“Without reflection, we go blindly on our way, creating more unintended consequences, and failing to achieve anything useful.” ~ Margaret J. Wheatley

Janus, the Roman god who has faces on both sides of his head in order to look forward as well as backward is the symbol for January, and as we are on the threshold of a new year, would it not be proper for us to look to the past for lessons for the future?

Over the course of several decades, I have learned firsthand the hazards of being knowledgeable of history and trying to relay that knowledge to others to avoid the admonishment so eloquently stated by George Santayana that those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat its mistakes. Such a venture would certainly qualify as an effort in futility. People, especially those on the right of the political spectrum, become most agitated and angry when one draws back the curtain revealing their historical ignorance and unwillingness to learn those historical lessons.

In early 2000, a so-called “conservative think-tank” formulated a plan that has led to continual war, rampant mass immigration and acts of terror all over the globe. The big problem is, the Neocons (read Republicans) who operated and funded this think-tank not only influenced their own political party but made their totally failed plan the hallmark of the current Democrat administration. Not only that but following through with the principles of the Hegelian Dialectic, they have made the majority of Americans believe the way to cure the problem created with their policies is to apply more of what caused the problem in the first place.

A quick perusal of any social media site will show a great many Americans believe the way to stop terrorism and mass immigration is to continue doing what caused it in the first place.

Back in 2003, because of the massive false hype for the invasion of Iraq, I wrote an article on the above-referenced think-tank which is known as the Project For The New American Century. (PNAC) In the title for that article, I claimed PNAC’s plan was the death certificate for our Republic. I stand by my prognostication. I ask you, the reader, to review this article and compare it with where we are today. (Please note: I have emphasized in bold some things that are most relevant)

Project For The New American Century:
The Death Certificate For Our Republic

By Michael Gaddy  
(Originally published on 03/03/03)

I, like many other supporters of the Constitution, have been asking since the 2000 election; exactly what drives the foreign policy of the Bush Administration. The answer is revealed in the doctrines of the Policy for the New American Century, (PNAC)

Neil Mackay, in the Scotland Sunday Herald, reveals the master plan now driving this administration.

“A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure ‘regime change’ even before he took power in January 2001.

The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a ‘global Pax Americana’ was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defense secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld’s deputy), George W Bush’s younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney’s chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).”

This plan can be found here in PDF format.

The plan put forth by PNAC reveals, regardless of whether Saddam Hussein was in power in Iraq, an attack there was preordained. Maybe this can explain why the powers that be and their lap-dog media continue the war beat no matter how many times this administration is caught prevaricating about Iraq.

Inside the document prepared by PNAC is the following: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

To facilitate their plans, our military cannot be constrained by our Constitution. The plan calls our military, “the cavalry on the new American frontier.” In other words, the new American frontier is wherever our government says it is. If this is not a game plan of empire, I have never seen one.

The thoughts brought forth in this document should scare the bejeezus out of anyone who calls him or herself an American.

The PNAC plan:

Supports a “blueprint for maintaining global US preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests.”

This “American grand strategy” must be advanced for “as far into the future as possible,” the report says. It also calls for the US to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars” as a “core mission.”

1. Refers to key allies such as the UK as “the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership.”

2. Describes peacekeeping missions as “demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations.”

3. Reveals worries in the administration that Europe could rival the USA.

4. Says “even should Saddam pass from the scene” bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently — despite domestic opposition in the Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops — as “Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has.”

5. Spotlights China for “regime change” saying “it is time to increase the presence of American forces in Southeast Asia”. This, it says, may lead to “American and allied power providing the spur to the process of democratization in China”

6. Calls for the creation of “US Space Forces”, to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent “enemies” using the Internet against the US. (How long will it be before those of us who oppose this quest for empire, become the “enemy”?)

7. Hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing biological weapons — which the nation has banned — in decades to come. It says: “New methods of attack — electronic, ‘non-lethal’, biological — will be more widely available … combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes … advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”

8. Pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a “worldwide command-and-control system.”

Our European allies know of this plan. Perhaps that is why the administration’s plan for “regime change” is meeting such opposition there.

Tam Dalyell, father of the House of Commons in the UK, and one of the leading British voices against war with Iraq said: “This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks — men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam War. This is a blueprint for US world domination — a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.”

