Where it begins

Folks, there is a huge problem with people who have no clue whatsoever about the relationship between the people and the government.  That relationship is clearly spelled out in the first of this country's founding documents.  The Declaration of Independence.
 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,

 Notice, it doesn't say "all white men" or, "all black men" or, "all men but not women".  No, indeed it doesn't.  It simply refers to all men, as in, mankind, not  "of the gender male".

 that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 Here, we see nowhere a reference to s specific deity or religious icon.  No, It simply refers to the Creator of mankind, what or whoever that might be.  From a human-like being to a force of nature.  Whatever that Creator is, it is from a power beyond men (yes, as in "mankind" not gender male).

Notice that those are unalienble rights, meaning unable to be overruled by mankind.  It also makes a point to specify that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

 What?  You mean from the word "Go" that it was understood that the government does as the people allow it and not the other way around?  Has Obama even seen this?  Or most members of Congress for that matter.

 --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;

So way back then, the founders said that it is a Right of the People (all of them, not some of them or specific types of them)  to get rid of a government that has become destructive to the people.  also, this would be one of those unalienable rights referred to above.

How Government Regulations Cause Unnecessary Cost Increases

Most people understand that there are certain benefits to government regulations in the marketplace.

First and foremost is the need to prevent unnecessary injury and damage to others while practicing or engaging in endeavors of one's own choosing.

For example, building codes are there to make sure that one house doesn't burn down and take the houses around it down with it.

However, the government almost always, goes too far in it's attempts in regulation by overly politicizing it and by pandering to civil and labor groups.

For example, there is no "need" for electrical wiring to be installed by a licensed electrician (who is also pretty much required to be in the union.)  The same safety check can be made by having a licensed electrician inspect the work to make sure it was correctly/properly done/installed by whomever might have done it. If it's not correct, having the inspection done before it goes "live" will make sure that neighbors are unharmed.

But no,  the government doesn't leave it at inspection.  They intrude on individual liberty by establishing unnecessary requirements as to who and how the installation is done.

This is the same problem with health care.  The federal government began heavily regulating both the health industry as well as the insurance industry back in the 50's and 60's.  Their influence has only increased since then.

Of course, this isn't the only problem that affects health care access and costs.  Tort law has been in dire need of going over and has largely been ignored by every congress and president intentionally.  That's another post for another day though.

So called "Big Pharma" and "Big Insurance"  have been in bed with politicians to make sure they get what they want in regards to funding and "meathooks" for decades.  They lobby politicians to make sure that only certain products and items are used in hospitals and clinics, even though they aren't necessary.  And of course, those become part of the overall "regulations"  and increase the cost instead of letting the providers and trained professionals decide what they need and what will keep patients/customers safe while in their businesses.

Let's not forget that Doctors, hospitals and pharmacists are businesses.  They are providing products and services in order to make a profit.  "Patients" are customers.  They are the ones providing demand for these services and products, they are the ones ultimately in control of what they want.

This is important to remember.  The individual is in control and has the final decision of what products and services they want provided by the health care providers, NOT the doctors and insurance agents.

People like to hold doctors in high regard, considering them to be highly respected and valuable as they can and do "save lives".  They can and do do those things because they saw a demand for the service and had a personal interest in doing that work.  They are ultimately bio mechanics.  They do for the human body what the guy at the garage does for your car.

Just because your auto mechanic says for best results, you should do X  and purchase Y that you MUST do those things.  It's their educated advice, but it's your decision.  They cannot make you do anything you don't want to do or pay for.

Neither can doctors or any other health professional.  They work for you.

This is where the U.S. federal government has regulated the health care industry into an artificial power regime.  They have made it so only doctors have the ability and authority to prescribe medicines for individuals regardless of what the individual, the paying customer, decides for themselves.  That is wrong my friends and violates our most fundamental, inalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Because the federal government has accomplished this via regulation of the system, health care businesses have had to create entire process and systems to administrate the processes and control channels.  This creates unnecessary expenses that are passed on to you the customer who now has no say as to what medicines and treatments you get or don't get.  The doctor has the say so, not you and you still have to pay for it.  Nope, very, very wrong.

 Obama and the other wannabe power wielding elites have gotten people convinced that health care is a basic right yet do not educate people to realize that they always had the right to handle their health care as they choose based on those inalienable rights in the founding documents.  They are trying to tell you they can give you what you always already had.

We have the right to handle our health care as we so choose.  We can hire or pay any trained service or health product we so choose in the event we feel it is beyond our personal ability to identify and treat the problem.

Be it housing regulations or health care regulations or any other regulating the government does, it is their number one tool to grab power and authority from the public that grants them their authority.  They use it to grab the authority under the table and hidden behind platitudes and insincere and corrupt philosophies.

Two Americas, one place

There are Two Americas now. 

There is the America that looks at the Constitution and believes in individual liberty being the heart and soul of this country.  They believe that the "greater social good" lies in ensuring that every individual is able to exercise their Constitutional rights and that the Federal government is meant to be limited in scope and reach.

Then there are those who believe that the "greater social good" is served by the government being a provider of services and distributor of permissions.  These people think that individual liberty must take a back seat to "fairness" and social welfare.

I am firmly in the first group but I think there are more people now who fit into the second  group.

I now wonder if the geography and population of the U.S. is too large to realistically maintain life as outlined in the founding documents.  The federal government has been allowed to usurp powers and authority it constitutionally does not have but goes unchallenged by the states and the citizens.

To put it bluntly, if someone does not believe that individual liberty is the first and more important aspect of American life, then I have little left politically to talk about with them.

Individual liberty is tied intrinsically to individual responsibility, self determination, self reliance and individually overcoming obstacles and challenges.

Individual liberty carries with it individual consequences for both success and failure.

So much of being a free person is tied to individual liberty in the U.S.  This is a country of individuals who come together as needed, voluntarily, to make common goals happen.

That is what America is about.

The very moment you devalue the individual as only a part of the whole, you have changed the essence of what America is and turned it into one of countless other countries that have existed for ages.

America is singular because it exists based on the individual who also happens to give a damn about his neighbor and chooses to help.  Not because they are obligated, forced or pressed into service because some ruling person or group says so, " for the greater good".

Labeling Yourself

I look at several social media sites and see so many people people identify themselves with labels like "Liberal", "Conservative" and other related to partisanship.

Sit back a minute and think, why would any sane, reasoning person do that to themselves?

No one is really only "liberal" or "conservative".  The human mind is flexible and contradictions abound in our thinking.  We may very well be considered "liberal" when thinking of one topic but on another issue, may very well be extremely "conservative".

Labeling oneself makes it easy to participate in "groupthink" though.  To share and participate in memes and easily shared "talking point" lists.  Essentially, they make it easier to participate in the herd mindset instead of simply an individual one.

This is important because so many people seek conformity.  To participate and seek acceptance with a group of peers.  They enjoy the easily recognized lines drawn in the sand that comes from polarized debate in which it all boils down to "us vs them".

Participating in groupthink makes it easy to let someone else do your thinking for you.  All you have to do is feel good about it.

Independent thought and action requires more work to educate yourself, to verify information and to separate your feelings from thoughts.  Someone who avoids groupthink and maintains an independent position has to be confident and brave to weather the bleatings of all those who will automatically align themselves against anyone who is not one of them.  You have little "backup" or peer support.

I'm not talking about walking around and labeling oneself as an "Independent" as  some sort of association or political party,.  I'm talking about being independent as in a way of thinking and being.

Personally,  I know for a fact that I have some issues in which I would be considered "liberal" and other issues in which I have been considered "conservative".  That's just fine by me.  Those are parts of me, but they in themselves do not solely define me.

Some things are kind of "black and white".  Many people don't like to hear that because it makes them have to be accountable and responsible for themselves.  other issues are more "shades of Grey" because there are numerous variables and influences involved.  It requires one to step out of their own mind for a moment and consider what is and who is is involved.  That's hard for a lot of people because they only want to look at the situation through their own comfortable, narrow focus.

