.” What Bourne outlined so well was how the government (state) derives powers taken from the people and how government grows beyond its constitutional boundaries, with the people’s blessings, all the while little realizing they are endorsing their own slavery to the forces of government. Read for yourself if anything Bourne wrote has relevance in our world today, all these 99 years later?

“Government is obviously composed of common and unsanctified men, and is thus a legitimate object of criticism and even contempt. If your own party is in power, things may be assumed to be moving safely enough; but if the opposition is in, then clearly all safety and honor have fled the State… The republican State has almost no trappings to appeal to the common man’s emotions. What it has are of military origin, and in an unmilitary era such as we have passed through since the Civil War, even military trappings have been scarcely seen. In such an era the sense of the State almost fades out of the consciousness of men… With the shock of war, however, the State comes into its own again. The Government, with no mandate from the people, without consultation of the people, conducts all the negotiations, the backing and filling, the menaces and explanations, which slowly bring it into collision with some other Government, and gently and irresistibly slides the country into war. For the benefit of proud and haughty citizens, it is fortified with a list of the intolerable insults which have been hurled toward us by the other nations; for the benefit of the liberal and beneficent, it has a convincing set of moral purposes which our going to war will achieve; for the ambitious and aggressive classes, it can gently whisper of a bigger role in the destiny of the world. The result is that, even in those countries where the business of declaring war is theoretically in the hands of representatives of the people, no legislature has ever been known to decline the request of an Executive, which has conducted all foreign affairs in utter privacy and irresponsibility, that it order the nation into battle… The moment war is declared, however, the mass of the people, through some spiritual alchemy, become convinced that they have willed and executed the deed themselves. They then, with the exception of a few malcontents, proceed to allow themselves to be regimented, coerced, deranged in all the environments of their lives, and turned into a solid manufactory of destruction toward whatever other people may have, in the appointed scheme of things, come within the range of the Government’s disapprobation. The citizen throws off his contempt and indifference to Government, identifies himself with its purposes, revives all his military memories and symbols, and the State once more walks, an august presence, through the imaginations of men. Patriotism becomes the dominant feeling, and produces immediately that intense and hopeless confusion between the relations which the individual bears and should bear toward the society of which he is a part… The patriot loses all sense of the distinction between State, nation, and government.”

Time and space prevent me from including more of Randolph Bourne’s brilliance, but readers may access the entirety of his work at their leisure.

Then, in 1935, a genuine military hero, a two-time recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor, provided us with the wisdom of his 30 plus years of service in the United States Marine Corps. Major General Smedley Butler revealed that indeed not only was “war” the “health of the state” but it was also a “racket.” Butler told us,

“WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives… In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War[I]. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?… And what is this bill? This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

So, there we have it; from two former presidents; one a founder and the other a military leader of the free world. We also have the words of a philosopher and the words of a genuine, highly decorated war hero. But, we still continue on the path of destruction. We embrace American exceptionalism where we readily accept the insane belief that if another country does something it is wrong, but if our country does the exact same thing it is permissible and acceptable.

We have lost our collective minds, we embrace our government which tyrannizes other countries and ignore the fact we are victims of tyranny by that same government. We can’t understand why other countries fear the same government we fear here at home and wish to defend themselves from it.

to be continued…

 

 

 

TORT REFORM AND THE HEGELIAN DIALECTIC

CHAPTER ONE

The synthetic solution to these conflicts can’t be introduced unless those being manipulated take a side which will advance the predetermined agenda.” Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Last Thursday evening as I watched and listened to a public forum in which five elected representatives of the people offered their views on the recently adjourned session of the legislature in the state of Arkansas, it dawned on me, especially in one particular instance, what I was indeed witnessing was a perfect example of the Hegelian Dialectic in full blossom when the subject of the meeting rolled around to Tort Reform.

Obviously, the legislature, in particular, the Senate, has determined that there is a problem, that only the legislature could fix by proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the state of Arkansas. The question that must be answered is this: does this problem in fact exist or is it a synthetic problem as mentioned by Hegel above? In other words, where is the outcry from the people themselves that demands from the legislature a remedy to cure the alleged political disease?

While not one person in the assembly that night mentioned any specific reality that would require the amending of the Constitution, an Arkansas state Senator stated, “books have been written about this problem” although he too could not cite any specific case in which to support his allegation. One would think if there are so many instances of the problem existing that books have been written about it, he could have quoted at least one.

Absent any real public demand for a solution to the alleged problem there must be another motivating factor which is driving this particular legislation, that, if approved, will diminish the individual and constitutional rights of the people themselves. If the people are not the driving force behind any issue, then, the only inescapable answer would be the issue is being driven by special interests and their money. One does not have to be a brain surgeon or a rocket scientist to comprehend the fact politicians profit in many ways when they promote the agenda of special interests instead of the rights of the people. The examples are prolific in number.