Ironically, the policies of PNAC were first brought forth in Papa George’s administration, but it was not well received and the would-be world controllers backed off for the time being. Scott McConnell of the American Conservative magazine says; “In the final year of the first Bush administration, Paul Wolfowitz penned a memo under the aegis of then Secretary of Defense Cheney, calling for the United States to ramp up its defense spending in order to deter any other country from “even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” China, Russia, Germany, and Japan were to be intimidated from seeking more power in their own regions. After the Wolfowitz draft was leaked to the press, it received widespread ridicule, and the Bush I diplomats rushed to reassure allies that Wolfowitz’s views did not truly reflect American foreign policy.

But, during the 1990s, these did become the views of the neoconservatives, packaged under the slogan “benevolent global hegemony” touted by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The positions of the neoconservative foreign policy team in exile were fleshed out in a PNAC book, Present Dangers, which called for the U.S. to “shape the international environment to its own advantage” by being “at once a European power, an Asian power, a Middle Eastern power, and of course a Western Hemisphere power” and to “act as if instability in important regions of the world … affect[s] us with almost the same immediacy as if [it] was occurring on our own doorstep.” In practice, this meant assertive risk-taking virtually everywhere. Jonathan Clarke, reviewing the volume in the National Interest, wrote, “If the book’s recommendations were implemented all at once, the U.S. would risk unilaterally fighting a five-front war, while simultaneously urging Israel to abandon the peace process in favor of a new no-holds-barred confrontation with the Palestinians.” This book has become the blueprint for the foreign policy of George W. Bush.”

The most alarming part of this document is the proposals for our military. Those of us who believe that we maintain a military for defense are in for a real shock. When this plan is implemented there will have to be a name change in our government. We will no longer have a department of defense; it will have to be changed to the department of offense.

Does anyone really believe we can accomplish the outlined military goals with an “all volunteer” force? Or will we once again be required to subject our young people to a draft so they can be made indentured servants to a government so as to “fight for freedom?” Don’t forget Secretary of Offense, Donald Rumsfeld, recently praised our “all volunteer’ military as being one where everyone is there by choice, yet days later froze all lengths of service for the U.S. Marines and all forces in Korea until further notice. (stop-loss)

This plan for world domination, written in 2000, called for raising our outlay on military spending to 3.8 percent of our GNP from the then level of 3.5. With the last increase in military spending by this administration, we reached the exact figure of 3.8!

The steps of this plan, which are being followed to the letter by George W. Bush, (and then by Obama for the past 8 years) will lead to the end of what little is left of our Republic and a disaster for us as a nation on the world stage. History is resplendent with the tragedies of nations that sought empire and failed. We will be no different.

All allies will be repulsed in our desire to dominate the world. It is happening already. Our European allies have gone from those with headlines on 9/11 that proclaimed “We are all Americans now,” to disgust with our leaders, our foreign policy and its intended goal of world domination. Sure, we will be able to buy some allies, just as we have Turkey, but we must be aware we have only purchased the support of the government. The people of the world will never support a foreign power that seeks to make everyone victims of its democratization and moral superiority.

When we subdue Iraq, will the oil resources be given to the citizens? I think not. A puppet government will be installed and the oil resources will be channeled to US interests, just as poppy production is being done in Afghanistan. Why else would a supposed “leader” of a country require 24/7 protection by US Special Forces soldiers from his own citizens?

We call what we seek to impose on the world, “democracy.” What majority of citizens in Afghanistan elected Hamid Karzai to be head of the country? Could it be coincidence Karzai was a former Unocal employee? Is it also coincidence the plan for the oil line across Afghanistan is now being implemented? Could the Taliban have become military opponents of the United States simply because they refused this same pipeline deal with Unocal after being wined and dined in Texas back when Dubya was governor in 1997?

What will it take for the majority of citizens in this country to realize we are becoming that which we fought so hard to oppose 50+ years ago? By continuing to implement this policy set forth by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle and Bush, do we not become the same as the Soviet Union whom we fought so hard to defeat, costing us tens of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars? One need only to compare the proposed ideologies of our new neoconservative leaders with those of Leon Trotsky!

Another thing this plan for world domination will bring us here at home is terrorism too intense to be imagined. When we have separated ourselves from the other people of this planet by our quest for domination, by what other means will they be able to retaliate? Does the thought of Rome being invaded by the Barbarians bring forth any visions? If they invade across our Southern Border, they will be assisted by our government’s policies rather than opposed?

