At the twilight hour.

You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war. If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds are against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. -- Winston Churchill.


Those who choose to embrace hope, and sacrifice their principles, are forever foredoomed to gain only what they sought to avoid in that sacrifice. Those who await the harvest find the reaping comes for them, too often.

The power of life comes to the vigorous, the active, the brave. it is as it has always been, that the rights of the people, once infringed, lead inevitably to other infringements. Each step leads logically to the next. If one thing is ok, perhaps the next maintains that status.

Another has said it far more eloquently than I ever shall be able to. We remember the last words... but how many have ever seen the whole of his speech, read and felt the impact of his words in full?

Master President, No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at the truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received?

Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlement assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.

There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

-- Patrick Henry.


How often in history have those who offered hope... led only to new chains?

Ask yourselves if the equality and benefit offered is to all, or merely to a few. Ask yourselves if the basis of your hope is valid, is true. Look and see if the hope bears out in the actions of the past, and ask yourselves if you dare believe in the hope for the future... or if the enemy is still binding chains upon you.

Ask yourselves as well if this has ever happened before.. why it seems so familiar... yet so chilling from the history attached.



Alpha and omega... the beginning and the end. A charismatic leader, religious overtones, a time of major economic and political unrest, and economic collapse. Disdain for human rights, for treaties, disdain for the Constitutions upon which the powers were founded. Ask yourselves, ladies and gentlemen, if you dare to continue to compromise, to appease, to bend down before others.. or if you're simply adding power to those whom you would resist, and hoping that they will not notice you as they pass by.

We're at a crux point, a tipping point. The nation by its very nature is on the end of change... it remains to be seen if that change is a good thing.

I only hope enough of the people waken from their complacency soon enough to realize what patterns we are following.
Read more!

What is the Constitution to me?

The constitution is a simple document, but it means many things to many people. This is what it means to me, along with documentation of why I believe so.

The Constitution is simply a civil contract between three parties, a particular state, the people of that state, and all other states. It did not provide punishments for its violation, as a civil contract could not do so. In effect, the Constitution established a new party that oversaw the other three, and ceded specific powers from the states to that federal government. These powers allowed limited legislation, as well as the execution of that legislation, and its interpretation.

According to the original documentation and argument, the Constitution was designed to be very limiting. The people at the time had suffered quite enough at the hands of despots and tyrants, and had no wish to bring in new hands to control them. They had recognized the dangers of the manipulation of money under the Bank of England, and thus chose to use gold and silver as a standard. They had recognized the danger of not having a standing military, but feared the military itself. The discussions on this subject were often full of vitriol and anger. Thus the government had to be limited more, in order to prevent the misuse of these powers.

The government did not establish rights, nor did the constitution. According to the people of the time, and the philosophy of the time, those rights pre-existed the constitution from British common law, from the Magna Carta, and from God himself. They were therefore forever outside of the venue and powers of government. This is part of the reason why there was no bill of rights in the Constitution as it was written.

The argument was that anything not written in the Constitution would be outside of the powers of government. The government therefore could not do anything it was not explicitly granted, and further could do nothing that it was explicitly prohibited from. The bonds on government were designed to be strong, to limit the power there to preserve the liberties of the people.

There are several 'basic' rights, the right of liberty, life, and property, as well as that of the pursuit of happiness. It was felt by Alexander Hamilton that the listing of such rights would actually be detrimental, as it would imply by their listing that the government may have the power to limit them, as well as distracting the people from the rights that were so voluminous that they could never be enumerated.

The constitution does not establish rights. It simply recognizes them. The Founding Fathers had studied John Locke, and the Lockseyan model of rights, as well as Blackstone, and many other philosophers of the past. They'd studied Rome, Greece, and had the advantage of being able to start over with a nearly clean slate. When Shay's Rebellion ushered in the awareness of the impotence of the Articles of Confederation, a convention was called to amend the Articles... and the Constitution was the ultimate result.

Our Constitution is a contract, deliberately limiting the powers of the government and of the states, and setting out their duties, their offices, and the nature of the government itself. Our government is limited to only ten square miles of Federal land.... the District of Columbia.

Our government is prohibited from removing Habeas Corpus rights from the people, except in the most dire of emergencies of insurrection and rebellion.

Our government is prohibited from legislation that removes the rights of the people without trial, making laws that make actions illegal or provide punishment or consequence after the fact, or making a taint from the parent pass to the children. (corruption of blood).

I look back into the past and see many parts of history, the tools that led us to where we are currently, and weep that so few ever read the histories, not just what you are presented in school, but those histories that are found on dusty library shelves, in journals, and diaries. One must be cautious to compare them, and to try to eliminate the personal bent that exists in all writings.

It provides a quite different view of the nature of our government. Our rights pre-exist the government, and were never provided by it. Our rights exist, not because of the government, but in spite of it. The government cannot create rights, but only attempt to destroy them.

The Boston Journal of the Times in 1769 wrote an article on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, saying it was a pre-existing right. Indeed, the Militia Act of 1792 provided for the arming of the militia out of their own pockets... every able-bodied male citizen of the United States was ordered by writ to have, and maintain the best military weapon that they could afford, to provide powder and ball, and to be proficient in their use, to prevent the tyranny of a newly-established Federal military.

John Locke felt that there were only a few things that could destroy a free people. One was to have public education that was government funded. One was to have a standing military that was stronger than the might of the people. The third... was inaction of those very people, disinterest in their rights and ignorance of their meaning.

Ultimately, as was intended in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, but destroyed in that Article 5 Constitutional convention, the powers of government are derived from the people, and it is their right, when they believe that those powers are being used in ways detrimental to their well-being to alter or abolish them, by whatever means their conscience sees fit.

All rights are retained by the people. All powers are derived from the people, and all governments stand... or fall by the love of their people. Fear not only leads to tyranny, it is a symptom of tyranny. When we cannot defend ourselves.. we are already a good distance toward that ignoble goal.

When we cannot speak, we are already on our way to slavery. When we cannot believe, cannot worship, cannot meet, cannot even petition for the redress of grievances... we are already there. Is it necessary to wait until the chains are already upon us? Is it a good thing to cling to that siren of hope, until our enemies have bound us hand and foot?

Hope is an illusion. It will, as Patrick Henry said, prove a snare to your feet. Our hope lies in the re-establishment of that Constitution, as it was intended in the beginning, for a limited government, and a powerful people. The people cannot simultaneously be subjects of the government, and the owners of the government. It is a logical fallacy to claim that the government can own us, while we control it.

