Any American citizen with an IQ higher than the sum of their fingers and toes, has stopped, at some time, under some circumstance, to ask themselves about the legitimacy of the political system under which they live.

It stands to reason most people are steered toward personal involvement in politics, not because they are well served by their government, but, just the opposite, they feel oppressed by that system. The popular thought is: to accomplish “change,” which in their eyes will be for the positive, one must affiliate themselves with either the right or the left paradigm of political thought. Why is it that any “change” by elected officials, of either political persuasion, is always away from the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

Sociopaths and psychopaths are drawn to the political process like flies to a luau by an open cesspool. In no other pursuit can those with no conscience profit from their criminal acts with power and money and at the same time be treated like celebrities by the voting public.

Conflict and polarization of the voting public is the holy grail of the political mindset. Without a perceived belief that electing people of their political persuasion will lead to the change they seek, either fiscally or socially, and an inherent fear of the boogey-man du jour created by an insane foreign policy, the voting public would soon realize they are participating in the largest criminal enterprise in recorded history.

Racial discord sits high at the top of divisive programs designed to have the people clamoring for more and more government intervention in their lives. This alone describes why the murder of people of color in cities like Chicago occur approximately every 14 hours with a shooting every two and one half hours and is totally ignored by the mainstream media, yet governmental programmed idiots claim the lives of people of color in other locales and circumstances actually do matter. and are widely publicized.

People killing themselves and each other in large numbers due to the complete failure of government programs; drug wars; gun control, and the war on poverty, will never be exposed for what they are because it does not promote the image of government as savior and provider of all things good and necessary.

Vital to the continuation of the fraud of political theater is the necessity of the criminal element to retain the blind faith of the voting public in the enforcement arms of the criminal cabal—the military and the police. The institutionalized ignorant do not understand the police, or law enforcement as they prefer to be called, are busy enforcing unconstitutional laws much more than they are protecting and serving the public who pay their salaries. They are judged not by the people protected but by the revenue collected.

Also, the military is the enforcement arm of the insane foreign policy that creates far more threats to the people of this country than it ever eliminates. People in foreign countries do not hate us “because we are free,” they hate us because our government, through our military, is robbing them of their natural resources, stealing their freedom, destroying their homes and killing and maiming their fellow citizens.

Now, this totally dysfunctional government is proposing allowing relatives and friends of those we have bombed and killed in other countries be allowed to immigrate into this country, be supported with our tax dollars and allowed to live here as long as they wish.

If you need one indicator that proves a government to be totally representative of the people and protective of their lives and property, that indicator would be putting members of our military on our unprotected, porous borders in order to stop the uncontrolled immigration that will, in short order, destroy the very culture that once made this country great. Until that happens, consider your government a criminal enterprise, unworthy of votes, money or support.

Of course the federal sheriffs, bureaucrats so named by Patrick Henry, are just as busy here on our native soil stealing the property and destroying the lives and property of American citizens such as the Hammonds in Oregon, the Bundy’s in Nevada, the Wallace’s in Southwest Colorado, or the Hage’s in Nevada, as is our military in foreign countries.

Should those federal sheriffs fail or need assistance in their intended theft of private property, one can be assured the standing army our founders feared will appear to assist in confiscation of arms and destruction of property, just as they did at Waco, Ruby Ridge and in New Orleans after Katrina. How many are aware the US military was heavily involved in the planning, training and physical participation that led to the raid on the Branch Davidians and their church at Waco and the resultant death and destruction, especially of the children they claimed they were there to protect? Support those troops, everyone—and especially the ones that went door-to-door in New Orleans confiscating privately owned firearms. Makes perfect sense, does it not?

Patrick Henry predicted the federal courts would protect the federal sheriffs in their criminal, Constitution and Bill of Rights destroying, criminal pursuits. That has certainly proved true in the case of the Hammonds and countless others.

When, occasionally, a federal judge rules correctly on the criminal activities of the federal sheriffs such as the BLM and the US Forest Service, as did U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Jones in the Hage case in Nevada, the case is quickly dismissed or ignored by the government, its shills in the media and a judicial system that claims “precedent” is everything. Judge Jones certainly set a precedent in his ruling in the Hage case, but no one seems to point to that case when writing in favor of the government’s illegal actions dealing with the Bundys or the Hammonds. In the Hage case Judge Jones found several federal sheriffs in contempt and had the following to say about their criminality.

“For this reason, the Court has held certain government officials in contempt and referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. In summary, government officials, and perhaps also Mr. Snow, entered into a literal, intentional conspiracy to deprive the Hages not only of their permits but also of their vested water rights.”

“This behavior shocks the conscience of the Court and provides a sufficient basis for a finding of irreparable harm to support the injunction described at the end of this Order.” (emphasis mine)

Needless to say, the U.S. Attorney’s office never filed any charges against any of the federal sheriff’s or administration bureaucrats who perpetrated the crimes on the Hage family, nor, to my knowledge, has any of the money rewarded by the courts to the Hage estate ever been paid. When have you heard any reference to the “legal precedent” set in Judge Jones’ court mentioned in relationship to the Bundy family, the Wallace family, or the Hammonds? What are the chances Judge Jones would ever be nominated for the Supreme Court?

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the scales of justice in this country are weighted heavily in favor of the government; even when exposed as the criminals they are, there is no punishment.  But, who cares—it’s election season and all is well with the world! Political theater is playing to top billing in almost every conversation, every newscast and every newspaper. There is very little difference in the soap operas of daytime TV and the theater of politics shown on the evening news. Both are designed to entertain the masses while studiously avoiding critical issues involving individual freedom and liberty.


The political game is nothing but a sham; a carefully choreographed performance to provide the aura of legitimacy to the criminal cabal of sociopaths and psychopaths as they go about the game of making themselves and their cronies rich, powerful and famous?


What keeps this criminal cabal in power is the willingness of the voting public to continue to support it with dollars, time, support and votes?


The 126 million people who voted in the presidential election of 2012 were dupes contributing to their own enslavement? For Pete’s sake, don’t try to point this out to the masses because slaves get really angry when faced with the possibility they are responsible in any way for their own loss of freedom and liberty. They are oblivious to the words of Lysander Spooner.

“A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to chose a new master once in a term of years.”


The candidacy of Donald Trump and the resultant political theater was designed at the highest levels of the criminal cabal in order to rejuvenate interest in the “voting can changes things” mirage? 93 million eligible voters refusing to participate in 2012 and the growing sentiment that “no matter who you vote for nothing really changes” had to be arrested in order to maintain the legitimacy of control by the power cabal. Without the participation of the willing dupes, the criminal cabal could quickly be exposed.


Elements of both political parties continue to move toward borrowing against future generations in order to finance their own wealth and the wealth of those who support them within the government criminal cabal? They care nothing about the future viability of the average American. The money stolen over their own political lives, they believe, will provide for themselves and their posterity.


