At the dawn of America’s independence, her newly formed government was populated with reluctant leaders; statesmen in the truest sense of the word.  Whereas in today’s world, such statesmanship is practically an anathema; for those who do exhibit statesmen-like principle are often ridiculed, for their strict opposition to the unprincipled, morally bankrupt, tactics of today’s political movements.

The Hypocrisy of the Ruling Party

“I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.”

- Thomas Jefferson

In contemporary American society, there is a considerable hubris and hypocrisy, exhibited by the ruling party and supporters of this party; whether it be Republican or Democrat.  Both parties claim to be adherents of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, yet both parties unapologetically denigrate these foundational principles at virtually every opportunity.

It is as if the principles of equal protection under the law, upon which our republic was founded, have been discarded in favor of a democracy in which favored groups are rewarded using protection rackets and money powers to govern.

American society is ever becoming like many ancient societies, where the national government becomes the centerpiece of everyone’s lives.  They use bread and circuses to keep the people occupied, such that they do not object to the gradual takeover and subjugation of an individual’s right to self-determination.

Some-day in the near future, it may be virtually impossible to make a decent living in America, without working directly for the government or as a contractor of the government.  This merging of the corporations with the government is the very definition of Industrial Fascism.

The Immorality of Unconstitutional Spending

“This I hope will be the age of experiments in government, and that their basis will be founded in principles of honesty, not of mere force.” — Thomas Jefferson

If you consider the extent to which we are taxed and scrutinized, as well as the legal definition of Citizen of the United States, then we are already employees of United States; because in legalese the term Citizen is held to mean Employee. This is how the government gets away with the so-called Income Tax, despite the fact that direct un-apportioned taxes are expressly forbidden in the Constitution. In fact many Americans are already working 3+ months out of the year to pay for the taxes they are compelled to pay by the government. Read the rest of this entry »

One of the biggest problems in America today derives from the fact that most of the people, from the boomer generation on, haven’t a clue of the purpose of the Constitution of the United States of America. They tremble in fear at the thought of law abiding citizens possessing guns; while they have no objection at the 100,000+ federal government officials who have guns and use them to compel people to conform to questionable laws, which often undermine the Constitution and the protections afforded to the individual under law.

The original purpose of the second amendment was to protect the individual from possible tyranny of the Congress. If you need any confirmation of what happens when the people are disarmed; just look at Iran, China and the U.K. In all of these situations the people are severely limited in their ability to exercise free speech; their liberties are also curtailed to such an extent that life has become quite difficult to live without government intrusion.

Indeed, we are headed in the same direction as the countries mentioned in the United States of America; but I firmly believe the pace is slowed and the lines are drawn, by the fact that the citizenry are well armed and there is a facet of the population, however small, who understands the need to safeguard liberty from all enemies foreign and domestic.

The fact is, these leftists (and there are leftists on both sides of the aisle), while they may be well meaning in many cases; they are undoing what took centuries of struggle and bloodshed to achieve. If only they would read and understand the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and the other writings of the founding fathers; they wouldn’t dare attempt to curtail liberty and build a larger and more invasive government.

Alas, they do not understand the protections afforded to an individual, or the reason for them; they are content in their self-righteous crusade to abolish the protection of the individual by undermining the original intent of the founders of the republic. I find it truly disheartening to see intelligent people supporting universal health care, gun controls, cap and trade energy taxes and the like; I know from these policies that they have not a shred of understanding of why the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were authored; or why the founding members of our society sought to fight off the influence of the red coats.

My suggestion to leftists who don’t care for the original intend of the Bill of Rights, is to spend some time in countries where there are no protections for individuals; in fact, move there if you like tyranny so much.  Instead of trashing the liberties and the economy of the last great stronghold of liberty, just move to a place that has already been sacked like England, where you can be watched from dawn ’till dusk on CCTV cameras and you can wait months to get treatments using the “free” health care.

The Liberal Fear of Guns

By Jacob Hornberger | Campaign For Liberty

Liberal columnist David Sirota is scared, and he believes that the First Amendment is intended to eliminate his fear. In a column entitled “Freedom from Fear — and the Second Amendment,” Sirota argues that because some people get scared when they see guns and think that the gun owner is going to shoot them if they say the wrong thing, the Second Amendment is a threat to the First Amendment. Read the rest of this entry »

We must maintain our liberties. We must fight corruption wherever it lie. We must help others to realize that the Constitution of the united States of America must remain true to its original intent.

