One would be hard pressed to disagree with the fact the Declaration of Independence not only defines the beginnings of our country but could be called our founding charter. Thomas Jefferson most eloquently laid out the tenets of lawful separation from a tyrannical oppressor, but also the definition of the one thing which defines the difference between ownership by the people of their government or the ownership of the people by a government: the basic tenet of “consent of the governed.”

It is both an indictment and a conviction of the Public Fool System and the institutionalized ignorance of the vast majority of citizens in this country that a government which operates without their consent is not only tyrannical and oppressive but such a government renders the people political slaves to their government’s edicts, rulings, and laws. Believing an elected representative who does not strictly adhere to a sacred oath to the Constitution is a lawful “representative” of their vested interests is insanity perfectly defined. Any elected representative who votes or acts unconstitutionally is a criminal and should be treated as such.

Recently, I received a comment on my article “It’s Not Your Flag” in which the person making the comment indicated all soldiers who fought for the Confederacy, whether they owned slaves or not, were by proxy fighting for slavery, while the soldiers of the North were fighting to preserve the Union. This person perfectly articulated the common belief of many, yet he was oblivious to the fact his contention was contrary to the tenets of the Declaration of Independence, in particular, the concept of “consent of the governed.”

Forgotten by the historically challenged, the politically correct, driven by crippling emotionalism, and government idolaters is the simple fact that prior to the ratification of the 13th Amendment in December of 1865, slavery and indentured servitude were legal throughout this country. The fact some states, mostly those whose climate did not support large agricultural enterprises such as seen in the South had outlawed slavery is a perfect example of the principles of the Tenth Amendment as exercised. Also, the fact the Fugitive Slave Laws were ignored in many of those states is a great example of the theory of Nullification, which we are told today does not exist when it comes to other unconstitutional laws enforced by our current government.

Yes, even though slavery was legal until December of 1865, it was totally immoral and a crime against nature, but then so was murdering LaVoy Finicum with his hands up on the side of the road in Oregon and arresting and holding without bond those who claim constitutional rights such as the Bundys, and political prisoners such as the Hammonds. In reality, who enjoys more freedoms; the Hammonds and Bundys who are simply political prisoners, or those who worked the cotton fields of the South prior to 1865?

On April, 15th 1861, when Lincoln ordered up 75,000 troops to “put down the rebellion” in the seven southern states which had seceded, there were more slaves in states that were still in the union than there were in the seven states that had seceded at the time. So, if it was true that the soldiers of the Confederacy were fighting to preserve the institution of slavery, they supported Lincoln and his policies just as much as they supported Jefferson Davis.

In his First Inaugural address Lincoln stated:

“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.”

He also stated his support for enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Laws which required any escaped slave “shall be delivered up.”

Lincoln spoke of the Corwin Amendment which had passed both houses of Congress and was being sent to the states for ratification. Lincoln prevaricated that he had not seen the amendment but in fact, he was the primary source and avid supporter of the amendment.*

“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.”

Here is the wording 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.”

The wording of this amendment states unequivocally that “no amendment” could be made to the Constitution which would outlaw slavery. Slavery would have remained in perpetuity under Lincoln’s guidance if the seven states of the Deep South would have agreed to stay in the Union. The South could have had slavery forever if they had disavowed their instruments of secession and ratified the Corwin Amendment.

If Lincoln and the radical Republicans had truly wanted to free the slaves, why did they not propose and pass an amendment to the Constitution which would have outlawed slavery, not one which would have made it perpetual? After the secession of the states of the South, Lincoln’s Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. To claim the South fought the war to preserve slavery is absolutely ludicrous and the argument of fools, the institutionalized ignorant and Cultural Marxists.

If Lincoln did not call up troops to invade the seven states of the Deep South in April of 1861 to destroy slavery, then why did he do so? On this point the person who commented on my article was correct. Lincoln called up troops and eventually invaded the South to “preserve the Union.” Was this a noble effort on the part of Lincoln and the Republican Party to keep the country together or were their intentions self-serving?

The fears of many of our founders came to reality with the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. Abraham Lincoln was a purely sectional candidate and with his election, a sectional president. Lincoln did not receive one electoral vote in fifteen states. The only states where he received an electoral vote were north of the Mason-Dixon line. Lincoln did not appear on the ballot in ten Southern states. In the popular vote, Lincoln received 1,866,452 while other candidates for president received 2,815,617. The South was left, just as the colonists were in 1775, in a taxation without representation paradigm.