It is equally a fallacy to claim that the Constitution established rights... as the Constitution only established a government and limited it. The rights existed before the government, and were forever to be outside of its powers.

You might ask yourself if the government might have transgressed its powers over your rights. The right to liberty... to no undue government interference. The right to life, to have your body under your sole control, to not be forced by a government into surgical procedures, experimentation, sterilization, or death. The right to property: The very right to maintain a home, land, and goods. The right to the pursuit of happiness... all rights limited by the rights of others.

We will never have a perfect society. We will never be without crime. The Supreme Court has judged us to have no 'right' to police protection, which leaves our protection, as it always was, in our own hands. If we have no right to police protection, no right to protect ourselves, then who is protected?

None but those outside the law.
Read more!

How much is your dollar worth?

Read more!

Cynicism: it's not just for breakfast anymore.

The current President Elect, our 'Candidate for change'... brought in to help with the finances one Paul Volker, from Chase-Manhattan bank. Paul Volker, if you will recall, was the one that, nigh singlehandedly, caused the last recession in 1982, when he decided to 'squeeze the inflation out of the market' by instituting massive interest rate hikes. This policy led to something that was called at the time, "The Third World Debt Crisis".

Meanwhile, in the United States, we've crippled our economic drivers, our factories, our industry. Due to high union wages, high environmental taxes, increased retirement costs, due misinvestment and misallocation of retirement benefits, we've created a class of pensioners that the companies must support by contract, even though they are no longer generating revenue. Were this done by simple trust funds, paid in from their wages, and limited to the payment from those wages, and long-term bond-backed investments, it would be a quite different thing.

We have enough oil, natural gas, iron, coal, aluminium, limestone, oil shale, titanium, gold, silver, uranium, and about any other material needed to run the country for a very, very long time, at the old rate of expansion of use. (Conservative estimates for oil were at 300-500 years, and natural gas potentially for a thousand.). We also have, and had, one of the best industrial complexes in the world... which has since moved offshore, and into foreign countries.

Our economy cannot be driven on service alone. The industrial capacity of the country, for national security reasons, must be such that we produce every critical thing that we need.

We could, properly utilizing the bread basket states alone, feed the world, with food to spare. In the interest of pandering to their lobbyists, however, grain rots in the fields, in the silos, to maintain prices. Fields are left fallow, not to regenerate them, via crop rotation, but due to the interest of controlling crops grown to maintain prices.

Our goods more and more are designed with a lifespan that is... frankly, rediculous. I have an old 1950s sunbeam mixer... that still operates. It still beats bread dough (not just batter), after over 50 years. Our mixers today? Very few of them will hold up to that kind of abuse for more than a few weeks.

We design our vehicles with non-interchangeable parts, design them so they have to go back to the factory technicians or certified techs for repair. We have outlawed small two-stroke motors used to convert bicycles into small mopeds, at 200 mpg, due to 'Inefficiency and pollution' and replaced them with 40mpg four-stroke units. We've redesigned tires, redesigned our televisions, by law banned incandescent bulbs and replaced them with flourescent lights that are filled with materials that the EPA says are toxic enough to require evacuation of parts of a building upon their breakage.

Our food continues to be more and more adulterated, chemicals placed in them, and with them that are known to have deleterious health effects. Our vaccines contain the same toxins as our lights, mercury.... mercury thimerosol, in some cases, 20x the maximum allowable dose per pound of weight for an adult, into our most vulnerable population, our children. It is toxic enough that to dispose of it, one would have to move the material to Envirosafe sites, as toxic waste.

We watch with stunned horror as atrocities are committed overseas, by dictators, but close our eyes to the same atrocities done by our own government. We decry torture, but engage in it, and when called for our duplicity, outsource the torture to foreign governments.

Was it not an argument of our very own Declaration of Independence that secret trials, trials by tribunal rather than jury, moving people overseas, denying them a defense, denying them due process or remediation of grievances... was tyrannical?

Was it not an equal argument of our founding fathers that the troops of the Federal Government should never be used against their own citizens?

Was it not, ladies and gentlemen, an argument of those very same founding fathers, that no person should have their rights removed, save by the due process of law, trial by jury, and then only for the time decided by the judge and jury as due recompense for the crime against that society?

If due recompense was paid in, as Winston Churchill wrote 'The hard coinage of punishment', how can any society demand more?

Yet we do. We rail against the felon, reach out to block them reintegration, distrust them, provide no services for them when they leave the system. We provide no counseling, minimal education, minimal support groups... and then wonder, when we push them to the edge of society, at the corruption of the felon.... when we gave them no chance at all to return and be embraced back into the society that they wronged.

Criminal judgements are not about the individual. They are public law, and thus prosecuted by a public attorney, by the state, or county. It was considered worse to be imprisoned than to lose money, so less protections were made upon the courts in private matters.

Now, that selfsame private law is being usurped in an attempt to incarcerate. Regulation is a means of control. It has ever been so. The census itself is regulatory, determining the nature of a population in an area, their affluence, and their influence. The census has equally been used for atrocities. From the Jews, leading to the trials at Nuremberg, to the Japanese-Americans, leading to a presidential apology.... humanity has had a long history of using regulatory registries for purposes quite opposite to their original intent.

From the registration of firearms, to their collection and destruction, as seen in Great Britain, Australia, and Nazi Germany, registration has been utilized to make a free people substantially less than free.

When any people, any nation, makes the choice to allow their own regulation, to allow the registration of their whole, or any part, ultimately, that society and people become less free. The regimentation of laws continues, unopposed, and destroys the origin of that society. When fear becomes the motivation for law, law itself falls, and turns from a scalpel in a surgeon's hands, repairing problems, to a machete of butchery.

What is the ultimate form of control of a people? When the government uses their army, or the army of others, to subjugate the people to their will. This is why there is an absolute prohibition, and has been for over a century and a half, against the use of US troops on US soil against US civilians, and an absolute prohibition against the beginning on the use of foreign troops on US soil against US citizens.

Some may feel that what I write goes far beyond what is accurate or reasonable. This is their right. Some may perceive me as having my own agenda... and indeed I do. That agenda is the restoration of the Constitutional Republic, and the restoration of the rights of all citizens, and the placement of the control of that government back into the hands of the citizens with all due prohibitions on the powers of that government returned to place.

