There were two Lincolns—the myth and the man. The man is dead, the myth lives. The war he made was no myth. The War to Prevent Southern Independence is a cancer in the very living marrow of America.” ~ Charles T. Pace, Southern Independence. Why War?

As previously stated, Slavery was not the reason Lincoln unconstitutionally ordered 75,000 troops to invade the states “in rebellion.” As Lincoln said throughout the beginning stages of the war, his purpose was to maintain the Union.

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union …” Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862.

Here, over a year into it, Lincoln states unequivocally his “paramount object” in pursuing the war was still to “save the Union.” He states if he could save the Union without freeing any slave, he would do it. Just a month later, Lincoln issues the Emancipation Proclamation that only freed slaves outside of his jurisdiction and control. He also stated the Emancipation Proclamation was a political move. To assert over 150 years later that Lincoln instigated the war to free the slaves is a sure sign of mental illness, a statement of complete and total illusion, contrary to the words of Lincoln himself and totally devoid of factual historical evidence.

A “union” by definition can either be free or compulsory. In 1787-1788, eleven states ratified the Constitution and freely joined the union of states. North Carolina and Rhode Island would ratify after the government began to operate. There is considerable evidence both were coerced into joining the union, but that is a story for another time.

Three states who joined this union stated specifically in their ratification documents their right to dissolve the bands of union should the central government pervert its power to the “injury or oppression” of  that state. Those three states were Rhode Island, New York and Virginia. Here are excerpts from these three states’ ratification documents to that effect.

New York:

“That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness;  that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same…”

Rhode Island:

“In That there are certain natural rights, of which men when they form a social compact, cannot deprive or divest their posterity, among which are the enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing and protecting Property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

2d That all power is naturally vested in, and consequently derived from the People; that magistrates therefore are their trustees and agents, and at all times amenable to them.

3d That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness…”


“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:”

An entire book could be written on these simple clauses in the ratifying documents of three states and how the central government has perverted its powers for over 150 years and continues to do so today. But, my purpose with this effort is to show that slavery was not the primary cause for the War to Prevent Southern Independence but, in fact, the cause was seven states exercising their rights as mentioned in the ratification documents above, which amounted to the withdrawal of the consent of those states to be ruled by a government which they believed was being “perverted to their injury or oppression.”

There is always the question with the mention of these three states and their ratification of the Constitution, whether the other states have the same right of secession if they had not specifically mentioned that right in their ratification documents. First, we must acknowledge those three states were admitted with the full knowledge of their claims to secession documented within their ratification. Secondly, we must look to the Constitution itself, specifically Article 4 Section 2:

“The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.”

Since all states are constitutionally entitled to the privileges of any of the other states, it is obvious any state has the right of secession. Nullification or secession is the very essence of freedom. If a person or a state is not allowed to secede from that to which they once acceded, especially when they see their interests being perverted to their injury or oppression, there is no freedom of association and those held to service of a government they do not want are political and economic slaves.

Patrick Henry, a man of strong faith, a vast knowledge of history and eloquent speech, was also a man of vision. He saw from the beginning the people of the North would use the new government to their advantage against the people of the South and said so at the very ratification convention which produced the right of secession for the people of Virginia. Here are his words on that subject.

Those who have no similar interests with the people of the South are to legislate for us. Our dearest rights are to be put in the hands of those whose advantage it will be to infringe them. They will rule by patronage and sword. The states are committing suicide.”

Perhaps it is time to return to the theme with which I started this anthology. From the very onset of the convention in Philadelphia of 1787, as witnessed by the above words of Patrick Henry, the people of the South feared control of the central government would fall to the population density of the North. That was the very reason they fought so hard to have Blacks counted toward representation in the House of Representatives during the convention.  The Articles of Confederation had provided them with what they saw as balance with the other states, for the Articles provided for one state—one vote and the ability of an individual state to nullify any proposal the people of that state believed to be contrary to their interest. The newly proposed constitution removed all those guarantees.

History reveals their fears were justified. Using their majority in Congress, the northern coalition government raised what became a “protectionist tariff” to 20% in 1816, to 37% in 1824 and to 50% in 1828. This tariff was continually raised by interests in the North to protect the price of their goods from imports from Europe. Since the South depended on these imports of domestic goods which were not produced in any extent in their primarily agrarian society, the tariffs forced the Southern states to buy from northern factories, goods at artificially inflated northern prices. All that was required to insure this was to continually raise the price of goods from Europe by raising the protectionist tariff. The South began to realize it was their tax dollars which were supporting the government and the infrastructure of the North with very little of those tax dollars coming back to the South.

With the advent of the Morrill Tariff in 1860 which raised the tariff rate to 60%, the people of the South began to realize the reason their ancestors had revolted against England behind the phrase “no taxation without representation.”

The central theme throughout the Secession conventions in late 1860 and early 1861 were the words contained in the Declaration of Independence.

“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” 

The people of the deep South believed they were no different than the colonists who had seceded from King George III. They also believed they no longer had representation in the central government, especially with the election of Abraham Lincoln to the office of President. There is a valid reason for their beliefs.

Lincoln’s name did not even appear on the ballots in ten of the Southern states; Lincoln received not one electoral vote in fifteen of the thirty-three states; all 18 states that elected Lincoln were above the Mason-Dixon line; of the total votes cast in the 1860 election (4,682,069) Lincoln received only 39.9% (1,866,452) which means his opponents garnered almost a million more votes than Lincoln. (2,815,617).

Lincoln went to war with the South, not over slavery, but because seven Southern states had seceded from his precious Union. Lincoln stated in his First Inaugural Address that he would not interfere with slavery in the states where it existed, but he did state he would invade the South to collect the tariff. Like all other wars, if one removes the moral rhetoric for committing to “the last resort” of death and destruction, one will always find a trail of money. The South was paying over 80% of the tariffs which supported the central government. This amounted to over 60% of the total revenues for the entire country.

Lincoln initiated war against the South to protect the flow of money to his Northern business connections and supporters. Slavery did not matter until Lincoln needed a moral issue to justify killing hundreds of thousands for money and power.

to be continued

In Rightful Liberty





(Author’s note: I continue to be flabbergasted at how many people in this country call for demonization of all things Southern and the removal of all images and symbols of the South based on lies and distorted history. Therefore, I again intend to do several articles offering historical proof of the righteousness of the cause of the South and those brave men who made the ultimate sacrifice for the cause of liberty from 1861 to 1865.)

In the summer of 1787, in Philadelphia, the convention nearly failed over the concern of all present on how to prevent a section, group of states, (larger v smaller) a faction, (slavery v antislavery) or special interest group from taking over control of the government that would see its birth in that convention. This discussion held center stage for weeks and at times appeared it would be the factor that led to the breakup of the convention and possible disunion.

Small states feared the large states; states with small populations feared the more populous ones and slave states feared the antislavery states. (South v North) Supposedly, there was the “great compromise” which was the brainchild of Roger Sherman which led to a bicameral congress with a House of Representatives with delegates selected on a population basis and a Senate with a set number of representatives from each state. Of course this still failed to address who would actually count as a citizen for the purposes of determining population.