Groupthink is dangerous at the end.  It is dangerous because it is the herd mentality and there is ultimately always an Alpha or leader who  will demand you follow with blind faith and there will always be a shepherd who will try to pen you in.

Being independent and united in a common cause.  That's the person the Constitution was written for.

America is exceptional, Americans can be if they choose to be

The founding documents,  The Declaration of Independence, The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, these are what makes America exceptional.They are also what allows Americans to be exceptional if they choose to be.

Putin recently made a statement part of which said that America is no more exceptional than anywhere else.  That Americans are no more exceptional than anyone else.  He is wrong.

Well, he is partly wrong.

America was founded based in recognizing the individual.  This is a dramatic departure from almost everywhere else in the world where governments hold that individuals exist to serve the collective or the state.

Not in America though.  It is spelled out in so many ways that America is built on a bedrock of rugged individualism.  Every person has the same rights as any other person and no single person more valuable than any other person.  No one is inherently above the rest.

The Constitution was written specifically to unite the various states and specifically limits the authority of the new federal government.  The main concept being that the government exists to serve the people, not the other way around.

The Bill of Rights, though I personally believe was unnecessary, spells out those rights that exist here, in this country for every individual.  Not classes of people.  Not castes of people.  Individual persons.

Even when many of the people did not want to share those rights with others and conspired and actively worked to deny other people from having those rights, to the point of denying that they were even a person.

The basic principles prevailed.  Those founding documents won out over greed and hate.  People like Martin Luther King and Standing Bear wanted only to be seen as every other person, having the same rights as every other person.

America, as represented by those Founding documents, is highly exceptional as that over time, the intent to deny some people but not others, those rights as individuals was defeated.  To this day, there are some who would still make the effort to deny those rights to other people based on ignorant and stupid thinking.  The fight of those who are denied is carried on though and the point is always made again.  America is for every individual citizen.

Today, there are too many who either have forgotten or or purely in denial of the focus on individuals in America.  They want to push the collective and the state.  They seek to have everyone conform to the group instead of affirming their rights as individuals.

They deny people the right to not only take their own risks to succeed but to accept the consequences of those risks which includes failure.  The state has no place in attempting to mitigate or promote success or failure for any individual.

The government exists to make sure that individual citizens are able to do for themselves.  To protect themselves.  to make their own living and to worship, if they do, as they choose.

To try to force people to do things for the collective good or any other reason is beyond the original scope of the government.  Yes, the government can work to make sure that one person or group of people is not doing something that will harm or inhibit another person or group of person's rights.  Protecting clean water sources so that everyone has access to clean water and not one person or group is hoarding it or making it unusable by others, that is the kind of government regulation they were put in place to do.

America is exceptional because it ensures for individuals to attempt to do exceptional things with their lives.  Few other countries at that time or even now exist in that capacity.  America exists to serve the people, not for the people to serve it.

Too many people now don't understand, appreciate or respect that.

The governement has no business enforcing the death penalty

I've been thinking about this a lot lately.  Mostly because I have been an ardent supporter of capital punishment.

Don't get me wrong.  I have no doubt in my mind that some scumball who goes around causing harm and death to innocent people has got it coming.  In fact,  I think that such a person, upon threatening to take someone's life has pretty much given up their own right.

However.  In one of our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, we are said to recognize as a country that all men are created equal and that we observe three inalienble rights.  Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That right there tells us that the state, the government, does not have the authority or right to take a person's life.  Period.

Having said that.  This makes the Second Amendment all the more important.  Because if we are to defend ourselves properly from such scum of the earth then we must have the ability to do so.

Remember, police departments are not here to intervene.  They exist to do prevention and "clean up" after the events have taken place.  It is up to each one of us to see to our own protection and defense.

If criminal A comes up to person B and pulls out a gun, threatening to shoot them and person B pulls out their own gun in self defense.  If criminal A should happen to shoot first or make person B they are going to shoot, and person B responds by shooting Criminal A, then Criminal A got what they had coming to them and their death is a result of their own actions coming from another citizen, NOT the state.

So, as much as I may not like it,  I have to respect the Founding Documents and recognize that the government does NOT have the authority or right to execute anybody.

That doesn't mean prisons have to be pleasant or that citizens should not be ready to defend themselves with lethal force if necessary.  All the more so in fact.

make mine a stick shift

To generalize, there have been two main lifestyles for people to follow.  Those who follow a "manual transmission" way of life and those who follow an "automatic transmission" way of life.

A "Manual Transmission" way of life is one in which you are responsible for doing for yourself those thing you want done in life.  Until the industrial revolution, most people lived a "Manual Transmission" lifestyle whether they wanted to or not.

Some people still live such a lifestyle whether they want to or not in the less industrialized countries.

Some people, even living in industrialized countries, prefer to continue to live a "Manual Transmission" way of life.

Many people consider the "Manual Transmission" way of life to be low tech and physically demanding.  Those people are pretty much correct in that.  However, in the "Manual Transmission" lifestyle, people have a much greater degree of control over their day to day lives and, for those who choose to live this way, feel more accomplished in their lives and find a satisfaction in being very self sufficient.

The "Automatic Transmission" way of life is one in which many things are done for you.  Technology becomes even more important, not only in getting major tasks done,  but in most other areas of life as well.

Machines, people, government and even general social activity is largely done with an eye towards people expecting things to be done for them, simplified by having computers, machines and even other people perform tasks they they would not prefer to do themselves.

People who live an "Automatic Transmission" way of life often become dependent on technology and on institutions for things to work smoothly in their lives.

Personally, I am very much a "Manual Transmission" way of life person.  Things may be more physically challenging and more time consuming, but I have control over what happens and I am able to live as independently as possible.  That's all I ask.  Things are usually lower cost and simpler technology so that more people are able to use it and learn it.

If someone else prefers to live an "Automatic Transmission" way of life, that's fine,  I have no problem, as long as they aren't expecting me to be the one doing their work for them or providing for them.  The advanced technology usually requires more complex learning and complicated tasks that need to be performed. 

It is also usually more expensive in terms that the more complexity involved in technology, the more possibilities for breakdown there are.

The problem comes though when a society, a government tries to force everyone within that society to live a give lifestyle, even against their will.

"Planned Obsolescence" is a concept used in technology that came with devising things that could be more easily replaced than repaired.  As things become more advanced and cheaper to produce with volume manufacturing and ordering, other items that don't fit that model anymore are done away with  and discarded rather than repaired and put back into use.

When governments begin to force people in a society to have to "drive an automatic" vs their stick shift by way of legislating that industry stop making manual transmissions or dramatically fewer of them, then we have a problem.

That is what the U.S. government is doing.  It is forcing people to have to adopt an "Automatic Transmission" lifestyle with all of it's increased expenses and complexities whether they can afford it or desire it or not.

Individual liberty is one of the inalienable rights this country is built upon.  Of all the things that should be ensured above all else, it is that personal liberty is obstructed the least.

It's No Wonder Science In America is in Trouble

The books that kids are given in public schools for science studies have completely given up on being sneaky.  They are blatantly teaching fallacies and lies and are proud of it.

One of the more "enlightened" concepts to hit the science scene is that there is no Scientific Method.  nope.

They teach our kids that there are scientific methodologies, because, you know, there s more than one way to investigate and research. 

The premise behind this is that they want to play word games.  When they say there is no single Scientific Method, they are talking about and give examples of methods of study such as using inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, etc...

This is important because when most people talk about THE Scientific Method, they are referring to the philosophical approach to science that has been established since it began.  The Scientific method doesn't try to tell students of Science which particular methods to use in their studies, only that they follow a mental and ethical set of guidelines in the pursuit of Science.

But no, in the textbooks, they obfuscate that because mainly their goal is to teach kids that in science, it doesn't matter what results you get, Science is always right because there's more than one way to get to the answers.

In the same textboioks though, they then make a point to compare Science against Religion and how Science is better than Religion because Science uses evidence and facts and Religion uses dogma and belief to arrive at their results.