It is patterns, after all, that relate the past to the present. Patterns wend and wind their ways through our world, a warp and weft that can be seen with a small amount of effort. Often, even unconscious effort can create patterns, accidental patterns that lead to similar results. Patterns are a pressure, a tide, written in history that can be applied again, and again,, and unless they are recognized for what they are, cannot be stopped.

Each and every thing I've posted, I have done my best to research. Each and every thing that I have spoken, I stand behind. If what I write is treasonous, or seditious, it is because the government has deviated from the agreement in the beginning. My positions, my goals, my ideals are in line with the origins of the government, of liberty for all mankind, due diligence for their rights and immunities pre-existent to the constitution, and the restoration of constitutional government.

What I write may be shocking, it may be controversial, but it is what I believe to be the truth. Americans are educated away from a great deal. Our history books contain very little on the founding fathers, nothing on the federalist or antifederalist papers, almost nil on the constitutional convention, the origin of the bill of rights, or even the discussions of the Declaration of Independence or history behind it.

When the past is considered dead... when any government agency starts rewriting the past, the future is in jeopardy. Eastasia has, after all, always been at war with eurasia... regardless of what our memories may say.

We might be shoeless and homeless, and not able to get jobs, but after all, the government says everything is ok, so it must be imaginary.

Production of food is up... if we're not getting enough of it, it must somehow be our enemy's fault.

Orwell had a lot of things to say about these very things.. 1984, Animal Farm. The Founding Fathers had a great deal to say as well, as did John Locke.

If you disagree.. do your own research. Look at what I've had to say, and look it up. The journey will be educational either way... and even if we don't agree at the end of it, we'll both be learning.

That is growth.




Read more!

Enough is Enough!

Read more!

Lou Dobbs on Posse Comitatus

Read more!

When is it enough?

I wish I could say I was still ashamed of the United States... I really wish I could, because that would mean that my expectations were still high.

At this point, however, I cannot admit to high expectations, or any expectations really. Stupidity seems to be the status quo. Sometimes I wonder what they're putting into the water supply in Washington DC.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aGvwttDayiiM&refer=home#

The Fed responded Dec. 8, saying it’s allowed to withhold internal memos as well as information about trade secrets and commercial information. The institution confirmed that a records search found 231 pages of documents pertaining to some of the requests.

“If they told us what they held, we would know the potential losses that the government may take and that’s what they don’t want us to know,” said Carlos Mendez, a senior managing director at New York-based ICP Capital LLC, which oversees $22 billion in assets.

Your taxpayer dollars hard at work.... you pay the Internal Revenue Service. They report to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve then loans that money to Congress, with interest.

Tax returns? If you're lucky, they're a return of part of the capitalization you pay them to do their job. If you're unlucky, they're a distant dream. The interest on that capital? It's absorbed by the Federal Reserve, and used for further capitalization.

Your work is monetized, and used to back up the Federal Reserve's foreign loans as well. Loans to Afghanistan? Russia? China? The International Monetary fund? All there. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran. Nobody's off the list anymore.

But what do we get out of it? We get told that it's none of our business, because it might damage the assets of central investors.

Umm... Hellooooo in there? Umm... have they replaced the oxygen bottle with laughing gas again?

Now the 'military peacekeeping force' is in the US. Can we guarantee that they won't operate as police officers? How can we monitor what police do?

Are they doing investigations? Do they do arrests? Do they stop cars on the street? Establish roadblocks? Are they asking questions? Do they enter and search homes, businesses, or other premises?

Are they on a clear and established mandate from the community? Does the community still provide their funding?

Oh wait... Army. That's right. If they start acting up, we can't exactly cut their funding and arrest them.

Posse Comitatus? Sorry, the signing statement on the restoration act was the president did not feel that he had to be bound by Congress or the Constitution.

The police state is already here. They're currently enforcing traffic in San Bernadino county, engaging in joint exercises in Texas, Louisiana, and elsewhere.

Under military law you have no rights. You are property of the Federal government, to be disposed of as necessary. How are we being treated now? We're being... disposed of as necessary. Economic sanctions, against the very people who are the basis for governmental power. Warrantless searches, seizures, wiretaps, seizure of property without due process, imprisonment under military commission, without recourse for a lawyer?

Habeas corpus restoration act: Signed with a signing statement saying that the president isn't going to follow it.

So with your money in their hands (your dollar bills, bills of credit under the definition of the Constitution) being capable of being dissolved at any time, for any reason, or no reason, them refusing to show what is backing the bills, then refusing further even to give the commissioning agency (congress) information on the bailout...

Where is the real power here? Now the Federal Reserve can pull the Government's paycheck, the Army's paycheck, your paycheck.

And what do you have to stop them? An army? Oh wait, that's under their control. The National Guard? Federalized. Your police force? Oh, sorry, FEMA authorization under Executive Order authorizes them to be federalized too!

There were reasons for the second amendment, having nothing to do with hunting. They had just come from one tyrannical government, and over the years, we've built another.

The central banks were critical to the British Government's stranglehold.. what are they doing here?

The firearms were not against simple robbers... but against the greatest criminals of all, our own government, your banks, and anyone who would rob us of our freedoms and liberties. Those rights, pre-existent to the constitution, guaranteed free of imposition by that constitution, were to guard our liberties and rights.

Boy, we're doing a really good job.








I mean, what the hell folks? When is it enough? When will you pull your head out of the sand, and realize that this stuff parallels things that have happened before?


All of these are 'police powers' specifically prohibited the Federal Government under Posse Comitatus, and the Bill of Rights.

Where is it all going?

Let's look back in time... This man says it far more eloquently than I.



Does it matter what they call it if all the symptoms are there? Does it matter if they call Martial Law 'Happy Fun Time' if they are exercising martial law?

It is time for us to wake up. The powers in government are ours. We cannot be simultaneously owned by the government, as well as being the owners of government. The two states will inevitably destroy each other. We are not 'Citizens of the United States', nor were we intended to be. We are citizens of our Soverign states, and the government, the Federal Government, is ours. We do not belong to it. We never could, as it is our power that implements and maintains it.

The symptoms you see all around you, the decaying jobs, the decaying morality, the 'crime rate' are all symptoms of the same things... our own ennui destroying our freedoms.

So when do we stop being passive? When do we become proactive in maintaining and utilizing our freedoms, our liberties, our rights?