Today, there is much weeping and wailing on the national scene by those who criticize the decision to count the black population as three fifths of a person. While the South catches much of the flack for this decision, it was the Southern states who demanded blacks be counted towards representation. Had the Northern states had their way, the black population would not have been counted at all. While the South insisted the black population be counted in its entirety, a compromise was reached in which blacks were counted as three fifths of a person.

At the end of the convention, the issue of slavery had not been dealt with in a satisfactory manner completely acceptable to either side. By avoiding this issue, and for the sake of creating a new government, the seeds for what would become the War Between the States were planted. At the ratification of our Constitution and the creation of a new government in 1789—slavery was legal and constitutional.

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, for whatever reason, failed to address what has to be considered a moral issue. How many times have we heard the phrase “you can’t legislate morality?” Is it the role of government to decide what is and what is not moral in a society? Better put, where in our Constitution or Bill of Rights is our government granted the authority to legislate for the conscience of an individual? What happens when government acts immorally? Who investigates the investigator?

Obviously our government continues to involve itself in moral issues. What better illustration do we have than abortion? There are those who claim a “woman has a right to choose—after all its her body,” yet do not follow that belief through to it’s logical conclusion. If a woman is the sole decider of what she can do with her body, without interference either by government or others, why is prostitution illegal?

Various groups, throughout history, have used moral issues to further their immoral agendas. Nowhere in the history of this country is that more evident than during what culminated in the War Between the States. The facts are there; abolitionists made up less than 5% of the people in the Northern States prior to the war and several Northern states did not allow free blacks to visit, much less live there. Yet, we are told today slavery was the driving force behind a war that took almost one million American lives, created an overpowering central government, a massive national debt and destroyed the concept of “consent of the governed.”

Lies are lies; Lincoln did not call for troops to invade the South on April 15, 1861 in order to defeat slavery. If you believe his motive was to eliminate slavery, you are a sanctimonious idiot. The seven slave states were no longer represented in the Congress, therefore, Lincoln could have called for a constitutional amendment outlawing slavery completely, just as easily as he could have called for troops to invade the South. There would not have been enough slave states to block or hinder passage of such an amendment. Instead, he called for support of the Corwin Amendment which would have made slavery legal in perpetuity and outside the purview of Congress. There are historical facts which indicate Lincoln himself might have been the author of the amendment.

First, let us look at the text of the Corwin Amendment:

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

Facts indicate it was not Ohio Congressman Thomas Corwin who authored the amendment. Most possibly it gained the name of Corwin because he was chairman of the “Committee of Thirty Three” which had been formed to possibly pacify the states that had seceded and those who were considering same. The text actually came from committee member Charles Francis Adams who stated he received it from the Senate where it had been introduced by the man who would become Lincoln’s Secretary of State, William H. Seward. The possibility Lincoln himself was the author can be found in Lincoln’s official papers. On December 21, 1860, Lincoln sent the following to Illinois Senator Lyman Trumbull “[expect] “three short resolutions which I drew up, and which, on the substance of which, I think would do much good.”

Then, of course, we have Lincoln’s stated intent and mention of the Corwin Amendment in his First Inaugural Address:

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution — which amendment, however, I have not seen — has passed Congress to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service . . . . [H]olding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable”

There you have it; Lincoln did not object to slavery being made perpetual, endorsed it in his inaugural address and perhaps was the author of the amendment. Obviously, this was a political move to maintain the Union just as Lincoln stated the Emancipation Proclamation was a political move. (a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion.) A move which outlawed slavery only in the areas of which Lincoln had no control, but kept approximately one-half million slaves in bondage in areas where he did have control, namely the border states and areas within the South under control of the Union Army.

Lincoln’s Secretary of State, William H. Seward acknowledged Lincoln’s duplicity reference the Emancipation Proclamation with the following:

We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.” (Source: Randall and Donald, The Civil War and Reconstruction p. 371)

Perhaps it was not intentional, but mere coincidence, that had Lincoln not issued the Emancipation Proclamation on September 22, 1862, perhaps all of the slaves being held in the border states and Union held parts of the South would have been freed the next day by the “Second Confiscation Act”

According to Black historian and author of “Forced into Glory,” Lerone Bennett, the Emancipation Proclamation actually re-enslaved 500,000 slaves who were about to be freed by the Second Confiscation Act. But, it must also be considered that Lincoln and the Republican dominated Congress could have freed the slaves under their control at any time, which they failed to do until 1865 after the South was in ruins and hundreds of thousands were dead and wounded.

Lincoln did not call for troops to invade the South to abolish slavery; Lincoln invaded the South because the North was facing impeding financial collapse and chaos directly attributable to the secession of the seven Southern states from the Union in late 1860 and early 1861. Why would Lincoln have petitioned the border states, which allowed slavery, to provide troops to invade the states in the South if his motive was to abolish slavery? One simply cannot embrace logic and truth and at the same time defend Abraham Lincoln and his unconstitutional war. 

(To be continued) 

In Rightful Liberty





As one could imagine, having read my previous works, I am having an extremely difficult time in understanding a great number of those who refer to themselves as “Christians” lately. I believe there could be no better season to address my concerns than the celebrated birthday of Christ. The origin of the words Christian and Christmas, for those of you burdened with a Public Fool System education where the mention of either is verboten, especially by those in authority, originates with the word Christ.

In a previous Rant, I questioned the logic of one Kutter Callaway and his renunciation of his right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed in the Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights and his obvious embracing of what is civil religion, or man’s religion known as government. Now, another one of these statevangelicals has come to my attention with his questioning of whether Christians should be armed. His name is John Piper. Obviously neither Callaway nor Piper see any contradictions in their teachings or they wouldn’t be advocating for their fellow Christians to denounce or refuse to utilize their Second Amendment rights.

Piper, in a 2005 sermon, stated Christians must be “submissive to the Constitution.” Now, is that the entirety of the Constitution, or just the parts Piper agrees with? If we are to be submissive to the civil authority, as Piper claims, are we to be submissive to that authority when it stands in contradiction to the Constitution? To state the question more simply, would be to ask: If our Bill of Rights, which, according to our Declaration of Independence contains rights “endowed by our creator,” and states the people have a right to keep and bear arms and the government claims they do not, which “authority” does a Christian submit to? Do we submit to the laws of God or the laws of man when they conflict? It is impossible to be submissive to both. Do the words of Matthew 6:24 have relevance here?

In a January 2006 article, Piper states the individual does not have the right to resist evil. In his words reference individuals, “It looks as though he [God] leaves no place in using force in resisting evil.” In the same sermon, Piper makes his case for war in defense of evil as long as the government (civil authority) is in command. He also states an individual Christian while serving in the military, because he is serving man and not God, has the right to resist evil with force.

What I hear Piper saying is: if an individual were in their own home and that home was invaded by criminals and those criminals were about to murder and rape his wife and children, make him watch and then kill him, “God leaves no place in using force in resisting evil.”  But, if that same individual was wearing the uniform of his country and found himself face to face with an enemy who was defending his home and family from an invader, in his own country, the soldier has every right to use deadly force against that enemy, simply because that enemy was designated such by those Piper views to be in authority.