Continuing to participate in the support of this criminal cabal is destroying the future of your children and grandchildren?


Elements within both political parties continue to support registration and eventual confiscation of all privately owned firearms because they fear the day the veil of legitimacy surrounding their criminality will fall away and the people will finally see they have been participating for years in their own enslavement, move to punish those who have deceived them and take their country back—OR—the criminal cabal seeks to punish those who have been aware of the colossal swindle, are beginning to influence others and therefore see the disarmed as much easier to enslave, incarcerate or eliminate?


The only way to get out of a crooked game is to refuse to play in it?


A large number of people in this country were to remove the scales from their political eyes and see this entire scam for what it is? What if they truly cared about the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Is it too late or do the words of Isaiah 44: 15-19 pertain here?









An in-depth study of our founding era produces quite a few questions. Those among our founders who sought a very limited central government which would be in place simply to protect those Natural Rights as granted by our Creator and as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, saw the States as being the sovereign in the relationship between each of them and that central government. This was also a tenet of the Declaration of Independence as seen in the last paragraph:

“We, therefore, the representatives Of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; …”

It should be plain from this wording and a cursory knowledge of history that on July 4, 1776 the colonies declared themselves to be “free and independent states.” The Articles of Confederation were not ratified until March 1, 1781. The Constitution which was ratified in 1788, some seven years later, was achieved by the States operating free and independently in seceding from the Articles of Confederation which claimed to be perpetual. Obviously, the AoC were not perpetual. This was not an accomplishment of the people acting in aggregate, nor did the central government create the States as would later be claimed by Daniel Webster, Joseph Story, Abraham Lincoln, and others.

Among our founders, such as Patrick Henry, Robert Yates, John Lansing, Luther Martin and others saw the States as being the sovereign in their relationship with the central government and believed that central government should only be empowered to exert its influence on the States and not the people. This is an extremely important point and is too often forgotten in the political world. In other words, if the central government wanted to accomplish anything it would be required to call upon the States to assist in those requests. The central government was not intended to have the power to enforce any laws or regulations directly on the people. The central government, not being the sovereign, would have to call on the free and independent States in order to implement any form of legislation, collect taxes, etc.

It is absolutely ludicrous to believe after fighting a long war to secure their independence, the States and the people would then simply relinquish the liberty they had won back to another form of government not that different from the one they had just sacrificed, bled and died to defeat.

So, when, one might ask, did the central government assume powers it was never intended to have? Possibly the first overt action was taken by George Washington, encouraged by Alexander Hamilton, when a standing army was formed to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. Washington and Hamilton put together an army, larger and better equipped than the Continental Army Washington had so recently commanded in the Revolution in order to stop a tax revolt in Western Pennsylvania. Here we see evidence that central governments are more interested in the collection of revenue than they are freedoms of the individual. And that has changed how in the past 225 years?

Washington and Hamilton, just a few short years after ratification and the beginning of a new government under the U.S. Constitution, blatantly violated several provisions of that Constitution in order to facilitate the collection of revenue by the central government. Washington and Hamilton had both been active in the creation of the constitution they were now violating and according to the constitution they both signed, participating in an act of treason.

Thousands of people in Western Pennsylvania had marched on Pittsburgh in protest of what they believed to be an illegal tax on whiskey. Thomas Mifflin was the governor of Pennsylvania, a hero of the American Revolution and a signatory to the Constitution. At no time did governor Mifflin request assistance from the central government nor did the legislature of the State of Pennsylvania. Consequently, this was a violation of Article IV Section IV of the Constitution. Both Jefferson and Madison were critical of this invasion of a State with federal forces with Madison claiming Hamilton and Washington acted to “establish the principle that a standing army was necessary for enforcing the laws.” 

During the Convention of 1787, the points of Article IV Section IV had been debated in detail. Luther Martin of Maryland argued, “the consent of the State ought to precede the introduction of any extraneous force whatever.” Elbridge Gerry and George Mason’s arguments led to a provision that the central government could not invade a State with a standing army to put down any “domestic violence” unless the elected members of that State requested such intervention. Hamilton had argued the same point in Federalist 21 stating the States had nothing to fear from the central government. With Washington and Hamilton ignoring provisions of a Constitution which both had been involved in creating, one must question again their motivated efforts to secede from the restrictions on government found in the Articles of Confederation.

I contend that Washington, Hamilton, and the thousands of armed men who followed them into Pennsylvania were guilty of treason. Article III Section III: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or adhering to their Enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” Had they been so charged, perhaps one of the greatest crimes of this country, the military invasion of the South by Abraham Lincoln, might never have occurred. Here, the very hard lesson of ignoring acts in violation of our Constitution and Bill of Rights for political expediency rears it’s ugly head very early in our history.

Ironically, in late April of 2014, an historically ignorant worshiper of the god called central government by the name of Jamie Stiehm, writing for US News, complete with caricatures, cited Washington and Hamilton’s actions as justification for the raid on Cliven Bundy’s ranch in Nevada earlier that month, advocating government forces burn Bundy’s home. She referred to the federal sheriff’s actions as “Obama’s Whiskey Rebellion.” I’m sure this historically ignorant woman who wears central government idolatry like a comfortable pair of shoes, is endorsing similar actions against Cliven’s son Ammon in Oregon.

In the Virginia Ratification Convention, Anti-federalist Patrick Henry predicted the efforts of the “federal sheriffs” in collecting revenue and enforcing unconstitutional laws which was exactly what occurred with Washington and Hamilton in the Whiskey Rebellion.

The federal sheriff may commit what oppression, make what distresses, he pleases, and ruin you with impunity; for how are you to tie his hands? Have you any sufficiently decided means of preventing him from sucking your blood by speculations, commissions, and fees? Thus thousands of your people will be most shamefully robbed …” (Emphasis mine)

John Marshall stated in opposition to Patrick Henry’s prediction the following. Judge for yourself who was ultimately correct.

“[According to Henry] … officers of the government will be screened from merited punishment by the federal judiciary. The federal sheriff, says he, will go into a poor man’s house and beat him, or abuse his family and the federal courts will protect him. Does any gentleman believe this? Is it necessary that the officers will commit a trespass on the property or persons with those of whom they are to transact business? Will such great insults on the people… be allowable? Were a law made to authorize them it would be void.”

If you doubt the accuracy of Patrick Henry’s prediction and the despicable lies of John Marshall and Alexander Hamilton, I offer the following examples: Ruby Ridge, Waco, The Bundy Ranch and the tens of thousands of SWAT raids performed by federal (sheriffs) agencies. When, exactly have the federal courts not sanctioned and supported these criminal acts? How many federal agents were indicted for the deaths, especially of children, at Ruby Ridge and Waco?

Below is a list of current federal agencies that employ SWAT teams other than the usual suspects. (FBI, Homeland Security, US Marshals, BATFE etc)

Secret Service, Bureau of Prisons, Department of Agriculture, (BLM and USFS) Department of the Interior, Railroad Retirement Board, Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, Consumer Product Safety Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Energy, IRS and the Department of Education.