Our predecessors fought off the forces of the British crown, while our contemporaries kneel down and kiss their rings. They wrongly confiscate our monies through “income taxes” and “inflation,” then send it to the wall-street elite, who cannot produce anything of real value.

This America of today is overrun with minions, doing the bidding of the king. Grateful to him as they beg him to relinquish every liberty and every form of real wealth they hold dear. If there isn’t a real change, some day in the near future, we may find that all of our choices are made by the ruling government authorities; and we are not able to venture off on our own and live the way we choose.

We’re losing a little each day, of what made us a great people. The saddest part is the mind numbing complacency, as the people of today watch it all go away; seldom a word is said in condemnation.

The solution to this dilemma is quite simple, we needn’t fear nor hide. All we must do is uphold the Constitutional values of our founders, and realize that liberty lives in each of us; as we are the sole enforcers of the Constitutional law that forms the foundation of our people.

The meaning of the Constitution was never meant to be decided by an elite court, a president, or a body of politicians. The meaning is plain and clear, on the document itself. It defines the role of government and how we can best conduct our affairs, to ensure the protection of the individual, above all; not special groups or professions.

So, it is incumbent upon us all, to enforce the Constitution, by refusing to go along with corrupt practices, that violate these founding principles.

At one time men would die for liberty. Did it ever occur to us today, to gain an understanding, of why the preservation of liberty is so essential?

Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death

Listen to the Audio Version of this Speech

March 23, 1775
By Patrick Henry

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

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

The following is a discussion, by a die hard supporter of liberty and freedom, on the absolute necessity of liberty and the difficult road that lie ahead, for anyone who seeks to preserve liberty and freedom.

Nick Bradley | LewRockwell.com
June 11, 2007

Contrary to popular belief, history has repeatedly shown that societies do not need full-time, government-funded militaries to defend themselves – a heavily-armed populace will suffice. Let us look at Switzerland. Since 1291, Switzerland has defended itself through the use of a heavily-armed populace and a robust militia. Throughout the past 800 years, the Swiss citizenry has defended their liberty against threats both foreign and domestic. Read the rest of this entry »

The Judge decided to file the appeal for Ed and Elaine Brown, the same appeal that he denied several months ago. I wonder what kind of a stunt he is trying to pull now.

from Ed and Elaine’s MySpace Blog
We had a call come in this morning. Sorry that I have taken so long to get this to you all…

If you have been reading the blog here then you already know that the judge filed the appeal on Ed and Elaine’s behalf.

The sources that came in today tell us that the judge realizes that he misjudged the lawfulness of the IRS and the federal income tax. Which is why he, himself (the judge mind you!), filed the appeal for the Browns’ case. Read the rest of this entry »

Mac Johnson | HumanEvents.com

Tragedy struck leftists all across America last week when a federal appeals court reviewing the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, ruled that the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed upon by the District. The court’s inexplicable ruling was based on a “radical” interpretation of the recently rediscovered 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads:

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.

According to the Washington Post, which upon hearing of the decision had a small editorial seizure it called “A Dangerous Ruling,” the court’s plain reading of the Bill of Rights has given “a new and dangerous meaning to the 2nd Amendment.” Apparently, when the Post reads the amendment according to the ancient and safe interpretation (which goes all the way back to the 1970s) all it sees is:

The Population of the nanny State, being composed of irresponsible rednecks, rejects, and retards, must not be allowed to have Arms.

“[T]his radical ruling will inevitably mean more people killed and wounded as keeping guns out of the city becomes harder,” the Post continued, sagely foreseeing a day in the near future when the district might not be the safe gunfree enclave of sanity that it now is. One wonders if D.C. might someday even become the murder capital of the United States without its protective cloak of gun control disarming its law-abiding citizens. Read the rest of this entry »

Plainly put, the Honorable Ron Paul is America’s last hope for a nonviolent end to the oppressive and suicidal policies that have been set in motion in the last few generations by leaders who amount to little more than glorified demagogues. He is a congressman from Galveston, Texas who has proven his regard for the Constitution, The Bill of Rights and his love of the founding principles upon which these United States are built upon.