Perhaps a prudent individual might see the conundrum I see in the positions taken by both Piper and Callaway? I have heard sermon after sermon and read article upon article concerning the 13th Chapter of Romans and “submission to authority” yet, I have heard not one on what are the obligations of Christians when the authority they are to be submissive to becomes tyrannical and evil. Piper states, “Pacifism is harmful” and “to let someone murder when it is in your power to stop them is completely contrary to our moral sentiments.” But, his reference is to governments and not individuals. He says that if a tyrant [Hitler was his example] is “on the move and seeking to bind the world in tyranny, it would be clearly wrong not to oppose him with force.” 

Piper also states the police have the right to enforce man’s laws using force, so if a policeman happened to be in your home when a group of thugs break in to debauch and murder you and your family, that policeman can defend you, if not, “God has left no place for you [as a husband/wife and father/mother] to use force in resisting that evil.” 

While reading and listening to several sermons and articles by Piper and Callaway, I found a common denominator being both appear to studiously avoid any reference to our founders and their reason(s) for demanding the “right to keep and bear arms” be included in our Bill of Rights; perhaps, because this would run contrary to their stated positions. Many of our founders understood what was necessary to keep the “civil authority” bound within the limits of the Constitution to which Piper said “Christians must be in submission.” Noah Webster defined it well:

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.” — An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

In my humble opinion, I believe both Piper and Callaway have transferred their allegiance from God’s law, as described in the Declaration of Independence to man’s law as we see it today in the perversions of our Constitution by those in “authority.” In their minds the individual must be in submission to the civil authority and only allow that authority to use force against evil. The problem they ignore is: what to do if those in authority become evil, which would leave all means of force in their hands, the exact thing many of our founders warned us about.

Have many of our religious leaders sold out to the government and its “position of authority” as is seen in Form 1023 of the IRS code? Would these religious leaders, were they to have lived during the reigns of Hitler, Stalin and other tyrants, have submitted themselves to tyranny and evil because they were the authorities appointed over them?

We have a government of authority which allows for infanticide on a grand scale, the embracing of “alternative lifestyles” which many “Christians” deplore, unconstitutional wars waged against civilian populations around the globe and forbids the tenets of the Christian faith be taught in schools under their control, yet there are those in ministerial positions who believe only those commissioned by those in authority have the right to defend themselves. Yes, they do present a conundrum wrapped in an enigma to any thinking individual.

Jeremiah 50: 6, “My people hath been lost sheep: their shepherds have caused them to go astray, they have turned them away on the mountains: they have gone from mountain to hill, they have forgotten their resting place.”

In Rightful Liberty



The evidence is irrefutable: the American voter decides who they will vote for almost exclusively from the viewpoint of, “what are you going to do for me in the future” while completely ignoring “what have you done TO me in the past.”

Judged constitutionally, almost all of the current crop of power seekers in both major political parties would have more mug shots in their past than they would photo ops in their future.

There exists an obvious reason none of the candidates are asked questions publicly about how what they propose to do in the future comports with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Before you fret too much about this fact, understand, it is not done because the people do not demand it; more often than not the people accept it.

Almost daily I receive a multitude of emails from those who certainly would describe themselves as being “conservative” complaining about the dangers of Muslim jihadists who are perhaps in our midst at this very moment. None of these emails address specifically what would motivate a Muslim to travel across the ocean to kill us infidels other than their religion requires it. If this is true, their religion has been requiring it for centuries, but the fact they have been further motivated by 25 years of bombing and shooting in their own countries by an armed invader is studiously avoided.

The question also avoided is this: when did those who intend to do us harm, perhaps motivated by irresponsible, unconstitutional acts of our government, first start positioning themselves to harm us within our own borders, and have members of our government actually assisted in their sinister endeavors?

What are the common denominators of vulnerability that have existed in this country since the 1970’s when we first found ourselves at odds with the Iranians and the Ayatollah during the hostage situation? The simple answer is: wide-open unprotected borders, amnesty for those who break our laws and politicians who work to maintain the status quo.

It has been reported the Iranians began infiltrating into this country during the hostage situation in Iran in 1979. Allegedly, they were positioned here in sleeper-cells in order to be activated should this country begin bombing Iran in retaliation for the taking of hostages. It is unclear as to whether they continued their sleeper-cell activities during the Iran-Contra affair when then President Reagan secretly and unconstitutionally provided Iran with missiles that were stolen from Pentagon supply warehouses. Of course, like today, Iran was on the US Terror Watch-list and was engaged in a war with Iraq, whom we also supported militarily. So, the head of the so-called “free world” was providing weapons to terrorists. Now we may know where Obama learned how to supply ISIS.

Should it also be mentioned the money Reagan was receiving from the Ayatollah Khomeini in exchange for the missiles was being funneled to the right-wing death squads known as the Contras in El Salvador and Nicaragua? Should it also be mentioned this was in direct violation of the Boland Amendment passed by Congress in 1982? Please remember; if you support what Reagan was doing, even though it was unconstitutional, you do not support the Constitution and you have no position of indignation when Obama or any other elected official follows his example.

If Iranian or other terrorist sleeper-cells were positioned within our borders in the early 1980s, is it possible Reagan may have provided amnesty to them in 1986 with his Immigration Control and Reform Act, provided of course they had entered the country before 1982? Remember, please, this legislation was seen as a “crackdown” on illegal immigration with increased security at the borders and prosecution for those who hired these illegals. Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus—that is if you were not born here but just walked across the border.

Then, in 1991, under President George H.W. Bush, we had the first Gulf War. Immediately afterward, Bush oversaw the immigration of several thousand Iraqi POWs into the US, specifically Florida and the Oklahoma City Area. This move would be questioned shortly after the OKC bombing in 1993.

“Why did FBI agents, who were actually serving their country, arrest five members of the Iraqi Republican Guard involved in the Oklahoma City bombing only for their release to be ordered by Bill Clinton? Why were these Iraqis, who were initially trained in the US in the eighties, brought back in by George Bush senior in the early nineties? Why did the FBI declare national security to prevent the release of the surveillance tapes that showed Iraqis crawling all over the OKC bomb scene?”

It certainly appears now that President William J. Clinton was involved as well with protecting Muslim immigrants to the US. So far we have a consecutive chain of presidents showing amnesty and support for Muslim immigrants in this country. If we take into consideration President Carter’s infusion of 500 million in seed money to the Muslims in 1978, we have even more evidence of our government’s complicity in supporting Muslim jihadists for decades.

Surely border security would be ramped-up once we found ourselves involved in another war in the Middle East under another Bush president in 2001 and again in 2003. Sorry, Charlie—this Bush even referred to those of us who went to the Arizona border in April of 2005 with the Minutemen in an effort to shore up border security as “vigilantes.” Though our military was deployed in large numbers throughout the Middle East and we were placed under frequent “terror watches” by our Nazi inspired Department of Homeland Security, no one thought to lock the house and check the front and back yard.