What will become of those here in this country who seek to remain loyal to the Constitution? Will we not become just as much an opposing force to those who seek world domination as those in other countries who do not wish to become American subjects?

How much more of our personal resources will be required to accomplish world domination? How many more of our freedoms?





“Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises, for never intending to go beyond promise, it costs nothing.” ~ Sir Edmund Burke

It does not take any great level of discernment to understand the great experiment in Liberty brought forth by those among the founders referred to as Anti-Federalists is in its death throes. Emma Goldman was correct; people do not want to be free, they want to be comfortable, even if that comfort is derived, all be it short-lived, by the acceptance of abject socialism. The historical fact that all socialist governments end in mass genocide is lost on those who are enjoying the short-term feel-good emotions of Marxist inspired ignorance.

There are two factions in this country who bear somewhat equal responsibility for the demise of Liberty and Freedom. On the Left, better known as “liberals” or “progressives,” are those who see government as a deity or a parent. That is why many regress from young adults to toddlers after spending hundreds of thousands of their parent’s money or go deeply into debt attending today’s temples of  “education.” Even the once-proud Virginia Military Institute now provides cadets, future military officers, with coloring books to alleviate stress.

On the Right are those who label themselves as “conservatives.” But, truth be told, all they are truly conserving are varying levels and degrees of socialism. They make all types of claims for small government, constitutional rights, and freedom, but believe all they have to do to acquire those things is to vote. Beyond that, all they have to lean on is “hope.” In most instances, these so-called “conservatives” are much more dangerous than the liberal-progressives to the concepts of Liberty. This group never insists that their candidate actually supports our Constitution and Bill of Rights; all they require for undying allegiance is the will to oppose the other team. Conservatives do not truly desire constitutional government, what they want is to vote for a winner.

When a conservative’s preferred candidate fails to adhere to their campaign promises and reverts back to socialist principles, conservatives become angry when those transgressions are pointed out. They demand that their chosen one be given “time” to actually see what they will do. History is a study of time and that study reveals the “hope” they have placed in their candidates in the past, hardly, if ever, materializes. Although “hope springs eternal” in the heart of a conservative, hope is neither a course of action nor a force multiplier.

Those with the courage to face the largest army on the planet in 1775, did so with actions. They did not try to vote King George III out of office nor did they sit on their butts and hope. Patrick Henry told conformists of the day that one could sit and “listen to the siren song of hope until they were transformed into beasts.” Henry’s prognostication has come to full bloom in 2016. Such is the price of historical ignorance. But, in today’s national security world, those brave Rebels at Lexington Green or Concord on April 19, 1775, would be considered domestic terrorists.

Conservatives believe all they are required to do to secure Liberty is to make sure they vote. Voting to a conservative is analogous to some form of sacred religious sacrament, and if they partake of that sacrament, in their collective minds, no further actions are required. Most are completely oblivious to the wisdom of H.L. Mencken and his admonition that “Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than Christianity has made them good.”

Almost every conservative will regale you with their beliefs on the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but sits idly by each year as 500,000+ unborn children are murdered, many times using their tax dollars to accomplish the immoral deed. But, not to worry, they can still vote and they can still sit on their backsides watching sports on TV and “hope” the next candidate they vote for does better than the last one.

Liberal/progressives are very open in their love of socialism and their belief that they are entitled to the property of others. Their minds have been indoctrinated in the Public Fool System and by TV, the media and movie programming. They see their government as some form of deity which will forever clothe, feed and shelter them. They believe they are entitled to everything and required to do nothing to earn it. Conservatives hate these liberals for their beliefs but vote for candidates who cater to the liberal’s every wish while claiming to oppose them. That is correct; conservatives love a hypocrite and will vote for them every time because such actions represents most accurately the philosophy to which they pay homage.

Conservatives will tell you they are “constitutionalists” but vote consistently for candidates who exhibit little to no knowledge of the limitations placed on their actions by our Constitution. If these hypocrites really wanted constitutional government, they had the opportunity to vote for it in 2008 and 2012 with Ron Paul, but, instead, went with the socialist/traitor/ Manchurian Candidate, John McCain in 2008 and the originator of government sponsored healthcare and the candidate who signed into law a provision banning the ownership of semi-automatic weapons with Willard “Mitt” Romney in 2012. There could never be a better indicator of the hypocrisy of the so-called right than the above. They consistently vote against their own interests if only that vote will produce a “winner.” Again, most self-proclaimed conservatives are hypocrites; they care nothing for constitutional government, all they want is to be on the winning team, even if that team is totally socialist.