An account of one of the typical raids by these federal sheriffs.

“Kenneth Wright of Stockton, Calif., was ‘visited’ by a SWAT team from the U.S. Department of Education in June 2011. Agents battered down the door of his home at 6 a.m., dragged him outside in his boxer shorts, and handcuffed him as they put his three children (ages 3, 7, and 11) in a police car for two hours while they searched his home. The raid was allegedly intended to uncover information on Wright’s estranged wife, Michelle, who hadn’t been living with him and was suspected of college financial-aid fraud.”

Perhaps the people of Richmond Virginia should install a permanent urinal on the headstone of John Marshall, which is located in their fair city, to facilitate those who harbor the same inclination most true proponents of liberty have. After all, it was Marshall’s court which declared the central government and its shills to be the final arbiters of their own actions. In light of his wonderful pursuits in ridding the world of lying, duplicitous tyrants, perhaps we should also campaign for a holiday celebrating the birth of Aaron Burr.

My original intent was to write this article on how the War to Suppress Southern Independence was a war to complete the domination of the central government over the rights of individuals and how that war saw its origin in the convention of 1787 in Philadelphia, but, that will have to become a subsequent addendum to this Rant in the interest of time and space. The Anti-federalists obviously were a proud group of Rebels in this country’s history and provided a forward looking view into how the central government would become one of complete and total tyranny.

The history of Rebels has always been one of resistance to tyranny and the promotion of Rightful Liberty. Progressive-ism, Positivism and coveys of Federal Sheriffs have always been their sworn enemies.

In Rightful Rebel Liberty



Along with an introduction by my friend and fellow Patriot, D.W.

“… because the BLM’s assault on the Hammond Ranch, as well as the betrayal of the Malheur protesters by the controlled opposition freedom movement  and alternative press, are but articles of the same program: The long-term plan for the depopulation of the American West. 

Its called “Yellowstone to Yukon,” and its first cousin to the Agenda 21 hive-housing, smart meters and other articles of U.N. vetted environmental dicta that are coming down on you and your children as sure as the HRT’s axe is set to fall on Ammon Bundy.  – D.W.

Tribute to Ammon Bundy


I take a lot of pride in being an unapologetic and unreconstructed Confederate Rebel, perhaps you have noticed. If you have, it should come of no surprise to you at all that two of my historical heroes are Sons of the South. During the Colonial era, I do not believe a finer man could be found than Patrick Henry. As we look at those today who wish to amend the Constitution, most recently including the governor of Texas, perhaps the visions of Patrick Henry and how he predicted our government would  evolve into tyranny becomes even more relevant.

As a momentary aside: do not fall for any of these Convention of States or constitutional convention proposals that do not contain as their top two proposed amendments the elimination of the Federal Reserve and an enforcement mechanism that declares any member of the government, at any level, who violates their sacred oath to the Constitution to be immediately indicted and tried for treason with a no plea bargaining provision. Any proposal that does not contain those provisions is a fraud.

Now back to my favorite hero who was born after our founding era. That would be none other than Thomas Jonathan Jackson, born 192 years ago today in what is now Clarksburg, West Virginia.

I once stood in Jackson’s home in Lexington, Virginia where he lived while working as a professor at the Virginia Military Institute. I have stood on the spot where he was shot returning to his own lines, after dark, from a reconnaissance mission after the Confederacy’s resounding defeat of Fighting Joe Hooker’s Union army at the Battle of Chancellorsville. I placed a rose on the large stone that was put there by Confederate soldiers so the spot would not be forgotten. I have stood in the room of the house at Guinea Station which contains the bed where he succumbed to pneumonia on May 10th, 1863. I have placed lemons on his grave site in the Stonewall Jackson Memorial Cemetery in Lexington, Virginia. (Stonewall had a habit of sucking on lemons during the heat of battle) I have read every book available on his life and military exploits.

T.J. Jackson, like his immediate commander Robert E. Lee, was a devoutly religious man. This stands in stark contrast to the two most prominent generals in the Union Army. Hiram Ulysses Grant was reported to have a serious drinking problem and owned slaves up until the enforcement of the 13th Amendment so obviously he was not fighting to free the slaves. William Tecumseh Sherman had once been declared insane.

Only in the perverted Yankee mind or that of a big government sycophant could a criminal psychopath who waged unconditional war on civilians, burned private homes, debauched women both black and white, destroyed millions in private property from Athens Alabama, to Randolph Tennessee, to Jackson and Meridian Mississippi, to Atlanta Georgia to Columbia South Carolina be called a hero and a man of the character and moral fiber of Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson be portrayed as a traitor.

How many know the Smithsonian Magazine declared Sherman’s “March to the Sea” to have been the 4th worst ecological disaster in the history of the North American Continent?

Stonewall was not a man who lacked the courage to ignore or violate what he saw as an unconstitutional law. He taught Blacks to read and write when it was against the law to do so. He continued to his death to send money back to Lexington so those classes could continue.

Much more could be written about Jackson, but I believe his words present a much clearer picture of the man that was Stonewall than mine ever could. To that end I offer some of his words for your consideration.

To then Lt. Colonel J.E.B. Stuart when they first met and Stuart was initially reporting for duty:

“If the North triumphs, it is not alone the destruction of our property. It is the prelude to anarchy, infidelity, the ultimate loss of free and responsible government on this continent. It is the triumph of commerce, the banks, the factories. We should meet the invader on the outer verge of just and right defense and raise at once the black flag. No quarter to the violators of our homes and firesides.”

These words from Stonewall to the father of a man under his command when asked why Jackson supported Secession:

“As a Christian man my first allegiance is to God, then to my State, the State of Virginia. And every other state has a primal claim to the fealty of her citizens and may justly control their allegiance. If Virginia adheres to the United States, I adhere. Her determination must control mine. This is my understanding of patriotism. And though I love the Union, I love Virginia more.”

These are the words of Stonewall when he first addressed what would become the Stonewall Brigade. (Second, Fourth, Fifth, Twenty Seventh and Thirty Third Virginia Infantry Regiments and the Rockbridge Artillery Battery)

“Men of the Valley; Citizen Soldiers. I am here at the order of General Robert E. Lee, commanding all Virginia forces. On April 15, the year of our Lord, 1861, Simon Cameron, Secretary of War of the United States sent a telegram to our Governor, John Letcher directing him to raise three regiments of Infantry to be sent to assist in suppressing the Southern Confederacy. Governor Letcher’s answer is well known to you, but perhaps not his words. His wire to Washington stated ‘You have chosen to inaugurate Civil War and having done so we will meet you in a spirit as determined as the Lincoln administration has exhibited toward the South.’ Two days later the Virginia legislature voted for Secession. Just as we would not send any of our soldiers to march into other states and tyrannize other people, so we will never allow the army of others to march into our State and tyrannize our people. Like many of you, indeed most of you, I’ve always been a Union man. It is not with any joy or with light heart that many of us have welcomed Secession. Had our neighbors to the North practiced a less bellicose form of persuasion, perhaps this day might not have come. But that day has been thrust upon us, like it was thrust upon our ancestors. The Lincoln administration required us to raise three regiments. Tell him we have done so!”