And if you don't believe that they've exceeded their charter.. think on this. A single vote can pass a law in the Congress, or the Senate, for the entire country if they do not adjourn Sine Die. That single vote... could be for anything, Ladies and Gentlemen.

And does it matter if it is unconstitutional, if we won't stand up for the Constitution? The backing of that document is us... not the US. The powers in the document were ceded from us. The rights in that document we reserved to ourselves explicitly as things which the government was never to touch, in order to preserve our freedoms.

So think about it... and may God have mercy upon your souls.
Read more!

Martial law and you.

Friends, I come to you in mourning... Martial law is here, by definition and in truth. I don't know how much longer I will be allowed to write this blog, it does not really matter. There is a great deal more you need to know.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gJd63da5mM0wM8hDw0VkfJjebZbg
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27989275/

Heretofore, this blog has been a set of observations, each proceeding from things I've seen, things I've understood, dug through, and looked through in history.

Let me elucidate: Under martial law, the constitution is suspended, and you have no rights.

It is equally martial law if they do not call it such. It is equally martial law if they simply take your rights away and never tell you... and we are in a state of war. We are slaves to a tyrannical government, a government that was implemented and designed in the interests of a nation being governed by the people, and that government being limited from restricting the rights of others. Our liberties, our freedoms, all of them were founded prior to the government, and extended throughout that period, with the understanding that said government could not, and had no power to infringe upon those rights, those liberties which they guard, and the freedoms and immunities which pre-existed the government itself. The only means by which the government could assume tyrannical power was by its military, which was to be opposed by the militia. The Federalist 26 directly addressed this subject.
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed26.htm

"Schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community REQUIRE TIME to mature them for execution. An army, so large as seriously to menace those liberties, could only be formed by progressive augmentations; which would suppose, not merely a temporary combination between the legislature and executive, but a continued conspiracy for a series of time. Is it probable that such a combination would exist at all? Is it probable that it would be persevered in, and transmitted along through all the successive variations in a representative body, which biennial elections would naturally produce in both houses? Is it presumable, that every man, the instant he took his seat in the national Senate or House of Representatives, would commence a traitor to his constituents and to his country? Can it be supposed that there would not be found one man, discerning enough to detect so atrocious a conspiracy, or bold or honest enough to apprise his constituents of their danger? If such presumptions can fairly be made, there ought at once to be an end of all delegated authority. The people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.

If such suppositions could even be reasonably made, still the concealment of the design, for any duration, would be impracticable. It would be announced, by the very circumstance of augmenting the army to so great an extent in time of profound peace. What colorable reason could be assigned, in a country so situated, for such vast augmentations of the military force? It is impossible that the people could be long deceived; and the destruction of the project, and of the projectors, would quickly follow the discovery."

This is, by its very nature, a definition of the right, and the duty, under the Constitution to secede, and/or dissolve the original contract. The rights and immunities under the constitution were not established via the constitution, or the government, they pre-existed the government.

See the Boston Journal of the Times, April 13, 1769

"Instances of the licentious and outrageous behavior of the military conservators of the peace still multiply upon us, some of which are of such nature, and have been carried to such lengths, as must serve fully to evince that a late vote of this town, calling upon its inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defense, was a measure as prudent as it was legal: such violences are always to be apprehended from military troops, when quartered in the body of a populous city; but more especially so, when they are led to believe that they are become necessary to awe a spirit of rebellion, injuriously said to be existing therein. It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence; and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.^"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-20

If, as the government argues, the second amendment was to preserve the militia to the states, how does it excuse the seizure of the National Guard to the Federal Government's control?

The nation has violated the contract which created it, a civil contract bound in tradition, and common law.

At this date, common law falls... and all men are transformed into slaves.

A strong statement? Perhaps. Look, however, at the definition of slavery in the 1956 anti-slavery compact, signed in 1957 by the US government...

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/slavetrade.htm#wp1034251


Article 1

Each of the States Parties to this Convention shall take all practicable and necessary legislative and other measures to bring about progressively and as soon as possible the complete abolition or abandonment of the following institutions and practices, where they still exist and whether or not they are covered by the definition of slavery contained in article 1 of the Slavery Convention signed at Geneva on 25 September 1926:

( a ) Debt bondage, that is to say, the status or condition arising from a pledge by a debtor of his personal services or of those of a person under his control as security for a debt, if the value of those services as reasonably assessed is not applied towards the liquidation of the debt or the length and nature of those services are not respectively limited and defined;

( b ) Serfdom, that is to say, the condition or status of a tenant who is by law, custom or agreement bound to live and labour on land belonging to another person and to render some determinate service to such other person, whether for reward or not, and is not free to change his status;

( c ) Any institution or practice whereby:

(i) A woman, without the right to refuse, is promised or given in marriage on payment of a consideration in money or in kind to her parents, guardian, family or any other person or group; or

(ii) The husband of a woman, his family, or his clan, has the right to transfer her to another person for value received or otherwise; or

(iii) A woman on the death of her husband is liable to be inherited by another person;

( d ) Any institution or practice whereby a child or young person under the age of 18 years, is delivered by either or both of his natural parents or by his guardian to another person, whether for reward or not, with a view to the exploitation of the child or young person or of his labour.


Article 7

For the purposes of the present Convention:

( a ) "Slavery" means, as defined in the Slavery Convention of 1926, the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised, and "slave" means a person in such condition or status;

( b ) "A person of servile status" means a person in the condition or status resulting from any of the institutions or practices mentioned in article 1 of this Convention;


Compare this to the federal reserve, a system of debt bondage by which we, as the American Citizens, are placed in a condition of debt bondage, subject to the seizure of our real property, goods, chattel, and person for the failure to pay a debt created not by our own actions, but by the policies of a government that appears inimical to our national and personal wellbeing. Our capital paid in taxes is not applied to the principle, nor the interest of the debt, but used in the creation of further debt. Should we fail to pay the taxes, paid in company scrip, redeemable only with the company itself, we face prison time and loss of all putative assets.

Is this not slavery? Do we not need a passport to leave our country, and to return? Do we not require, by law, the permission of our nation to leave and return, and our return can be barred for any or no reason, as can our leaving.

We can be transported across the seas for prison or trials, without representation.

At this point, within each and every possible measure, we are slaves, and the Federal government is in violation of every possible section of the Declaration of Independence's grievances.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gJd63da5mM0wM8hDw0VkfJjebZbg
And now they move in the troops? Perhaps our nation has forgotten the statements of Patrick Henry:

"Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlement assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.