It doesn't matter that Science and Religion aren't mutually exclusive and that they are each set up to answer different questions.  No, they aren't interested in that kind of truth. 

It's also interesting that now they heavily emphasize that science searches for "natural" solutions and answers and does not take the "supernatural" into consideration.  They then go on to say though that scientist's must be objective and keep an open mind.

It must hurt to be that intellectually constipated.

Parents, you MUST pay attention to what your kids are being taught in schools.  They are making blatant efforts at passing off intellectual dishonesty as truth to students and "the system" is full force behind it.

Two Americas?

There's little doubt that after working at it for decades, they have finally accomplished their goal.  Who is this "they" I am referring to and what is it they have accomplished? 

They go by many names.  Progressives, statists, the "powerbroker rich", imperialists.  All collectively known better know as the American ruling class.

What is this goal they achieved?  Creating the American ruling class.  Political party membership is no deep divide.  Both parties want the same thing, power.  It is obvious that they have been complicit in working together to create a situation in this country in which they make and enforce laws that they themselves are not subject to.  They are part of a group that rules over everyone else.

Obamacare is what finally sealed the deal.  It puts into effect laws that everyone MUST be forced to participate in and abide by.  Everyone except those who made the law (Congress, and those who enforce the law (The President/White House) and those who paid those first two groups that made it happen. (the "powerbroker rich").

The Supreme Court was complicit because instead of rejecting it on it's most obvious flaw, that it is un-Constitutional by infringing on one of the inalienable rights, Liberty, They allowed it to go ahead anyway by describing it as a "tax" which doesn't change the fact that it still infringes on Liberty.

How do we know that both political parties are complicit in this?  Because while one political party and the Office of the President have been committing un-Constitutional acts, the other has bee either silent, putting up token disagreement to "keep face" or outright ignoring the fact and not calling them out on their un-Constitutional acts.

As long as they get to be part of the Ruling Class and exempt, they are satisfied with the solidifying of a Ruling Class.

When you read online or in the news that "The U.S. wants to take action A on issue B,"  what that really means is that the Ruling Class wants this action.  In all likelihood, the vast majority of the citizens don't want anything to do with it or actively oppose it.

The Ruling Class does not speak for the citizens, they just do what they want.

Yet it is still not too late to change this, though the window is closing.You'll know the end is near, the window is closing when Congress (most likely the Senate) introduces a Bill to repeal the Second Amendment.

Think it can;t happen?  Do you remember when the last Bill to step on individual liberty was passed so quickly and somehow ratified by the states in blindingly rapid succession?  That was Prohibition.  It happened before many citizens fully realized what was going on.

The government is taking steps to that end already by repeatedly bringing up the intent to implement "gun control" (in the Senate by the Way) with the president fully backing their efforts.  The other party (Republicans) are putting up token resistance but each time the resistance grows weaker and the opposition more mute.

The President has blatantly and repeatedly violated his oath to protect and uphold the Constitution and no other branch of the Federal government has taken steps to call him on it.  Oh sure, they rattle sabers and make comments in the news but not one has taken the issue up to begin impeachment or other trial investigation.  None of them.

Get off of our liberty.

Did you know that according to the founding documents, especially the Declaration of independence, that our country is founded on the ideals that we, as people, are endowed by our Creator, whoever and however that may be, with the three inalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.

Let's talk some more about Liberty shall we?

First of all, Liberty is the ability to live one's life, make one's own life choices and decisions without the influence or direction of government, religous entities or any other group or entities.

That is the Liberty the founding documents refer to, there is no confusion debate or need for interpretation about that by any so called constitutional scholars.

So, if we are supposed to be a people with individual Liberty, why are there so many laws forcing people to do specific things?

Why are people forced to purchase insurance?  Why are people forced to wear motorcycle helmets?  Why are people forced to wear seatbelts?

There really is no good reason for these laws to be on the books except as part of a conspiracy between corporate entities and elected legislators.

For example, One excuse for seatbelts and helmets , perhaps the biggest one, is that the public is forced to pay for hospitalizations and care for those who go without.

However, they already force people to purchase insurance.  Why not simply let the insurance companies provide variations of insurance policies such as an auto policy  for those who choose to wear seatbelts and another policy for those who choose not to?  This way, no matter what choice the individual makes, as is his or her right to do so, the taxpayers are covered and not having to pay for their costs.

Same goes for having helmet and no helmet policy options for motorcycle riders.  it accommodates individual liberty and protects the public from unnecessary costs because of poor decisions on the individual's part.

This is where our legislators have gone wrong.  They do not allow people to bear the full responsibility for their decisions. in the name of fearing the costs to the public for poor decisions made by those same individuals.

People, individuals, must be allowed to fail.  It is a natural consequence of an individual making their own decisions.  some will succeed, others will fail.  The sooner people learn the effects of poor decision making, they usually tend to start making better decisions.

All that happens now is that people are shielded from poor decisions and the public must bear the cost for individual failure.  This ultimately raises the total cost of failure that the public must cover.

This isn't to say that people who are needing assistance due to unforseen circumstances and "amicable failures" meaning that they made poor decisions but the community for some reason or other doesn't hold it against them, must go without support or assistance of any kind.  The community can and will band together to help it's members when it's needed.

This happens already as there are fundraisers for local people all the time in the form of dinners, pancake breakfasts, raffles, donation locations and many other events that are purely community, not governmentally originated.

By allowing people to fail or succeed on their own merits in their own communities in front of everyone else in their community who will decide for themselves how amicable the failure is o is not, we allow communities to bond tighter and know each other.   Trust each other and learn who can be counted on and who cannot.

Ensuring individual Liberty above all else helps build stronger, more capable people and communities. This is much better in contrast to the dependent and unstable wrecks of society we have now.

Political hacks can't hack it

You might be a political hack if you can't justify something "your guy" has done without trying to change the topic to what someone else did.

It's something all political hacks do when "their" politician is being criticized, they have to try to drag up what a politician from another party did when thy had that office in the pst. 

Somehow, that justifies whatever it is that their guy is doing now. 

Nope, it doesn't.  See, as a culture, we teach our children that wrong is wrong regardless of who or how many are doing it.  Just because more than one person has done something, that doesn't make it right, it only makes it popular.

When politicians are in office, we need to judge them based on what they have done against what that elected office is supposed to do, not based on what a previous holder of that office did.


This is another area of where political parties serve to obfuscate issues and polarize discussion.  They don't want to have their representative judged based on the expectations that exist in the "job description".  instead, they would rather be compared to another person who had the same job so they can make false comparisons.

When you are elected to office, at that point in time, we shouldn't care who was the previous office holder, their time is done and they should have been dealt with during their time.

Now it's your time in office and we will judge you based on what you are supposed to be doing rather than how someone else did or didn't do it.

Party hacks don't want that though.  They have an obligation to ignore facts, ignore truth and keep their guy in office, whether he's doing a good job or not.  It's about obtaining and retaining power, nothing more.

People need to think for themselves, not spew talking points handed down for them.  They need to base their judgements on officeholders based on what that officeholder is doing during their time in office, not based on how the last officeholder did.

Do Journalists need to be registered, maybe it's time?

There are people who insist that guns need to be controlled and they insist that forcing gun owners to register and be subject to government oversight.  They say this even though it is a Constitutional right for the people to keep and bear arms.

They insist that even Constitutional rights can be regulated.

Ok then.

There is now a discussion in the government about who is or isn't a "journalist".  The freedom of the press as well as the right to free speech are covered by the First Amendment.

It is a fact, with many documented incidents over time that so called "journalists" have directly and indirectly caused harm to other people with what they say, show and put into print.  Some people have e literally died, committed suicide or been killed because of what "journalists" have written or said.

"Journalists"' have incited violence, violated people's legal rights with slander and libel, outright lied and taken political "sides" of an issue.

This doesn't happen just once in a while, it happens regularly, almost daily, in the U.S.  Retractions are so common to see that people are no longer fazed by them any more.