Then, when explaining duty to a member of his command staff in late 1862:

“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.”

To General John Bell Hood right before the Battle of Chancellorsville when asked by Hood if Stonewall thought the would survive the war:

“No General Hood, nor would I want to if we do not prevail.”

Lastly, no commentary on Stonewall would be complete without his last words uttered before his death.

Let us cross over the river and rest beneath the shade of the trees.”

If the words of Stonewall were taught to our young people along with his dedication to his home state, his unshakable devotion to his faith, and his impeccable character, perhaps a truer understanding of why a war was fought to destroy the tenets of the Declaration of Independence and why the victors have gone to such lengths to pervert the truth would be much better understood.






On many occasions the inspiration for what becomes a Rant can be found in my dimly lit bedroom on the ceiling above my head somewhere near 4 in the morning. Sometimes, like today, the motivation to see that inspiration take shape on my computer screen compels me to the chair where I do my writing. This morning that inspiration was to be found in the form of a dream-like philosophical discussion between two George’s: Orwell and Costanza. If this thought causes my readers to shake their heads, they should re-check the title of this musing.

In this discussion among Georges, Orwell stated, “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind” to which Costanza replied, “Remember, it’s not a lie if you believe it.” Frustrated, Orwell responded, “Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” Costanza rocked Orwell’s boat with “Yes, I’m a quitter, it is one of the few things I do well. I come from a long line of quitters.” Luckily, this woke me up.

Perhaps therein lies the reason the last two articles I started have not been completed. First, I started with a piece about one of the largest criminal enterprises in American history—the Bill and Hillary Clinton fiasco of the past 40 years or so. Sure it was coincidence all those people who came in contact with the Clinton’s ended up dead and Bill and Hillary are victims of a “vast right wing conspiracy.” Who else would have been able to ransack the office of a man who had died under mysterious circumstances, (Vince Foster) remove boxes of possible crucial evidence from that office, yet never be charged with a crime? Obviously, being able to get away with a crime of that magnitude immediately qualifies one to be a do-nothing senator from New York, Secretary of State and the current top candidate for president in her party.

I just could not condense all of that into a simple article. The list of dead folks who were former Clinton associates takes up too much room. A thorough examination of everything Clinton would never fit into a single book. A multi-volume set would be just a good start. What really troubles me is this: considering Hillary Clinton is still a viable political candidate after all of her sordid criminal past; does this say more about her, or the people of this country?

Secondly, I have been working on a Rant about the happenings in Oregon and the blatant hypocrisy of many in the so-called patriot community who have opened up full scale attacks on Ammon Bundy and the folks who stand opposed to government overreach and the gross perversion of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. This is not brain surgery or rocket science; if you oppose those who are actively opposing government tyranny, by default, you support the government. There is no middle road here folks. There are only two sides. Perhaps this has been beneficial to true patriots. Could it be those who are members of controlled opposition, those whose purpose is self promotion or are clandestine government agents and been exposed for who they truly are?

What is the purpose of attacking the character of those who have put their lives on the line to expose the criminality of this government and its long history of attacks on the farmers and ranchers of the west? I wrote on this subject to a group of patriots in Colorado something over a week ago. In the email exchange Bundy and his associates had been referred to as “extremists.” Here was my response:

“When I see comments about extremists, two things come to mind. First off: I am sure many of their peers and former supporters thought those 70 shopkeepers and farmers who stood on the Green at Lexington in 1775 and opposed one thousand representatives of the at the time government, called them extremists and worse. Had there been social media at the time, I’m sure their motives and character would have been examined by every person who could type. Regardless, today we know very little of their motives other than they had had their fill of a tyrannical government. Regardless of their character, the one thing we do know is they did not lack for courage. We also know from history the results of that courage.

Secondly, when we speak of “extremists” I am reminded of a Barry Goldwater quote. “Extremism in defense of Liberty is no vice. And Moderation in pursuit of Justice is no virtue.”

I refuse to sit on the sidelines and criticize and demean the character of anyone who stands against the corruption we have all seen on so many occasions. Who gives a hoot in hell if the Hammonds didn’t ask them to be there? Is their permission required to stand against tyranny?  All of us know if we were the Hammonds attorney we would have advised them to separate themselves from this event. Does anyone doubt the ability of the government to dispense revenge on any who oppose them?  The Feds had already violated their rights on multiple occasions; what’s one more? Perhaps five more years in prison would be their reward for verbally supporting Bundy!

Lastly, I will leave you with this quote by extremist Samuel Adams, I’m sure you have all read before—but once more surely won’t hurt.

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

Back to my inspiration this morning: the thing that woke me from the Orwell, Costanza dream battle was the blatant hypocrisy of the people of this country when it comes to my beloved South, my heritage and its cherished symbols.

The Confederate Battle Flag has its foundation in a Christian symbol, thus the St. Andrew’s Cross. Yet, this flag cannot be displayed publicly in the same American cities where Muslim Mosques can be found. I know you republican party worshipers think ole Dubya Bush was the cat’s meow and kept us safe from all those Muslim threats, but for him to claim to be a Christian and then state Muslims and Christians worship the same God is stretching it just a bit don’t you think?

I can’t even begin to tell you all the wonderful things our current Socialist-in-Chief has had to say about Muslims—time and space prevent it. But, to claim they are a “religion of peace” is to avoid completely the words of Muhammad himself.

While the song Dixie has been banned in most public displays in this country, the Muslim call to prayer can be heard in many American cities. While wearing of the hijab, the niqab and the burka are acceptable in any part of this country, a student wearing a T-shirt with a Confederate Battle Flag can expect immediate expulsion from school and a battle flag displayed on a vehicle can insure special attention from the police.

While the government and its shills in the Public Fool System and institutions of higher mendacity have attacked and demeaned anything and everything to do with the Confederacy, Confederate Battle Flag, Dixie, Robert E. Lee, John C. Calhoun, Stonewall Jackson and the Rebel Mascot, this selfsame government supports, with our tax dollars, a dedicated Turkish Islamist by the name of Muhammad Fethullah Gulen and his over 140 Charter Schools in 26 states and the District of Columbia. I’m absolutely sure this taxpayer funding has nothing to do with Gulen’s over 200 secret trips funded and provided to members of Congress and their aides, as reported by USA Today here. Surely these great public servants’ integrity and political support is not for sale!

Author Clare Lopez who has written a book on Gulen, states he is “fundamentally jihadist in outlook.”

OK, which is more confusing: why our government supports Islam but attacks and demeans the South and its heritage, history and symbols, or a bad dream in which George Orwell debates George Costanza? Obviously, the musings of a madman!