There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

We are a nation of patriots, a nation of men and women engaged in the most arduous struggle of all, that struggle for liberty, for freedom from the unjust and impositional government that arbitrarily changes the law, changes the punishments of men, and changes and destroys the rule of law in the mindless seeking of power.

If we mean to be free, if we mean to maintain that freedom for which our forefathers fought and died, we must be true patriots. The war is... already begun, a war created against the citizens of the several states, a war fought on the financial front, on the power of a few men choosing to seize and assert control over a nation by deception and fraud.

We are not taught of our freedoms, nor of the foundations. We are not taught to look at those who are most despised to see how they are treated, nor are we shown, by that, what our government's innermost nature is.

The troops are come, and are training to come to your door, and to remove your means of resistance, and we still sit here idle and prattle on about this and that, as though any of it matters without our freedoms and our rights.

Our rights guard our freedoms... if rights are not equal for all, they exist for none. Any class asserted to be 'less worthy of rights' is easily expanded. Any class of persons deemed to be 'problematic' ultimately leads to an 'ultimate solution'.

If we have learned nothing from the past, should we not at least have learned that it is our most despised people that betoken our own ultimate fate?

But then... we would have to look at ourselves... and realize that we too are slaves, and we strike out at the least liked because they are unprotected, using them as the whipping boy of a government gone mad.

Ask yourselves, gentlemen and ladies, whence the powers they seized came? Ask yourselves what it means to be free... and measure it against a world that would throw you aside in an instant for the seeking of power...

Then ask yourselves what you can do about it. It is laid out in law, in tradition, and in the very arguments used to pass the Constitution, and enforcing the creation of the Bill of Rights.

Then ask yourselves if you can still sit idle, and allow those rights to be torn away from others. it matters not who they are torn from, we are as evil for sitting idly by and doing nothing as for doing the tearing ourselves.

And then look deep into your heart and ask yourself if your comfortable conditions are really comfortable, or just an illusion.

All of your stuff, all of your money, everything... is a sham. It's smoke and mirrors, created by a press and political system.. that intends, and has the power to take it away from you at a whim, and on suspicion, not via due process, not via trial by jury, but on suspicion without any possibility of court action or representation.

Is it so comfortable now?
Read more!

Do you really want to read this?

By reading this, your world may change irrevocably. By sitting down, researching, and attempting to understand the views herein posted, your nation may cease to be quite what you think it is, and become something that you would not recognize. If you are not prepared for what is herein written, not prepared to see your world, your hopes crumble... leave now. This is not a place for you. You are welcome to question, welcome to research, welcome to delve into the archives, but you must enter with both an open mind, and are likely to leave with a heart filled with anger.

I am writing about a problem that came to my attention some time ago, a problem of massive proportions, one of incredible scope. The problem is a simple one, on the face of it, but far more complex in practice. This is a problem of monies and economies. Our nation claims that the free market system has failed.. and much as I hate to say this, it has. To help you understand this, I need to delve back into the past, into a time that seems far simpler.

Money, once, was recognizable symbols of wealth, from the cow to the stone ring, to the gold and precious stones. Money was tangible, capable of being held in the hands, used to turn into jewelry, in the case of barter, eaten, or used for other things. We came forward with gold and silver as a recognizable currency, items of value torn from the earth and value-enforced by their scarcity.

There was a rate of trade, determined by supply and demand, for the value of these things in comparison to the value of goods and each other. Gold and silver, for their scarcity and purity, were valued at specific rates. Eventually, money-changers came on the scene in order to convert one money into another. For a very long time, it was unlawful for one group to charge another for changing their money, so often the coins would be shaved, the weights altered. This led to myriad schemes for detection of such chicanery, for instance, the raised rings around coins, the serrated edges, and faces placed upon the ingots.

Now we move forward... to the creation of banks. Banks were instituted to store, and hold money, in means 'safer' than hiding it in one's own home. Part of this was to prevent the theft of the money, and the threat to the home by burglars and highwaymen. Eventually, bankers discovered a great deal of the bulk of that gold never left their vaults, small amounts would shift, but rarely was there a shift of the bulk of the money. They started giving out paper certificates in place of the money, guaranteeing the money to be delivered to other banks, or private individuals. After a time, the slips were doubled in number, then increased tenfold. At a 10:1 ratio of paper money to gold reserves, the runs on the banks were inevitable. The 'real money' to balance the debt (a bill of credit from the bank) did not exist. These events were just before the creation of our Constitution, a financial collapse created by the banks' failed policies, which then lead to the backers of those banks seizing assets from those who were granted 'loans' from those banks.

In order to combat this, the states were prohibited from issuing paper money, or making anything but gold and silver legal tender. The congress was established with the power to set the weights and measures of gold coin, silver coin, and the people were allowed to determine what that tender was worth.

These were tangible assets, with a tangible exchange rate, and the value was determined by both buyer and seller. If the buyer felt that he could get a better deal elsewhere, he went elsewhere to get it. If a seller felt that the buyer was offering too little, he did not have to sell.

Another financial panic, nearly two centuries later, ended this system. Paper monies (bills of credit) were again being issued by the Bank of England, and a crash in this system created a financial panic, a fairly minor one, by the measure of what was to come. The federal reserve was instituted during this panic, in 1913, by congressmen desperate to save jobs, and thereby lives, and their country.

Paper money was legal, and a corporation was instituted to oversee it. This corporation is, and was, the federal reserve. The central 'federal reserve' is a government institution. The subsidiaries are not. There are twelve member banks, which control the Federal Reserve, which are private. These federal reserve banks help appoint the board of the federal reserve itself. They are under the control of the regulatory body which they appoint... to regulate them.

A system more designed for corruption is difficult to imagine, but let us explore it further. These member banks required outside loans in order to be instituted, and monies to drive the system. The federal reserve printed paper money, with specific backing in gold and silver. The right to turn in these bills of credit for the gold or silver was not denied. This kept the paper bills, in theory, in line with the amounts of monetization behind it. Meanwhile, speculative investment in stocks and bonds was being emplaced, and the government was encouraged to borrow monies, invested in that Federal Reserve, backed by the loans of the federal reserve. Those loans were placed by selling 'stock' at a later 'repurchase price' at a specific date, thereby 'ensuring' that the federal reserve had, at least in paper, a massive flow of funds.