According to Hegel, the synthetic solution to an issue advocated by special interests and their political puppets cannot be advanced until the targeted group (individual voters) are convinced there is a problem that exists which requires the forfeiture of inalienable individual rights and the only way it can be solved is with further government intervention into the affairs of the people.

The preferred language of the special interest-inspired and motivated politician when it comes to the issue of Tort Reform is “frivolous lawsuit.” Yet, when challenged to produce just one such case, this proponent of an attack on the guarantees provided in the US Bill of Rights and the Arkansas Declaration of Rights could not produce an example. But, this legislator did become agitated when pressed to provide such an example and began to talk down to his constituent who posed the question. When a legislator, at any level, cannot provide a single example of a wrong which he/she claims exists and must be dealt with by surrendering constitutional rights, should we not all question if there is, in fact, a real problem?

Many in the past have pointed to the case of the elderly lady who spilled McDonald’s hot coffee on her lap and subsequently sued McDonalds when they refused requests to pay her medical bills. To coin an old phrase, anyone who is critical of this settlement and has become a victim of the propaganda and deceit of the media and assorted politicians really needs to hear the “rest of the story.” This can be found in the video presentation called “Hot Coffee.” The free trailer to this must watch video can be found here. The complete video will cost you $2.99. If you feel your inalienable rights are not worth 3 dollars and an hour of your time, you should not be voting.

As stated above the inflammatory keyword which political proponents of the relinquishing of our rights demanded by our founders and expressly declared in our Bills and Declaration of Rights is, “frivolous lawsuits.” They propose a synthetic solution to a problem of their own creation in which the power of the people, operating in their sovereign duty as a member of a jury, is to be relinquished to the legislative and judicial branches of government. What they dare not tell you is that solution already exists within the judicial branch of Arkansas known as “Rule 11,” which is stated thusly:

“(b) The Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals shall impose a sanction upon a party or attorney or both for

(l) taking or continuing a frivolous appeal or initiating a frivolous proceeding, …” (Emphasis added) Notice please the wording, “shall impose” not can or will. This indicates sanctions against those who file a frivolous lawsuit are mandatory and not subject to discretion.

So, if there already exists a legal remedy for the filing of a frivolous lawsuit, why then are legislators, lobbyists and special interests advocating for an amendment to the Constitution and Declaration of Rights which would limit the rights of the people? I am sure the answer to this is money, for nothing else makes any sense at all. The money lost would be by the people while the money gained would go to the big businesses (special interests) in the state. This would certainly explain why a synthetic problem has been presented to the people in order that a synthetic solution can be obtained which requires the masses be duped into voting away their inalienable rights.

Also at this public gathering on April 13 was a member of the Arkansas House who stated the following: “Tort Reform was passed previously by the legislature but it has been incrementally struck down by the Supreme Court.” So, to take his statement to the lowest level of understanding: Tort Reform was passed in previous legislation but was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court so we are bypassing the courts and trying again to convince the people to vote away their rights themselves, believing by doing so they are fixing a problem that doesn’t actually exist. Hegel lives!!

Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison stated the people themselves are the final arbiters of what is and what is not constitutional and they are to exercise that power through their sovereign duty as jurors. What Tort Reform (SJR8) proposes in Arkansas is to take this sovereign duty away from the people and place it in the hands of the government. Never, ever, in the history of this world has the relinquishing of individual rights to the powers of government ever promoted the cause of Liberty and the sacred rights of man.

Again, to break this issue down to the most basic level and to understand how the Hegelian Dialectic is busy at work in Arkansas is relatively easy: Big business and their lobbyists seeking to avoid financial responsibility to those who depend on them for their health, safety and welfare, and pay dearly for it, having been duly reprimanded by previous jurors for their negligence in the care of others have sought a political remedy by promoting legislation which limits their financial liabilities in each case. To accomplish this goal, the people must be convinced that there is a problem (synthetic) which does not really exist. In fact, there is a remedy already in place for this completely concocted boogeyman. (Rule 11)

In this endeavor, the legislators who support this intrusion on the rights of the people they are elected to represent, must, by default, place the desires of big business and special interests above the rights of the people. They believe they can salve their collective conscience if they convince the people to do it to themselves. Such politicians will never truly pursue the interests of the people over the rights of special interests and should be treated accordingly come election day.

“All the worth which the human beings possesses, all the spiritual reality, he possesses only through the state…” ~ Hegel

To be continued…

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

 

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH (VOTE) FOR

“And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that” ~ Lord Acton

I am absolutely sure there are millions within this country who believe to achieve constitutional government all that would be required to gain that wonderful pinnacle would be to have a super majority of Republicans in control of the lawmaking body. Unfortunately, the people of Arkansas are beginning to realize the deadly fallacy of that belief.