Being a winner is the very reason conservatives embrace American Exceptionalism or the belief that whatever America does is ok, regardless of whether it is constitutional, moral or if they have condemned other countries for the same actions. Again, hypocrisy rises to the surface; it is ok if I do it, but wrong if others do the same. Conservatives believe even though America is the only country to have used weapons of mass destruction, only America, and its allies should have them. Conservatives proclaim their rights to have the necessary weapons to protect themselves from a tyrannical government but rail against other countries who want weapons to protect themselves from the same tyrannical government the conservative claims to fear.

Those on the Right claim to support our Bill of Rights, but the politicians they vote for, in many cases, introduce legislation to abolish Trial by Jury (7th Amendment) in order to protect the interests of big business. Simply because elements of big business and their lobbyists provide more campaign cash than does the individual whom they profess to represent.

Professor Carroll Quigley, an insider with the power cabal, warned us 50 years ago that there was no significant difference between the political parties, that elections were only a well-orchestrated charade to make the people think they were “kicking the rascals out” every election cycle, but there would be no significant changes in the direction the government would take. But, those on the right of the political spectrum keep trying to prove Quigley wrong. They also are determined to prove Albert Einstein wrong as well for he stated the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. But, not to worry, all the conservatives really want is for their socialist to beat your socialist. Being the winning hypocrite is all that matters.

The condition upon which God has given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.” ~ John Phillip Curran, 1750-1817 Irish lawyer, orator, and judge.




“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.” ~Excerpt from the Farewell Address of George Washington, 1796.

There exists among people two distinct philosophy’s; on one hand, there is the very small minority whose main desire in life is to be left alone to their own devices. They ask not for help or hindrance; they simply wish to be able to succeed or fail on their own abilities, not depending on others for help nor having to defend themselves from those who seek power over them. If they choose to help others along the way they want that idea to arise from their own motives and abilities and not coercion. A very generous attribution would be approximately 8% of the citizens of this country fall into this category.

The other approximately 92% of citizens, whether they find themselves politically on the right or on the left, many times see our Constitution and Bill of Rights as an impediment to their ability to use the coercive force of government to impose their ideas; their values; and their morality on others.

The political left seeks to implement and control a government which will serve as a god-like entity which can be used to forcibly take from those who produce to give to those who don’t. They view this as some divine attribute conferred on them because they have been anointed by some mystical power to confer social justice on the masses. As this purely Marxist belief began to take hold in our country before WWII, basically on the shoulders of the New Deal agenda, even those on the political right saw the attraction to this agenda by the masses and therefore sought to adopt at least part of these socialist policies, not because it fit their political agenda, but because they knew the key to power was the ability to offer more free stuff than the guy in the other party, for to gain the power and coercive forces of government one must convince more of Boobus Americanus to vote for them than vote for their political opponent.

The political right seeks to implement their policies under the guise of national fervor. Perpetual war for perpetual peace provides the platform to grow government exponentially for the purpose of defense—after all—there is a boogie man behind every door—-especially if your beloved government has given that demon tyrant millions of taxpayer dollars to make himself more scary.  Since there are demons everywhere, freedoms must be forcibly taken by government just in case somewhere down the road Ignoramus Americanus catches on to the ruse and like our Founders decides a drastic change is needed in the way government is being conducted and decides to exercise the rights to “throw off” such a government as is listed in the Declaration of Independence and replace it with one more attuned to Liberty.

Those on the right also see themselves as the anointed ones, many times referring to their religious beliefs as just cause to dictate to others what they can and cannot do with their own persons and property. The religious beliefs most rejected in history have been those which have been forced on those who do not know what is best for them in the eyes of their elected betters.

Many in our own county cannot see the inconsistency in their belief that government does not have the right to take their private property or close roads to public lands but believe that same government has the right to forcibly dictate what others can or cannot put into their own bodies. Of course most of these folks frequently exercise their right to consume adult beverages, but would use government to force their political/religious beliefs onto others. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, if you can’t own yourself, you can never be truly free.

Damn that Constitution and Bill of Rights when it gets in the way of what those righteous folks know is best for the guy down the street. There ought to be a law that ignores the unalienable rights of others, they exclaim, when their beliefs or wishes to impose their values on others is challenged. Meanwhile they weep, wail and gnash their teeth because their political base deteriorates, all the while failing to look their own hypocrisy in the eye.