No, these abuses of Free Speech and Free Press are dangerous and harmful.  Used inappropriately, people are being hurt.  They are losing their jobs, having careers ruined, families broken up and worse.  All due to inappropriate use of the First Amendment.

To help solve this problem, perhaps we should require that anyone who is to be considered a "journalist" must register with a new government agency within their home state (much like truck drivers, chemical applicators, gun owners, etc...), pass a test and be "approved" in order to be a licensed journalist.  The test will cover ethics, vocabulary, grammar, spelling, fact checking and more.

Of course, there is a fee associated with the test and it must be re-taken every 2 or 3 years to make sure the journalists in question are up to sped with all the new regulations related to journalism.

Yep, that should do it.

What?  You say that under no circumstances should the First Amendment be infringed in such a way?  It's a ridiculous idea you say?  We shouldn't judge all journalists by the misdeeds of a few?  Most journalists actually are good people and and they shouldn't e lumped into one big lump with those who abuse the First Amendment?

Why, you would be right to say that.  It is ridiculous.  Even though harm has most certainly come from people abusing their First Amendment rights to free speech and a free press, we shouldn't clamp it down in that way just because some people don't use it the way it is intended.

You say that there will always be a certain amount of risk that "The People" have to accept in order to maintain such rights.

Why yes, again, you are right.

And to think, the First Amendment doesn't even contain a clause which states
"shall not be infringed".

I know of an Constitutional Amendment that does though and some people want to regulate the hell out of it anyway.

You see people, it's not just about what harm might come from allowing such rights, it's about the principle of respecting those rights for all citizens.

There is inherent risk in allowing people freedoms of nearly all kinds because some may abuse those rights or use them in inappropriate ways.  the answer is not to remove or restrict those rights though.  The answer is educating people and responding to abuses on a case by case situation.

But that makes too much sense right?

Freedom Of Speech is a right, not an entitlement

So you want to express yourself.  Go ahead.

Regardless of how you do it, be it art, your voice, hand signals, printing signs, tattoos, whatever,   Get it out of your system already.

You must realize though that while you and I and every other citizen of the United States have the right to do so, there is nothing that says anyone else has to listen or care about what is expressed.

Just because you think it's important to say, no one else has to care what you say.

Wanting to express yourself does not give you the right to force others to pay attention to your opinion.

Step Right Up

The media and career politiacians would have us believe that there are some "special" requirements to become a Congress-person, President or even Supreme Court Judge.

They ask, "what are your qualifications?  Have you ever been elected to office before?"  as if those things really had anything to do with those positions.

We are not only being lied to, we are being misled, deceived and intentionally mis-informed.

As per the U.S. Constitution, you know, the document which sets the law of the Republic and enumerates the powers of the federal government (they hate that by the way):

House of Representatives:

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

The Senate:

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

The President:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Supreme Court: (emphasis my own)

He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:


Special Note: (emphasis my own)


The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

What you see above is pretty much it.  That is all that is required to fill any of those positions, elected or appointed.  In terms of Supreme Court Judges, it is pretty much left up to the president as to who he or she thinks is qualified to take on such a role but there is absolutely nothing that requires them to have been in the role as a "professional" judge or even a lawyer previous to that appointment.

To become a Senator, a Representative or even President, one need not have ever held public office prior to their being elected to the post.  One need not have been a lawyer or have held any elected office prior to that point at all.

Why do you think it is that those positions were left so open?

It was because the government is by, of and for "The People", that being anyone who fills the above mentioned requirements.  Almost anyone can fill those.  A farmer, an accountant, a writer, a janitor.  Anyone at all who is able to convince others that they are a capable and trustworthy person to represent their city/county/state/country to their best ability.

What is most required is an ability to learn, to be honest, to stand on their principles and to have some degree of wisdom.  Anyone who is capable can be educated.   I would surely prefer an un-educated wise person over an educated fool any day.    The wise person can learn, but the fool will always be so.

Don't be conned.  Don't be made to feel inadequate.  We must have faith in the "everyman/woman" among us to be able to take the mantle of leadership placed upon us by our peers and represent the people with integrity, honor and principle.

The Constitution, No need for "Interpretation"

Oh so often you will se ecomments and hear things from people who say they don't like a certain "interpretatrion" of the Constitution, they beleive it should be interpreted another way.

There is some sad news for those who want to "interpret" the U.S. Constitution.  It says what it means directly.  There is no need for interpretation.

For example, in a recent discussion, someone told me they didn't like the "popular interpretation" of the Second Amendment and they think the gun rights belong to states, not individuals.

Uh, the bad news for you is that the Constitution is pretty clear on that.  It doesn't say that "the right of the state to keep and bear arms..."  Here's exactly what it says...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

See there above?  I've highlighted it for you.  It specifically states that it is the right of the people.  No interpretation required.  It says what it means.  Just because for some insane reason you don't agree doesn't mean you can somehow change what it says.

As a matter of fact, the first words are only the primary justification for providing said right that the authors felt was important enough to mention why it is so important for the people to have this right.

Do you know why there is a 15th Amendment?  Because some people felt the need to "interpret" words such as "People" so as to include some, but not others an thus felt the need to "clarify"  who is a "person".   Really folks, how stupid does a society have to be to think that the term "People" does not refer to some with a different skin color? 

In what level of idiocy does a person have to be to not understand that when the words "All men are created equal" includes men of all races?  Why on earth should that have to be spelled out in a document such as a national Constitution?

I'll tell you why.  Because some folks felt they had to "interpret" words based on what they wanted them to mean rather than on their face for what they actually were.

The 15th Amendment should not even exist because it should be so self evident that people of all races and cultures are part of the "People" and men" as related to the Constitution.  It should be a given to understand that all races are "Men" and "People".

No, people had to "interpret" things to how they wanted them to mean instead of accepting what they were, so we get stupid amendments instead.

Stop interpreting and get it into your heads.  The Constitution was fine as it stood.  Interpretation is not necessary.  You need to make sure you have a real and reasonable vocabulary to understand it apparently.

Inalienable rights are, well, inalienable

The Declaration of Independence, the first of three founding documents of this country, says that people have three inalienable rights.  Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Inalienable means that we are born with them.  These are not simply things we choose to have, but are a part of us as we are individually created and born.

It means that not only can they not be taken away by men, but that we cannot give them away either.  No more than one can "give away" their personality or their soul to another person.

These are our rights whether we want them or not in other words.  I do believe based on some discussions I have had, that there are indeed people who think they don't want them.  They would gladly trade them if they could for the security and structure of having someone else tell them how to live their lives.

The document asserts that these are given to us, bestowed upon us, created within us, by God, the Creator of all things.  Whether you individually see that as a supreme being, a natural force or otherwise, it stills exists beyond the realm of "ordinary" men to take or give those rights away.

Wonder if you knew...

Freedom of Speech does not mean anyone has to listen or care about what you say.

Freedom "of" religion does not mean freedom "from" religion.  You believe what you want and I'll believe what I want.

"Liberty" isn't just a bell.  It's the ability to live one's own life on one's own terms.  Not what some government, religion or people/person tells you you have to do.

The right to keep and bear arms has many reasons which justify it, the ability to have citizen's ready to participate in a militia is just the one the framers of the document felt need to be said.

The right to keep and bear arms "...shall not be infringed."  Why is that so hard to understand?  It means don't mess with it.

The 5th Amendment means that if they want to accuse you of a crime, they can't force you to do the work of proving it for them.  They actually are supposed to come up with facts and evidence to prove you did it themselves.

Oath of office

Executive (President)
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Legislative (Congress)

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. [So help me God.]

Judiciary (Supreme Court)

In the United States, federal judges are required to take two oaths. The first oath is this:

I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (office) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God

The second is the same oath that members of Congress take

You might notice that ALL of the three branches of government are required to support, protect, defend against all enemies foreign and domestic.

They also vow to do their job as determined by that same Constitution.

Anytime someone in one of those three branches does not do their job EXACTLY as the Constitution has layed out for them, they are violating their oath of office.