When it comes to taxation, the South, in 1860, was contributing, depending on the source, between 75-95% of the revenue for the entire country derived basically from the protectionist tariff. The fight over the tariff laws had been ongoing for decades with the South proposing secession in 1832.  While the North was profiting greatly from slavery and cotton, the product of slavery, and had been doing so for over a century,** the South was providing the revenue which was overwhelmingly being used for internal improvements in the North.

Influential people of the North, such as Horace Greeley, at first were more than willing to let the Southern states secede until they were faced with the reality of the North losing a great majority of its revenue. On November 9, 1860, as editor of the New York Tribune, Greeley wrote the following:

“. . . and if the Cotton States shall become satisfied that they can do better out of the Union than in it, we insist on letting them go in peace. The right to secede may be a revolutionary one, but it exists nevertheless; and we do not see how one party can have a right to do what another party has a right to prevent. We must ever resist the asserted right of any State to remain in the Union and nullify or defy the laws thereof: to withdraw from the Union is quite another matter. And whenever a considerable section of our Union shall deliberately resolve to go out, we shall resist all coercive measures designed to keep it in. We hope never to live in a republic, whereof one section is pinned to the residue by bayonets.”

Greeley compared forcing a state to remain in the Union against its will to holding a person to slavery. Government idolators and revisionist historians argue Greeley changed his mind on secession when faced with the reality of separation, but, it was the loss of revenue that prompted Greeley’s change of heart.

Our founders passed a tariff in 1789, claimed to be temporary, in order to create revenue to pay off the war debt. But, then, just like today, politicians refuse to eliminate any source of revenue once it is enacted. Alexander Hamilton would use these tariffs to protect favored industries early on. In 1816, the first purely protectionist tariff was passed—again politicians of the day claimed it would be temporary.

For 44 years, protectionist tariffs were used to economically rape the South in order to provide revenue for protected interests in the North and provide revenue for internal improvements, primarily in the North. After the economic recession of 1857, northern politicians moved to increase the tariff again. The end result was the Morrill Tariff.

Lincoln was on record of having said while a candidate for the Illinois legislature “My politics are short and sweet, like an ‘old woman’s dance’ I am in favor of a national bank. [Today’s Federal Reserve] I am in favor of the international improvement system and a high protective tariff.”

Lincoln would retain his love of “high protective tariff(s)” for he knew, as many others began to realize after the secession of seven states of the South, that without that revenue stream the North and industry favored by the Republican Party elite would suffer an economic disaster. These circumstances would lead Lincoln to again comment on his beloved protectionist tariffs.

If I do that what would become of my revenue? I might as well shut up housekeeping at once.” ~ Lincoln in response to the suggestion by members of the Virginia Peace Commission that he abandon Fort Sumter. “Housekeeping” is a euphemism for federal spending.

But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [at the time the Confederate Capitol] Am I to let them go… and open up Charleston, etc., as ports of entry with their 10 percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff? ~ Lincoln to Colonel John Baldwin a deputy of the Virginia Peace Commissioners, April 4, 1861.

Again, the North was beginning to realize the catastrophic results of allowing the secession of the states of the South. On December 10, 1860, the Daily-Chicago Times stated the impending disaster quite succinctly:

In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves… Our manufactories would be in utter ruins… millions of our people would be compelled to go out of employment.”

Yes, Lincoln prosecuted a war to preserve the Union in direct contrast to the beliefs of those who founded this country. The basic positions of the people of the South were almost identical to those of our founders who went to war to provide them with a government operating with their consent. Abraham Lincoln went to war to deny the people of the South their representation and consent in how they were governed.

Abraham Lincoln and King George III had much in common and they both dealt with dissenters in the same manner—coercion, force, and violence.

The people of the South were merely carrying on the traditions of Liberty espoused by their ancestors and the tenets of the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln, in essence, fought a war to destroy the tenets of our founding charter.

* Team of Rivals, The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln by Doris Kearns Godwin (Lincoln apologist)

** Complicity, How the North Promoted, Prolonged and Profited From Slavery. By Ann Farrow, Joel Lang and Jennifer Frank (below from Amazon concerning this book.