The absolute insanity of being at war and failing to protect and provide for border security is hard to comprehend for a logical mind—but—those who thought we were “being protected” did not possess the necessary brain cells to see the absurdity of it all and rushed to the polls to reelect the mastermind of this madness in 2004.

It is interesting to see what ArmyTechnology.com has to say about perimeter security in the modern age.

“The threat of global terrorism has increased awareness over the security of critical infrastructure. Whether for military bases, civil installations or other critical aspects of infrastructure the need for effective perimeter control is, … greater than ever.

To effectively guard a perimeter you have to make sure that intruders are either kept out completely or handicapped in such a way that security forces are able to reach them quickly after an alert. Whenever this is not possible, for instance when a perimeter is exceptionally long, effective perimeter control must involve real time information relays preferably indicating the exact location of incidents.” (Emphasis added)

Obviously, “we the people,” our lives and property are not considered to be “critical infrastructure” by the President or members of Congress, for there is not now, nor has there been any significant efforts to increase perimeter control in this country in the past 30 plus years, 25 of those we have been at war. In fact, the exact opposite has happened; those who insist on perimeter security for our country have been demonized and excoriated by all but one of the politicians currently running for president, the current sitting president, assorted members of Congress, the media and several large herds of useful idiots.

More egregiously, all of the above have been trying to convince the masses that the way to stop terrorism is to create more terrorists with bombs and bullets and the way to protect yourself from attacks by some of those 30 million who are illegally “homesteading” in this country is to give up your guns and depend on those who created the problem to protect you.

My question to my readers and those who send me emails complaining of the Muslims jihadists in this country and others who are living off dollars which were taken by coercion and will someday, down the road, side with the terrorists because they are not getting enough free stuff, is this: Why now? Why haven’t you been complaining before, when Reagan was granting amnesty and one Bush was bringing in former Iraqi Republican Guard soldiers and the other Bush called those of us who were trying to secure our perimeter “vigilantes,” or is this just a political football where one party can do things illegal and unconstitutional without complaint, but the other party gets criticized for doing the same?

Wake up, people! The world as you know it is about to change radically for the worse and millions have supported with political party loyalty and votes those who brought us to this perilous point in history.

The notion that a Radical [Rebel] is one who hates his country is naive and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us and is thus more distressed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.” ~H. L. Mencken

In Rightful Liberty









*Author’s note: I have been going through some of my older writings, throwing some away and saving others. While doing so, I found this article I wrote back in 2004 reference my decades long battle to honor my Confederate ancestors. I wrote this about those who claim fealty to the same cause, yet appeared, even back then, to be all hat and no cowboy. 

My son graduated from Virginia Military Institute, the home of Stonewall Jackson and the New Market Cadets in 2001. I was so proud of him when he was only 11 and we visited VMI and the Chapel at Washington and Lee where Robert E. Lee is interred inside and his warhorse “Traveler” is interred outside, and he proclaimed when we got in the car to leave, “this is where I am going to college.”

There are others who continue to carry on this battle to honor our ancestors who fought not to preserve slavery, as Abraham Lincoln did when he proposed the Corwin Amendment in his first inaugural address, but to defend the principles of our Declaration of Independence. To these men I dedicate this article. Thanks Joe and Joey for continuing the battle. You both are inspirational.

Since this article is well over 10 years old I’m sure some of the links in the article are no longer active. For that I apologize.

There Ain’t No South—It’s Just North of Mexico

March 30, 2004

When one types the words “Southern” and Confederacy” into the Google search engine, he/she is greeted with the information that there are 47,900 links to that subject just a mouse click away. Included are many groups that espouse faithfulness and devotion to all things Southern.

There are sites that seek to educate each and every visitor to the “forgotten” heritage and history of the South. There are national groups and there are regional and state groups. There is an organization that allows only members that can prove their ancestor was a Confederate Soldier. There is a plethora of “Southern” paraphernalia: T-shirts, bumper stickers, flags belt buckles and even bikinis that will exhibit your pride in being a true Southerner. There is a Southern broadcasting station on the Internet that one can tune into and listen to Southern music and inspiring speeches. Many sites are proud to talk of conventions and lectures available for one and all so they can become more knowledgeable of all things prideful to a Southerner.

Could it possibly be most all these groups are all flag and no soldier?

Could all these organizations be more interested in promoting themselves than actually supporting and promoting the true ideals of the South? Could it be the majority of these groups have missed and/or ignored a chance to support true “patriots” to the Southern cause?

There stands today in Virginia an institution that is one of the icons of Southern heritage and history. It is in Lexington and is the school where Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson taught before the War of Northern Aggression, and the home of the Cadet Corps that marched to New Market and participated in a battle against the Yankee invader. Yes, it is none other than the Virginia Military Institute.

In the past six years, no other icon of the South has suffered the attacks and tampering of a gone mad politically correct government than the West Point of the South. First, in 1997, that bastion of Southern grace and dignity was forced to endure the unthinkable: the admission of women. This of course was ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court, led by that pedophile defending, Marxist, Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsberg. In her world it is better to rape a child than to allow a state institution to make its own decisions.

Where were these Southern support organizations as that happened? I know, you are going to tell me of all the letters and articles that were written and all of the radio talk shows that were held in protest. But just where the hell were the protestors when the event took place? Where were the multitudes of Sons of Confederate Veterans, League of the South members and all those proud writers of Southern Heritage and History at matriculation day on that hot August afternoon in 1997? Anyone in attendance would have noticed there were more members of the media present than defenders of the South and its heritage.

Where were the “Southern Patriots” when the administration at the Virginia Military Institute forbade the placing of Confederate Battle Flags on the graves of the young Cadets who gave the ultimate sacrifice at the Bushong Farm on that fateful day in May of 1864? Is there in the entire “Confederate” movement today the bravery and commitment of just one of those young men who charged across that “Field of Lost Shoes?”

Just where were the legions of defenders of the South when those young members of the Pipe and Drum Corps dared to play “Dixie” at the New Market Parade in 2000? The leaders of that group of courageous young patriots were threatened with expulsion and not graduating by the administration of the Institute for daring to display the heritage of the South musically. They stood alone, for no one appeared in their defense!

The Pipe and Drum Corps of the year 2001 planned to ignore the threats of expulsion by the administration and again play “Dixie” at the New Market Parade. These young men who were prepared to put their entire four-year investment in education on the line in order to hold true to the traditions and honor of the South, received exactly zero support from the entirety of those who claim to support the cause.

Since that time, prayers have been stopped before meals at VMI because a couple of idiots complained that they should not have to hear prayers if they did not want to; even though the Institute never required their participation in the prayers, only that they remain tolerant of those who did. It appears the tolerance door only swings one way!

There are possibly only a few remaining members of the Pipe and Drum Corps who have a real commitment to the heritage of the South and to those Cadets who made that fateful march to New Market in 1864. On this May 15th they will march in that solemn tribute that was created solely to honor those Cadets and the South they were willing to die for.