In November of 2016, the people of Arkansas elected a super majority of self-proclaimed “conservatives,” whatever that word means now in the political lexicon of this era.

Not since the days of Reconstruction have the people of Arkansas witnessed first hand such a full frontal assault on their constitutional rights and Liberty itself. Just name any one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights with the possible exception of the 3rd Amendment and you may rest assured the present legislature in the state of Arkansas has proposed or passed legislation designed to obliterate the rights of the people listed in said amendment.

Selected for special attacks by the army of “conservatives” has been the Second, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth amendments. The legislature has, in its attacks on the 2A, demanded that the citizens of Arkansas pay for the right to have the means to defend themselves on the college campuses of the state. In addition, they placed an age restriction which fails to protect any student under the age of 25. You may be old enough to join the military and fight in your country’s wars, risking life and limb along the way, but, according to the “conservatives” of Arkansas, you must have attained the age of 25 before you have the right and means to protect yourself on a college campus in the “Natural State.”

Members of the Arkansas State Police, while testifying against what has been referred to as “Constitutional Carry,” which has been adopted by several other states, stated that allowing the people of Arkansas to be able to openly exercise their 2A rights, which are very plainly stated in Article 2 Section 5 of the state’s Declaration of Rights would deprive said state police of a revenue stream which would require them [state police] having to make their vehicles last longer and that some of the useless bureaucrats (my words) in the state police might actually lose their jobs.

Very early in the legislative term in Little Rock, the right to Trial by Jury—the very cornerstone of Liberty—came under attack. Just as in the Reconstruction era the Republican-dominated legislature sought to combine all three branches of government and place them under the command of one branch and eliminate the people’s ability to address malfeasance and protect the lives of the innocent. The special interest backed proposal would have limited the damages any number of these special interests, such as nursing homes or medical facilities might face, if, through negligence or malpractice, a person under their care was irreparably harmed or died. The legislature did not hide the fact they launched their attack on the Seventh amendment to protect business interests in the state, openly stating large settlements granted by juries to victims of negligence and malpractice was allegedly keeping businesses from coming to Arkansas. What desirable business comes to a state to avoid responsibility? Again, in the hands of the “conservative” super-majority, special interests come before the interest of the individual citizen.

Nowhere to be found in the oaths of office taken by the members of the legislature before they began their session was any oath to uphold and defend the interests of big business over the rights of the individual. Perhaps, along with the oath, the legislators should have been reminded of the dictum found in the Declaration of Independence that the primary duty of government is to protect the rights of the individual, not those of big business and special interests.

The “conservative” legislature also launched attacks on the very idea of transparency in government. Multiple bills were introduced which would allow the members of government and special interests to operate in secret and outside the purview of the people.

On Tuesday at the state capital, in a private one-on-one conversation with a Republican state senator who shall remain nameless, I asked this person of integrity, awash in the sea of attacks on the rights of the citizens, how he felt about his party’s super-majority and if he thought that helped or hindered the interests of the people of Arkansas. This senator candidly stated he found the super-majority to be a hindrance. He said when he took a stance on an issue based on integrity and principles, he was accosted both by fellow lawmakers and some constituents wanting to know why he was opposing the goals of the party and the so-called “conservative” governor. Here can be found concrete evidence that support of political party trumps (no pun intended) principles and the rights of the people.

As previously stated, there has not been seen since the days of the Reconstruction government in the State of Arkansas such a blatant attack on individual rights by those who allegedly represent the people. And the current elected governor is operating with the same frame of mind as the military commander of the state, Powell Clayton did during Reconstruction. With all of the religious zeal of a born-again Scalawag, the current Arkansas governor has, in an alleged effort to “unify the state,” decided to replace the birthday of the greatest Southern Icon, Robert E. Lee, a man with impeccable moral and Christian character, with instead the birthday celebration of a womanizing, serial plagiarist with heavy socialist leanings and connections.

All in all, the majority of legislative actions by the Republican super-majority in Arkansas has devolved into a socialist holiday with all thoughts of the oath to uphold and defend the American Bill of Rights and the Arkansas Declaration of Rights a very faint memory.

The great Southern minister of the 19th Century, Robert L. Dabney, provided us with ample warning of where such “conservatives” would lead us. Dabney was for a time Chief of Staff for Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson. Here is his prediction about conservatives come now to full bloom in the State of Arkansas.

“American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. The pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing for the sake of truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always—when about to enter a protest—very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its ‘bark is worse than its bite,’ and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance.” (Emphasis added)

Be careful what you wish for—and more importantly—what you vote for. “All that glitters is not gold.”

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

 

 

20 QUESTIONS FOR THE RATIONAL MIND

Author’s note: below are several questions that must be answered logically if we are to survive as a free country. These questions will not lead you to a comfort zone. If you want to attack the messenger and discard the message, your mind is neither rational nor logical, but is most likely driven by emotional attachment to a deity called government.