“Slavery in the South has been documented in volumes ranging from exhaustive histories to bestselling novels. But the North’s profit from–indeed, dependence on–slavery has mostly been a shameful and well-kept secret . . . until now. In this startling and superbly researched new book, three veteran New England journalists demythologize the region of America known for tolerance and liberation, revealing a place where thousands of people were held in bondage and slavery was both an economic dynamo and a necessary way of life.”















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

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

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

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

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

Were these criminal actions continued with the recent events in Oregon where LaVoy Finicum was shot dead by federal and state agents and members of the Bundy family are still in jail with no bond? What have the Bundy’s actually done other than challenge the unconstitutional authority of the federal government?

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

Obviously, the authorization for employees of the USFS and BLM to conduct themselves in such criminal behavior must originate with the upper management of those agencies, especially considering it has been condoned for decades and no employee has received any discipline or termination. I can assure you the decision not to pay the Hage estate the monies awarded by a federal court was not made at the local or state levels. Nor was the decision to charge the Hammonds in Oregon on completely specious charges.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



“Some wear the color of the sky in the winter
Some were as blue as the night
They came like a storm with the light of the morn
And they fell through the whole day and night
 Colors flew high and they danced in the sky
As I watched them come over the hill
Then to my wonder, sticks that made thunder
Such a great number lay still” ~ Sticks That Made Thunder, The Steeldrivers
 In late June of 1863, the 800 plus North Carolinians who made up the 26th North Carolina Infantry Regiment began their long march from the vicinity of Fredricksburg, Virginia to near Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. The 26th NC was made up primarily of hardscrabble farm boys from Central and Western North Carolina. A great many of these men were under the age of 25. Among them were two of my ancestors.*
 Records indicate the Colonel of the 26th, Harry Burgwyn Jr. was a slave owner. While we may look at that as being racist in today’s world, in 1861, in all of America, it was perfectly legal and in June of 1863, according to Abraham Lincoln’s recently issued Emancipation Proclamation, slavery was legal in every Northern state, all of the Border states and any area in the South under control of the Union Army. Slavery in any area under dominion and control of Abraham Lincoln and the US government was legal. How is it that none of the flags presented or displayed by the Union Army are considered racist today?
 Slave owners within the ranks of the 26th NC Infantry Regiment were as rare as common sense in a meeting of Cultural Marxists. Not too hard to fathom considering over 94% of people in the South did not own a single slave. Yet, census records in 1860 show 3,500 free blacks owned slaves in the South.
 Families though were well represented throughout the 26th NC. Sometimes as many as 8 brothers had joined the various companies throughout the regiment. In “F” Company there were three sets of twins.
 It should be of special note that upon departure from Virginia, within the 26th NC IR, over 150 of the men in the ranks were barefooted. A veteran of the march from Virginia to Pennsylvania would write, “thousands were as ragged as they could be, some with the bottom of their pants in long frazzles, others with their knees sticking out, others out at their elbows, and their hair sticking through holes in their hats…” Farmers from the area these men called home could not afford replacement clothes and shoes, much less, slaves. One of their officers wrote home of these men, “These men were patriots; they loved their country; they loved liberty… They were quick to see, quick to understand, quick to act…” 
 To a student of history, the character and dedication of these young men appear eerily similar to those who secured our freedom from King George III. As a matter of fact, they were most proud of the name “Rebel,” for that was the sobriquet Major John Pitcairn of the Royal Marines had called out to those farmers and shopkeepers assembled on the Green in Lexington, Massachusetts on April 19, 1775. “Disperse ye Rebels, ye villains disperse. Why don’t ye lay down your arms?”
When the 26th North Carolina started their long trek to Gettysburg they did so with torn and tattered clothing and many with no shoes, but, they began their journey with a new battle flag. From Raleigh to New Bern to Malvern Hill, the 26th had displayed the First Flag of the Confederacy, known to many as the “Stars and Bars.” The Stars and Bars similarity to the Stars and Stripes of the Union army had led to confusion on the battlefield on several occasions, especially when viewed by field commanders from afar. Therefore, in June of 1863, the 26th North Carolina left Virginia with what before had been the Confederate Naval Jack, better known as the St. Andrews Cross.