Where Allegiences Lay

Like many others this July, i have spent time pondering the observation of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.  It is during times like these that national pride and nationalism experience an increase as more people actively have the topic on their minds.

I, myself, try not to be one of the exaggerated, almost cartoonish types who take nationalism to comic extents.   As a matter of fact, Independence day is a rather somber time for me because I think of the independence of America in both a positive and negative light.

While the war fought by the European settlers did lead toward the Constitution which is perhaps the greatest treasure of this country, it also ushered in a period of disaster and destruction of the lives, lifestyles, languages and cultures of many , if not most, of the not- European peoples who were either already here or soon made their way here in hopes of sharing what the Constitution offers.

How disheartening to hear the words that America is a place where all men are created equal, oh but we don't consider you a man, sorry.

It was perhaps only natural that the new Americans/former English colonists would create a new place to make free people of themselves only so they could perpetuate the same snobbish, racist, inhumane treatment of others that they themselves wanted to escape.

Despite that, people from other places, cultures and religions not only kept coming, but stayed and whether suffering silently or speaking out and standing up in public, they fought to partake in those same rights , freedoms and opportunities the U.S. Constitution promises to all individuals.

The Declaration of independence and consequently, the U.S. Constitution, were brilliantly done.  We can see that the founding documents are made of the same stuff that hard won dreams are made of.  They are more than just laws an rights, they are goals and objectives.  They are what those authors and signers believed the people of America "could"be.

They were written using language that indicates that people are expected to rise to the words.  Those documents were written to inspire and give a foundation so that people could be better people and to realize their individual potential.

So while the founding of this country has much to be proud of, it also has much to keep in mind that our freedom, our rights, our independence must be earned and won every day, by everyone.  We cannot sit idly by to let only a few reap the benefits of the rewards that so many have struggled, fought and died for since it's difficult and bloody beginnings.

Keep in mind, this independence day that when one American is not free, does not have liberty, that none of us truly has them.  When they are denied to any one of us, they can be denied to every one of us.

The Rule Of Law

We are a nation based on the premise that as a People, we adhere to the rule of Law.

That "Law" is known as the Constitution, further detailed by the Bill of Rights.

People were tired of being ruled by other people.  A person who is a ruler can be just about any kind of person and often are unjust, tyrannical, power hungry, self centered and so on.  They can be insane, and as long as rule resides with a person, that's too bad for everyone else.

What the U.S. did was to say that we will not invest the authority to rule to ay person or group of persons.  The people collectively hold that authority and will send representatives from their midst to make sure things work out in the best interests of all the people, not just the ones who have the favor of a person or party.  That's how it's supposed to work anyway.

We put the rules up on the wall.  These rules are for everyone to follow, no exceptions.  Keep in mind, the idea was in preventing the worst kind of ruler from coming about, a tyrannical, imposing, power hungry nutjob who cares only about what that person and their cronies want.

The rules are on the wall so that not only can people "police" each other, but can police themselves.  No real "need" for someone to walk around and tell people what's what, we can see for ourselves and make sure we individually are following the law.  That's called "responsibility. 

Responsibility in this kind of place where the law is written on the wall for everyone to see and know is part of what comes about when everyone is given the same, equal, rights to live their own lives (that's called "Liberty").  If you want Liberty, you are responsible for making sure that you are following the few (not anymore) laws that exist to make sure you are stepping on others freedom, rights and Liberty.

Living your own life and being free to make your own life decisions means you will take certain risks.  Any risk carries with it the possibilities that something positive can result from it or something negative can result from it. That's kinda why it's called a risk to begin with.

When you accept risk, you accept the consequences, good or bad.  That's why we should make sure we are making educated, intelligent, rational decisions   before taking on risks so we can be sure we are best prepared and willing to take on those risks.

But no, now people don't want to accept the consequences of their choices.  The results of the risks they take.  They want someone else to bail them out of the negative consequences but leave the positive ones to them alone.

It doesn't work that way.  Nobody comes in and says, "I'll take the negative consequences for you and take nothing of the good."  They want both.  The more of the negative they take from you, they want the same amount of the positive as well.  It doesn't matter who it is that alleviates your risks.  Family, friends, community members, the government.  Especially the government.

The more you ask or allow the government to take on or you, the more they will take and never give back to you.  The y knew this back then and that's why they installed a limited government.  The Constitution is mostly a list of limitations the federal government has.

Bit by bit, the federal government and the elected representatives we keep sending to do our business, keeps chipping away at those limitations, trying to negate or remove them entirely.When the government or a politician offers you anything, it's not free and it's not in good will.  They want you compromised so that you eventually are not able to realize or take action when they have finally usurped the authority of the People instead of being forced to abide by their limitations as set in the Constitution.

Oh yes, they'll sell it to you as safety, security, a "better way of life", an "easier way of life."

Stop being lazy, stop being lax, stop letting fear control you, stop expecting others to carry your water, stop being irresponsible, stop being unaccountable.

You are ruining it all for everyone else.  Instead of insisting that others take the weight of your risks, consider that soon, you will not be able to make your own choices at all and that you made it that way because you wanted someone else to do it for you.

The Second Amendment. When you respect the Constitution, it works.

The problem a lot of people have in these modern times with the second amendment is that they think there is no need for it with a, compared to way back then, ramped up military.

See, if you actually read the U.S. Constitution (as ratified by the member states, keep this in mind, it's important) you'll see Congress has the authority, not the President, to do the following;

Article 1, Section 8;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

You'll notice that Congress is to be able to raise armies and keep them going for up to two years at a time.  This leads us to think that Armies should not already be "standing" waiting to be sent to war.

Also note that Congress is supposed to keep militias armed and trained, ready at the go to be called into service.  Who are the militias?  The average citizen, that's who.

The Constitution says that Congress is to provide for the militias to be armed and trained.  "Provide for" not actually arm them.  Why, because the Second Amendment addresses the issue by stating that citizens are able to own their own weapons to be able to serve in militias when called upon.

In today's world, we have a standing army, which we are not supposed to have.  You may also note that the states reserve the authority to manage the militias, not the federal government.  The federal army only has authority over those militia members as have been called into service of the federal army.

All able bodied people are supposed to be able to be a part of a local militia.  Allowing each person to keep and bear arms of their own makes having militias affordable.

What exactly does the Second Amendment say? 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now  also keep in mind that "Arms" is not only the weapon, but the ammunition as well. Obviously, the last sentence holds a lot of meaning, "Shall not be infringed."

Don't mess with it, is what it is saying.  Also, do you know what it means to "bear" arms?  It means to carry at the ready.

Do we have a lot of people in this country who have little to no respect for guns and other weapons?  yes, we do.  That accounts for those that have them and those that don't.  Those that have weapons and don't respect them are the ones doing stupid things like using their weapons to commit crimes or showing off recklessly and so on.  The bad apples in the bunch so to speak.

Take into account though how many people who are responsible, respectful gun owners and you will see that the vast majority of gun and other weapons owners are very respectful and responsible. 

They train with their weapon of choice, they have it at the ready for use in situations when someone is threatening theirs and those around them lives and safety.

So next time you want to talk about the Second Amendment and getting rid of guns or other weapons, think about education rather than oppressing and violating the Constitutional rights of millions of people.

Party members, We have found the problem and the problem is you.

Party politics has no business in American government.

It serves no purpose other than to polarize discussion and divert the public's attention from issues into an "us or them" mentality.

The more people run around trying to promote their party or the candidate that their party is pushing, the less they keep their mind open to what is really going on behind the scenes.

The more people push their chosen party affiliation over any other, you have a break in thought and communication.

A candidate who takes a party's money to run for office is beholden to that party's platform in some large degree.  For any candidate to say they are promoting any party's platform over the best interests of all the people, is to represent the interests of a select group over the interests of all others.  That is not what our system of government is supposed to be about.  That is a huge breach of liberty.  It is a violation of public trust from the very start.

What party politics accomplishes is a dependence on huge amounts of money required to successfully run for an office that pays a tiny fraction of that amount and incurs unethical obligations to financial backers for those candidates and party representatives.