Bottom line is neither party wants our Constitution and Bill of Rights to be strictly enforced because it would limit the powers of their chosen political party or newly elected candidate and their subsequent ability to force their belief system on those they see as somehow inferior.

If you believe I am incorrect in this assertion, just check out social media and read what those who support Donald Trump want him to do once he is in office. The fact the great majority of actions they want Trump to take are not listed in the powers of the executive means nothing to them. Constitution—- “we don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution, we have the Donald.”

Robert Lefevre offered great insight into this wonderful left-right paradigm.

“There is no other way of explaining the phenomenon. Good men do find their way into government. But having gotten there, they must either perform their function or resign. If they perform their function, they use the government, an agency of compulsively gathered coercive force, to accomplish that function. Inevitably, they hurt someone. This is undoubtedly the reason such a furore is maintained over the necessity for a two-party system. Nothing is said in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights about the necessity of a two-party system. Yet most Americans hold that two parties are necessary.

The reason is obvious. The party in power inevitably employs its friends and well-wishers, and passes laws and enforces proceedings against others not of the same political conviction.

Over a period of time these laws and enforcements build up a body of resistance. The oppression mounts. It may become a public scandal. Finally, the “ins” are ousted and the other party assumes power.

Immediately the process repeats but with alternate emphasis. Those who are “ins” become “outs.” And the newly hired “ins” go to work to cut their friends free from oppression and to visit their vengeance upon those who subscribed to the beliefs of the former “ins.” Then the same iniquities come to pass all over again. Those persecuted change places with the persecutors. And around and around goes the political wheel of chance, with the voting public spinning the wheel.”

As long as the left can blame the problems of the country on the Bush’s, Graham’s and Romney’s of the Republican Party and the right can do the same with the Obama’s, Clinton’s and the Democrats, our Constitution and Bill of Rights will continue to disappear into the sinkhole of history, because freedom and liberty must always take a back seat to two-party politics in the eyes of the two-party power structure.

The problems we face in this country are because we are not following our founding principles, not because a right-wing tyrant or a left-wing tyrant is nesting in the White House or the halls of Congress. Both political parties see a strict adherence to our Constitution as a reduction to their power and ability to coerce. Supporting either party is a death-blow delivered against a small, constitutional, limited government.



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

We have known since November 8th of this year that at least 200 million American voters actually believe they can change the policies and direction of government by voting. And most of those 200 million become very angry if one tells them voting is an effort in futility and that no matter who they vote for the government gets elected, every time!

So-called “conservatives” have very narrow minds or extremely limited cognitive abilities. Their myopic mindset leads them to believe that anyone who has the temerity to question the unconstitutional acts of “conservatives” must be, by default, a Hillary supporter. There is no thought they might be staunch supporters of our Constitution for everyone knows that “conservatives” are always right and anyone who questions that premise must be for Hillary. These people should have been alive in Germany during the 30’s and 40’s, for without a doubt they would have been faithful members of the National Socialist Party, because it would have totally fit their mindset.

As previously stated, at least 200 million Americans actually believe they can change the course of government by simply voting. Despite the visible strings, most cannot fathom for a moment that all candidates are properly vetted by the power cabal, shadow government, deep state or whatever name one chooses to call them, and politicians are mere puppets who dance to the tune of the unelected, powerful, monied group that really controls this country.

Some of these puppets might not completely understand the extent of this control until they find themselves elected and are quickly visited by the real power players, but they learn very quickly. Some of them might be a little stubborn at first, but they are quickly advised as to how those who don’t follow orders are dealt with. Perhaps some are shown pictures of JFK, RFK, and George Wallace as a gentle but most effective reminder.

Is it possible we are witnessing a little reminder of the powers of this cabal even now? Could Trump, possibly believing he actually has some authority now that he has been elected, be now dealing with a simple reminder of the power of these people? Could the threat of a recount, a new election sponsored by his good friends down at the CIA, or an electoral college revolt, be used to control who is and who is not given positions of power within Trump’s cabinet and administration? When he picks the right ones as directed by the power cabal, will things revert to what passes for normal in the District of Criminals? We shall see!