  1. If the US military, over the past 15 years, has truly been fighting for our freedoms, expending large amounts of blood and treasure, why do we now have far fewer individual freedoms than when we began these “perpetual wars for peace?”
  2. Trillions of dollars have been spent, allegedly to protect our freedoms, yet we have fewer freedoms than before. Who has profited monetarily from what must be called an effort in futility?
  3. If it is true that “we must fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here,” why are our borders left unprotected and we are allowing hundreds of thousands of military-aged men from the countries where our military is or has been engaged to “immigrate” into our country?
  4. If you knew a man who left his home and family to travels thousands of miles from that home to engage an enemy but left the doors to his home unlocked, his family unarmed, and unfettered access to his loved ones by those who sought to harm or kill them, on what level would you rate his intelligence?
  5. If you found this man’s logic and reasoning to be flawed, why would you praise and support a government that did the same thing?
  6. Very few of our members of legislatures, both state and federal, vote constitutionally more than half the time. Therefore, many of the laws we live under are unconstitutional. Why then would you call members of the government entity that enforces these unconstitutional laws, “heroes?”
  7. Why, also, would you ask these same legislators to repeal and replace an unconstitutional law with another unconstitutional law? (ACA comes immediately to mind.)
  8. When, not if, an unconstitutional law is passed banning the ownership and possession of the means to protect ourselves and our families, who will come to enforce those unlawful, tyrannical edicts? Will you call them heroes, then?
  9. Who enforces those unconstitutional, anti-Second Amendment laws where they presently exist in our country?
  10. Will it be any different where you live?
  11. Where in the Second Amendment can be found the provision that one must participate in government mandated training to exercise that Creator granted right?
  12. Where in the Second Amendment can be found the provision that one must pay a fee to the government in order to exercise that Creator granted right?
  13. Why is there a large marble monument in this country’s capital which honors a man who destroyed the tenets of the “consent of the governed” provision in our Declaration of Independence, killed hundreds of thousands to create a strong central government, destroyed state’s rights, established the first income tax and created the Internal Revenue Service which are all destructive of our Creator granted rights?
  14. If churches in this country are subject to the payment of taxes, can there ever be a true separation of church and state?
  15. Could this (payment of taxes) be the reason so many churches today preach loyalty to Caesar above loyalty to, and observance of, our inalienable rights?
  16. If the powers within our government used “Operation Paperclip” to staff the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) with former Nazi SS leaders at its beginning in 1947, should we be surprised today that the CIA is acting just like the Gestapo did in Germany in the 1930’s and 1940’s?
  17. The Standards Committee of the Confederate Congress said this when designating the St. Andrew’s Cross as the Confederate Battle Flag, “This flag should be a token of the humble acknowledgment of God and be a public testimony to the world that our trust is in the Lord our God.” Is the banning of this flag by many in this country an attack on alleged “racism” or a surreptitious attack on Christianity?
  18. Are there any other attacks on the Christian faith that have occurred during the past 50 years by those who oppose our Creator granted inalienable rights?
  19. When it comes to the health, safety, and welfare of all American citizens, which should be considered most important; the people themselves, regardless of age or the ability to secure those rights or the monetary bottom line of the businesses who claim to supply them?
  20. What is more important to you, the individual, inalienable rights of your children and grandchildren or the worship of the deity called government in regards to all of that government’s rules, regulations and laws which are in direct conflict with our Creator granted rights?

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

 

DENIAL: THE NATIONAL PASTIME OF THE PERPETUALLY IGNORANT

“The recipe for perpetual ignorance is: Be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge.” Elbert Hubbard, who also stated that prison “Was an example of a socialist’s paradise, where equality prevails, everything is supplied and competition is eliminated.”

In 1999, I debated a well-lettered member of European academia on the intent and purpose of our Second Amendment in Sacramento, California. At the end of our exchange, this lady stated the following: “I don’t care how many facts you present, you are never going to change my mind.” While I would like to blame this sort of well embraced repudiation of facts, or the origin of the lady who said it, her form of acquired ignorance is far too prevalent in this country to do so.

While there are reams and reams of factual evidence which intellectually destroys the premise that our Second War for Independence was fought primarily over the issue of slavery, the great majority of Americans who take their daily dose of socialist propaganda from the deep-state owned mainstream media refuse to accept those facts with a passion that resembles worship of some form of deity.

Probably more overlooked than the primary issue for this war would be the atrocities that have been visited on various peoples by those socialists who prevailed in 1865 and those who followed their examples.