On the first of July in 1863, the 26th NC went into battle near Gettysburg, Pennsylvania on what was called McPherson’s Ridge in Herbst’s Woods by local residents. This area was just to the south of Chambersburg Pike. The 26th NC was opposed by parts of the Union Army’s Iron Brigade made up of the 24th Michigan, the 7th Wisconsin, and 19th Indiana. The 26th NC drove the Iron Brigade from the field and into the streets of Gettysburg where the soldiers hid in cellars of local homes and tried to surrender to each other. Yet, in that one-half hour, the North Carolina boys suffered horrendous casualties. Colonel Harry Burgwyn Jr (20 years old) was mortally wounded and would die that evening. Second in command, Lieutenant Colonel John Lane was seriously wounded and near death. Of the 800 members of the 26th who entered the battle, 588 had been killed or wounded.
The regiment’s 10 companies had been led by nine captains. Three of the nine survived that first day’s battle. Sixteen lieutenants were dead or wounded. “E” and “F” companies who were on the right and left flanks of the color guard were almost completely decimated. Of the eighty-two men who began the battle with Company E, only 12 remained uninjured. Of the ninety-one men from Company F, ninety had been killed or wounded, including five of the six twin brothers mentioned earlier.
On several occasions during the battle, the opposing forces had been just yards apart. During the one-half hour charge up the hill, fourteen different men, including Colonel Burgwyn and Lieutenant Colonel Lane, had gone down while carrying the Confederate Battle Flag (the colors). Carrying the colors was an especially dangerous position as it became the focal point for enemy fire. Thus the decimation of the two companies (E and F) who were on either side of the colors. General Pettigrew would state these men, along with the rest of the 26th NC, had “covered themselves with glory.”
The 26th NC rested and regrouped on the  second of July and listened to the regimental band play songs such as The Bonnie Blue Flag, The Old North State, and Dixie.  The 26th would go into battle again on the third of July. They made up part of the heroic charge across that open field in what history has called “Pickett’s Charge.” They would take their place in front of the line. During that charge from Seminary to Cemetery Ridge, 8 more brave men of the 26th NC would be killed or wounded while carrying the Southern Cross.
Of the two hundred sixteen men of the 26th NC who participated in the battle on the third of July, only eighty-four survived. All told, the 26th North Carolina Infantry Regiment suffered the greatest losses of any unit on either side during the war.
Little did these extraordinarily brave and courageous men know that 150 years later, worthless pieces of humanity who do nothing but breathe up good oxygen and lack the courage any one of these brave men had in the tip of his finger, would refer to these exceptional men and those of their posterity who honor such courage, devotion, and commitment, as “racists.”
Those who have fallen mentally ill and cowardly while absorbing the deadly virus of political correctness, white guilt, and Cultural Marxism are unworthy of being mentioned in the same breath as any of these heroes. Their letters home spoke of defending their country from the “Yankee invader” and defending freedom and liberty. They gave the ultimate sacrifice on the field of honor for that cause.
The overwhelming majority of these young men owned no slaves and their absence placed terrible burdens on their families. Theirs was a battle for home, family and fireside, and the right of “consent of the governed” as was stated in our Declaration of Independence.
Abject cowards despise the virtue of bravery in others. Those who have no honor or commitment to purpose abhor those who do. The men of the 26th North Carolina Infantry Regiment had courage, honor and commitment in abundance. They died or were seriously injured carrying the Confederate Battle Flag into battle. That flag is representative of the character of the men who died on the field of honor in valiant pursuit of that which they believe to be right and true. That flag also represents those who hold such honor, bravery and dedication in the highest regard and cherish the memory of the men who left home and family behind in the pursuit of freedom from invasion, oppression and tyranny.
The Confederate Battle flag has flown where the idea of resistance to tyranny is paramount to the consideration for one’s personal safety and well-being. The “Southern Cross,” as it is often called, was seen in WWII,  on the Berlin Wall before it fell and in Tiananmen Square in Bejing during the protests in 1989.
When the Standards Committee of the Confederate Congress decided on the design of the Cross of St. Andrew for the Confederate Battle Flag, the following explanation was sent to Samuel Barrett of Georgia.
“The flag should be a token of humble acknowledgment of God and be a public testimony to the world that our trust is in the Lord our God.”
If you are a coward, an advocate of political correctness, a Cultural Marxist, a person who lacks a commitment to moral standards or simply a member of the institutionalized ignorant segment of American society, the Confederate Battle Flag—The Southern—Cross is not your flag. Leave the presentation and possession of this flag to those who possess a portion of the character, courage, commitment to freedom and honor of the men of the 26th North Carolina Infantry Regiment and tens of thousands of other brave Southern men who marched under that banner, and those of us who cherish their memory.
Those who hate this flag and seek to ban it do so because in their hearts and minds they know they will never, ever, be equal to the challenges of those who fought and died for it. IT IS NOT YOUR FLAG! LEAVE IT TO HELL ALONE!
*Sgt. Joel Gaddy was a member of Company K of the 26th North Carolina Infantry Regiment and surrendered with that unit at Appomattox Court House in April of 1865. Sgt. Gaddy was wounded on July 1, 1863, at Gettysburg.
*Pvt. Elijah Gaddy was also a member of Company K of the 26th North Carolina and was also wounded on July 1, 1863, at Gettysburg.