Either the above is true, or Donald Trump lied through his teeth to those who supported him at the polls. How else does one justify the numerous picks for cabinet and administration positions who were, at one time or another, closely connected with Goldman Sachs? Why else would his pick for VP, SecDef, National Security Advisor, and Director of Homeland Security all be staunch supporters of an “Israel First’ policy and very strong opponents of Iran? Especially, when campaign trail Trump indicated wars in the Middle East are bad for America? Did Trump not say that George W. Bush lied us into war in Iraq? Why else would he criticize both Hillary and Ted Cruz for their affiliations with Goldman Sachs and then place three people with strong affiliations with Goldman Sachs in his cabinet?

In my voting-age lifetime, I have witnessed 14 different presidential elections. At each election cycle, I saw Americans become most passionate about their particular candidate and loudly proclaim their choice was going to revitalize the spirit of freedom and liberty and return us to constitutional limitations on government. Those were also the claims and promises of the various candidates over that time span. In the 48 years since I cast my first presidential vote, that has never happened. Tyranny has grown and grown; our Constitution has been eviscerated and freedom and liberty have become nothing but words on parchment and phrases in songs.

To a logical mind, doing the same thing over and over again for 48 years to continually worsening results would indicate some degree of insanity, just as Einstein stated. But, please don’t try to point that out to those wonderful “conservatives” because, if you do, you will be immediately labeled a “Hillary supporter.”

My prediction for the next couple of years is this: things are going to continue to worsen for individuals and their rights. We will see more and more infringements on our Creator granted rights; there will be a rush to continue the destruction of the white race and their moral values, history and symbols; there will be more and more illegal immigration and refugee rescues financed with taxpayer dollars to further dilute and weaken what could only be called the founding values of this country.

We currently have at least one federal government agency to insure all ten planks of the Communist Manifesto are fully implemented in this country. Trump will do nothing to stop this for it will be out of his control. Socialism will reign supreme in America. If that socialism takes on a Nationalist flavor, warmongers of all stripes will sing its praises. “Welfare is Bad, War is Good,” they will continue to chant, not realizing both have destroyed Liberty in this country. Nothing a liberal likes more than welfare and nothing a conservative likes more than war, while both see the Constitution as an impediment to their goals.

As the voting electorate becomes more and more ignorant, there is little hope enough people will awaken to the reality of their own well-orchestrated demise to actually stand up and do something. As long as a majority believe all they have to do to effect change in this country is vote, the die is cast. America will become just another socialist third-world cesspool and the ignorant will be splashing in the political waste and beckoning others to “come on in, the water is fine” but don’t forget to vote for more sewage, first!

“Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one’s government is not necessarily to secure freedom.” ~ F. A. von Hayek





“Five percent of the people think;
ten percent of the people think they think;
and the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think.” ~ Thomas Edison

One of the great problems brought to us at the cost of billions of dollars, all courtesy of the Public Fool System, is an almost total loss of cognitive discourse when it comes to addressing problems we encounter as a society and as a country. We have abandoned cognitive thought for the much less demanding delusion by emotion, or how we “feel.” This, of course, has been reinforced by the print and electronic media and the ever-present email forward.

Last evening, in a discussion with an otherwise very intelligent lady, the conversation turned to government corruption. Throughout this elongated verbal exchange, the lady’s constant answer to each question asked or facts presented, was either, “I can’t believe that …” or “I won’t believe that …” Having been at that point in discussions on numerous occasions, I immediately recognized the no-win paradigm of  “I will not change my mind regardless of how many facts are presented.” Thus, the price we must pay for the loss of cognitive discourse.

Part of the price paid is our inability to understand why imposing the failed concept of democracy on other countries and peoples, at the point of a gun or threat of a bomb or missile, is the ultimate expression of hypocrisy. Do we understand that this form of government we seek to force others to accept is a form of government we ourselves do not trust and are seeking to reject by peaceful means?

If you were a citizen of another country, would you readily accept implementation of our present dysfunctional government as a replacement for the one you have? Would you not reject the forced/violent implementation of a government of another country here in America, no matter what their claims of benefits?

Almost every presidential election, we throw off the existing tyrant in order to give power to another tyrant in waiting; political party affiliation means nothing. The problem is: the government assumed by the new executive is staffed with bureaucrats and other politicians who make the government corrupt beyond repair. The same people Patrick Henry called the “federal sheriffs” and claimed they would “eat out our sustenance” back in 1788.