First, although almost everyone has heard of the prison camp at Andersonville, Georgia where horrid conditions such as a lack of food, medicines, and shelter led to the deaths of  13,000, primarily from scurvy, diarrhea, and dysentery, all which could have been prevented with adequate supplies of foods and medicines which the Union Army command had refused to provide as well as a refusal for prisoner exchanges which would have freed many of those who died at Andersonville, very few have ever heard of Camp Douglas, where over 6,000 Confederate prisoners died, many from the same afflictions as the Union prisoners in Andersonville. The primary difference being while the commanders of Andersonville had no blankets, food or medicines to dispense, those same items were in good supply at Camp Douglas but were intentionally withheld by the authorities there. In addition, any Black Confederate soldier who was brought to Camp Douglas was summarily executed. The only monument to these men who died at Camp Douglas was erected by Confederate Veterans. Documentation of the above can be found in the books To Die in Chicago by George Levy and the well-done documentary film Eighty Acres of Hell which can be found here.

Then there was the Elmira, New York prison which was referred to by those who survived as “Hellmira.” Here, also, clothing, medical supplies, and other necessities were intentionally withheld from the Confederate prisoners. This camp saw a 25% death rate.

Most likely, very few have ever heard of the “Devil’s Punchbowl” in Natchez, Mississippi. Here the victims of Union Army cruelty and negligence fell not on Confederate soldiers but on blacks who had been “liberated” by the Union Army. According to blackmainstreet.net:

“20,000 freed slaves died after being forced into post-slavery concentration camps… As the slaves made their way to freedom, the town of Natchez went from a population of 10,000 to 120,000 people almost overnight. In order to deal with the population influx of recently freed slaves, a concentration camp was established to essentially eradicate the slaves. The men were recaptured by the Union troops and forced back into hard labor. The women and children were locked behind the concrete walls of the camp and left to die from starvation. Many also died from the smallpox disease. In total, over 20,000 freed slaves were killed in one year, inside of this American concentration camp. A researcher studying the existence of the concentration camps said, “The union army did not allow them to remove the bodies from the camp. They just gave ’em shovels and said bury ’em where they drop.” Many of those blacks forced into labor by the Union Army begged their captors to be allowed to return to the plantations from which they had recently fled, according to Don Estes, historical researcher and former director of the Natchez City Cemetery.

Ah, the beneficent Union Army, which fought a war to free the black man, saw fit to place them in concentration camps and work or starve them to death.

Ironic is it not that Major Wirtz, commander at Andersonville Prison, was tried and executed after the war, but the commanders of the Confederate prison camps in the North or the Union commanders who placed freed blacks in concentration camps saw no punishment for their heinous acts but in at least one instance (Camp Douglas) they were promoted. After the war, a Union soldier and captive at Andersonville, James Madison Page, wrote a book in defense of Major Wirtz. This can be found in the book, The True Story of Andersonville Prison: A Defense of Major Henry Wirtz.”

If one were to do a study of personal integrity, one could always start with Major Wirtz, for he was offered a reprieve from his death sentence if he would implicate Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis in the deaths of the men at Andersonville. He refused and went to his death on the gallows. (source: The treatment of prisoners during the War Between the States by Rev. William Jones)

Of course none of the above takes into consideration the death and destruction that was visited on the American Indians by the self-same Union Army both during and after the war against the South. Nor does it take into accord the atrocities that were visited on the surrendered German soldiers at Rhine Meadows by the Union Army of 1861-65’s descendants in 1945. Ironically, these crimes were perpetrated on the innocent by soldiers who were just “following orders.” a crime for which several Nazis were hanged.

So, the next time you feel the warmth of American Exceptionalism overtaking your mind, please take the time to study the facts concerning the atrocities of forces who represent the government you have chosen to worship. That is if your institutionalized, perpetual ignorance will allow you to do so.

“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” ~ George Orwell

Americans very often refuse to see themselves as others see them, especially those they have harmed. Therein lies the reason so many are comfortable believing the lies of their government supported revisionist historians and media whores.

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

 

MANY GUN OWNERS, POLITICIANS AND MEDIA AGREE

(Author’s note: I originally wrote this article some 7 1/2 years ago, thus the reference to Obama. I have made a few modifications to the original article for clarification purposes and removed broken links. Many states legislatures are still proposing more and more restrictions on our inalienable right to have the necessary tools to defend ourselves and our loved ones. Many times they offer to the uninformed partial rights based on age or the ability to pay for the privilege. For this reason, I believe the tenets of this message to still be most relevant. Our rights are inalienable because they were granted by our creator. Why do we continue to beg and pay government to exercise the rights we already have? 

As a government grows more and more intrusive on individual liberties, that government’s fear of the armed citizen increases exponentially, just as an armed robber fears a well-armed potential victim. Here, in America, in the last seventy plus years, our government and their stooges in the media have sought to relegate the right of a free people to keep and bear arms into a privilege, subject to government approval, rather than an inalienable right. Sadly, many gun owners have agreed to participate in this madness.