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

We have all been brought up hearing the phrase “the rule of law.” We also hear often that we are a “nation of laws” not a “nation of men.” We have common law, constitutional law, blue laws, supreme law, the law of the jungle, civil law and Jefferson’s “the Law of Nature and Nature’s God.”

Is it possible all of the laws mentioned above are compatible? Does any one of them contradict the others? We all should know laws are to be created by a legislature for the primary purpose of protecting our individual rights. To accomplish that purpose all laws created by that legislature must be “in pursuance of” our established Constitution and Bill of Rights. Any law that is contrary to the pursuance of our Constitution is null, void and of no force.

Many years ago, in my first Civics class, I remember being taught that without government, society would decay to a level known as anarchy. Later I would learn the definition of the word anarchy has been changed by those who practice civil religion to mean a chaotic condition brought about by the lack of government while those who practice spiritual religion define anarchy as without God.

All governments depend on the support of the people they govern either through willful compliance or force and coercion. Almost all governments eventually devolve from the former to the latter. It is important to understand at what point governments morph from “consent of the governed” to “by order of the government.” It is of more importance to understand the change is gradual and is brought about using the laws of that society created by their government. Making unconstitutional/criminal acts lawful is vital to government dominance and control over the people. Jefferson told us “the law is often nothing but the tyrants will and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

Tyrants will insist their will, the object of the laws they pass must be obeyed. They will often ask “do you believe you are above the law” when encountering a challenge to their unlawful actions or rules.

Tyranny will flourish where the victims of that tyranny believe they are bound to support that tyranny by observing and adhering to the laws of the tyrant. All governments are not good and all laws are not legitimate, nor should they be followed blindly.

Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Robert Mugabe, Idi Amin Dada, Vladimir Lenin, Pol Pot and many other tyrants in history sat in control of what were considered by them and in some cases many of their citizens to be legitimate, valid governments which acted on laws which that government passed and enforced. Many of these governments were recognized by world leaders—-just as our government is recognized by other nations today.

A fatal mistake, which is always destructive of individual liberty, is when a majority of people in a given society believe their government is not tyrannical based simply on the premise it is their government. In other words, no matter how corrupt other country’s governments are, ours is beyond reproach simply because it is our government. Therefore, whatever we do is right and our government is #1.

Governments swirl, then spin down the drain of tyranny and oppression when a majority of the people fail to hold the government to the limitations of the documents and principles which founded that government. Most important among those documents and principles in this country is our Declaration of Independence. The very basis of our independence is listed there and it is founded on “the laws of nature and nature’s God.”

One of our unfortunately forgotten founders, George Mason of Virginia stated,

“The laws of nature are the laws of God, whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth…All human constitutions which contradict His laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey.”

The concept of Natural Law and man’s law being sometimes diametrically opposed is much older than George Mason and the founding of our country. In fact, this philosophy is older than Christ. Marcus Tullius Cicero stated,

“Power and the law are not synonymous. In truth, they are frequently in opposition and irreconcilable. There is God’s law from which all equitable laws of man emerge and by which man must live if they are not to die in oppression, chaos and despair.”

Natural law or the law of nature is based on morality. Without a moral basis, all governments eventually begin a downward spiral which ends with genocide. In the twentieth century alone, governments murdered over 200 million of their own citizens; citizens which at some time during their lives looked to their government for protection and as benign and lawful, just as many Americans look to our government today.

Sometimes people criticize morality based laws and point to the hypocrisy of those who claim fealty to their religion as justifying ridicule of that faith. Yet, they refuse to judge their government and their politicians using the same scale of discernment. How can any politician or government employee who takes a sacred oath to our Constitution and then sets about systematically and intentionally to destroy that same Constitution be given respect and obedience to his/her laws while those who fail to faithfully keep the tenets of their faith are riddled with derision?