While we readily seek a new leader for the Executive, we re-elect our legislative members at the rate of 90+%, even when their approval rating is less than 10%. Installing a new leader for this corrupt enterprise is analogous to giving a priest a machine gun. From the works of Robert LeFevre:

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

So, when George W. Bush said in his Second Inaugural address:

“It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”

 What Bush II really meant was: our government intends to provide “every nation and culture,” by force if necessary, a crushing national debt, perpetual wars for perpetual peace, free stuff for those who produce nothing, regular scheduled attempts at disarming law-abiding citizens, an ever-growing and tyrannical police state, health care administered by bureaucrats at prohibitive, unaffordable costs, complete and total indoctrination of the children in the Marxist Socialist concepts and rejection of the governing principles upon which the country was founded.

Can we really question why the people of other countries would resist the spread of such a government? Our Founders certainly did; they fought a revolution to throw off a government eerily similar to the one we now have and are trying to force on others, using bullets, bombs, and missiles as encouragement.

Did we as a country not allegedly resort to war when Hitler and Stalin sought to force a tyrannical form of government on an at the time, free world? Do we deny to others that which we once claimed as our right and duty?

Several years ago, I sought to illustrate how hypocritical our position of seeking to deny various forms of weapons to other countries was/is. Our government and its shills in the media and elsewhere claim other countries should not possess the very weapons our country has in its possession. Is this not the identical claim made by many of the leaders of our own government and their shills in the media and Hollywood when it comes to our individual possession of firearms similar to those in the possession of employees of our government? (Federal sheriffs)

By any chance, is the government which other countries fear not the same government we ourselves fear and mistrust? We repeatedly claim our Second Amendment is not about hunting or target shooting, but about protecting ourselves from an out of control, tyrannical government. Would you deny the people of another country the right and weapons to protect themselves from the same government you fear?

At some point in time, I hope that we will begin to see ourselves as the people in other countries see us and that we will begin to understand that the government we do not trust, no longer represents the ideals and morality that the remaining good people in this country hold dear. Of course, this will require a return to cognitive thinking and the abandonment of the principle of emotion over logic; a small step with enormous potential.

“The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy: they are deliberate exercises in doublethink” ~George Orwell, 1984




It is a sound and important principle that the representative ought to be acquainted with the interests and circumstances of his constituents.” James Madison, ~ Federalist #56

Article I Section 2 of our Constitution states in part, “The number of representatives shall not exceed one in every thirty thousand.” This number had been originally set at one representative for every 40,000 population in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, but at the recommendation of George Washington, the number was lowered to the numbers presently in Article I Section II. Washington stated that one representative for every 40,000 citizens was too large to “secure the rights and interests of the people.”

During the various state ratification conventions, the Anti-Federalists voiced their concerns the number of representatives per constituent would not rise as the population increased and it would be impossible for a single representative to adequately represent an ever increasing population. To which James Madison responded, “The number of representatives will be augmented from time to time in the manner provided by the constitution.” And so it was until 1910.

In 1910, the Congress reapportioned the House of Representatives from 393 members to 435, the same number we have today. Since 1910, the congress has repeatedly violated the provisions of the Constitution by not reapportioning the number of members in the House according to the census. Consequently, today, each member of the House of Representatives supposedly knows and understands the “rights and interests” of all of his/her 741,981 constituents.

Obviously, those in Congress way back then, understood if the number of representatives increased according to the Constitution, their individual power would become diluted and the campaign donations and special interest bribes would have to be split more ways. Is there anyone outside of the government cabal who believes any one person can truly represent the rights and interests of 742 thousand people? Our founders certainly didn’t think so!

Campaign costs have risen dramatically over the past few decades. In 2016, Colorado representative Mike Coffman spent over 3 and 1/4 million dollars to be reelected to a job for two years that pays 175,000 per annum. Whose “rights and interests” will be supported by this member of congress: the special interests who contributed the majority of that 3.25 million, many of whom do not live in this man’s district or even the state of Colorado, or the common citizen who is fighting to keep their head above water in this economy? No brainer, huh?

The price of admission into the political matrix is much too high for any ordinary citizen to contemplate. Therefore, the “rights and interests” of the common citizen which so concerned George Washington in 1787, are of little to no value to our current congressional membership, or by default, the voters who continue to elect them.

While the question would be: how could we ever afford to pay 10,000 members of the House of Representatives? My answer would be: convert them into citizen-politicians with strict term limits and drastically reduce their pay and the ability to play to special interests. What about more representatives for the people and less welfare and warfare? After all, it is in the Constitution.