I have been consistent in my objections to asking permission and paying for the privilege to carry a weapon on my person, if, and when, I chose to do so. Yet, the majority of objections I receive to my position come from people who currently own guns and have jumped at the opportunity for government approval to do what they already have an inalienable right to do. Is this not an open acknowledgement to those in power the Second Amendment, and the remainder of the Bill of Rights, mean nothing and are subject to the whim of some elected criminal, bureaucrat, or an agenda wearing a black robe?

When I decided to write this article, I did not contact the government, submit to a background check, submit fingerprints, take a government endorsed writing class and pay for permission. What is the difference in the exercise of my inalienable right to free speech and my inalienable right to keep and bear arms? The difference is: the state currently fears my ability to resist tyranny with a firearm more than with words, but as we can see from the reaction of the government and its media lackeys to the spoken objections to the tyranny of socialized medicine, that is about to change.

In today’s political climate, if one dares to speak out about the intrusion of the state into every crevice of liberty and freedom, they are compared by the socialist mouth organ to Nazis, Hamas, ISIS and Hezbollah.

If the First Amendment rights follow the pattern of the Second Amendment, only those who have been vetted by the state will be allowed to speak or write publicly, and then only after passing the prerequisite courses, state scrutiny, and of course, pay the required amount for the privilege.

I can see the stooges proudly proclaiming their newly paid-for right to speak and write, just as they do now with their permits to carry a concealed weapon. Then, many will lobby for reciprocity from other states the right to speak or publish, or perhaps even campaign for a national permit to exercise their First Amendment rights.

An American, exercising his inalienable right to keep and bear arms, recently (2009) became the focus of the state and the media in New Hampshire near where Obama was to appear. Chris Matthews and other members of the propaganda ministry were apoplectic. How dare anyone other than a government bottom feeder be allowed near the Messiah with a firearm? What would have happened had this man decided to exercise his First Amendment rights at the same time he was exercising his Second?

What did the state and the media fear most about this man with a gun? Was it the man, the gun, the spirit of the man, or perhaps it might have been his ethnicity? After all, according to the media, if he were there to object to the socialist plans of Obama that would reveal his latent racism. We all know, white people concerned about government taking over their health care want to shoot anyone who is only half white.

What a masterstroke it was for the government to get Ignoramus Americanus to admit the only rights he has are those subject to the “reasonable” restrictions of his masters and his/her ability to pay the required fee. The precedent has been set and we have agreed; you must submit yourself before the god called government, pass their background checks, take their approved qualification course, submit the required monies and wait for your ID card certifying you have permission from the state to exercise at least one of your former inalienable rights!

If you, and/or a member of your family, are assaulted by a madman with a weapon while in a restaurant, on a school campus, in church, at the mall, in a bank, in the parking lot where you shop or work, in a carjacking or a mugging, or visiting Obama’s home town, you must remember, the only people allowed to defend their lives and those of their loved ones are those who have been sanctioned by the state to do so. That is freedom in America today, granted by the government, bought and paid for.

Through our inactions and apathy we have acknowledged the state to be the masters of our lives; perhaps we can apply for the privilege of having our own health care, the right not to be forcibly injected by some vaccine whose side effects are worse than the disease or the right not to be imprisoned in a FEMA camp. Remember, we traded our rights for security. It is turning out to be one heck of a bad bargain.

Resistance, anyone?

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

AND, THE REAL CRIMINALS ARE…..??

We are continually told by our government and their shills in the media of the criminality engaged in by those with the audacity to challenge the legality of government intrusions on our liberty and freedoms. They oftentimes refer to us as “Domestic Terrorists.” “By what authority” could a local, elected public official such as a Sheriff challenge unconstitutional laws has been on the lips of many of the candidates . Ignorance is bliss and it requires very little action.

What would the course of action by those who see government as an infallible entity (civic religion) and those in the judicial branch who live by precedent over our Constitution and Bill of Rights be if a federal judge were to refer to a government organization as a “criminal enterprise?” If that same federal judge were to cite two members of that government organization for engaging in a conspiracy to interfere with the rights of others and intimidate witnesses, would law enforcement and prosecutors move immediately to indict and prosecute those so cited and accused?

What if this federal judge said: “In the present case, the government organization’s actions over the past two decades shock the conscience of the Court?”  What if this criminal enterprise was charged with obstruction of justice and contempt of court? What if the employees of this organization were charged with conducting a “twenty-year conspiracy” depriving others of their property rights and extortion of money? What if this criminal enterprise had been repeatedly ordered to pay damages in the millions of dollars for their criminal acts but had simply refused to do so?