In Rightful Rebel Liberty


A couple of Markus Wolfe-style U.S. State Security goons were up Harney County way, pretending to be just regular folks, when an actual American decided to ask them what the yoke they were doing sniffing around the armory there.
Because the intrepid, just-resigned Harney County fire chief who witnessed the doings of these lingering G-men has blown the whistle on their shenanigans, a few more Oregonians may now begin their awakening to the fact that the F.B.I., the C.I.A. and other organs of the behemoth U.S. intelligence complex, the heirs of those who neutralized George S. Patton Jr. and John Fitzgerald Kennedy, are not our friends.
Let’s state what’s already obvious to many of you and what we’re waiting for so many of our countrymen to wake up to. These wicked institutions as well as, regrettably, numerous elite formations of the U.S. Military, taken together, form an apart culture. Just the thing our Founders feared in a standing army.
Indeed, this elite amalgamation of “heroes” constitutes what is really an Order of Assassins. And just as the B.L.M., if not stopped, is sure to play a crucial role in the depopulation of rural America in pursuance of the internationalist agenda,
these spooks and Erik Prince types are earmarked to deal with anybody who tries to intercede against that agenda.
These people will slaughter all comers, without conscience and to any number, simply because their God-like “National Command Authority” issues the order. The now manifestly un-American, foreign/finance/corporate nature of the U.S.
Central Government matters not a lick to these people. They were trained to kill, and they sure seem to be on the balls of their feet, everyday, waiting for the order which will consummate their training, and thus to them, their purpose in life.
And if we, the ordinary folk of this country who naturally abhor murder, do not face directly into the fact that we have already been herded between two outcomes — total compliance or death — then no third option will ever be realized.
If the option is gulag or the toilet paper line,  I’m thinking Ammon Bundy is way out ahead of the game.  -D.W.


(Authors note: this was part IV in a series of articles about the War to Destroy the principles of the Declaration of Independence, referred to by those who worship government as the Civil War. I was prompted to republish after reading about the State of the Union address delivered by the immigrant-in-chief this past Tuesday evening. I was amazed there have been almost no comments on the myriad of lies and distortions delivered at that address. or what could be more properly referred to as the Super Bowl of Tyranny and Political Lies. Not surprisingly, our chief Marxist failed to mention, along with all his other accomplishments, the crushing national debt which his administration, along with the assistance of compliant Republicans in Congress, has increased exponentially during his time in office. Not mentioned was the fact that for each increase of one dollar ($1) in Gross Domestic Product our government borrowed three dollars and seventy eight cents ($3.78) over the past few years. Not sure how this comports with any thoughts of “Sustainability” but it has deep roots in this country’s sordid banking history. Historians and media shills seldom mention the astronomical rise in the national debt during the Lincoln administration. The 1860 debt was something less than 70 million dollars but had increased to over 5 billion in 1865. The debt was so large an amendment to the Constitution (14th) was required to reaffirm that debt to the international banking cartel. You know, those same folks who control our country today.)


“Conspirators do not make minutes of their machinations, progress, and objectives. Seldom, therefore, can conspiracy be proved by other than circumstantial evidence. It is only by assembling the results, with such evidence as may be of the progress thereof by the participants, that the victim can ever make a case of conspiracy. If in the end there is a completed structure of result, the frame of which has been furnished piecemeal by several individuals, the parts when brought together showing adaptation to each other and fitness for the end accomplished, it is at least reasonable to infer concert in both planning and fabrication.” ~Scheele v. Union Finance & Loan Co., 200 Minn. 554 at 560, 274 N. W. 673 at 678 (1937). (Emphasis added)

Prior to, during and shortly after our Second War for Independence, the Constitutional Republic designed and ratified by our forefathers was hijacked and destroyed by members of the International Banking Cartel and their bought and paid for members of the government, including members of Congress, cabinet members and members of the US Supreme Court. This form of unconstitutional governance has continued to the present day, constantly utilizing bought and paid for members of our government and we are now reaping the full whirlwind of that wind sown back in the 1850s.

These politicians, members of the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches of government and their useful idiots throughout the last 154 years can certainly be applied to the “conspirators” referenced in the court case quote above.

Our government is operated by criminals; we are hopelessly mired in a debt from which there is no recovery; members of our military who should be protecting our borders and our Bill of Rights are dying and being maimed or taking their own lives, not for God and Country but for the financial bottom line of those who have bought influence in our government; our basic individual rights are falling away like leaves in a hurricane and we are slaves today to those same interests who hijacked our government those many years ago.

All of the above has occurred not because our Constitution does not work or needs amending, it has occurred precisely because it was abandoned and justified with the blatant and patently false belief that it was necessary to perpetuate a union by force of arms, inflicting hundreds of thousands of deaths and to free a race of people who today are in bondage to a welfare system, black on black crime, abject poverty, and institutionalized ignorance, just as, if not more heinous and unjust than any other form of slavery.

We can no more change this pattern of corruption and mendacity by electing new members to the criminal cabal who will in turn appoint and support more unconstitutional bureaucrats than we could change the overall goals of organized crime by electing or appointing a new hit man for the mafia.

One of those “hit men” in our history who was bought and paid for and spent most of his adult life destroying the Constitutional Republic was Salmon P. Chase. Chase was one of the “founders” of the Republican Party and was elected Senator from Ohio in 1860. When Lincoln was elected president, he appointed Chase to be Secretary of the Treasury, not because of any special talent for that position but because Chase had supported Lincoln at the Republican Party Convention. Chase is often mentioned as a “civil rights activist” by historians; again the unmentioned intimation is if someone of that era was an abolitionist then whatever they did must be seen in history as acceptable. Any form of corruption is acceptable and even laudable if it is cloaked in the language of “civil rights.”

It is irresponsible to mention Chase without also mentioning the “Hazard Circular.” In all probability this is an object in history that is almost completely unheard of to most people, but using the theory established in the quote at the beginning of this article, one must not discount the contested if the results are obvious, even if by so doing we are called conspiracy theorists.

It is necessary to demonize those who might present the Circular as evidence because it was circulated to the American Bankers by none other than the Bank of England. The Bank of England was founded by William Paterson in 1694 who once said, “The bank hath benefit of interest on all monies which it creates out of nothing.” Need I say more?

Hazard Circular: “Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power, and chattel slavery abolished. This, I and my European friends are in favor of, for slavery is but the owning of labor, and carries with it the care of labor, while the European plan, led on by England, is that capital shall control labor by controlling wages.

The great debt that capitalists will see to it is made out of the [Civil] war must be used to control the value of money. To accomplish this, the Government bonds must be used as a banking basis.

We are now waiting for the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States to make this recommendation. It will not do to allow greenbacks, as they are called, to circulate as money any length of time, as we cannot control that, but we can control the bonds and through them the bank issues.” (Emphasis added)

We can discern from the Hazard Circular that Secretary Chase was being manipulated or controlled by the banking cabal. While there are those on the left and right who deny the existence of this circular and the cabal’s control of Chase, and by default, Lincoln,* we must ask ourselves did the events as predicted in the circular actually occur. (Recently discovered documentary evidence of the Hazard Circular can be found here.)

Secretary Chase proposed and supported the National Banking Acts of 1863 and 1864.

“Government bonds must be used as a banking basis.” “We are now waiting for the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States to make this recommendation.” ~Hazard Circular.

Secretary Chase, realizing the necessity of collecting taxes in order to continue the war of aggression on the people and property of the South, also created the Bureau of Internal Revenue or what we commonly refer to today as the IRS.

Chase was also ambitious and challenged Lincoln for the presidency in 1864 and would eventually run for president again in 1868 and 1872 while sitting as Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.

Chase would use his position on the Supreme Court to further the interests of the banking cabal, especially in Texas v White. Chase, as Chief Justice, also presided over the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson, whom the Radical Republicans who supported Reconstruction schemed to impeach in part because Johnson called the Reconstruction Act of 1867 a “bill of attainder against 9 million people, absolute despotism” and stated in his veto, “such a power has not been wielded by any Monarch in England in 500 years.”

In Texas v. White, Chase completed the destruction of the Constitutional Republic as established in 1788, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of 1791 and obliterated the “consent of the governed” clause of the Declaration of Independence of 1776. Chase converted the “free and independent states” of our founders to the highly centralized and controlled government we have today.

For many decades students in accredited law schools have been taught that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it does, as if our founders had no meaning in mind when they wrote the words and phrases; that these meanings were founded on Natural and Common law; were thoroughly explained in the Ratification Conventions and are not subject to radical judicial interpretation. The trouble is many of the politicians running for office today and all too many ordinary citizens believe judges to be the gods of wisdom as to our founders’ intent.

Therefore, when the question of nullification or secession is brought up, the almost immediate referral is to Texas v White. It is imperative one knows that when Texas v White was litigated, Texas was living under martial law and had no representation among the people or free elections.

There was a motion made during the legal proceedings to dismiss the case on the basis Texas was not a “state’ at the time of the proceedings but was in fact a “conquered territory under military occupation.” Of course, to suit his banking cartel handlers and forever taint legal precedent, Chase denied the motion and stated that despite Texas being prostrated under military rule, she was still a state. Against all intentions of our founders and those who ratified the Constitution, Chase claimed that we are an “indestructible union of indestructible states.”

To insure the interest is paid on their fraudulent loans and bonds to our central government, the banking cabal cannot allow any state to relieve themselves of the obligation to pay by simply opting out of the violated contract. Therefore, Chase stepped up to the plate for the bankers and rendered the desired decision. In return Chase’s likeness was placed on the $10,000 note and his name is forever memorialized by one of the most powerful financial institutions in the Federal Reserve District on Wall Street. (Chase Manhattan Bank)

“They [Radical Republicans in Congress] insisted that the existing governments of the Southern states be abolished. Also, to the Radical Republicans, the defeated Southern states offered a unique opportunity for a large-scale social experiment. They viewed the population of the South as simply a human chessboard. Central planners in Washington could micromanage the region and Federal troops would force compliance with their dictates. It was a bureaucrat’s dream come true. (Different from today, how? We have federal agencies and militarized law enforcement.)

Radical Reconstruction laws, which were passed over Johnson’s vetoes, consolidated the 10 excluded Southern states into 5 “military districts.” The responsibility for most civic functions, including elections, was removed from local communities and assumed by military governors. These governors were appointed by the Federal government and given unheard of powers. Registered voters, suspected of having aided or abetted the Confederate war effort, could be removed from voting lists at the discretion of the appointed governor. He could also add voters to the list if he believed they had been incorrectly omitted.

“Entrances to polling places were controlled by Federal troops. When voting was complete, ballots were sealed and transported to military headquarters to be counted. Next, the ballot tally had to be certified behind closed doors by the military governor and his appointees known as a “returning board” who would determine the “intent” of the voters. Needless to say, the Republican ticket carried every election in the occupied Southern states.” ~Gail Jarvis, Evil Republicans. (Emphasis added)

Is the unconstitutional view that might makes right and we are slaves to a large central government without the right to peacefully remove ourselves from this tyranny and oppression common today? Of course it is; just listen to people who say that the law is whatever the Supreme Court says it is and if that fails to convince you, read the words of one of the current members of the Supreme Court.

When asked by a playwright if a state could legally secede, the very “conservative” Justice Antonin Scalia replied:

“I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit…”

Here, in one fell swoop, Scalia claims that the “war” (force and coercion) or guns and bullets settled a constitutional issue, not the intent of our founders. He also referenced the Pledge of Allegiance, a piece of national socialist drivel of which Hitler would be proud, written by  a Socialist minister who preached “Jesus the Socialist” from the pulpit and was a founding member of Boston’s First Nationalist Club.

The pledge, a ritual chant in support of government that compels one to ask: is such a pledge appropriate for a free people? Since the banking cartel controls our government are we chanting allegiance to them as well? Would a free and independent people not be better served pledging allegiance to the Bill of Rights?

We labor today under a tyrannical de facto government that is diametrically opposed to the government our founders believed they were creating and the delegates to the State Ratification Conventions believed they were endorsing.

Our government is the evil spawn of the bankers and their bought and paid for splendid dupes in the White House, Congress, courts and unconstitutional bureaucracies that Patrick Henry referred to as “federal sheriffs.” This government, under the guise of preserving the Union and freeing an oppressed people has made slaves of us all. It cannot be remedied at the ballot box by voting for incumbents or those endorsed by the leadership of the two major parties.

“War is peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is strength.” ~George Orwell, 1984



Mesmerized by Obama’s tears, millions of professed Marxist Socialists, Cultural Marxists and institutionalized idiots fell into obedient agreement with their civic god last week and cheered for more “gun control.”

There were a number of “victims” of gun violence present, though no one bothered to comment on who might have paid their traveling expenses to attend another sermon in the round by their socialist savior.

Noticeably absent, at least from what I saw, was the family of slain Border Patrol Officer, Brian Terry. Of course having Terry’s survivors there could have proved embarrassing for the socialist-in-chief since the weapon used to kill officer Terry was provided to his murderer by the actions of the president himself. Using the old Democratic Party adage of the “buck stops here,” certainly Obama and his at the time Attorney General Eric Holder were directly responsible for putting thousands of assault weapons into the hands of the Sinaloa Cartel through the BATFE sponsored and controlled “Operation Fast and Furious.”

To add insult to injury, the Holder led federal prosecutors in Arizona begged the court for leniency in the case of Officer Terry’s murderer. They wanted a sentence of only 30 years with credit for time served rather than the death penalty. I thought taking the life of a law enforcement officer constituted a “hate crime” as apposed to one in which the prosecution begged for leniency. According to federal law [28 U.S.C 994] there is a requirement for “enhanced sentencing” in certain cases, especially if the crime occurs on federally administered lands, which this one did. Could it be Officer Terry was not of the right skin pigmentation to engage the hate crime provisions? For some reason Officer Terry did not receive the same adoration and respect as did Trayvon Martin in the eyes of Obama.

Well, meantime, back at the socialist worship fest and attendant demonization of firearms. One would think the president in presenting his enhanced gun control measures would have pointed to the success of similar programs already in place. There are so many great examples to chose from. First off there is Washington D.C. where gun ownership has been highly restricted since 1975. We all know how well that has worked. How fortunate are the elected officials and citizens in that Capitol of democracy to enjoy the safety of crime free streets.

Why did the president not point to the wonderful success of gun restrictions in his home town of Chicago? Surely the many years of gun control measures there have produced the required results. After all, Chicago has been one huge gun free zone for decades and absolutely no one in that fair city has a firearm without the mandated FOID card issued by the state police. See how simple it is to stop violent crimes in which guns are involved?

Let us take a quick look at how well those strict laws reference guns have related to gun violence in Chicago for the first 7 days of the last three years, courtesy of the website HeyJackass.com as sent to the Chicago Police Officers blog, Second City Cop.

“Hey SCC,

Here you go:

Jan 1-7, 2016:
Shot & Killed: 12
Shot & Wounded: 66
Total Shot: 78
Total Homicides: 12

Jan 1-7, 2015:
Shot & Killed: 5
Shot & Wounded: 33
Total Shot: 38
Total Homicides: 7

Jan 1-7, 2014*:
Shot & Killed: 2
Shot & Wounded: 16
Total Shot: 18
Total Homicides: 3

So pretty much a 100% increase in shootings

And homicides up by five.”

Holy crap! Does this mean some of the most rabid gun control measures in the president’s home town are not working? How could that be—after all isn’t Obama’s former chief of staff mayor in that now peaceful city? This is certainly a “serious crisis,” but is Rahm letting it go to waste?

Please tell me oh great civil god and purveyor of all things Marx that your proposed gun control measures will not produce Chicago like results all over this once great land!

News Flash: Things have gotten worse than just the first week’s comparisons. According to the aforementioned Second City Cop blog:

“Seven people were shot to death and 30 more were wounded across Chicago over the weekend, raising the number of shootings in the city to more than 100 in just over a week into the new year, according to police.

The fatal shootings included two teens killed by a store clerk during a robbery in the Gresham neighborhood on the South Side, and one of three people shot at a party four blocks from Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s home.

As of Monday morning, at least 19 people have been killed in gun violence in Chicago this year and at least 101 more have been wounded. This time last year, nine people had been killed and another 31 wounded, according to statistics kept by the Chicago Tribune.”

Yes, Obama and the socialists have looked at what Chicago has and tells the rest of the country—-you got to get yourself some of that.

Only in the crazy world of American politics can a politician convince a large group of people to support and possibly implement something that has the exact opposite effect of what their proposed legislation says it will accomplish.

Before all you Republicans out there wet your pants on this issue, let’s take a close look at your last two preferred presidential candidates and a longer look at a candidate your party rejected, basically because he believed in sound economic policies and opposed unconstitutional wars.

Unfortunately, finding a good republican presidential candidate who truly supports the Second Amendment is as difficult as finding a nun in a house of ill repute. Let’s examine the last two.

2008—John McCain. McCain received a F– rating by the group Gun Owners of America in 2006. Not to be deterred by facts and the Bill of Rights, the repubs picked him as “the man” in 2008. Of course those good repubs had to ignore McCain’s proposed legislation to shut down gun shows and register all gun buyers and of course his association with anti-gun billionaire Andrew McKelvey and his group known as “Americans for Gun Safety.” While parroting McKelvey’s anti-gun position, McCain teamed up with everybody’s favorite progressive liberal, Joe Lieberman, and they worked together promoting McKelvey’s anti-gun agenda.

Of course one of McCain’s opponents was Ron Paul of Texas. Paul totally supported the Second Amendment and fiscal responsibility, but Republicans rejected him because he opposed unconstitutional wars. So, bottom line was: Republicans opted for a gun-controlling, irresponsible money spending and borrowing, pro-choice, First Amendment destroying, liberal joining candidate who supported illegal, aggressive wars. You know—those same things we hanged Germans for at the end of WWII.

2012—Willard “Mitt” Romney. As a candidate seeking office in a primarily liberal state (Massachusetts) Romney was anti-gun. As governor of that state he signed into law an assault weapons ban in 2004 with the following statement.

“These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense, they are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

When it came to other issues such as fiscal responsibility, the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act and wars perpetrated on others without congressional approval, between Romney and Obama there was no significant difference other than skin color.

Ron Paul was also a choice for Republicans in 2012—but again the Republicans rejected a pro Second Amendment, fiscally responsible candidate—ostensibly because he did not support unconstitutional, aggressive rather than defensive wars.

The results of the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections were the same: we got an anti-gun, fiscally irresponsible, socialized medicine supporting (don’t forget Romney supported that also) warmongering Marxist. Sadly, the candidates Obama defeated were philosophically the same as he.

We now have a Marxist Socialist immigrant in our White House supporting more gun control measures that will effectively destroy the rights of the individual to protect themselves, their loved ones and their property. Republicans are incensed and frothing at the mouth, yet, when given the chance in two straight elections to support a candidate who stood for everything Republicans claim they stand for, they chose instead an anti-gun, more borrowed money, socially liberal candidate who represented no significant difference in the man we have today.

In other words, in both 2008 and 2012, republican voters supported candidates who were much closer philosophically to Karl Marx than to Thomas Jefferson. In addition, they proclaimed to the world their intense belief in political party over constitutional principles.

The next time one of those “good republican” folks tells you they support the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, smaller, less centralized government, closer adherence to our Constitution and Bill of Rights, reigning in the national debt, and the restoration of our Constitutional Republic—you have every right to smirk in derision, call them a liar and/or simply laugh in their face. They have no more principles than the man they all love to hate who just tearfully proposed more restrictions on gun ownership.

Perhaps it is those of us Rebels who truly support our Bill of Rights who should be in tears.

In Rightful Rebel Liberty



(Authors note: A question that has not been addressed but should be is this: had 7 Southern states not seceded in late 1860 and early 1861 and brought about the threat of economic chaos in the North, a North that was so dependent on the South for its tax base; a move which forced Abraham Lincoln to initiate and support an amendment to the Constitution (Corwin amendment) which would have taken the issue of slavery out of the hands of the Congress and made it perpetual, exactly when would slavery have been abolished in America?)

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861. (Emphasis added)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here, again, in his own words, Lincoln states that Slavery was not his primary interest. Lincoln’s primary goal was the preservation of the Union which would protect the interests of the Socialists in his cabinet and armed forces and who were the founders of the Republican Party. It would also insure the flow of tariff dollars into the government’s coffers, the majority of which came from the Southern states.

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

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

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

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

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

*”Lincoln unconstitutionally suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus and had the military arrest tens of thousands of Northern political opponents, including dozens of newspaper editors and owners. Some 300 newspapers were shut down and all telegraph communication was censored. Northern elections were rigged; Democratic voters were intimidated by federal soldiers; hundreds of New York City draft protesters were gunned down by federal troops; West Virginia was unconstitutionally carved out of Virginia; and the most outspoken member of the Democratic Party opposition, Congressman Clinton L Vallandigham of Ohio, was deported. Duly elected members of the Maryland legislature were imprisoned, as was the mayor of Baltimore and Congressman Henry May. The border states were systematically disarmed in violation of the Second Amendment and private property was confiscated. Lincoln’s apologists say he had “to destroy the Constitution in order to save it.”  ~Professor Thomas DiLorenzo



Imagine with me if you will, it is April 19, 1775 and you are standing with 69 farmers, shopkeepers and others of your militia unit on the Green in Lexington opposing almost one thousand Redcoats who are on their way to Concord to seize the arsenal there. Riding in the lead of the Redcoats is a Royal Marine by the name of Major John Pitcairn. The major rides toward your greatly outnumbered force and commands “Disperse ye Rebels, Ye villains disperse.” In just a matter of minutes a shot rings out (a shot heard round the world) and the American Revolution and the birth of our country has begun.

The first lesson to be taken from the above is that those in power are more than willing to enforce their tyrannical will on others at the point of a bayonet, and anyone who would resist that action is a rebel and/or a villain. Here we see the assumption of the moral high ground which tyrants have used throughout history. Seizing the rights of individuals and killing those who resist must have a perceived moral underpinning or future rebels and villains would increase in numbers disproportionate to those in power, especially if they have the means to defend themselves.

The second lesson for all should be: those who have attained positions of authority over others believe their will can best be forced on others if those rebels and villains are disarmed. Of course it takes a silver tongued despot to convince individuals they are better protected by the forces of the tyrant than to assume the responsibility of providing security for themselves, their families and property. This has been recently brought to prominence by a Kenyan Socialist tyrant who this week has been successful in convincing millions of idiots that the alleged large numbers of people who have been maimed and killed in mass shootings, all of whom were in government mandated “gun free zones,” would still be alive if the whole country was a gun free zone.  This is a grand indictment of the Public Fool System and its disdain for logical thought. A person with a modicum of intelligence and the ability to reason logically would be able to see that if there exists in this country something that is placing people in harms way and leading to their possible death, the answer is not more of what caused the problem in the first place!

Of course this announcement was punctuated by a tear from the eye of the tyrant who has provided hundreds of thousands of assault weapons, bombs and bullets to Muslim jihadists in Libya, Iraq, Syria and other countries to fight against those who were elected to their positions of authority over others, just as he was. Our Kenyan tyrant claims the people he armed don’t agree with the current leadership in those countries and should be armed to fight their government, but insists those in this country who don’t agree with his leadership or the unconstitutional, liberty destroying path our government is on should be disarmed.

Another huge problem is: our current sitting tyrant and the evil horde we call congress, wants more and more relatives and friends of those they are either arming or killing in the Middle East to be granted access to our country and our welfare system. We have been told by those in authority these people are to be feared because they are terrorists while they are in other countries but as soon as they cross into our country they become benign “immigrants” worthy of sanctuary, housing, free medical care, free education and billions of our tax dollars.

If we are to believe the deadly scenario in San Bernardino happened the way our government and lapdog media said it did, (for the record I do not) a sizable number of people were killed by Muslim terrorists—in a gun free zone, yet our government wants more of both. Only in the perverted minds of progressive socialists and mind numbed idiots does it make sense to arm those who wish to kill citizens of your country while working overtime to disarm those same citizens.

As I have pointed out on several occasions, all of our founders were not in favor of the application of the “consent of the governed” paradigm found in our Declaration of Independence. Several of them, mostly those who called themselves Federalists, worked hard to obtain a nationalist form of government, a government which was highly centralized with power over the states which created it. Regardless of their differences on how the government was to be run, not one of them was an advocate for disarming the people. To the contrary, they were all for an armed populace.

Alexander Hamilton, on one extreme, proposed a monarchical form of government with a king (national governor) and all senators appointed for life by “special electors” (the moneyed elite) with an assembly elected by the people and all state governors appointed by the king. Even so, Hamilton was an advocate for an armed public.

“… but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens little at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.” Federalist 29

It is important to understand how our founders on both sides of the issue of government power were extremely wary of a “standing army.” Of course we have a standing army today—not only the military but also all members of law enforcement—local, state and federal. They are all there to enforce the wishes of those in power. The tyrants trick millions by referring to their unconstitutional wishes as law, but the cops will enforce those tyrannical wishes none the less and hold in contempt any person or groups of persons who challenge the constitutionality  of the unconstitutional governmental edicts they enforce. In the passage above by Alexander Hamilton, he states, “the best possible security against [a standing army] if it exists, is a large body of armed citizens.

Possibly the polar opposite of the powers of government advocated by Hamilton was, of course, Patrick Henry. Henry predicted so many of the problems we now have with a runaway tyrannical government and fought throughout the Virginia Ratification convention to illustrate his beliefs. The passage of over 200 years have proved how right Henry was and how many of the federalists were proved to be liars of exceptional talents. But, as you will see below, Henry agreed with Hamilton on an armed citizenry. Here are his words from the above mentioned Virginia Ratification convention on that subject.

“O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?”

Believe me, if the current immigrant nesting in the White House has his way, along with his shills in both political parties and the media, our arms, wherewith we could defend ourselves, should we be faced with the necessity of punishing a tyrant, a criminal, a rogue illegal immigrant, or a Muslim jihadist, will be gone. And Henry was perfectly correct: there was never in recorded history a revolution to punish those in power inflicted by an unarmed populace.

What our government is saying to those of us who insist on a constitutional republican form of government today are the same words Major Pitcairn spoke to the people assembled on Lexington Green in April of 1775: “Disperse ye Rebels, ye villains, disperse” and they are there for the same purpose as Major Pitcairn—to seize our arsenals.

(Authors note: It is extremely important today that people fully understand what constitutes a “Rebel.” A rebel is sometimes defined as one who opposes authority—that is grossly incorrect— a true Rebel is one who opposes unconstitutional, tyrannical authority. A Rebel always supports lawful authority as found in our Bill of Rights—it’s what Rebels have fought for in this country for over two centuries. Rebels founded this country in 1776 and fought against tyrannical usurpation of their rights in 1861-1865. Today we face similar threats to our freedoms and Liberty just as we did in 1775 and 1861. What a great day to be a Rebel! It is also important you understand Rebel is not my name—it is who I am.)

In Rightful Rebel Liberty