He has recently announced that he is running for President in the 2008 elections, he will be running in the Republican primaries so that he can, perhaps, get a chance at the Oval Office. If you are not familiar with him, I hope you will take a minute to review a few short talks by Congressman Paul. I think you will see, as many others have, that he is a fine statesman and a natural leader. Read the rest of this entry »

Visit any shopping center, sporting event or restaurant and think about what you see there. Do you think that, as long as these people are contented with games and food, that they will care about the gradual erosion of liberty and the incremental increases in the power of the president?

After a rare stroll through the shopping mall yesterday, I came to this conclusion; nobody knows or cares about what is happening. Those who do find it necessary to pay attention, are generally caught up in the phony left-right paradigm and fail to see that the government is using this paradigm to destroy the constitution and bill of rights. Read the rest of this entry »

In this excerpt, Bushladin uses the constitution to justify illegal wire taps. He also confuses Osama Bin Laden with Saddam Heussein.Lets see now, which manufactured enemy am I referring to in this answer, aha!

The American people take in this Orwellian double speak without questioning… What is the motivating factor behind all of Bush’s reasons? FEAR.

He always says September 11 this, September 11 that, we have to protect our freedoms from others who want to harm us…

9/11 doesn’t give this man the right to abrogate the constitution. Where in the document does it give the president the authority to order wiretaps without court approval? Why doesn’t he cite the amendment? Are there now “secret” amendments, sort of like the “secret” provisions of the patriot act?

The fact is, these wiretaps are strictly forbidden; Bush is using classic Orwellian doublespeak to mask this and make himself seem officially “correct.”

In George Orwell’s novel, 1984, there are no laws; people are simply taken away for whatever reason the government sees fit. It appears as if this may be happening in the United States; indeed it is a plague which is sweeping through the western world.

Press Conference of the President

…
Question: Mr. President, thank you, sir. Are you going to order a leaks investigation into the disclosure of the NSA surveillance program? And why did you skip the basic safeguard of asking courts for permission for these intercepts?

THE PRESIDENT: Let me start with the first question. There is a process that goes on inside the Justice Department about leaks, and I presume that process is moving forward. My personal opinion is it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we’re discussing this program is helping the enemy.

You’ve got to understand — and I hope the American people understand — there is still an enemy that would like to strike the United States of America, and they’re very dangerous. And the discussion about how we try to find them will enable them to adjust. Now, I can understand you asking these questions and if I were you, I’d be asking me these questions, too.

But it is a shameful act by somebody who has got secrets of the United States government and feels like they need to disclose them publicly.

Let me give you an example about my concerns about letting the enemy know what may or may not be happening. In the late 1990s, our government was following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of telephone. And then the fact that we were following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of telephone made it into the press as the result of a leak. And guess what happened? Saddam — Osama bin Laden changed his behavior. He began to change how he communicated.

We’re at war, and we must protect America’s secrets. And so the Justice Department, I presume, will proceed forward with a full investigation. I haven’t ordered one, because I understand there’s kind of a natural progression that will take place when this kind of leak emerges.

The second part of the question is? Sorry — I gave a long answer.

Question: It was, why did you skip the basic safeguards of asking courts for permission for the intercepts?

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I — right after September the 11th, I knew we were fighting a different kind of war. And so I asked people in my administration to analyze how best for me and our government to do the job people expect us to do, which is to detect and prevent a possible attack.

That’s what the American people want. We looked at the possible scenarios. And the people responsible for helping us protect and defend came forth with the current program, because it enables us to move faster and quicker. And that’s important. We’ve got to be fast on our feet, quick to detect and prevent.

We use FISA still — you’re referring to the FISA court in your question — of course, we use FISAs. But FISA is for long-term monitoring. What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to detect.

Now, having suggested this idea, I then, obviously, went to the question, is it legal to do so? I am — I swore to uphold the laws. Do I have the legal authority to do this? And the answer is, absolutely. As I mentioned in my remarks, the legal authority is derived from the Constitution, as well as the authorization of force by the United States Congress.