What exactly could, or would, the administration of VMI do to those young men if tens of thousands of true Southern Patriots showed up to cheer when they broke into “Dixie” with bagpipe and drum? What would happen if thousands placed Confederate Battle Flags on the graves of those brave Sons of the South who lie beneath the monument of Virginia mourning her dead?

How many Sons of Confederate Veterans and League of the South members live within a day’s drive of Lexington Virginia? Is there anything better they could do to serve the South and her heritage than to be present at this event?

How about those folks at Dixie Outfitters who make all those wonderful T-Shirts and other goodies with those great messages about the South? Could they not create a shirt for the event? It sure would be great if the folks at Dixie Broadcasting started talking up the event on their shows. Perhaps even the folks at Dixie Rising could make up an ecard to herald the event that could be sent to all who should be in attendance and to forewarn the scalawags in the VMI administration that their support of the politics of Northern Aggression will no longer be tolerated.

Would not more be accomplished with such a turnout than all the conventions that have been held in the history of those who claim to support the South?

If these young men and the ideals and history they represent and are seeking to carry on do not deserve our true support (and not just lip service) then we deserve everything ole Abe brung us when he declared war on the Constitution.

See all you true patriots in Lexington on 15 May! I’ll be driving from New Mexico–Anyone want to make it a convoy?

In Rightful Liberty




The more I think about the subject of this Rant, the more I realize it has gone far beyond the old adage of “The inmates are running the asylum.” It is much, much deeper than that. 535 politicians and a legion of bureaucrats could not possibly exercise dominion and control over 320 million people without the consent and assistance of a sizable number of useful idiots whom I have referred to in the past as the species “Ignoramus Americanus.”

Yesterday, I was watching, as it is my want to do on occasion, an old episode of the most popular TV show at the time called, “Gunsmoke.” In this 54 year old classic Western, an old buffalo hunter had gone mad and decided the world was becoming much too modern for him and that to remedy the situation he would just kill all of the settlers who were destroying his image of the plains. The Marshal, Matt Dillon himself, was traveling from settler to settler warning them of the danger of the old hunter and what amounted to acts of terrorism against them. Explicit in his warning was the admonition to “keep your rifles close.” Some of these settlers, having already heard of the threat, were visibly armed.

All of this seemed to be the paragon of common sense at the time; there was a violent threat out there and the people should arm themselves to protect hearth, home and family. Marshal Dillon did not ask these people if they had permits for their weapons, if they had been properly trained or submitted to the proper background checks when the weapon was purchased.

Of course this was a fictionalized program depicting events of the old west in America, but, have evil people and their penchant to do harm to others changed that much since then or has it grown worse? Are the streets of Chicago and Baltimore a good barometer?

Jump forward with me please 54 years to America today. Our government now has military forces in over 160 countries. We built a multitude of military bases in both Iraq and Afghanistan at great cost to the American taxpayer. Yet, most of those bases have been abandoned to our new well equipped and trained by CIA, villain du jour, better known in polite society as ISIS.

We have drone forces in Africa in considerable numbers with one of those units very proud of their 69 kills. Does anyone remember our Congress declaring war on a country in Africa? Has American Exceptionalism reached the point that because of our great superior morality and position of authority, we reserve the right to kill anyone, anywhere, at anytime—perhaps because we claim to be a Christian Nation? Was the Golden Rule declared null and void when it comes to our actions toward other peoples, but if another country fails to follow it the penalty is bombs and death?

What has happened to common sense that Ignoramus Americanus cannot comprehend people in other countries do not want our military in their country, much less in their country killing their family, friends and neighbors?

Has anyone noticed how absolutely incensed John (American citizen) Rambo gets when it is revealed that foreign troops are in our country for training purposes? In April of 2012, it was reported there had been sightings of Chinese troops near our Southern Border with Mexico. This brought on a multitude of warnings across the internet and frothing at the mouth by armchair GI Joes. While an invasion was possible, if not eminent, according to many circles, the idea the entire Chinese Army could change into Mexican peasant clothing and simply walk across our porous borders, reform in the desert Southwest and attack Phoenix, Los Angeles and Albuquerque seems to be lost on those who preach the need for “boots on the ground” in every country except ours. “Fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” seems to have failed miserably.

What about the possibility people in other countries who have been witness to many thousands of their friends, neighbors and family being killed by American forces, bullets and bombs, deciding they will seek revenge on those who support this madness is lost on so many people? What if they realize they do not have the resources to fight the dog that is killing them but decide instead to attack the owner of the dog whose government wants its own citizens disarmed? Would you really be understanding of the foreigner who killed your family and referred to them as “collateral damage,” or would that create even more determination to seek revenge in your mind?

Where is the logic in the theory proposed by all candidates for president in 2016 and the entirety of useful idiots, that the answer to stopping terrorist attacks in this country is to accelerate and increase doing what created those seeking to bring terror to our streets in the first place? There is a reason firemen attack fire with water and not gasoline.

Of course, only useful idiots would find reason and sensibility in telling those in our country who have witnessed or actually been the victims of terrorist attacks the best way to prevent those attacks is to surrender any and all means of personal protection (firearms), except for your cell phone to the government that is busily spending your grandchildren”s money creating more terrorists.

For those of you who find yourself in support of gun control and surrendering all of your ability to defend yourself and others from an armed attacker/terrorist, please take the time to read the book “Dial 911 and Die.” 

As I write this last sentence I am assaulted by reality; those of us who support our right to defend ourselves and our loved ones fully realize the only way Ignoramus Americanus will see the truth of the reason for the Second Amendment is when they find themselves in a gun free zone with someone who is determined to do them dire physical harm and rape their women folks. I can’t help but wonder how their progressive, liberal, passive approach to the situation will serve them? I’m sure the terrorists will listen to reason; they always do!

“Men die for a lot of reasons. I’ve even heard of worthy ones. Like a man who’s willing to face it for the good that might come after. But he’s a different breed than most of this Boot Hill trash. These people died for fool’s reasons. A spilled drink, a wrong card. Maybe, worst of all, the bull-headed stubbornness that keeps a man from listening to reason. To die like this is a waste, for nothing’s gained by the dying.” ~ Marshal Matt Dillon (Emphasis added)

In Rightful Liberty


I am frequently asked, especially by one very patriotic lady in Utah, what are the solutions to all of the problems with our government that are illustrated in my writings. My first answer is a very simple one: we must stop doing what we have been doing in the past that has placed us on the road to a totalitarian form of governance. We must look at the things that haven’t worked and may have actually contributed to the problem such as political party affiliation as well as voting, especially for the lesser of evils. Evil at any level is counterproductive to the pursuit of liberty.

A group of our founders, those incorrectly labeled as Anti-federalists, fought long and hard throughout the ratification process in several state conventions to provide the people the tools necessary to insure and sustain their individual rights and freedom. The two things those founders were unable to supply was the two most important things required to secure the blessings of liberty: knowledge and courage. Without those two items, efforts toward individual freedom will never be successful.