Recently, TV newscasts and other media sources have been extremely critical of legislation in several states which would allow citizens of those several states to refuse to serve or engage in normal business practices with members of the homosexual community based on claimed religious principles. This is a clearly defined battle between the inalienable rights of the individual as defined by our Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the laws of man.

If a person chooses not to do business with anyone, for any reason, it is within their rights as an individual to do so even if it denies them monetary gain. Any laws of man or coercion by other means which mandates a person operate against their natural rights is the very essence of tyranny. If a law of man mandates an individual must do business with those whom they choose not to, such laws can also mandate that person not be in business at all, mandate what products they can or cannot sell and even from whom they must purchase the necessities of business and how much they can charge for what is their private property.

People, there is something much more serious and ominous here than baking a cake for a homosexual wedding. This is a battle for domination between Natural Law and man’s law and the central government’s domination of the individual and the destruction of our private property rights. Several state legislatures and governors have written and signed into law provisions which protect the rights of states and individuals within those states to act according to their moral and spiritual beliefs. This is the very essence of freedom, liberty, and our Tenth Amendment. The governors of these states and their legislators are to be commended, not condemned and those who lacked the courage to sign these pieces of legislation in Arizona and Georgia are to be exposed for the unconstitutional cowards they are.

If we are to enjoy the rights defined in the First Amendment to our Constitution, among which is the “freedom of association,” do we not also have the right of freedom not to associate based on our personal and individual beliefs. To use man’s law to force association with those whom we do not want to associate is the seed of perpetual conflict and eventual violence.

At what point will man’s “diversity” driven laws mandate attendance by all to worship services in a mosque? Ridiculous you claim. Really? How ridiculous was a baker being forced to bake a cake for a homosexual couple 50 years ago? How ludicrous would it have been for a male student to have entered a girl’s locker room because he “identified” as a female in the 1960s, 70s, or 80s?

Natural laws are antecedent to the laws of man and his various governments. By definition, they are inalienable and therefore cannot be superseded or legislated into oblivion by people of little to no character who have been able to trick a majority of the institutionalized ignorant and weepy emotionalists into voting for them.

Our Declaration of Independence is the charter of our country and the Constitution and Bill of Rights are the by-laws. They are inextricably linked to the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. Man’s laws are arbitrary, inconsistent and based on the flawed nature of man. Inevitably, man’s laws lead to death, destruction and chaos. But, regardless, people overwhelmingly choose man’s laws over Natural law because they appeal to the emotions rather than intellect.

Man’s laws lead to the chaos such as that witnessed on a daily basis in the streets of this country’s larger cities which have become the modern day “killing fields.” Every 2 hours and 39 minutes a person is shot on the streets of Chicago and every 14 hours and 47 minutes a person is shot and killed. So far this year 140 people have been shot and killed and 747 people have been shot and wounded. This would officially qualify Chicago as a war zone. Yet, Chicago is not in Forbes Magazines listing of the 10 most violent cities in this country. The people of Chicago and other large American cities are laboring under the laws of man, with all of its attendant benefits, perils, and daily savagery—-But—-a homosexual couple can purchase all the wedding cakes they want, so all is right with the world in socialist America.

When and if you are asked “Are you above the law,” make darned sure you know which laws they are referencing: Man’s laws or the laws of Nature and Nature’s God? The difference is between Liberty and slavery.









I have thoroughly enjoyed watching the mayhem of this presidential campaign season. The forces that have combined in an attempt to derail a Trump phenomenon the Republicans never saw coming is most revealing. The popularity of Trump among those in this country who are beginning to catch on to the political scam of the two major parties has created chaos within the GOP, the media, and with Democrats. Did the Republican hierarchy really believe the people would not eventually see through the scam that no matter which R they voted for, once elected, they legislated like a full blown progressive, socialist Democrat?

The GOP, all corporate news media, and the socialists Dems joining together in order to destroy Trump is most telling. Their joint effort should be visible even to Stevie Wonder. They all represent the power cabal or deep state unconstitutional government. These forces have combined in a last-ditch effort to avoid the inevitable: elimination of the Trump threat by other, possibly violent, means.

It will be interesting to see how the GOP mafia rewards John Kasich for staying in the race when the prospect of him ever being successful simply does not exist. The flaming Marxist Socialist, George Soros apparently supplied the financing for Kasich to stay in the race. Kasich obviously continued throughout the primaries solely to prevent Trump from going into the convention with the required 1237 delegates. When Socialist George’s contributions to anyone in the GOP doesn’t seem repulsive to those within the party hierarchy, the fix is most obviously in.