With all of the new technology today, why should our representatives have to move to the District of Criminals? Would not representation be much better if the representative actually lived among those they are tasked with representing? If we scattered the covey, would it not make it harder for the lobbyists to wine and dine them all?

A possibility could be: rather than increase the number of members of the House of Representatives to absurd numbers, we could allow the states to resume some of the expressly delegated powers that have been seized by the federal government and bring us back in accord with our 9th and 10th Amendments.

Now, about those term limits. Let us venture back a moment to those Articles of Confederation, specifically Article V.

“For the most convenient management of the general interests of the United States, delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the legislatures of each State shall direct, to meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in every year, with a power reserved to each State to recall its delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to send others in their stead for the remainder of the year.

No State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor more than seven members; and no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the United States, for which he, or another for his benefit, receives any salary, fees or emolument of any kind.”

It is safe to say, especially so for those known as Anti-Federalists, our founders did not in any way support “career politicians.” One year terms and no delegate shall serve more than 3 years in any 6 year period is proof positive. I personally doubt you will find any member of Congress today who would agree with Article V of the Articles of Confederation.

Term limits were a part of James Madison’s “Virginia Plan” which was repeatedly voted down in the Convention of 1787, not because of the term limits provision but primarily because of the nationalistic position which would have made the states totally subservient to the central government. As a stand-alone provision term limits were rejected at the Philadelphia Convention “as entering too much into detail for general propositions.” As in many other aspects of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, the loss of state’s rights and the idea of a strong central government has been established by usurpation and tyranny.

Several of our founders, especially the Anti-Federalists, were very much in favor of term limits for those in government, some even insisted. A former officer in the Revolutionary Army responded to James Wilson of Pennsylvania, a federalist/nationalist concerning term-limits or “Rotation” as it was referred to during our founding era, “Rotation, that noble prerogative of liberty, is entirely excluded from the new system of government, and great men may and probably will be continued in office during their lives.” Another Patriot stated, “There is no provision for a rotation, nor anything to prevent the perpetuity of office in the same hands for life. which by a little well-timed bribery will probably be done to the exclusion of men of the best abilities from their share of offices in the government.

Melancton Smith, a staunch Anti-Federalist who wrote under the nom de plume of the Federal Farmer, stated that rotation/term limits “have a tendency to diffuse a more general spirit of emulation and to bring forward into office the genius and abilities of the continent.” Smith also stated, “A numerous body of  enlightened citizens stood ready to serve, if the Constitution, through rotation would limit the power of the rich and influential.”

Thomas Jefferson was most upset that no provision for rotation/term-limits was included in the Constitution believing that after a Bill of Rights, rotation was the most important item that should have been included. In a letter to James Madison, Jefferson stated the Constitution, “abandoned in every instance the necessity of rotation in office.”

The rightful concerns of the Anti-Federalists were exemplified in the passage of the 22nd Amendment.

Candidates/incumbents for reelection to the US Congress will state overwhelmingly the need for “experience and seniority” and declare forever the wisdom of re-electing them over and over.  Considering the current state of the economy and social unrest in this country, one might want to ask themselves “experience and seniority” at what: stealing, plundering and making themselves and their political cronies rich? At giving away their constitutional powers and duties to the Executive branch? At spending other people’s money?

Career politicians are anathema to Liberty and Freedom. But, we must all remember, we can’t depend on someone else to “drain the swamp” for us. We must do that ourselves. Voting every set number of years for a new master does not remove one from the perils of slavery, to paraphrase Lysander Spooner.

The overwhelming brilliance and knowledge of history led those known as the Anti-Federalists to strongly oppose several provisions of our government that have made them appear psychic to many students of the founding era. The things they warned of and the things they wanted included in our Constitution, which were not, have proved to be very prophetic.

It would be most productive if all American citizens would take the time to read and understand this group of American founders. Then, instead of listening to campaign lie after campaign lie and placing a vote based on hope or political party affiliation, we quite possibly could see real progress in the battle for Liberty against tyranny. BUT,——-I’m not holding my breath. Asking most Americans to both think and read seems an effort in futility.


  • Much of the information listed in this article can be found in “The Crossroads for Liberty: Recovering the Anti-Federalist values of America’s first Constitution” by William J. Watkins Jr.