Consider that over the past several elections, the policies and actions of the elected, regardless of party, only seem to continue and push forward the same policies and practices that have been building in scope from one "class" of elected reps to the next.

Being democrat or republican has not only not changed the policies and practices of the previous officeholders, but accelerated them in many cases.  Yet while the two parties seem to be in sync with each other in the background, they continue to divide the voting public with competing rhetoric and and maintain the status quo by encouraging voter apathy.

Yet all the people who climb aboard the party trains can do is spout that rhetoric and be played as combatants against each other.

Every time I take one of those silly online tests to see what political thinking or party I identify most with, it seems to show me as compatible with Libertarians and the Libertarian party.  Yet in all these years,  I have yet to ever refer to myself as a Libertarian and flat out refuse to join the Libertarian Party.

Why is that?  Because to do so would place me fully in the camp of screaming idiots who stand like pawns before the rich and morally corrupt party leadership who are the same team playing all sides of the board.  Sorry, can't allow that.  Won't participate in it.

Think for yourself, stay independent and question everyone and trust no party.

By the way, the federal government is supposed to be under the authority of the states.  it is the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights by the states that gives it what authority it has,  Not the other way around.

Leave it back there or take it somewhere else

Let's come to an understanding right away here.  Every individual in the U.S.A. has the same rights under the U.S. Constitution.  Unless the state has rescinded those rights as a consequence to criminal actions, each individual has those rights.

However, there are some people who come to the U.S. from other countries and even some who were several generation by birth citizens who seem to think that they have rights but certain others do not.

This is usually evidenced in families, especially parents who seem to think they have some sort of total control of their children and spouses lives.

I have bad news for you.  Your children and spouses have exactly the same rights you do.  Your religious views do not pre-empt the U.S. Constitution or state laws.  If you want to live somewhere that allows religious laws to over ride local laws, you need to move to a different country.  That's not this country.

If you somehow think that only you have gained rights, liberties and freedoms by moving to the United States, you are incorrect.  You do not get to control other peoples lives just because your religion says so.  You can offer advice, provide counsel or even warning of what consequences they may face for taking a course of action.  You can even exercise your right to not have contact with that person.  You DO NOT have the right to interfere with that other person's rights.

You don't like who your daughter dates after she is an adult?  Sorry to hear that.  She has the right to spend time with who she chooses whether you like it or not Dad.

Try to tell your son to hurt or kill someone else for breaking some family or religious rule?  He doesn't have to do it and get himself in trouble by breaking laws here.  You may not like it, but he has to use his own thinking and judgement or he will face consequences for his actions just like you will.

The U.S. was this way when you came here.  By coming here, you accepted that.  If you don't like it, there are other countries around that accommodate your religious and other ways of thinking.

When you brought your family here from somewhere else, you weren't the only one to gain individual rights, liberties and freedoms.  Your whole family did.  You need to get that in your head and do the right thing.

Get it back on it's leash

My friends, neighbors and fellow citizens.  Here's a simple question, "What came first, the States or the Federal government?"

If you answered the federal government, you are incorrect.  The states existed before the U.S. Constitution was drafted and signed which thus created and limited it in its powers.

The states at the time created a union among themselves to provide  common defense and to improve trade and cooperation between the states.  The federal government which resulted as a consequence of that was never and never should be, "in charge".  The federal government is only what the states allow it to be. 

In the last century or more though, those who are elected and employed in the federal government have gotten things confused and somehow gotten the idea that the federal government is the "leadership" of the union. 

No, my friends, it most certainly is nothing more than an entity which was meant to handle the business of the combined states.  This is why, in no uncertain terms, the Constitution enumerated the federal government's powers from the start.  It was never meant to be the leash holder, but to wear the collar.

When we talk about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and we talk of "interpreting these, people come up with the wide array of ideas in how to do so.  However, rightfully speaking, there really is only one way to view the Constitution and Bill of Rights and that is from the perspective of the sates as they ratified those documents.

The states are the only power that can give the Constitution and Bill of Rights their status.  No ratification of an amendment by the states? No amendment.  pure and simple.  The states have the last word on the subject.  the federal elected representatives the employees and those appointees to positions within the federal government are there at the interests of the combined states.

When an amendment is pitched to each state for ratification, it is pitched with a purpose as to why it should be ratified.  Those stated reasons are the only really valid "interpretations that need to be understood because it is based on those stated reasons that the states ratified the amendment or not.

Do not let Congressmen, Senators, Presidents or Supreme Court Justices fool you.  They are there because the states say they are there.  The states say so by means of the U.S. Constitution.

There is a reason that presidents like Obama, certain congress persons, senators and others want to change or disregard the U.S. Constitution.   It is the shackle on their ankle.  That document is the power of the United States over the federal government.

The power in this country has always been, and will continue to be (unless we are stupid enough to change it) in the states that have come together and lend the weight of their authority to the Constitution which binds the federal government to being a servitor of the states. 

In simple terms, the federal government and all those within it exist to serve the states and the citizen residents in each state.

This attitude from Washington is an Isaac Asimov story come true.  The creation has come to think of itself as having power over it's creator.  It's time to assert our states authority and reign in a runaway federal government.

What am I?

In response to the question "What are you?" referring to political/ideological affiliation, I say "I am a citizen".

I am not a republican, democrat, libertarian, progressive, conservative, liberal, et al...

I vote based on my own thinking, my own decisions, my own choices.

I vote for the candidate I think is the best suited to do the job, not the one who is affiliated with some group that corrals people.

I believe that the Constitution and Bill of Rights is the last word on the subject.  No person or group is above the law.  No person or group is beyond the scope of the law.

I believe the Constitution and Bill of Rights is directed at individual citizens, NOT groups or classes of people.

It is the responsibility of each individual to be informed and to accept the responsibility for their choices and decisions.

I do not expect the government to rescue me, to save me from myself or to protect me when I am perfectly capable to do so for myself.

I do not expect the government to do anything "for" me.   I do expect the federal government, which has been limited in it's powers by the Constitution, to stay out of the way of the individual citizens and the states.

 I see elected representatives as people who are doing a duty for their country and should not be elevated in status or placed in a separate class that follows a different set of rules from the rest of the people.  This is similar to doing such duty a serving in the military, or being a member of a volunteer fire dept. etc...

 What am I?   I am a citizen of the U.S. of A.

What do we really have here?

People talk about rights and freedom and liberty that we have in the U.S.  What are those things really and do we really have them?  Did we ever?  Will we have them later?

First of all, "Freedom" gets talked about a lot.  At it's core, what is the freedom that we refer to in America?  It's being your own person.  no one owns you.  You are not a slave in terms of being viewed as being the property of someone else.

There are no more paupers prisons, indentured servants or outright slaves anymore. Yet major banks and creditors have frequently been referred to as holding people in positions of near servitude as their debts with alarmingly high interest rates hold many to a life of working to pay those credit cards bills or lose everything.

While technically not servitude or slavery,  I can see how many find creditors situations as being nearly the same.  Banks are noted in newspapers and tv news all the time for fraudulent banking practices, unfair interest rates and outright swindling of loan holders.

No, technically, we are still a "free" people.  We are not the property of anyone else.  yet.

What about Liberty?  Do we have liberty in this country?  Liberty is the position of being that no person, government, religious or other group  can dictate to a person their terms of living.

Government cannot force you to take up a specific career or job.  A church cannot force you to join a sect or perform specific tasks.

To have true liberty here, you are your own person.  You decide how to live your life and you are responsible for the results of your actions and decisions.

True liberty in America is eroding.  The government is increasingly putting pressure on people to give up or allow to be infringed Constitutional rights in the name of safety and security.  They are always working to save people from themselves. 

In order to provide people a gilded cage though, the people have to be willingly locked into that gilded cage.  People are being cajoled and coerced and frightened into thinking that they can only be safe or secure if they allow the government to take on the personal responsibilities they should be maintaining themselves.