Meanwhile, the world was changing, by accident, or by design. The increases in loans, in credit, resulted in boom times. A low interest rate was instituted, and political pressure was brought to bear upon the Congress, to create taxable income to help support the reserve, and their own projects. The sales of further bonds to outside entities was encouraged. Sales of monetizing loans to external nations, including the Middle East, were done via the Federal Reserve's banking system.

Eventually, the Great Depression hit, with a boost in the remonetization rate (an interest rate hike) the boom times came to an end. The cheap, and easy credit backing the boom died right alongside a massive drought that swept the bread basket states, (the dust bowl) , resulting in the asset foreclosure of a lot of homes, properties, and materials by the lending banks. This was further compounded with the amount of assets invested in that stock market that were backed by loans, by the encouragement of the banks themselves. "Have a dollar? invest in the stock market. Don't have a dollar? Call the bank and borrow one! Don't have a dime to call the bank, borrow one, the stock market is going up and up!"

The boom times fell into ash alongside the hopes and dreams of millions. It was in this financial climate that FDR instituted a new policy in the Federal Reserve, in order to remonetize the financial system to return the money to solvency. The War Powers act of 1917 gave him authorization, as the Farm Bill of 1933 declared a state of emergency.

Under Executive order 6012 declared that all gold, gold bullion, gold coins, and gold jewelry, was to be delivered within three days to the Federal Reserve, to be exchanged for legal tender, the bills of credit, or the Dollar Bill.

This state of emergency has never ended. Tracking the information of our economy, in each boom time, the interest rates were lowered, then raised, causing a recession or depression. In each case, the banks became more powerful.

It is in the interest of a bank to create a recession or depression for the following reasons:

1: The Federal Reserve is the monetizing source for the entire country. It cannot be allowed to fail, or the government itself falls.

2: The Federal reserve member banks end up with guaranteed asset forfeiture on properties with outstanding loans, due to lack of capability of payment, for the 'cost' of the bills of credit.

3: The seizure and subsequent resale of these seized assets drive further monetization of the Federal Reserve system.

4: They can blame it on failed policies of other individuals, even though the Federal Reserve system has control over other banks, and FDIC insured lendors. This perpetuates the process.

5: It can be used to implement sweeping financial changes to their advantage, by the simple claim that something was overlooked by their predecessors. The claim can be made that the changes are needed as an emergency measure, and will be only temporary.. and are later enshrined into tradition.

How many people today realize that the federal land was limited to a maximum of ten square miles under the Constitution? How much 'federal' land is there today? The Federal Government had the power to use tracts of land for military installations and bases, but there was to be only ten square miles of 'federal' land for the creation of a neutral federal capital.

This was Washington DC.

My question: Is it in the interests of the people, and the states, of the United States, to have a federal reserve system monetizing in the same method that has instituted myriad crashes, economic destruction, and ruin for millions over the centuries... and to have no oversight by the people themselves?

Is it just, or good, that the people, and the states, cannot look into the finances and systems which make our country run?

Is it just, or good, that the assets of the people can be seized, without due process of law, on suspicion by the Federal Reserve collections agency (the IRS) with no recourse to the court, no rule of law, no defenses, and are guilty until proven innocent?

And can we really blame the politicians for following the advice of the bankers, or simply blame them for being utterly ignorant about basic economic principles, and being too arrogant to ask?

As you look into your dwindling retirement, your bank account, your savings, your bonds, can you really say that anything you have has been yours? You're part of the company now, an employee, paid in company scrip. That scrip is exchangeable for food, for clothing, for rent... but is any of it yours? You live in the company compound, my friends, and that company has nothing for you but contempt.

Look at the statement of Woodrow Wilson, the signer of the Federal Reserve act...

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."


The statement of the Senator Lindberg, father of the aviator who was the first to cross the Atlantic solo in a single flight:

"This Act establishes the most gigantic trust on Earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalized, the people may not know it immediately but the day of reckoning is only a few years removed.... The worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking bill."

"To cause high prices, all the Federal Reserve Board will do will be to lower the rediscount rate..., producing an expansion of credit and a rising stock market; then when ... business men are adjusted to these conditions, it can check ... prosperity in mid career by arbitrarily raising the rate of interest. It can cause the pendulum of a rising and falling market to swing gently back and forth by slight changes in the discount rate, or cause violent fluctuations by a greater rate variation and in either case it will possess inside information as to financial conditions and advance knowledge of the coming change, either up or down. This is the strangest, most dangerous advantage ever placed in the hands of a special privilege class by any Government that ever existed. The system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money. They know in advance when to create panics to their advantage, They also know when to stop panic. Inflation and deflation work equally well for them when they control finance."

"The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That board administers the finance system by authority of a purely profiteering group. The system is private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money."


These were the men who discussed the act, who supported it and later opposed it.

Are we really in control of our nation, or is the money that supports the government.. in control, and taking advantage of the situation? Are we still citizens of our state, or employees, unpaid employees, of the Federal reserve, living on company land, in debt slavery?

Are we really so different from the company stores, promising we can pay our way out, make a living, and then finding out that the money we were paid is worthless everyone else? Is the company scrip of actual value?

Or are we declaring ourselves to be slaves to our economic masters, even as we complain about the fact that they are our masters, bowing down to them?
Read more!

What are rights?

Our nation is one founded in, and centered in, the existence of rights. But what are rights? How do they express themselves? The exploration of this topic, is, and must be, an exploration of history, human philosophy, and morality. Each person has his or her own interpretation of rights, therefore, to explore this thinking, we must look at the people's own ideals of rights.

The first question to explore is what one is meaning by saying 'rights'. In our imprecise, and often variable language, phonemic shifts create different meanings often from the same word. We hear about our civil rights, and our human rights, but these words mean little without an exploration of the core term.

Rights, by their nature, are difficult to quantify, they're almost as difficult to conceptualize. The works of John Locke, Blackstone, and many others must be perused, and the interpretation of those works by the various common law courts over the centuries. It is the concept of rights, and right, that give us the system of laws that exist worldwide. The expressions, and experiences of those laws are different, but it requries a 'right' in the minds of the creators to make the very law itself.

Rights is simplest explained as a plural of 'right'. But what is a right? This leads us back to the same conundrum we started with. It is a circular definition, a definition that defines itself. We, as a people, find ourselves hanging with the Sword of Damoclese suspended over us.