Surely, Trump understands that each of his media interviews is an ambush planned in advance to create controversy.  Chris “I get a thrill when I listen to socialist speeches” Matthews, sprung his trap on Trump last week using the emotional issue of abortion.

Several readers have voiced their concerns when I wrote that Trump was most clearly not a constitutionalist. The interview with Matthews has been described as the leading element in Trump’s worse week ever. Had Trump been in possession of knowledge of our Constitution, instead of being the “ambushee,” he could have been the “ambusher.”

With a working knowledge of the Constitution, Trump could have responded to Matthews on the issue of abortion. Trump could have said…“Chris, when it comes to abortion, there is absolutely nothing in Article II of our Constitution which expressly delegates any power to the executive which would permit the president to address or involve himself/herself with the issue of abortion. Also, Chris, there is nothing whatsoever in Article I Section 8 of our Constitution which would allow the Congress to involve themselves with the issue of abortion. If we followed the dictates of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, Chris, any legislative action on abortion would rest with the people of the individual states as is demonstrably outlined in our Tenth Amendment.  

Assuming Matthews would offer any intelligent response to the above, I am sure he would fall back on the Roe v Wade decision. Again, another door would be opened which would allow Trump, if he were a constitutionalist, to educate Matthews and the idiots in both parties on the proper constitutional role of the US Supreme Court.

When Matthews referred to Roe v Wade, Trump could have said…”I’m glad you brought that up, Chris. First of all, the Supreme Court, as planned by our founders, can only issue opinions on the constitutionality of a particular piece of legislation, they were never, in any scenario discussed by our founders, delegated the power to legislate from the bench. 

Once Matthews regained his breath on the mere suggestion the infallible nine are not the masters of the universe, Trump could have said… “Chris, as a matter of fact, if we are to place credence in James Madison, a founder often referred to as ‘The Father of the Constitution,’ when he addressed how to understand and interpret our Constitution as intended by the founders, we would learn Madison said the following: ‘If we were to look, therefore, for the meaning of the instrument beyond the face of the instrument, we must look for it, not in the general Convention, which proposed, but in the State Conventions, which accepted and ratified the Constitution.’

Then, Trump could have said… “If we are to follow Madison’s words as to the true meaning of our Constitution, we would find in the Virginia Ratification Convention of June 1788, John Marshall’s statement in that convention that the US Supreme Court was not expressly delegated the authority to overrule the laws of any State and could not constitutionally do so. Therefore, Chris, the 10th Amendment would reign supreme in discussion, litigation, or rulings on the issue of abortion. Abortion is not in the realm of the central government’s purview. Of course, the same could be said for universal health care, gun control, taxation and a plethora of other issues in which the central government has overstepped its constitutional boundaries.

 If Matthews were to mention that as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall actually ruled SCOTUS could overrule the legislation of a State, Trump could have said, “Exactly, Chris, Marshall obviously violated the terms of his oath to our Constitution, not to mention his own promises in the Ratification convention and should have been impeached, just as any other elected official or bureaucrat who violates their sacred oath should be impeached and face criminal proceedings where appropriate. I take violations of one’s sacred oath to be deplorable and unconscionable, and, as the next president, I will move to initiate impeachment proceedings for any and all elected and appointed employees of the central government who violate their sacred oath. I can assure you members of the federal judiciary at all levels will not be excluded from such actions. 

Of course, such answers and statements will never issue from Donald Trump or any other candidate for president, congress, or the judiciary in this country. While millions claim they want constitutional leadership, in the vast majority of cases this is patently untrue.

Democrats and Republicans want to see their party-vetted candidates elected—they care nothing for constitutional governance. A distinct majority in this country just want to be comfortable—if an unconstitutional government can provide the illusion of comfort, that is all that is important. Do not interrupt their entertainment with trivial pursuits such as freedom, liberty or constitution based government.

Considering the above, Donald Trump may have been in more elective hot water than he is now if he had dared to say anything such as references to our Constitution, but it sure would have been fun to watch all of the “beltway pundits” become apoplectic and Ignoramus Americanus lapse back into the self-induced coma of institutionalized ignorance after the initial tsunami of attacks on the Donald by the media and those bought and paid for by the deep state.

“Trump could have said…” But he didn’t—and probably never will.