What if this criminal enterprise continues unabated?  What if this criminal enterprise is our own government operating through the Bureau of Land Management and the US Forest Service? The above comments and quotes were taken from the case, Estate of Wayne Hage v United States and comments concerning government criminality came from the former Chief US District Judge of Nevada, Robert C. Jones.

What we have, emanating from no less authority than a federal judge, is a criminal indictment of the actions of the US Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management in the state of Nevada for over 20 years. But, here is a question that must be answered: Has the tactics declared a “conspiracy to deprive a man of his private property,” “intimidating witnesses” and actions that would “shock the conscience of a federal court” only taken place in Nevada, or is the criminality systemic throughout those federal agencies regardless of the state in which they operate? To answer this question one need only look at similar acts in many western states. Do the criminal acts perpetrated on the Hage family vary in any great detail from those visited on the Wallace family of Montezuma County, Colorado? Were these same criminal acts visited on the Bundy family in Nevada in the spring of 2014 and on the Bundy brothers, LaVoy Finicum, Shawna Cox and others in Oregon in January of 2016?

Now, for the obvious question: Are there laws on the books in each state in which the USFS and BLM operate which make conspiring to take someone’s personal property; intimidating witnesses and obstruction of justice an illegal act? If Joe Citizen were to engage in activities that would shock the conscience of a federal court and judge, would they not be facing criminal indictments and jail time? If so, then why haven’t state and county officials moved to indict and arrest these criminals or have we devolved politically in this country to the point that, like in Nazi Germany and the old Soviet Union, members of the party apparatus are “above the law?” There are many in local and state government who claim they have no authority or jurisdiction in such matters. How could that be if there are criminal statutes on the book prohibiting such actions by anyone, including federal employees?

Obviously, the authorization for employees of the USFS and BLM to conduct themselves in such criminal behavior must originate with the upper management of those agencies, especially considering it has been condoned for decades and no employee has received any public discipline or termination. I can assure you the decision not to pay the Hage estate the monies awarded by a federal court was not made at the local or state levels.

The next question that must be asked is: considering the overwhelming condemnation of the acts of the USFS and BLM in Nevada by a federal judge, why has no action been taken by our members of Congress to bring these outrages to an end? What would happen if members of the House of Representatives, using the powers of our Constitution, simply voted to de-fund all rogue government agencies and replace those in authority? Do we believe for a moment these cowards operating behind the authority of the federal government as they go about their “criminal enterprise” would continue their criminality if the paychecks stopped rolling in? Is this not an indictment of our federal government when the facts are clear our tax dollars are going to fund this criminal enterprise? If members of Congress refuse to take the appropriate action, are they not “co-conspirators” in these crimes and themselves obstructing justice?

Donning my tinfoil hat, I am compelled to ask another question: Are these criminal actions by the USFS and BLM, operating with a wink and a nod from our Congress, simply a continuing effort to “collateralize” our national debt to protect the international banking interests and their loans which allow our government to continue unabated with this madness?

In 1987, in Colorado, at Estes Park, a large group of environmentalists, members of the world banking cartel and United Nations bureaucrats, including then Secretary of the Treasury James Baker, who gave the keynote address, Chase Manhattan’s David Rockefeller, Edmund de Rothschild of the Bank of London and investment counselor George Hunt who served as official host, met and eventually formed the World Conservancy Bank.

While the environmentalists in attendance were being hypnotized and mentally intoxicated with promises of protecting the Rain Forests and fixing the Ozone Layer, the banksters went to work to seize land and water in the Western States. Quotes from their speeches and correspondence are most revealing.

“Title to the lands will go to the World Wilderness Land Inventory Trust. This Trust will float into the World Conservation Bank by the unanimous decree of the world’s people, saying, God bless you for saving our reindeer. Those people at the congress were ignorant. They don’t suspect anything. They’re very naïve. Not stupid, ignorant. I’m talking about the 90% that were not the world banking heavyweights.”  ~George Hunt

“No longer will the World Bank carry this debt unsecured. The only assets we have to collateralize are federal lands and national parks.” ~James Baker

There it is—in their words—not mine. Federal Judge Robert C. Jones made the indictments and ferreted out the real conspirators. Do I still need my tinfoil hat?

The intrusions on our private property by those operating under the color of law and authority would soon end if those in local and state government would grow a pair, follow their sacred oaths to our Constitutions, Federal and State, and arrest and indict these “federal sheriffs” Patrick Henry warned us about in the Virginia Ratification Convention of 1788. But such actions would require the support of an ignorant but thoroughly entertained populace I oftentimes refer to as the species, Ignoramus Americanus.

A word to the wise: DON’T HOLD YOUR BREATH.

“THOSE WHO MAKE PEACEFUL REVOLUTION IMPOSSIBLE WILL MAKE VIOLENT REVOLUTION INEVITABLE” ~JFK

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY

JEFFERSON OR HITLER: WHOSE PLAN ARE WE FOLLOWING?