To start with, there are individual rights, and collective rights. Individual rights are permissive, collective rights are prohibitive, by nature. In explanation, collective rights are the myriad shift between people exercising individual rights, and setting limitations on those individual rights by force of law. The Locke approach was one of reason, an approach of logic. To quote:

“Reason, which is that Law, teaches all Mankind, who would but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions.”

But what is liberty? To quote an online dictionary:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/liberty

n. pl. lib·er·ties

1.

a. The condition of being free from restriction or control.

b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.

c. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See Synonyms at freedom.

2. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.

3. A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

Idiom:

at liberty

1. Not in confinement or under constraint; free.

2. Not employed, occupied, or in use.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Locke view was that the people were sovereign, rather than the government, that the people established power, and that power was ceded to the government, and could be returned ot the hands of the people. The Locke view also involved an explicit right of revolution, a right with which to trump tyrannical government.

“whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and Violence. Whensoever therefore the Legislative shall transgress this fundamental Rule of Society; and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People; By this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power, the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty.”

John Locke had a very strong influence on the nature as well as the principles behind the Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation. He further had even stronger influences as the Several States under the Articles of Confederation formed the new Constitution.

With great irony, John Locke was also absolutely against public schooling, and strongly encouraged the parents to home school their children, and to instill there, in them, the strongest love of liberty and respect for the people themselves, as the public schooling system, under governmental control, was the surest tool to educate people into the acceptance of tyranny.

Let us examine, for instance, our 'Bill of Rights'. The first amendment has been expounded upon strongly, the freedom of the press (not the news services, but the press itself, the freedom to print and publish whatever is wished, so long as it not be libelous or malicious) the freedom of speech (so long as it not be slanderous or malicious) and the freedom of religion.

The second amendment was to guard the first and all others. With the potential of the creation of a standing military (a system by which the Government had long exercised total control of the people) the founding fathers wished to prevent the power of the Government from exceeding that of the people, and many state governments already had this provision, due to that individual power. It was recognized that these rights, according to the Boston Journal of the Times:

Instances of the licentious and outrageous behavior of the military conservators of the peace still multiply upon us, some of which are of such nature, and have been carried to such lengths, as must serve fully to evince that a late vote of this town, calling upon its inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defense, was a measure as prudent as it was legal: such violences are always to be apprehended from military troops, when quartered in the body of a populous city; but more especially so, when they are led to believe that they are become necessary to awe a spirit of rebellion, injuriously said to be existing therein. It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence; and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

John Adams, indeed, was a defense attorney for the British soldiers on trial for the Boston Massacre, stating:

Here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offence.

Noah Webster:

Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

Our rights are simple things... the right to property, the right to life, the right to health, the right to liberty, and the right to property.

To guard our property, to guard our lives, to guard our health, the right to self-defense ensues. To guard our families, that self-defense permeates outward, to guard our nation, and our world. The rights of others to not be imposed upon by our rights limits those very rights. The right to health was not a right to health care, but a right to pursue the dictates of our health as we saw fit, including, should we be so inclined, to choose not to treat our own bodies, and to die without that treatment. The right to property was the right to ownership of the works of our hands, or the lands to which we had title and deed.

It is a conundrum, a problem of epic proportions, when the rights of any individual, or any society, are valued over the rights of any other individual or society. When such a situation exists, it is inevitable that the privileged society will crush those under them. It is an open invitation to slavery and tyranny to allow any people, any government, to limit the rights of others, for when those rights are limited by law, they will limit all rights, and ultimately all liberties. The very few who stand in the positions of power will end up with the power that was ceded from the people.

But can a law limit rights? Can any law trample upon the liberties of man? Has any law such authority, such power, as to limit the rights and commitant liberties of man? What is a 'due burden'? Whilst the payment of taxes is needful for the community, state, and the continuance of government, what is the burdens that are truly due?

Read well what was written by Patrick Henry, so long ago, about the congress and public liberty:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. … O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; … Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? … Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?

Measure yourselves carefully with that sentiment.

Read more!

What is equality?

The bullets fly ahead, the shells destroy our town,
as into the dreary dust, our blood to mud is ground,
the dreams of generations past, ground into dust,
how can we not now fight this fight, when we know we must?

Our nation is an old one, it is a nation of dreams, hopes, of prosperity, when things are going well, and of solidarity, when they are not.

But what has come to our nation now? As a human being, eyes opened looking toward the future, I see that there is little solidarity. There is much blame, in fact, blame for fear, blame for hate, blame for this and that, all apparently reasonable, all apparently logical, but all based in emotion and blinded thinking.

Our nation clamors for equality, but what does this mean? Is equality having equal things? Is it 'equal opportunity', whatever that vague term means? Is it equality in creation, or equality in means?

We stand as a nation divided, divided by its own petty visions of inequality, but what does that mean? What is it to be unequal?

It is my contention that equality does not come from what you have. It does not come from the opportunities presented to you. It does not come from anything external to humans, but from that very state of humanity, a state which was granted, by accident or design, and wrought into our very being.

We cry out about inequality, but can anyone truly be equal, or unequal to anyone else? To imply absolute equality implies a state beyond totalitarianism, a denial of opinion, of will... but such subversive arguments often lead to far more horrific acts with their own consequences for 'equality'. To explore equality and inequality... we must explore ourselves.

Let us look at how we enforce anything. For any law, we create restrictions. Those restrictions are bound by the 'will of society', which is represented by the makers of those laws, and the interpretation of the courts. We enforce via restriction, via punishment... but is that equal? Do we have equal representation, rich and poor, within that court system? The statistics would scream most certainly not... so is the law yet equal? If the restrictions of a man cannot enforce equality, for the ability of some to remove said restrictions, what then?

Is equality in your money? Ultimately money can be gained and lost, but what does this say about equality? If equality comes from equal money, is money even needed?

Is equality in the education? Not entirely, though an education can help one to understand their equality.

Equality... is in the capability to make choices. The capability to grow, to learn, to bring one's self to understanding. To question and explore is the right of equality. Such a right cannot be trammeled by law without destroying the equality itself. Equality is not being offered equal opportunity, but being able to embrace the opportunities that life presents without the impositions of your race, your gender, your sexual orientation, or even your own past.

Humans have the right to equality, a right built in to something deeper than blood or bone, something intrinsic, and epherimal in the human existence. Some call this invisible something a soul. Some call it a gestalt. Some call it simply... humanity.

Some humans will always question others about their differences, and ignore the similarities. That is their path, and their failure of learning. Some will attempt to correct this by restraining all humans from such folly... but again, such is a failure of the humanity. By restricting some choices, one restricts others. By restricting some from learning, we restrict all from learning.

Education is part of equality, but far more important is the ability to think, explore, conceive ideas, to learn. Equality is the right not to be restricted arbitrarily by the will of others, in public property and public thought. It is the right to associate freely. It is the right to speak, to understand, to write, to communicate without restrictions so long as that speech is not libelous or slanderous.

It is the right to make the opportunities to buy your own home, to own your own property, to have a family by mutual consent, to raise that family, without arbitrary imposition. It is the right to have law that is not arbitrary, not constantly being redefined, rewritten. It is the very right to be free of legislative attainder, to be free of retroactive law, of any stripe, the right to defend one's self, the right to privacy from the invasion of your home by any person, save by due process of law with a writ of warrant upheld by probable cause, with due affirmation of that probable cause.

It is the right to have that for which you have worked kept safe from seizure, to keep it from the grasping hands of others save, again, by due process of law, and the hearing before the court and jury. It is the right of the person, and of the people, to all of the rights within the Bill of Rights.

These rights are not simply something that was tacked on, something that the government created. They pre-existed the very government, as did others, unspoken of in the Constitution for their very nature being so obvious as to not need speaking. The right to sit in your front yard and stare up at the clouds, for instance, the right to travel on public roads, the right to the use of the public waterways for transportation. The right to walk to and from that church that the first amendment guarantees as the right of religion, the right to self-defense that was encoded in the right to keep and bear arms.

The secret to rights, is they are rights only so long as everyone has them. If any class of citizens, for whatever reason, loses those rights, outside of a court of law, or after the sentence of that court for a just, and due penalty paid to society is completed... then they are no longer rights. Those classes invariably, inevitably expand. This was the reason for the writs of habeas corpus, quo warrantio, and ultra vires.

The first term was one of the foremost securities of the free people, the right to challenge the court to know why one is being held, and the second is related to it, to know what power the court holds you under. The third is equally important, a writ declaring the court to be outside of its guidelines, outside of its own powers.

The last two have been more and more delegated to civil contracts, however, due to the shifting and ephimeral nature of the system of laws.

Do you want real equality? It doesn't come from a government... it comes from within. It comes from due diligence, and due exercise of the rights, freedoms, priviliges and immunities of a citizen of your state, as well as the protection of the rights of others. All rights are linked. All rights must stand, or all fall together. In this, the many truly are one, and always have been.

So do we stand, equal, or tear each other down through myriad laws, myriad regulations, which destroy the rights of individuals... which are that which makes up the very society itself?
Read more!

The morning after.. wish there was a pill for this one.

This morning a lot of Americans are looking around and wondering what just happened. Like the party that got out of control, America is in the post-election hangover, while some are drinking deeply still from the wine of victory, and others sipping the bitter ale of defeat, some Americans are left just shocked, and wondering.. how did we get here?

It doesn't matter the race of the candidate, it shouldn't ever be an issue. It doesn't matter what party the candidate is raised by, that should not be an issue.. but we've grown so blind as to stumble, over and over again, into the same mistakes.

We voted for change, but can we in good conscience deal with the kinds of change we've created? When you see the economy over the next few years, think about it. Think about the type of change we've initiated, and ask if it was really change at all, or only another illusion, another card trick.

In our post-election moments, looking out at the morning sky, we have to wonder... was it really worth it? When the election period passed in a blur, did we hear any of the things that the people actually said, and did they mean a single thing that they stated? Now that the courtship is over, and the deed consummated, what are we waking up to?

Is it change? Is it more of the same? Is it something that our ancestors would have believed in and worked toward? Or are we still playing the same game, with the same players, expecting a different result?

In our party-oriented system, a vote not for either party suddenly somehow counts as a vote for the party you don't want in office, so people excuse not voting for others. As we continue the pattern, more and more we're not voting for something, we're voting against. We paint the other side as the troglodyte in the corner, we paint them in a broad brush, and ignore the flaws in our own side as being necessary to defeat the other.

But what would happen if we did not elect either party? What would happen in the world, in the system? Agreed, the probability is not likely, precisely because people feel, emotionally, that the third parties cannot win. They don't have the backing, they don't have the media attention, and the darlings of the media often win... regardless of what skeletons they may have in their closet.

This morning I feel like I've woken up in a slasher movie. A B-rated at best slasher movie. Rather than butchering the people, though, our jobs are about to be butchered brutally, our livlihoods, our checkbooks. In the name of redistributing the wealth, it's been forgotten that you cannot tax a corporation. You only end up taxing those who buy from the corporation. But fine, you might say... but what if all corporations you can buy from are being taxed? As prices go up, is it still redistributing the wealth, or is it another illusion, another shell game?

As we bail out the corporations, and bail out the citizens, where does the money come from? It comes from our own pockets, our children's pockets, and we continue to spend and spend in an orgiastic cycle of damnation that can know no end until parties with no vested interest get into office, and even then it will take years to unsnarl what has been done.

Yes, I'm cynical. I also know that the greatest measure of any politician is the lies they tell their own people, their opponents, and their supporters. Ask yourselves this, if Obama is for coal miners in Pennsylvania, why did he state, clearly, that his intent is to make sure all new coal powered plants will be shut down, ruthlessly, and bankrupted? With his proposed cap and trade system on carbon credits, will it not drive up fuel prices as those costs are passed on to the consumer? Will not electricity costs increase as the costs to the plants do?

Carbon sequestration in deep wells using carbon dioxide are all well and good, but... that only lasts until the unit is breached. It really doesn't address the underlying problems, the lack of alternative energy sources. So long as nuclear, water, solar, geothermal, and tidal energy systems are prohibited, or underdeveloped, there are no alternatives. We end up with a long-term costs increase... with no real benefits to consumers, or to companies that pay those consumers. We end up in a lose-lose scenario for both consumers and business... with only one clear winner, the federal government.

Does it really matter who wins the election if the first thing that they propose to do is tax you more to pay for the programs they believe would be 'good' for you without ever asking what you want, considering your rights, privileges, and immunities under the constitution, or even going so far as to allow you to ask questions?

Is it really so much a stretch to say that at this point, we've made a huge mistake, on this morning after?

Are you really getting a change you can live with, or are you simply getting another line of bull from those who wish to keep you compliant?
Read more!