What about the rights that are so called "guaranteed" to us by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights?  All three factions of the U.S. government are collaborating to weaken and eventually remove those rights that are supposedly ours as recognized as given to us by our creator.

By recognizing that the Creator of all things endowed us with these rights, then it is understood that no man or government of man has the authority to deny those rights to other people.  That's the idea, that we are all equals and cannot deny that which was given to us by that higher power.  it's meant to keep us humble and to respect and appreciate what we have.

A ruling class has been evolving over the past decades that allow the supposedly elected representatives to live by a different set of rules than the rest of the people though.  They want to differentiate between people and assume that those in government and with enough money have a different set of rules to live by than everyone else.

We are losing our rights because people are arguing that they are not rights endowed by a Creator to all of us.  More and more will try to convince people that there is no Creator at all and there is only people.  That only some of the people "deserve" to be in the ruling elite class while the others do not.

We are a country that is losing it's faith and by so losing our faith in the Creator, we are devolving to class-ism and a different form of "Divine Right".  not the "Divine Right" that leads misguided people to think they can rule over others because they are a chosen of God but that they should rule over others because of evolution.  They believe they are born more advanced and more evolved than the majority of others.

We have a population that has not had to earn their citizenship status, but has inherited over many generations.  They have grown to think of themselves as entitled to certain benefits without the requite personal responsibility or provenance that comes with showing why one wants to be a citizen.

A country where we have true Liberty, true Freedom and retain those Rights as originally intended requires us to be vigilant, to take responsibility for ourselves, To accept that this life comes with accepting the risks as well as the rewards.

There has always been a saying that we will lose this country not because another country took it, but because we will give it up.

Sadly,  I think that day is coming if people's thinking does not change soon.

What are they "supposed" to do?

What is the primary obligation of the Federal government?  First and foremost, to protect the nation from threats, foreign and domestic.  To make sure that the infrastructure is in place and monitored.  To ensure that the citizens are informed.

Let's talk about that last bit, "informed".  Does informed mean educated?  Many think so and may be correct as long as educated means fact based, non-rhetorical or biased information being taught.  On the other hand, many other people think it is a parents responsibility to see to their children's education and the federal government needs to step back to a role of making sure resources are available for parents to choose from to provide said education.

Informed also means that it is the governments task to make sure that people are doing honest business with each other so that citizens can make informed decisions.  Now, even if any given individual citizen makes a poor decision, it is their decision for them to make.  If they had the information up front and came to  poor decision anyway, it's their own fault and consequence.  Not anyone else's.

Instead, the federal government has been slowly removing liberty by falsifying information or not providing information from the start.  They hide information and they conspire with corporations who line their pockets to conceal product information as well.

Making sure people are properly and openly informed is one of the greatest tasks the federal government has yet it is one of the most abused.

Making sure people have access to important information and resources is a great enough task.  Trying to force people to use it or to intentionally not provide it is simply abuse of power.

Liberty is a Responsibility

A Libertarian Party is an oxymoron.  It is it's own worst enemy.  To truly have liberty, one must be free of controlling influence of other people and/groups.  For the Libertarian Party to have a platform and send representatives to vote on laws is action that goes against the idealism of Liberty.

No, Liberty is an individual ideal that should be shared by as many people as possible as they live their lives in this world.  For for a country to truly be a land of Liberty, it requires the people who would have that Liberty to be responsible for their actions.

Without that individual responsibility to make sure that everyone is cleaning up after their own messes created by the choices they make, the good and the bad, there is a void created in which those messes have to be cleaned up and monitored from that point on so that others are not "harmed" by the irresponsible people's messes.  That entity to clean the irresponsible people's messes is the government.

What do we have now?  A government that operates based on the idea they have to protect people from themselves.  Why?  Because there are too many irresponsible people here who have become conditioned to the idea that someone else will take care of them and clean up their messes and keep them safe.

The government has taken the wrong route though.  Instead of making things more difficult for irresponsible people, they take the "easy" way and try to control all the people, the irresponsible and the responsible alike.

Here's the path the government has taken.  If you see a kid spill a bunch of trash on the floor, and there are a bunch of kids in the saeme room, you should make the kid who made the mess go clean it up so that the others can go about their way.

What our government has chosen to do is tell all the kids in the room to get out of the area, including the mess-maker, has someone else clean the mess up, then tells the kids that none of them can be in that room again unless they have no trash to leave around.

The responsible kids are now being punished, the irresponsible kid never had to clean up his own mess and the government now has assumed more authority to "protect" the kids from messes in the future.

If you want to have Liberty, you have to be ready to clean up your own mess.  If you want to have few laws, you have to be ready to police yourself and make sure that you as an individual are looking up at the rules on the wall and sticking to them.

You cannot have Liberty and be irresponsible at the same time.  If you don't clean up your own mess, someone else will, and they take your liberty from you from that point on.

Free people are better people

I am not kidding about this.  There is an old phrase that says you cannot legislate morality and it is correct.  You cannot make people be "better" people.  They have to choose to make them-self a better person on  their own.

It is human nature to resent that which you are forced to do.  At the same time, that which you have freely chosen, you will invest more of yourself because you believe in it.  You want to do it.

People who are free to be generous, to be stingy, to be hospitable or to even be rude are better off.  If, for example, you want to have people help the poor and destitute, by allowing them the choice, use education to make a winning argument that they will accept and buy into, they will most likely become terrific advocates themselves.  Investing far more into the behavior than if someone made a law telling them that they MUST give to the poor or share their income with someone else.

When people are forced to do something, they will often resent not only what they are being forced to do, but the end result or recipient as well. 

Forcing people to be generous or to share with others often has the reverse impact and over time, many will fight and struggle against it simply because they weren't allowed the choice.  They will not take ownership of it.  They will not respect or appreciate the result.

America is a free country.  people are allowed to be the person they want to be.  There may be fewer people volunteering by not forcing action, but those that do choose to participate, will invest more than they otherwise would have.

Maintaining a free country is more than just having laws that keep everyone equal.  It is what allows people to decide for themselves what kind of people they want to be.  When they decide to be better people, then you get the best people you could ever ask for because it's what they wanted, not what someone told them they had to.

America's Mixed Messages Steered People Wrong

America, as a country, was established as an effort to claim independence.  The proof of this is a formal document called the Declaration of Independence.

Independence is one being able to do for one's self, not requiring the permission, direction or approval of another.

The settler's on the American continent wanted to secede from the British kingdom.  They wanted to be an independent country of their own authority. Eventually, they achieved it.

The recognition of independence was so pervasive that it is spelled out multiple times, in multiple ways in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Rights were not given to groups or classes or types of people. No, rights were guaranteed to every individual person.  This was to ensure that the highly valued independence fought for as a country are enjoyed by every citizen in this country.

All the basics are there.  The core principle of independence is there.  Then, government decided to do the one thing it never should have or really had to the right to do.  They began to do things for people.  not just offer to do things as incentives, but to demand that things would be done and the residents must participate and/or contribute to them.

The government, any level of government, should NEVER be in the practice of doing things for people.  The government's role is to ensure that the people are independent.  That people are able to do for themselves.  Read the Declaration of independence.  Read the Constitution and bill of Rights.  It's all right there.

Instead, government, for whatever purposes and reasons be they good intentioned or deceptive from the start,  began to do for people and it has caused problems ever since.

There will always be people who will want to be kept like pets.  If they think their lives will be easier, safer, less complicated, whatever, they will always opt for the gilded cage.  They may not be independent or even free, but they are being taken care of.  Someone else is doing things instead of the people having to do it themselves.

Yet there will also always be people who value independence even more than life itself.  They don't want or need others to do things for them, they just want the opportunity and level field to be able to do for themselves. 

There will always be a conflict between the two types of people because those who want things done for them will be seen as a drain on the resources of those who want to do for themselves.

Those who want things done for them always see the independents as people who are not contributing to the collective whole.

America was not established as a country for the collective whole though.  It was established for those who would be independent.

To live independently is to accept the risks that go along with independence.  There are pro's and cons to every society, none are absolutely perfect.  In choosing the benefits of living in an independent society, you must accept the consequences of living in an independent society as well.