 

When James Madison left New York for Philadelphia on May 2nd, 1787 he carried with him not the proposed amendments to the Articles of Confederation which was the mandate of the convention but an entirely new idea for a constitution that would make the “National” government supreme with the states nothing but subdivisions of the central government structure. His proposal would grant the national government veto power over all state laws. Madison’s plan was totally contrary to the results of the recent war with England which gave primary power to the states with the central government only allowed the powers the states saw fit to provide. Madison’s plan called for a consolidated union that would virtually annihilate the states. The states would only be maintained as long as they could be “subordinately useful.”

In opposition to this proposed form of government, New York delegate John Lansing would most astutely observe that the states would never have consented to select delegates to attend a convention that would lead to their destruction.

So, why is this of any importance? Simply because the Nationalist form of government which would allow a strong central government to act directly on the people, ironically what our government of today has become, was completely rejected by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

Unfortunately for Liberty, the form of government rejected at the convention is now seen as supreme by the overwhelming majority of people in office; people running for office; all judges regardless of position in government; all of the bureaucrats and a huge majority of people in this country.

So-called “conservative” elected officials have been heard to state “no law is unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says it is.” A “conservative” candidate for US Senate was recently heard to remark that whatever the US Supreme Court rules must be considered as gospel. This is a complete repudiation of the rights of states to determine what is best for their own citizens and therefore a repudiation of the principles of Jefferson and an advocacy of the principles found in Hitler’s Mein Kampf which revolved around destruction of the individual states.

On the subject of the Supreme Court being the final arbiter of what is and what is not constitutional, Jefferson stated the following:

“…(T)he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”

Giving the Supreme Court the power to judge what is and what is not constitutional, not only the federal level but also on the state level, destroys the very intent of the 9th and 10th Amendments. In other words, the Supreme Court Justices and other lesser federal judges have set about to amend our Constitution by judicial fiat.

On this subject George Mason would state the following at the Virginia State Ratifying Convention:

“If the laws and constitution of the general government, as expressly said, be paramount to those of any state, are not those rights with which we were afraid to trust our own citizens annulled and given up to the general government? . . . If they are not given up, where are they secured?

I do not believe the subject can be any clearer that when the “national” government supersedes those of the states, Liberty soon becomes first endangered and finally extinct.

So, how is this connected to Adolf Hitler you ask? The answer can be found on page 572 of Hitler’s magnum opus, Mein Kampf.  While lamenting that Bismarck had not gone far enough in destroying state’s rights in Germany, Hitler said:

“And so today this state, for the sake of its own existence, is obliged to curtail the sovereign rights of the individual provinces more and more, not only out of general material considerations but from ideal considerations as well…basic for us National Socialists is derived: A powerful national Reich . . .”

Are you beginning to see a pattern here? James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and the other nationalists among our founders believed that to have an omnipotent central government, the power of the individual states must be eliminated. Accomplishing this would lead to the destruction of the Declaration of Independence concept of “consent of the governed,” a concept vital to the existence of Liberty and Natural Rights.

Abraham Lincoln initiated a war to destroy the concepts of State’s Rights and consent of the governed, killing over 800,000 Americans and replacing the government based on consent with a strong central government ruled by a cabal unrestrained with the limits of a constitution.

Lincoln was praised by Karl Marx for his accomplishments and Adolf Hitler used Lincoln’s premise for an omnipotent central government to establish his National Socialist empire that led to the deaths of millions; some in furnaces and by firing squad to millions more on the battlefields of WWII.

The candidates, politicians and all members of the species Ignoramus Americanus who claim that decrees of the Supreme Court are infallible and constitute immutable law adhere to the beliefs of some of the most evil, murderous tyrants in history and should be treated as the enemies to Liberty that they are.

Contrast please the diametrically opposed concepts of Adolf Hitler and Thomas Jefferson.

“National Socialism as a matter of principle, must lay claim to the right to force its principles on the whole German nation without consideration of previous federated state boundaries, and to educate in its ideas and conceptions. Just as the churches do not feel bound and limited by political boundaries, no more does the National Socialist idea feel limited by the individual state territories of our fatherland. The National Socialist doctrine is not the servant of individual federated states, but shall some day become the master of the German nation. It must determine and reorder the life of a people, and must, therefore, imperiously claim the right to pass over [state] boundaries drawn by a development we have rejected.” ~Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 578

“That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes—delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.” ~Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolution, 10 November 1798

As you read the two above quotes you must ask yourself: “Which of the two most closely resembles the government we have today, supported by candidates and politicians who claim the federal government and its attendant bureaucracies and decrees of the US Supreme Court to be gospel?”

Would it suffice to say that as the power of the individual states and the people are concerned, so goes Freedom and Liberty?

Who do you choose; Jefferson or Hitler?

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY