M.O.W.C.A.

Last week, at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference, it was reported that Rep. Ron Paul stated the following:

“In the technical sense, in the economic definition, he is not a socialist,” the Texas Republican said to a smattering of applause at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference.”

“He’s a corporatist,” Paul quickly added, meaning the president takes “care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country.”

However, that ignores one of the communist goals outlined by Cleon Skousen back in 1958:

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

Which has been accomplished.

With willingly ignorant political leaders like Ron Paul, can those opposing the socialist agenda ever expect to win?

Only in their dreams.

At some point the American people had better wake up and realize how effectively they have been made to accept communism and communist methodologies as a part of American life.

As well read as Dr. Paul supposedly is, I can only observe that he is either willingly ignorant of communism’s goals and efforts to achieve those goals, or he is a stooge: a patsy.

So I was remonstrated that I should get on board and use (or at least recognize the validity of using) Saul Alinsky’s strategy as a means of returning this country back to its constitutional roots and reining in this corrupt government.

Maybe I should, maybe not. But first I ought check just exactly where Alinsky stood before I do that.

Well, Saul Alinsky stated this:

“Lest we forge at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgement to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.”¹

That really doesn’t sound right to me, because the Founders stated this:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”²

And this:

“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, . . .”³

Biblically, and all the Founders knew the Bible as history proves that, the terms “Creator” and “Supreme Judge of the world” are express terms used to identify none other than the LORD God (who even Jefferson acknowledged to exist), and specifically the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the WORD.

So, I should follow the teachings of a man who honors Satan, who rebelled against the LORD God, when the Founders acknowledged the LORD God as being the only one able to make them a nation?

And this from someone who claims to be a Baptist?

Who is greater: The LORD God who granted the Founders genuine and sincere request, or Satan who Saul Alinsky acknowledged to be his mentor?

You decide.

And while you are deciding, determine whether you can use the Devil’s tactics and strategy to defeat the Devil.

I know where I stand, and where Wayne Fincher stands.

I leave you with Benjamin Franklin’s admonishment:

“And have we forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, sir, a long time and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings that ‘except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.”^4 5

1. emphasis mine [↩]
2. emphasis mine [↩]
3. emphasis mine [↩]
4. Benjamin Franklin, quoted by James Madison in Notes on Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1966, 1985), p. 209. [↩]
5. emphasis mine [↩]

Mama Liberty asked “So… what do you suggest?”

Short of violence, try this: Doctor tells Obama supporters: Go elsewhere for health care

This do, on a GRAND scale . . .

Short of violence, the supporters of socialism MUST know there is a SEVERE price to pay for their support of the communist takeover of this nation.

Dry up every means they have of doing business. The simple “I’m sorry, I can’t help you…” and refusing to provide for them does work, and very quickly. Why simply let them know you are there… DENY them.

Out of Time…

If you have not read “The Naked Communist” by Cleon Skousen or read the list of “Current Communist Goals” contained in this book which was first published in 1958, and have not read Anatoly Golitsyn’s “New Lies for Old” published in 1984 and paid particular attention to the chapter titled “The Final Phase”, and have not read “The Nazi Seizure of Power” by William Sheridan Allen then you will not be versed in understanding how the socialists seize power and what their ultimate goal is.

We are very, very near the end, and have virtually no time left for strategies that carry iffy results.

Mike Vanderboegh’s strategy for being everywhere does not, and will never scare the socialists who are busily seizing absolute control over this nation. They are 99% complete in their task.

If you have not read Alexandr Solzhenitsyn’s “The Gulag Archipelago,” or James Michner’s “The Bridge at Andau” (and any number of other books addressing the same subject) or talked with individuals who fled the communist countries of Eastern Europe, then you will not understand how family members, friends and neighbors can be co-opted, threatened and tricked into turning on each other, all without really intending to harm anyone, especially those they love and care about.

Unlike any other system in the history of the world, the communists who seized power in Russia under the leadership of Lenin, created a system that is so insidiously evil, so very adept at penetrating even the most tight knit groups.

The socialists (communists) cannot be allowed to complete their seizure of power in America. We have no time left. Without question, Barak Obama is their man to accomplish the takeover of America. He is, after all, eminently expendable. After watching a few of his presentations and interviews, it is clear that he is a manipulatable, hollow, shallow man — perfect for the task at hand. Of course, it helps immensely that he is black, that way the charge of racism can be levied at anyone who opposes him. After all, no white man could ever get away with what he has gotten away with. Nevertheless, I digress. Once that seizure of power is complete, human nature and the drive for individual survival will take over, and the strategy Mike Vanderboegh advocates will prove to be totally useless.

Why?

Because in every communist system, everyone is made to spy on everyone else. Those who will not, will be rounded up and taken away. All it will take to be hauled off, will be the slightest of comments, a wrong look, ignoring the wrong person, and heaven help you if you refuse to cooperate.

If you wish to point out the protests and dissidents that exist in those communist systems as your proof of being able to work within the system to overthrow it, then you need to go to “New Lies for Old” and read chapter 20, “The Second Disinformation Operation: The “Evolution” of the Soviet Regime, Part Two: The “Dissident” Movement” and find out how very contrived the dissident movement is and how operatives are used to draw out the true opponents of the regime so they, the true opponents of socialism, can be destroyed.

America stands at the very brink of the abyss of socialism. Golitsyn expressed very plainly that, were America to fall, the entire world will become communist in very short order. There are only two nations with the capacity to withstand the socialist onslaught. There are only two nations in the world that socialists hate with a passion: The United States and Israel, and for very different reasons.

The hate the United States because its constitutional system and ideological basis for that system is the anthesis of socialism. They hate Israel for what Israel is and represents: the LORD’s people, and by extension, the LORD God Himself. So long as Israel exists, and even one Jew exists, there will be, in the minds of the socialists, evidence that God exists. Therefore, they have determined that every Jew must die — even those Jews who are foolish enough to cooperate with them.

Human nature being what it is, when the socialists seize power, the vast majority of people will decide that they will try to “make do” within the system that exists. They will willingly delude themselves into believing they will not be the one hauled off or summarily shot. The Founders of this nation wrote of this aspect of man’s nature:

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

How is it that they (the Founders) went to war over taxation and oppression that is far, far less than what we experience today? Just what have modern Americans become accustomed to? What else will modern Americans become accustomed to?

You really must ask yourself why it was (and still is) that the Russian people put up with such deprivation and abridgment of their rights.

So what did Mike say that was so brilliant?

“So sign up today! Our Dear Leader needs you to enforce the “Health Care” Act! Join. Learn. Lurk in the shadows, and await the right time and place to muck up the works. And you don’t need a Michael Collins to report to. We have the Internet. Study Fourth Generation Warfare and open source insurgency at John Robb’s Global Guerrillas site and others. Begin today. Leave no trace. Shut up about your politics. At the very least, we will cause the IRS to waste vast amounts of time and money trying to ferret out our Ned Broy’s during the selection process. And if you make it through, study, watch and wait.

I can see whole reams of internal documents posted anonymously to the web, raids compromised with no one there when the door lock is blown in by those new 14 inch barrel entry shotguns. I can see an entire agency in a blue funk, eating at its own vitals.”

Meanwhile, weapons are seized, individuals are arrested and hauled off, caches are found and destroyed, while small acts of resistance occur.

Yes, small acts of resistance. Absolutely nothing in comparison to the destruction wreaked by the socialist government. If the seizure of power is complete, U.S. C-5s, C-141s,¹ and C-17s will transport tens of thousand of Russian and Chinese troops and thousands of tons of equipment to America. Don’t believe me? Then look at this gem from Obama: Obama set to reject ‘nuclear posture’ on eve of Start deal with Russia (h/t Legal Insurrection)

With this particular note in the article:

“Now Mr Obama is expected to rule out the development of new weapons systems — despite reservations from the military, which is mindful that Russia and China are modernising and expanding their nuclear forces respectively.”

And:

“In reviewing its nuclear arsenal, the US is considering withdrawing from Europe its last tactical nuclear weapons — 200 B61 gravity bombs — which are based in Belgium, Turkey, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands; all members of Nato. Under a longstanding agreement, the air forces of these countries would be expected to fly their own bombers carrying the American B61 bombs in the event of a conflict in which the US had approved the use of nuclear weapons.”

Of course this dovetails perfectly with certain communist aims:

U. S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war. (accomplished)

U. S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war. (½ accomplished)

Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength. (½ accomplished)

Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the U.S. has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress. (accomplished)

As soon as Obama is certain that the U.S. Military is turned and will not oppose him, he will allow Russian and Chinese troops on American soil to take possession of American bases under the guise of “mutual cooperation.” Once the U.S. military is effectively subjugated, the full brutality of the socialist regime will be unleashed.

Every small act of resistance will be met with the same thing Chechen villages received — overwhelming use of force in response. You will have lost America. You will not win.

Why?

Because they do not care what anyone thinks. The socialists already plan on slaughtering tens of millions of  individuals, and there will be no “world watching” to restrain them — because the rest of the world will be suffering the same thing. There will be no restraint of a deception and disinformation campaign. No, it will be utterly ugly and brutal and entire divisions of government agencies will be called in for “staff meetings” and no one will emerge alive. They won’t worry about administering “health care” because they won’t need to — its not about health care anyway.

They won’t need body bags either. After all, masses of dead bodies do a far better job of intimidating the remaining population in to submission.

We do not have time for cute “cloak and dagger” games. We have about a year, maybe two. We will, at the rate Obama is proceeding, not make it to 2012.

I do not like uphill battles, Mike’s strategy is one that won’t just give us an uphill battle, it will give us sure and certain defeat – like the tepid “window war” which has thus far been a failure for two reasons:

1. The average American does not agree with “civil disobedience” of any sort, but especially disobedience that includes violence. (The reasons for this are multitude, some valid, some not.)

2. Those in Washington really do not care what happens in “flyover country” so long as they enjoy their fun and games in Washington.

There are other weaknesses to the strategy that are technical and also bear on the equation. “We have the internet.” Mike wrote.

For now.

The internet can be shut off and the flow of information can be tightly controlled. The internet does not work by magic. Rather, for any information to go anywhere, it must have physical disk space to reside on, and an IP address and filename to be found at. It is all traceable. You can bet your bottom dollar all the anonymous proxy servers that exist out there now will be shut down and packet sniffers will watch everything, sending automated messages to offices with individuals who relish catching people. Oh, they themselves will be watched to insure they do their jobs, and their PCs will be strictly monitored — and the monitors will be monitored too.

I know. Unfortunately it is one of the tasks I perform in my job. It is utterly distasteful. But I work for a private company and they have a right to insure their employees are actually working when on the clock.

The long and short of it is that everything on the internet is traceable. If that does not stop any insurgency, the government does have its own internal networks that do not reach the outside world (SIPRnet) and they will use that network and simply turn off the internet by shutting off certain key routing servers. They will not care that all other information flow ceases.

While there are many things Mike is correct about, this is not one of them. The strategy Mike advocates is one that has incredible weaknesses, beginning with human nature and includes discounting technical issues and an ignoring of historical fact. It is a fantasy land strategy.

It is to narrowly focused, and far to short-sighted, ignoring the larger picture of global events, of which this is only a part and piece of those events. Socialized medicine is only a part of the overall global socialist strategy for domination.

1. My bad. The C-141 was retired in 2006. Sorry, I cannot keep up with everything. However, my point still stands. [↩]

I read the post by Mike Vanderboegh titled “We are everywhere.” — A call for all Sons of Liberty and Three Percenters who can to join the IRS plus a little task for those who can’t . and something about it struck me as wrong. Oh, the idea sounds nice and valid, but the actual practice will be quite different.

Of course, the idea for this comes from two sources that can be readily discerned. The first, a movie titled “Michael Collins” about the Irish leader who fought for Ireland’s independence from 1916-1922. He was killed in an ambush during the Irish Civil War. However, instead of citing any historical documentation (the movie, like all Hollywood’s stuff, is not accurate – and always carries a socialist message), Mike cites a scene from the movie, and draws inspiration from that directly. More indirectly, it appears that inspiration is drawn from the fictional character John Galt in Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged”, who, like the fictional G-man of the Michael Collins movie, works within the system to oppose it.

All well and good — and totally without historical precedent. Of course, that IS the problem with fiction — it is NOT reality.

No, the real reality here is this is recipe for ACCEPTING the shackles and chains that are swiftly coming upon us. Please remember there is a significant difference between OPPOSING a system, and PREVENTING or OVERTHROWING a system.

You can oppose a system all life long – AND NEVER, NEVER OVERTURN IT! No, what you become is the worst of traitors and hypocrites. Mike talks about the “moral high ground.” Well, this ain’t it. But there again, if fictional characters are your sources, I guess you can do whatever you want — and it works — at least on paper.

However, it will not prevent the coming tyranny. Rather, it will assist its emplacement and entrenchment — guaranteeing slavery for our sons and daughters. Of course, you could convince them to oppose the system from within too — but they would still be slaves living under tyranny.

And you will have compromised everything you said you stood for . . .

You know, the saying “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.” doesn’t discriminate.

Our Founding Fathers would shudder:

“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” SAMUEL ADAMS, DEBATES OF 1776

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” Patrick Henry, 1775

BETTER RED THAN DEAD, MIKE?

It has come to my attention of late that the BOP in Forrest City is not upholding its responsibilities with regard to Wayne. Even before Wayne’s arrest, he had health issues that included Pericardial effusion (excess fluid around the heart). The Federal Government knew this as soon as they took Wayne into custody. Wayne must take medication to reduce the fluid build-up around his heart. The specific drug he takes is Lasix.

However, over the last month, the people who run the Forrest City facility claim they cannot get (or afford) the drug Lasix so Wayne cannot get his medication. Hence, they have refused to give Wayne the medication he requires.

However, it cannot be true they have no funds to get a drug that is on Wal-mart’s $4.00 list. Somehow, I have a very difficult time believing that the Federal Government cannot get the drug for less than Wal-mart gets it. I know the government is “broke,” but somehow they find money for everything else under the sun. Here they have a clear-cut responsibility, and they are refusing to uphold it.

The problem can be life-threatening, and it would be very beneficial to Wayne to get his medication as soon as possible.

Any and all correspondence regarding Wayne must include the following:

Hollis Wayne Fincher
07863-010
Federal Correction Complex ‘Low’
Forrest City, Arkansas 72336

The address for the Forrest City Facility staff follows:

STAFF NAME
FCI FORREST CITY LOW
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
P.O. BOX 7000

FORREST CITY, AR  72336

Wayne has a little over two years left, with a release date of  08-04-2012. It would be very good if he made it.

There is a reason why we are losing our liberty in this nation: The willful ignorance of its people.

I would like to say it is confined to the Left and the youth, but I cannot honestly so state. Rather, I find that ignorance also on the Right at every age, social status, and profession. A prime example of this is the deliberate ignoring of history and the lessons of history. It is so very bad it is sickening.

Take the case of so-called “fourth generation” warfare, which is nothing more than guerrilla warfare adapted to modern technology. Now, how can I say that? How about reading numerous volumes specifically written about guerrilla warfare and its history, along with every article I can find — which covers the last 27 years of my life. I have been reading and studying military affairs (weapons, weapons systems, tactics, strategy and history) since about 8 or 9 years old (I am older than 45, so its been a while that I have been doing this). I have decided preference for guerrilla warfare, as difficult as it is to prosecute. So-called “fourth generation” warfare is guerrilla warfare, nothing more. However, leave it to the U.S. military to justify itself and call it something new so they can cover up failing to be prepared for guerrilla warfare.

As a lesson of history, you do not have to be a soldier to recognize what guerrilla warfare is, and is not. All you have to do is be willing to read and heed — something Americans don’t seem to do very well (if at all) these days.

Now, why am I not pleased, and why is this called “Pearls Before Swine . . .”?

Because I finally received a response to the previous post “Incongruence” that was nothing short of willful ignorance. There is no excuse for any American citizen to be ignorant of the foundations of this nation’s form of government. The books and documents are simply far too easy to access and (horror of horrors) READ!

To quote the response from Paladin:

“Thanks for trying but I still stand by my original position that from the beginning the founders intended and the States understood they were bound by the restrictions outlined in the Constitution and BoRs.
“The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States” and “This Constitution, and …, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding” 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; …”
Like you said, you don’t have to be a lawyer to understand the plain language of the Constitution.  I will not argue that corrupt courts/judges and legislatures both nationally and in most of the States have perverted and twisted the interpretations of this hallowed document.  I personally think they should be hung for violating both their duty as specified in the Constitution and their oaths to “support, uphold and defend’ the Constitution “as the supreme law of the land.”
I have no confidence or trust in any level or branch of government.  I’m not normally an anarchist but I’d prefer anarchy over what we have today at the federal, state and local levels.
We need to clean house and start over with freedom loving Americans from the heartland who will faithfully uphold, support and defend the U.S. Constitution and actually honor their Oaths of Office!”

“Thanks for trying . . .”? Perhaps then I shouldn’t have since Paladin’s mind was already made up, and any explanation of the foundations and principles of our Constitution was wasted effort. I am reminded of a discussion I had with Wayne Fincher several years ago concerning returning the government of this country back to its proper constitutional role. Wayne couldn’t seem to get the fact that modern Americans, by and large, do not exercise the same self-control and self-governance as the Americans of the 1700s. The Americans of those days were not ignorant country louts that just wanted to be free. Rather, they were well studied in the Classics, most knew history very well, with virtually all the Founders knowing at least one foreign language. Being largely home-schooled and believing the Bible did not make them ignorant, unlearned, or lacking understanding in any way. Rather, it provided a far better education and “rounding” of the individual than the government schools of modern America.

“So Wayne, what would happen if we won the country back tomorrow? Just suppose we did and removed all those laws and government agencies that infringe on our liberties, but are in place to control individuals who will not control themselves, just what do you think will happen?”

After all, during one radio show, we had a caller who complained that DHS had taken some children out of a home, and as the militia, what would we do about it? Now, I despise DHS, having had a couple of run-ins with them. But in questioning the caller, it turned out that both parents in the home would not control themselves and would not take care of their children. Both parents were involved in drug use.

You know, when you abdicate your personal responsibilities, expect someone else to take them over — and then run your life for you. In this case (as so often is) the government took over the personal responsibilities of the parents.

Somebody has to take care of the children, because children cannot take care of themselves. I responded to the caller, and told them that very thing. Need I say they were not happy? If you abdicate your personal responsibilities (which MANY Americans have), expect to lose them — expect the government to step in at every opportunity and seize more responsibility. If you cede your responsibilities to the government — you are the fool. Kindly do not complain when the government does something with your life you do not like.

As for Paladin’s preference for anarchy to our current situation — it is a preference that is telling of the ignorance.

I think Paladin, you have misunderstood some very fundamental things. First, you have never lived in a state of anarchy (unless you hail from certain parts of Africa). Neither could have you read much history of what happens when there is no law, no government. If you did, you certainly did not retain any lessons from such reading. Perhaps you should read John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government and also study what happened in the Scottish lowlands for 700 years. That area was contested ground and had virtually no government during that entire time. It was the very definition of anarchy — and life was utter misery. Only an absolute fool prefers anarchy over what we have today. What we have today is a FAR cry from life in Soviet Russia (or Red China, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc.). It is not even as bad as Russia is today. Perhaps Paladin, you ought to read more Solzhenitsyn . . .

Why should I go on . . .?

Why waste the effort?

incongruence (plural incongruences)

1. a want of congruence; incongruity.
2. out of place, absurd

19:18, 24 February, 2010 р.
Paladin says:

“If I understand your point in “A Convenient Ignorance”, you’re saying that, 1.  The US Constitution does not act as a restraint on the individual states nor provides protections against usurpation of rights for private citizens.  In other words, even though it “enumerates” certain Rights “of the people”, the people cannot depend on the Constitution as a protection against usurpation of any of those rights by the States, and 2.  The Commerce Clause does not give the Federal Government legitimate authority to regulate firearms in any manner.

If I have that correct, then we agree on #2 but not on #1.”

I have for several days now considered how I should even answer this. Perhaps I should front my answer with  another quote from Paladin further on in his comment:

“I picked up the language “apply against the states” from reading the opinions from Judge Silverman’s opinion in Parker, Scalia’s opinion in Heller and the various Amici submissions pursuant thereto.  I’m no lawyer if that’s what you’re wondering.

When I read the provisions I cited, it is clear to me that all the judges and executive officers, both of the United States and the several states, are required to support said Constitution as the “supreme law of the land” and therefore must be bound by all terms therein (e.g. cannot infringe the RKBA).

Therefore, for example, if anyone (including a convicted felon) is brought before a judge in Arkansas on charges of illegally possessing a weapon, the judge is bound to dismiss those charges as a violation of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Regarding Felons, I could not find any mention in the Constitution whereby someone convicted of a felony forfeits any of their God-given, pre-existing, fundamental rights such as the RKBA.)

Further, though I didn’t mention it in the referenced post, the verbiage in Article IV, Sec. 2., “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States” also clearly indicates to me that the States are, in fact, restrained by the provisions of the BoR.”

“Maybe I’m just one of those “dumb, dumb, dummies” the Progressives keep referring to.

I’d still like to hear you address the specific verbiage I’ve quoted and explain how it does not require the States to honor the Rights enumerated in the Constitution.

I’m familiar with the so-called “Incorporation Doctrine” and, frankly, consider it LEGAL QUACKERY perpetrated by corrupt courts, legislators and executive officers of government in order to justify their failure to uphold their duties outlined in the Constitution and stated in their required Oaths of Office.

Thanks for addressing my question.”

Though Paladin has some things quite correct, it is obvious that Paladin’s thinking is still not in line with the framers of the Federal Constitution. Whether we will acknowledge it or not, what fundamental ground one’s thinking springs from, matters greatly. It is this fundamental ground that will determine whether one stands resolute, or is swayed by various influences — even to the point of total and complete departure from the core beliefs this nation was founded upon.

In consideration, one does not have to be a lawyer to understand the Constitution and its various provisions, so claiming to not be a lawyer does not excuse one from failing to understand the Federal Constitution and the principles that establish it. Rather, the principles employed in framing the Federal Constitution are actually quite simple, beginning with the principles of covenant and ending with the principles of service. In answering the assertion that I somehow stated that the Federal Constitution does not provide protection against the usurpation of individual rights by the states, it is essential that we look to the principles of covenant for an answer. However, it should also be noted that I never stated, implied or agreed to the assertion made. Rather, that is an assumption of Paladin which is not warranted. Unless I state it directly, please don’t assume I implied it.

With that, let us examine the issue of individual rights and their respective protections under the Federal and State constitutions.

It is held by many, and is a subject of much debate, that without the 14th Amendment and its Doctrine of Incorporation, the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights are not protected when a state so chooses to abridge one of those rights. Plainly, if we understand the principles that are the foundation of the Federal Constitution, we will know that this is an absurdity that cannot stand the test of reason. The relevant section of the 14th Amendment states:

“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

We should note this amendment was brought into existence in 1868, in the wake of the Civil War and during the time of the Reconstruction. We should also note that neither the Civil War, nor the Reconstruction were acts which could even be remotely construed as constitutional. It is notable that Lincoln walked all over the Federal Constitution in numerous acts, both before and during the Civil War, and Andrew Johnson was not any better during the Reconstruction. Moreover, the U.S. House and Senate were  willing accomplices in these acts. Therefore it should not surprise anyone that an amendment was framed that not only was unnecessary, but also skewed the very way the Constitution is interpreted.

To understand how this is, we need only go back to Mr. Iredell’s explanation of how to view the Federal Constitution:

“It may be considered as a great power of attorney, under which no power can be exercised but what is expressly given. Did any man ever hear, before,  that at the end of a power of attorney it was said that the attorney should not exercise more power than was there given him? Suppose, for instance, a man had lands in the counties of Anson and Caswell, and he should give another a power of attorney to sell his lands in Anson, would the other have any authority to sell the lands in Caswell? — or could he, without absurdity, say, “’Tis true you have not expressly authorized me to sell the lands in Caswell; but as you had lands there, and did not say I should not, I thought I might as well sell those lands as the other.”¹

This is not a unique view as both the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions opposing the Alien and Sedition Acts state the same view. Additionally, in the Resolutions, those drafting the resolutions demonstrate a principle of covenant that is essential to understanding that the prohibition on states abridging the rights of individuals is existent even without Article IV, Section 2 of the Federal Constitution.

“That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at best a mixed monarchy.”²

And from the Kentucky Resolution:

“3. Resolved, That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitutions, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, our prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this State, by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had already protected them from all human restraint or interference.”³

Thus, applying the rule of interpretation of the Federal Constitution here, we can easily see that the Federal Government has no power to abridge the right of the people to keep and bear arms of whatsoever sort. The question then turns to the several states and whether they retained the power to abridge that right, and whether Section 1 of the 14th Amendment has any real efficacy. We should also note the following from the Kentucky Resolution which directly declares that the citizens of Kentucky had already retained to themselves the very rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights:

“And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this State, by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had already protected them from all human restraint or interference.”⁴

And from the Virginia Resolution:

“That this state having by its Convention, which ratified the federal Constitution, expressly declared, that among other essential rights, “the Liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified by any authority of the United States,” and from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack of sophistry or ambition, having with other states, recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was, in due time, annexed to the Constitution; it would mark a reproachable inconsistency, and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shewn, to the most palpable violation of one of the Rights, thus declared and secured; and to the establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to the other.”⁵

Hence, all the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, were already reserved to the people of the several states by those people when they formed their respective state governments prior to the drafting of the Federal Constitution.

The questions all ought to consider follow:

Is it reason for states to covenant together to create a central government and restrain that government from abridging rights retained by the people, and then turn about and violate those very rights that their own respective constitutions also state are retained by the people?

Would not that be incongruent and a violation of a principle aspect of covenant?

Does it not border on insanity, if it is not very insane, for parties to agree that the general government will not, and indeed has no power to abridge certain rights, and then walk away and state to themselves respectively “Though I have restrained my creature from abridgement of individual rights, I myself may violate those very rights whensoever I please.”?

Hence, it is a principle of covenant that whatsoever is bound up in the instrument, the parties to that instrument are also bound to observe and abide by.

Having established the application of the one of the principles of covenant and demonstrating how it applies to both the Federal Government and the Several States, let us then turn our attention again to the 14th Amendment and what Section 1 actually accomplishes.

We should see and understand that, by the principles of covenant, it is unnecessary for Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to exist. Additionally, if we examine the text of Section 1 again:

“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

And then examine Article IV, Section 2 of the Federal Constitution:

Section. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

We find that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is merely restating what is already determined, in much broader terminology, in the body of the Constitution.

To what purpose is Section 1 of the 14th Amendment then? After all, if we follow the logic and thinking of the Founders, we find no need for this portion of the 14th Amendment, just like there is actually no need for the Bill of Rights, as foretold by Mr Iredell:

“A bill of rights, as I conceive, would the case, not only be incongruous, but dangerous. No man, let his ingenuity be what it will, could enumerate all the individual rights not relinquished by this Constitution. Suppose, therefore, an enumeration of a great many, but an omission of some, and that, long after all traces of our present disputes were at an end, any of the omitted rights should be invaded, and the invasion be complained of; what would be the plausible answer of the government to such a complaint? Would they not naturally say, “We live at a great distance from the time when this Constitution was established. We can judge of it much better by the ideas of it entertained at the time, than by any ideas of our own. The bill of rights, passed at that time, showed that the people did not think every power retained which was not given, else this bill of rights was not only useless, but absurd. But we are not at liberty to charge an absurdity upon our ancestors, who have given such strong proofs of their good sense, as well as their attachment to liberty. So long as the rights enumerated in the bill of rights remain unviolated, you have no reason to complain. This is not one of them.” Thus a bill of rights – might operate as a snare rather than a protection.”⁶

No only have the words of Mr. Iredell come true, but those in the Federal and state governments have gone further and violated even those rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, because the very way they interpret the respective Constitutions has changed. What Section 1 of the 14th Amendment did accomplish, whether intentional or not, was a change in the very way the Constitution is interpreted.

Those who framed and ratified the 14th Amendment demonstrated that they did not believe in the principles of covenant relationship and that certain powers were granted to the government and all others retained, in that they began (with the 13th Amendment) to include the following statement in the text of the amendment:

“The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

Now, what is the point of granting power to an entity to perform a function, and then not granting them the means to do so? Or, saying “Though we have said you have the power do this thing, because we did not expressly state we enabled you to do, you cannot do it.”

Now, who is it that makes the laws under the Constitution anyway? What branch of the Federal Government is granted the exclusive power to draft laws and bring them into existence, carrying the full authority of the United States? Even if the President vetoes a particular bill, if the legislature overrides his veto, it still becomes law. To what point then is the statement “The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”?

I can only conceive of one: That the whole way of thinking about the Federal Constitution and interpretation of the same changed — and changed radically.

This is the only thing that fits with the restatement, in the 14th Amendment, of Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution itself: that Amendments now no longer simply supersede all parts of the document they affect. But, are simply considered addendums to the body, not amending the body, but adding to. Moreover, that the granting of power no longer conveys with it the requisite ability to exercise that power, but they are artificially divorced one from the other. Even so, this applies to powers retained: That those rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights where not simply certain rights carefully chosen and enumerated due to their great value, which were retained by the people along with other rights not enumerated, but are rights granted to the people by the Constitution itself.

Here then we find the whole thinking of the Founders turned on its head, and the vast majority of individuals in the United States accepting a concept and idea totally alien and foreign to the Founders and an anathema to the principles that are foundational to the form of government brought into existence by the founders of this nation.

1. The Origin of the Second Amendment, pp. 491-493, David E. Young, Golden Oak Books, 1991, citing Debates, IV, pp. 137-138, 140-141, 148-149. [↩]
2. The Virginia Resolution opposing the Alien and Sedition Acts [↩]
3. The Kentucky Resolution opposing the Alien and Sedition Acts [↩]
4. The Kentucky Resolution opposing the Alien and Sedition Acts [↩]
5. The Virginia Resolution opposing the Alien and Sedition Acts [↩]
6. The Origin of the Second Amendment, pp. 491-493, David E. Young, Golden Oak Books, 1991, citing Debates, IV, pp. 137-138, 140-141, 148-149. [↩]

Kindly tell me what is lacking for this man to be a totalitarian dictator?

Watch the video clip (its only 35 seconds long). Then come back and tell me if this man does not have ALL the ingredients to be a dictator on the order of Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc.?

Obama At Health Care Summit: “I Don’t Count My Time Because I’m The President”

Apparently Obama has NEVER heard that NO ONE is above the law, the rules of debate, or civility.

There again, he probably has. And, like all dictator wannabes, just doesn’t give a rip.

From a comment left yesterday by “Paladin.”

“If the US Constitution was not intended to apply against the states, why do the States have to “ratify” it?  If they aren’t bound by it, what’s the purpose of ratification?

How do you explain that something designated as “the supreme law of the Land” is not a restriction on State governments.

What do the following excerpts from Article VI mean then?

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
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; ….”

Inquiring mind of freedom would like to know.”

I would be curious Paladin, to know where you obtain the language “to apply against the states.” That is strange construction to apply to the Federal Constitution. Nonetheless, an answer is in order since you either seek to discredit what I wrote or truly do not understand the legal principles that are the foundation of the constitutional system. In either case, understanding is lacking and that needs to be rectified.

Without citation, the following is a brief explanation as to what constitutions are, and how they are supposed to work.

Constitutions are formed out of the “social compact” theory of government. (Well, since it is in actual practice, it is really no longer theory.)

The social compact doctrine is built on the principles of covenant relationship, in which members of society covenant together to create an entity (the government) that is able to perform tasks that are impossible for the individuals themselves, in their single capacity, to perform. (Ref. John Locke, Second Treatise of Government)

However, there is a point in which physical boundaries, societal commonality, and other similar factors limit the effectiveness of individuals to covenant together. Hence, we find the rise of the state government.

The governments of the several states, themselves being created by the people and composed of individuals, yet acting as single entities, replicated the social compact doctrine on a larger scale to create a federal government that is defined by the covenant they (the several states) agreed to.

It is this agreeing to the covenant, or compact, which is the Federal Constitution, that is the process we call ratification. This ratification brings into existence a legal instrument that is binding upon the parties agreeing to the instrument, and upon the entity created by the instrument. However, how the states and the Federal government are bound is not the same.

There is a fundamental difference in how the creators of the instrument are bound, versus how the creation of that instrument is bound. We should note the instances in which the Founders referenced that powers were “delegated” to the Federal Government by the several States through the mechanism of the Federal Constitution.

It is not reasonable to assert that once power is delegated, it can also, at once and the same time, be retained by the one delegating the power. Hence, certain powers are given up by the several states and delegated to the Federal Government, so that the Federal Government may perform functions that are far to difficult for the several states individually to perform. If we use here the illustration of power of attorney, we can well understand the confusion that would reign by someone granting power of attorney to another, and then retaining that same power of attorney and acting upon it whensoever one felt compelled to do so. It certainly would not work if I grant another power of attorney to sell my automobile, and then, after power of attorney is granted, I turn around and attempt to sell my car myself. Of what use was that instrument of power of attorney in the first place? Why did I execute it, if I intended to undercut it at the first opportunity?

It is an absurdity to delegate powers, and then assert that you retain the powers you just agreed to delegate to another. Hence, the process of ratification is extremely important to the several states. After all, what powers and functions should they grant to another? What powers and functions are appropriate for a Federal  Government? What is too much power and what is too little power?

By the above discussion, we should be able to understand that the instrument that brought about the Federal Government (the U.S. Constitution) must contain some provisions that declare it superior to the laws of all parties agreeing thereto. After all, they agreed to give up certain powers and retain others, and the retained powers cannot conflict with the delegated powers. To insure there is no conflict, some instrument must be declared superior to others, else again confusion will reign, and all effort is wasted.

Here, we should note a significance: If a state chooses not to be party to the compact called the Federal Constitution, then that state is not bound by the few provisions in the Constitution that address what States may not do, but that state is also not granted protection under the Constitution either.

The long and short of it is that states must ratify the Federal Constitution else the covenant is not agreed to, and thus null and void. Moreover, in delegating certain powers, it is essential that all parties to that covenant agree to not exercise themselves in the powers delegated, and when laws are passed pursuant to the exercise of those delegated powers by the created entity (the Federal Government), that they are bound by those laws.

There is yet one additional aspect to consider before leaving off this brief discussion: the issue of continuance in being a party to sustaining that legal instrument designated the U.S. Constitution. It is a principle in law that when power of attorney is executed, the provisions set down in the document determine the duration of that power of attorney. Generally, powers of attorney are for the attaining of a set object, or for a set duration. Hence those powers of attorney cannot be arbitrarily revoked unless the one granted such power engages in misconduct to the point of rendering themselves unfit to retain the power of attorney before the object of the power of attorney is accomplished. However, when a power of attorney does not define a set object or duration, but is granted solely at the discretion of the grantor for purposes beneficial to the grantor, then the grantor of that power of attorney is free to revoke the power of attorney whenever it becomes a liability and not a benefit.

Hence, the several states are parties to the instrument designated the U.S. Constitution, for the creation of a federal government to accomplish ends beneficent to them both individually and collectively. However, since no power was delegated in the instrument to compel any party to maintain continuance as a party to that instrument, then whensoever that instrument becomes more a liability than a benefit to any party to the instrument, that party is free to withdraw from the instrument without penalty of law, since there is no law created whereby they may be compelled to maintain an interest in the instrument (the Constitution). However, in so doing, they also divest themselves of the benefits of that instrument at the moment they withdraw from the instrument.

It should be noted (as discussed previously) that no part or parcel of the Federal Government is free to go beyond the strict bounds of the instrument that created and governs it.

Thus we have the basic reasons set forth as to why the states must ratify the instrument which is the U.S. Constitution and why they are bound by certain limited provisions in the instrument — and, how the Federal Government is far more bound by the Constitution than any of the several states. The Federal Government is nowhere free to leave the bounds of the Constitution, being a creation of it. But the states are free to divest themselves of their interest in the instrument whensoever it becomes more a liability than a benefit.