Too many people only want the benefits but refuse to accept the consequences.
They have been mis-lead by government which never should have begun doing for people in the first place.

Gilded Cage Mentality

It seems that more and more people are willing to give up not only their own rights as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, but everyone else's rights along with them just to gain a feeling of being safe and secure.

It's seeming to be a Gilded Cage Complex" where these people think that as long as the walls are padded, the tools, utensils and everything else they use are made of nerf and the doors and windows are 2 inch thick bullet-proof glass, everything will be OK. 

What they fail to understand is that nothing, no-one and no-how can the government or any other group make such a guarantee.  It's not possible, it's not realistic.

To be utterly honest, not even sleeping is "safe".  Our lives are fragile and fleeting.  Death and danger surround us  our entire lives.  You cannot escape or avoid them entirely.

You would build a gilded cage for everyone, begging to be protected and kept safe.  Your fear and lack of courage threatens not only your lives, but everyone around.  Even those who who accept those risks in life for themselves and live it to it's fullest.

You do not have that right to make such decisions for everyone else.  America was made for individuals, not groups or classes.  It was not made for a minority to control what the majority does and the minority are protected when a seeming majority wants to force it's way on everyone else.

You have the right to go hide from life and live in fear as a frightened rabbit if you so choose.  I have the right to walk free and take on the challenges of life as they come, regardless of the outcome.   I accept that inherent risk for myself.

America was never meant to be a gilded cage.  It was meant to be somewhere every individual could live their own life and be their own person.  You have no right to try to change that.

Here's How the 1st and 2nd Amendments work together

The Second Amendment gives each individual citizen the right to own a gun. period.  Whether you like it or not, it's a Constitutional right.

The first Amendment gives every individual citizen the freedom to express their opinion without being dragged off to jail or being unduly punished for it.

If you are one of those Americans who think that there should be less guns in citizens hands, you have every right to try to educate or otherwise make your argument to others to join the "no more guns club".  Knock yourself out, see how many you can convince.  It's your right to talk about it.

You do not have the right to try to force people or otherwise infringe upon their individual right to keep and bear arms.  Just because you disagree doesn't give you the right to step on other's rights.

Respect the same Constitution that gives you the right to speak your disagreement by not intruding upon other rights people have in the same Constitution and Bill of Rights.

To try to exercise your own Constitutional rights while trying ti infringe on other's only makes you a hypocrite.

The Second Amendment

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


We need to provide some context or at least definitions for people to understand the second amendment apparently, though how it isn't simple enough is beyond me.

A "Militia" is a group of fighting persons able to be called into action by a leader that may or may not be a State or County led force.

One example of a militia being called upon by the County would be a "posse" being deputized upon arrival to the call of a County Sheriff.

Such militia's do not typically provide arms to the people who form the militia as the budget was or is not adequate for doing so.  Thus, the individual citizens thus responding were expected to bring arms of their own belonging. 

Thus, the Second Amendment made sure that all citizens have the right to keep and bear arms of their own.  "Keep" means to have and own.  "Bear", in this case, means to use, or to have upon their person.

"Shall not be infringed".  This is so obvious one shouldn't need any clarification.  It means don't mess with this law.  Pretty simple actually.

It's very important to note that the wording of the Second amendment quoted above is that which was ratified by the states.  Without State ratification, anything Congress on it's own would have done would have not had the same weight or bearing as state ratification.

This means essentially, that these are the words as approved and put into action by the people, not just those who were elected.

The power to do this and any power to change this must come from the States, NOT the federal government.

What does it mean to live in a Constitutional Republic?

We are a Constitutional Republic.  The rules are written on the wall, it is everyone's duty to respect those rules and to make sure that we each, individually follow those rules.  There is damned good reason for having a constitutional government.  The rules are out in the open, for everyone to see.  They apply to one and all.

This allows every individual to go on their own way, live their own life and be the person they would be.  There is supposed to be no hidden agenda.  No different rules for different people.  The law is suppose to be clear and open.  We put the laws high up on the wall because then no one is above the law.  The law is above all.

That is freedom, true freedom.  Freedom which we take for granted.  It is our own and we police ourselves, at least, we are supposed to.  It is an expectation of self discipline.  "You know the rules, follow them and go on about your life".

The Constitution tells the government what it's job is.  It tells the government how to do that job and it is written in a way that limits the authority of that government.  Essentially, the Constitution tells the government, "If it's not specifically written in here, you can't do it."

The Declaration of Independence is more than just a letter telling the world that we are no longer a subject to British rule.  It is the key point that established our identity.  It is what established our culture as a nation and heavily influenced the writing of the Constitution so that it, the Constitution, would reflect that identity and culture. 

The Declaration of Independence established not only who we are not, subjects of Britain, but who we are.  A people who would live our own lives and never fully trust government again.  The Constitution was written to limit government and to make sure that every person had the same level playing field to start from in terms of law.  No one person is more special than anyone else where the law is concerned.

We are not a land of mob rule.  The majority is not always right and the minority is protected from being trampled on just because they disagree or would do their own thing.  The Constitution makes sure of this.

At the same time, the real power of the Constitutional Republic is that the leadership comes from within.  The elected representatives are supposed to be one of our own.  Someone who we trust t represent our local interests as well as contribute to the looking out for the interests of everyone.

The power and leadership does not come from the government, it comes from the people.  The people decide who to send forth and they decide who not to send.  They decide who to recall if they aren't doing what they were sent to do.

The people do this, not the elected, not the government.

The leadership comes from within.  That's the power of a Constitutional Republic.

We are not the rest of the world

An argument always comes up and inevitably, someone will bring up how some others countries address or are affected by the issue at hand.

That's fine for general discussion.  But we have to consider that the history of the U.S. is not that of a follower.  it is not necessarily that of a "leader" as well, at least not by intention, or at least, it hasn't always been.

The U.S. does it's own thing, goes it's own way, forges it's own path.  Others have followed and some have been told or suggested to follow.  What the U.S. Doesn't do is what everyone else is doing.

There is a good reason for that.  Some make the argument of following what other countries do or have done when faced with a similar situation, whatever that may be.  They will say that it is wise to learn from others mistakes and successes.  In one person to the next situations, that is often good advice to a point.

The other thing to consider in that is that there are key differences, for people and nations, that may and will arise that can make a solution for one not the solution for the next.  In the long run, each must find their own way.

Take the gun regulation discussion currently going on.  The second amendment of the Bill of Rights specifically says that every person has the right to keep and bear arms and that this right shall not be infringed upon.

Many people think the addition of the word "infringed" means that regulations is not to be imposed on issues of arms.  Others suggest that it only means the amendment cannot be removed but is otherwise up for regulation.

Inevitably, the discussion turns to what other countries have done, like Britain or France in Europe, with the issue of citizens keeping and bearing arms.  We can certainly observe what other countries have done, but that doesn't mean that what they have done applies to our country.

We have a very different culture built on the premise of liberty.  Liberty means that no person, group or government can tell someone how to live, what to do.  Our Constitution shows exactly how hands off our government is supposed to be in the affairs of people's lives in the way it was written.

As a matter of fact, it clearly states that the federal government is to have no authority outside of that which has been specifically enumerated within the Constitution.  Any other authority not so described or defined belongs to the state and to the people.

That means that the government is intentionally to have a "hands off" approach regarding anything that the Constitution and therefore the people have allowed them.  Liberty, leave people alone unless it has specifically to do with what you have been told is your job to do.

Our elected representatives keep trying to sneakily buy our liberty from us in the name of "security". They try to sell sneaky interpretations of the Constitution to trick us into thinking they somehow have the authority to infringe on our liberty based on what is already in the Constitution.

But we are not Europe.  We are not Canada or Russia or China. Their cultures are vastly different from ours and are not based on individual liberties.  Their people have not had the experience of a non-invasive government.  They are used to their governments historically being their overlords.  They accept such invasive-ness much more readily.  They are used to it.   We are not.