When it comes to knowledge, the people must be aware of the tools provided by our founders, where they are to be found, and how they must be used. Courage is vital in this endeavor. Governments constantly seek to grow stronger and bigger, always at the expense of individual freedom. These governments must therefore put rules, laws and other impediments in the path of those who wish to limit that government to its constitutional role in society.

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild and government to gain ground.”  ~ Thomas Jefferson (Throughout many of Jefferson’s writings he spelled yield—yeild. I have written the quote in Jefferson’s own words for accuracy.)

One of the tools fought for by the Anti-federalists was the jury, both Petit and Grand. These are vital tools in the pursuit of liberty, but have been commandeered and perverted by the judicial branch of government in order to promote the government’s agenda and to insure it “gains ground” over the rights of the people. These perversions have, in many cases, been instituted by those in the legal profession, most notably the American Bar Association.

The Anti-federalists intended for the people to be the final arbiters of all government actions, including regulations and laws. They had the vision to see into the future because of their knowledge of the past. To insure the rights of the people, the jury system was argued for, especially in the Virginia Ratification Convention. This group of founders knew that eventually government would intentionally stray outside of its constitutional boundaries, just as Jefferson spoke of, and they sought to provide the tools necessary to reign in the government when it moved in an unconstitutional direction.

The Anti-federalists knew that history was more than something you read today and forget tomorrow; they were very knowledgeable  about the Magna Carta and the fact it was the first English constitutional document and was granted by King John in 1215 because it was demanded by his subjects. Thus, they were familiar with the Grand Jury and the power granted to citizens to investigate crimes in their own community, especially the crimes of those in power.

A prime function of a Grand Jury is to protect the citizens from government overreach and malicious prosecution. The first such recorded act of a Grand Jury involved the Duke of Shaftasbury in 1681. The Crown sought an indictment for treason against the Duke and asked the Grand Jury for an indictment. After calling witnesses, the Grand Jury voted against a bill of indictment, defying the allegations of the Crown.

Those who settled the original colonies brought the concept of the Grand Jury with them and employed that entity before the Revolutionary War. In 1733, the sitting colonial governor of New York (William Cosby) brought formal charges of seditious libel against John Zenger, editor of a newspaper known as “The Weekly Journal.” In this paper Zenger held the Royal Governor up to public ridicule. The Grand Jury refused to return an indictment.

Thwarted by the Grand Jury, Governor Cosby bypassed them and had Zenger charged again with sedition. This time he used his authority to have a bond for Zenger placed at a level he knew would keep Zenger imprisoned until his trial. Fortunately for Zenger, and liberty, the petit or trial jury went outside of the commands of those in authority. Zenger’s legal counsel unsuccessfully tried to have the charges dismissed citing the judges assigned to the case “served at the pleasure of the Governor” and were therefore biased. (Any of this sound relevant to our country’s issues today?)

Zenger’s counsel, Andrew Hamilton of Philadelphia, when addressing the jury in Zenger’s case said the following:

“The question before the Court and you, Gentlemen of the jury, is not of small or private concern. It is not the cause of one poor printer, nor of New York alone, which you are now trying. No! It may in its consequence affect every free man that lives under a British government on the main of America. It is the best cause. It is the cause of liberty.” 

Zenger was acquitted by a knowledgeable and courageous jury.

This established very early in this country’s history that those in power who seek to use their authority for nefarious purposes will always consider criticism as sedition. John Adams did it within 10 years of the advent of the present Constitution; Woodrow Wilson did it with the Sedition Act of 1918, which is still being used almost 100 years later to oppose those who would criticize unconstitutional acts of government. This further adds weight to my preferred axiom that those who most ardently seek positions of power or authority over others are those who least deserve it and will most likely abuse it.

The Grand Jury is not mentioned in the Constitution but is listed in the Bill of Rights (5th Amendment), which means the GJ is a power vested in the people and is not under the dominion or control of the government, although like so many other freedoms, this has been perverted to government use as was vividly evident in the case of the police officer (Darren Wilson) charged in the shooting death in Ferguson, Missouri. (Mine is not a defense of the person shot or the officer involved, but an indictment of the misuse of the GJ by the District Attorney in the case.)

Any member of the Grand Jury can insist anyone, including those serving in positions of authority, whether that position be elected or appointed, be called as a witness and questioned as to any misconduct, including, but not limited to, violations of their oath of office. Imagine if you will a member of Congress being called before a Grand Jury to testify exactly why they voted for an unconstitutional piece of legislation such as Obamacare or committing Americans to an undeclared, therefore unconstitutional war and being faced with the consequences of their action. What if, when a District Attorney dismisses a case involving an obvious criminal act such as a member of law enforcement shooting an unarmed individual, the Grand Jury investigated both the DA and the shooter? What if both were indicted by the Grand Jury; the cop for the shooting and the DA for obstruction of justice?

Of course, to get to this point, a great number of people must be educated as to their rights and responsibilities when they find themselves on a jury, be it petit or grand. This would also require the courage to assert the authority of those juries even in the face of judicial reprimand and public criticism. Thus, knowledge and courage are the primary requirements of liberty and are another most important answer to those who seek solutions to the mess this country is in.

(Authors note: I will follow up on this Rant with a prime example of how the ignorance of those on a Grand Jury as to the powers they possess led to perhaps one of the greatest travesties in our country, just under 20 years ago.)

In Rightful Liberty








Approximately 20 years ago, while living on the vast expanse of the high plains of New Mexico known as the Navajo Indian Reservation, my, at-the-time teenage son came to me obviously frustrated. It seems he had spent a considerable amount of time searching for an object with no positive results. After listening carefully to his recitation of all of the efforts he had expended, my advice to him was that as soon as he got home from school that afternoon he should take his rifle and head into the mountains and see if he could find an elephant to shoot.

While my teenage son knew better than to take to the Chuska mountains looking for an elephant where he knew it could not be found, very few adult people today have come to the realization that liberty and freedom will never be found emanating from authority or the majority. My suggestion to my son was to indicate perhaps he was looking in the wrong place for that which he was searching, yet, 20 years of writing articles has proved basically fruitless in imparting the same lesson to a significant number of citizens of this country who believe liberty can be found by voting for sociopath politicians, or depending on the majority to demand it.

A great many Americans believe the way to obtain more liberty and a closer adherence to our Constitution and Bill of Rights is to be found in the process of voting. It doesn’t seem to bother these folks at all that not only has voting never accomplished the goals they seek, but it has led them more and more away from constitutional governance and towards a totalitarian society. Bear in mind please, this has all occurred under what most people refer to as a Democracy.

One reader expressed her beliefs that Democracy is the best form of government and that in acquiring five college degrees, all of her professors had taught her that a Republic was just another form of a Democracy. This she stated, constituted a “fact.” She was unmoved by the actual “fact” the word democracy does not appear at all in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I would assume that through all of her college education she was never provided with the words of John Adams, one of our founders and the second president of this country.

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

A true Democracy is an illusion; democracies are always controlled by an oligarchy. The people democratically, by majority vote, select representatives to present their views and opinions to a governing body. In this country today we have 535 people who are either elected or appointed while taking a sacred oath to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” These consist of 425 members of the House of Representatives, 100 Senators, the President and nine members of the Supreme Court. 526 are elected and nine are appointed. Considering the population of this country is approximately 320 million, 535 members of government represent .00000167 percent of the population. Hardly a majority, even when using common core math.

Considering the vast majority of people elected to public office follow their sacred oath to the Constitution less than 50% of the time and most owe any allegiance they might have to special interest groups instead of those who elected them, the possibility of creating liberty using the voting process simply does not exist. Yet, millions will watch a presidential debate tonight and some will make a decision on who they will vote for in 2016 to continue the march to complete tyranny. When something has never worked, yet people continue to try meets perfectly Einstein’s definition of insanity. Could we accurately call everyone who votes, especially in a national election to be simply delusional?

A survey in 2013 indicates one in 10 Americans was prescribed anti-depressants, with that number increasing to one in four of women between the ages of 40 and 50. So, at least 30 million Americans are on legal mind-altering drugs while 25% of the women 40-50 are so afflicted. Of course this is not taking into consideration those who are under the influence of illegal mind altering drugs and/or alcohol. How many of these people vote on a regular basis is unknown. Are you feeling any better about placing your hope for freedom and liberty in the hands of the majority of voters?

Of course none of the above takes into consideration those voters whose only purpose in voting is to insure the monies or perks they are receiving from the largesse of those who earn their own living, or from the fiat money printed by the authorization of the 535 people who really run this country. Of course, the more money printed by government, the less the money earned by those who produce is worth.

One of the most overlooked aspects of belief in the efficacy of a democracy or majority rule is the perceived legality of unconstitutional acts simply because those acts were approved by a majority of people involved. This has been true from the total socialistic administration of FDR to the current situation involving continuing wars, Obamacare and the looming possibility of draconian gun legislation. Those who accept the socialist aspects of democracy have made “upholding and defending the Constitution and Bill of Rights” an option rather than a command.

Throughout recorded history, freedom and liberty have never been initiated or promoted by the majority or those in authority. When has a candidate for national office supported truly constitutional legislation? When has a member of the 525 members of congress mentioned the constitutionality of the legislation they propose? When was the last time a standing member of the ruling 535 quoted Jefferson, Patrick Henry or Samuel Adams when referring to a piece of pending legislation?

Freedom and Liberty are almost always initiated by a very small minority of people who have a driving, compelling mindset of freedom. The Sons of Liberty were definitely a minority who knew “It does not take a majority to prevail… but rather an irate, tireless minority keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”

I take an awful lot of pride in being a member of that “irate, tireless minority” who believes freedom and liberty will never be secured at the hands of the majority, or people in authority.

In Rightful Liberty




I want to bring back some of the articles I have done in the past on this new (for me) forum. Below is one of a series I believe to be most critical to understanding how we got to this point in history. Obviously, many of the things we were all taught in the Public Fool System are patently false because these historically incorrect stories support our current government and its state of constant war. We should examine our current history with a strong knowledge of the past and skepticism about what we are told that takes us to what has become perpetual war. MG

(Author’s note: All too many Americans accept the unconstitutional tyrannical government we have today, which saw its genesis in Abraham Lincoln and his Republican Party minions, because somehow it was/is a fair trade off for freeing an oppressed race of people. Nothing could be more historically false.)

“Mr. Pendleton, if the Republicans lose their little war; they’re voted out in the next election and they return to their homes in New York, or Massachusetts or Illinois, fat with their war profits; if we lose, we lose our country, we lose our independence, we lose it all.” ~General Thomas Jonathan Jackson (Stonewall) 1862.

At some point in late 1862, the Abraham Lincoln led republican administration realized that their unconstitutional, immoral war perpetrated on the people of the South was generating a tremendous loss of life and property and at some point history would demand an explanation for what could only be considered treason. They also realized that should they lose this war there would certainly be legal repercussions for their blatant disregard for the limits of the Constitution. Lincoln, after all, had ordered up an Army of 75,000 soldiers to invade citizens of his own country.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. ~Article 3 Section 3, Constitution FOR the United States. (Emphasis added)

When their unconstitutional, immoral war(s) are killing thousands each and every week, tyrants are forced to seek some form of legal high ground on which to base the reasoning for their crimes. Sometimes this requires the refutation of what one might have claimed previously.

“Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that–

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them;” ~Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address.

Killing all these people and destruction of private property, not to mention shutting down newspapers in the North, imprisoning members of the Maryland State Legislature and issuing an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, all because they dared challenge the war on constitutional principles, Lincoln was forced to come up with justification based on the very moral principles he had abandoned when he started his war. But, Lincoln and the Republicans had to be very careful for there were several states in the North which were most intolerant of all persons of African descent, free or slave.

“[R]ace prejudice seems stronger in those states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists, and nowhere is it more intolerant than in those states where slavery was never known.”

“So the Negro [in the North] is free, but he cannot share the rights, pleasures, labors, griefs, or even the tomb of him whose equal he has been declared; there is nowhere where he can meet him, neither in life nor in death.

In the South, where slavery still exists, less trouble is taken to keep the Negro apart: they sometimes share the labors and the pleasures of the white men; people are prepared to mix with them to some extent; legislation is more harsh against them, but customs are more tolerant and gentle.”  ~Alexis De Tocquville Democracy in America, p 343

“Both Indiana (1816) and Illinois (1818) abolished slavery by their constitutions. And both followed the Ohio policy of trying to prevent black immigration by passing laws requiring blacks who moved into the state to produce legal documents verifying that they were free and posting bond to guarantee their good behavior. The bond requirements ranged as high as $1,000, which was prohibitive for a black American in those days. Anti-immigration legislation passed in Illinois in 1819, 1829, and 1853. In Indiana, such laws were enacted in 1831 and 1852. Michigan Territory passed such a law in 1827; Iowa Territory passed one in 1839 and Iowa enacted another in 1851 after it became a state. Oregon Territory passed such a law in 1849. Blacks who violated the law faced punishments that included advertisement and sale at public auction (Illinois, 1853).” ~Slavery in the North (North of Slavery. The Negro in the Free States 1790-1860, University of Chicago Press)

So, Lincoln fell upon the idea of the Emancipation Proclamation; moral high ground on which to base his tyrannical, murderous war. Not a child goes through the Public Fool System without hearing of the Great Emancipator and his Emancipation Proclamation, but how many are told of the conditions of the Free Blacks in the North, the duplicity of Lincoln witnessed by his statements in his inaugural address or the horrid treatment of those in the North who dared oppose Lincoln’s unconstitutional acts? Is withholding the truth any different than lying?

Conveniently, for those who worship at the feet of Lincoln and the unconstitutional government that has existed since what was actually the Second War for Independence in this country, left out of most descriptions of the Emancipation Proclamation is the fact it only freed the slaves in the parts of states where Lincoln had no control. It did not free any Blacks in the Border States or in the areas of the Southern States controlled by the Northern Army. Lincoln, acting through his military subordinates such as Benjamin “Beast” Butler in New Orleans, continued to use Blacks as slave labor to construct forts and other “needful” buildings.

Despite this expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.

Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the nation, it captured the hearts and imagination of millions of Americans and fundamentally transformed the character of the war. ~National Archives and Records Administration

There we have it; the official government position from the National Archives, a branch of the central government. THE TRUTH DOES NOT MATTER ONLY HOW DO YOU FEEL OR THINK about any issue; in fact it is not important you even know the truth, especially if it has to do with overreaching, therefore unconstitutional government.

The Emancipation Proclamation, a piece of intentionally deceptive legislation continues to this day to capture “the hearts and imagination of millions of Americans” but in so doing it obfuscates the truth and does absolutely nothing to correct the inaccuracies of revisionist history taught to our children and the adults of this country. More importantly it carries with it the automatic acceptance of a highly centralized and despotic government structure that is diametrically opposed to the true intent of our Constitution as ratified.

During the Reconstruction era in the South, the right to vote and own property was removed from anyone who had given “support” to the government of the Confederacy. Yankees near-do-wells came in droves to the Southern states to see they were properly chastised and punished for daring to stand for “consent of the governed.” Of course many of these people came from Northern states that did not allow Blacks to vote.

“Following the Civil War, Radical Republicans in Congress introduced a series of laws and constitutional amendments to try to secure civil and political rights for black people. This wing of the Republican Party was called “radical” because of its strong stance on these and other issues. The right that provoked the greatest controversy, especially in the North, concerned black male suffrage: the right of the black man to vote.

In 1867, Congress passed a law requiring the former Confederate states to include black male suffrage in their new state constitutions. Ironically, even though African American men began voting in the South after 1867, the majority of Northern states continued to deny them this basic right.” (Emphasis added) ~Constitutional Rights Foundation, African Americans and the 15th Amendment.

These wonderful Yankees sent their holier-than-thou hypocrites into the South as teachers to indoctrinate the young people into acceptance of the tyrannical Reconstruction Act of 1867 and the casus belli of the war: freeing the Black man. Of course they were also there to teach the young people that the unconstitutional, highly centralized, tyrannical, despotic government they were living under was for the greater good of all.

Today, our children are still taught the above by those indoctrinated in the so called field of education and many so-called intelligent adults regurgitate the government provided pablum on demand. Again, it is all about the emotions of the situation and the truth is often irrelevant. We now see the manifestation of that doctrine in what is called “Common Core.”

“… [E]very man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late.  We can give but a faint idea when we say it means the loss of all we now hold most sacred … personal property, lands, homesteads, liberty, justice, safety, pride, manhood.  It means that the history of  this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy;  that our  youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War, will be impressed by all influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, our maimed veterans as fit objects for their derision, it means the crushing of Southern manhood … to establish sectional superiority and a more centralised form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.” ~Gen. Patrick Cleburne C.S.A. … 2 Jan 1864

(To be continued)

In Rightful Liberty


“The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.” ~ Samuel Adams

Over the past few years I have discussed with several people whom I admire and respect, two of whom are devout men of God (thanks Parsons), whether or not the organized church of this country is the single greatest threat to liberty outside of the actual government. We agreed that is true. Along this same line of thought I wrote an article a few months back titled “Government as God” which can be found here. If you take the time to read this article, please also take the time to watch and carefully listen to the attached Youtube video in that article narrated by Larken Rose.

At this point I think it would be proper to offer my definition of “Civil Religion.” Civil religion is when a person has accepted government and government laws as being supreme over the rights of individuals as portrayed in our Bill of Rights. Remember please, there are no group rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights or our Constitution, although this seems to remain a well kept secret from the majority of people in this country today, unfortunately including the great majority of people who inhabit the halls of government. The president, Congress, Supreme Court and judges of all stripes certainly fit the bill of those who are devout followers of this civic religion.

Of course we are constantly regaled with catch phrases such as the “greater good,” the “general welfare” etc. Obviously these phrases have some merit, but the pursuit of their principles must end where the rights of the individual begin. Ayn Rand covered the basic principle of individuals vs the majority quite well in this quote:

Individual rights are not subject to public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities, (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)

Of course what this all boils down to in principle is the individual vs the collective. But, what can be done when society (the collective) acts as a tyrant over the rights of the individual? John Stuart Mill covers that in this excerpt from his work, On Liberty.

“Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant — society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it — its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.”

So, Rebel, one might ask: what happened to lead you back to the subject of Civil Religion? Yesterday morning I was directed to an article in the Huffington Post wherein a person named Kutter Callaway, a self-described “Evangelical Christian” and certainly a member of “society” wrote the following:

“Let the record show, I hereby renounce my constitutional right to bear arms as outlined in Amendment Two of the Constitution of the United States.”

Here, unabashedly, Mr. Callaway, advocates for the desires of society to prevail over the rights of the individual. I will not go into a complete deconstruct of Mr. Callaway’s essay for brevity’s sake, but I believe it is readily apparent after reading a few paragraphs that Callaway is a firm advocate of “the greater good” philosophy and is more than willing to surrender his constitutional rights to government for that express purpose. Therefore, Callaway advocates for a civil religion as opposed to honoring the rights defined in our Declaration of Independence as the “laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” Paramount under the laws of nature is the right of an individual to defend themselves and others from the assaults of “society,” the government, and others who would wish them harm.

How many people in San Bernardino would still be alive today if everyone who chose to, who was present in that room, had been armed? Waiting for the protective arms of government employees when chaos begins is never a good alternative for those who cherish life. This horrific incident, like so many others in our past, began and ended with a gun. Ending such acts early rather than later, after the death toll mounts, would certainly make good sense. But good sense and the desires of government are seldom compatible.

While I was reading through Callaway’s plea to the Christian community to surrender their means of self defense against tyrants and criminals, to surrender their Creator granted rights and to assume victim status, I was struck at the difference between the words of Callaway and the individual considered by many of his peers to be the most devout Christian in our founding era: Patrick Henry.

Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the direction of Congress? If our defense is the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety, as in our own hands?

As previously stated in a direct quote from his essay, Mr. Callaway publicly “renounced his constitutional right” and the rights provided by “Nature’s God” as defined in the Second Amendment. While I am not sure what other rights Callaway is prepared to relinquish in his pursuit of civil religion, perhaps he needs a primer on the stated purpose of the Second Amendment he renounces by founder Tench Coxe:

“As civic rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which may be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article [Second Amendment] in their right to keep and bear arms.”

One can always identify those who are strict adherents to the civil religion faith. They routinely counsel others to relinquish the individual rights granted by their Creator for the greater good of society and to be sure and exercise their civic religion mandate to vote. I’m not real sure how the mandate to vote for the lesser of evils will ever lead to returning to the rights of Nature’s God, but the viewpoint has many advocates.

But, it should be noted, I not only advocate for Mr. Callaway to write about his personal convictions, but I would also gladly defend him and others should the situation present itself with a .45 or a .308, while he and those who agree with him and his civil religion dial 911 and wait for help.

In Rightful Liberty