A Constitutional Sized Problem

Posted By on June 24, 2016

In this day and age of political correctness, overreaching big government, and political corruption out the ying-yang, sometimes it’s good to get a little simplicity. Most of the time, these simple things hide in plain site and most of us overlook them. When we’re looking for complex solutions, or problems we almost certainly look for the complex answer to them.

For those of us old enough to remember word problems in Math class, we can clearly remember the times we got sucked into working out a long solution to a problem when the answer was right there. Often in Facebook we find these simple problems posted, just to discover who will actually get the correct answer.

Well, the same holds true within the Constitution. In our attempts to restore, or recover the Constitutional principles in our Federal Government of the United States, we will do the same thing. Yes, I’m just as guilty. We reach into the archives of the past and read the archaic language of the writings of the Founding Fathers, “The Federalist Papers,” “The Anti-Federalist Papers,” the minutes of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the writings of James Madison, George Washington, the early Congressional Records. Okay, I am probably very unique, as I consider all of these sources to help with obtaining an original understanding of the Constitution before it was corrupted in the Twentieth Century.

One day, while reading the Constitution, probably in preparation for one of these articles, one of those little, simple thing hit me like a bolt of lightning. Could it possibly be that simple? Initially, I was very perplexed, and thought it couldn’t be that easy. So, I sat on it, just let it “stew” for a while.

We in the community of those who believe in the strict interpretation of the Constitution cite many different sources. We assert the claim that the Constitution was intended for Federal Government, to keep it small and in check to the greater power of the States. There are numerous times we refer to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, showing how those powers and rights not mentioned in the Constitution are reserved for the people and the States. We pursue the logical conclusion that the greater powers were reserved for the States.

But the Civil War changed all of that. Okay, okay, the “War of Northern Aggression.” (I really love how they address this was in Charleston, SC… “The Most Recent Unpleasantness.”) This singular event in American history did more to begin the destruction the power of the States than anything that preceded it.

“This is nice, David, but get to the point! And make it quick, before you lose my attention.”Constitution_Pg1of4_AC

In schools, colleges, universities, the halls of the political world, the meeting rooms of grassroots organizations, private conversations, and on and on, the Constitution is often mentioned. When it’s mentioned we invariably use the full phrase, “The Constitution of the United States.” But, take a closer look, there is no title or name on the original version. (This image was downloaded from The National Archives website.) We don’t see the title “Constitution of the United States” inscribed across the top. Rather, we are struck by the very large size of “We the People.” In fact, “We the People” is the largest phrase printed in the entire document. Yes, “We the People” is the most important phrase in the entire document.

Okay, I know, you all knew that, but this isn’t what I found. The very importantsimple discovery resides on the third line. I know, this image is hard to read, so, I’ll make it easy for us. Here are the words of the Preamble:

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

Did you notice what I’m referring to? (Okay, English majors, I know, I ended the sentence with a preposition. VERY bad. Get over it.) But, again, did you see the simple item to which I’m referring?

Here let me make it obvious, “…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” This is so simple, no wonder it is overlooked.

We’ve been conditioned to call it “The Constitution OF the United States,” from our earliest days that is what we hear. Constitutional “experts” use the phrase interminably, “The Constitution OF the United States.” The media repeats it by rote, “The Constitution OF the United States.” The oaths of office for every federal employee, politician and member of the Armed Forces contain the phrase “…protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Don’t get all up in a tizzy, I am well aware the last item comes FROM the Constitution. In fact, I copied it from the last paragraph of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

But, it is that phrase within the Preamble which makes a huge difference in our understanding. The simple difference between the two words “of” and “for.” “Of” is defined as, “2 a — used as a function word to indicate origin or derivation.”(1) In modern terms, we can truly understand this. I am the son of my parents, I originated from them. This is the same understanding most people have regarding the Constitution. It is the Constitution of the United States. It originated, and came from the government, BUT that is an incorrect understanding.

The word “for” is quite different:

1 a —used as a function word to indicate purpose
b —used as a function word to indicate an intended goal (2)

“For” indicates almost the exact opposite of “of” when dealing with direction of intent. “For” indicates going toward something, from something else.

In the case we are looking at here, “…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America,” reveals that the Constitution came from “We the People” through our States, and was given to the government. Again, the government did not give us the Constitution, rather, we gave it to it. We are the ultimate authorities as to what the Constitution says, and means, and NOT the other way around.

Now, to that sticky phrase in the oaths of office.

Once the government was established, as a result of our representatives in the State governments approving and ratifying the “Constitution FOR the United States,” the Federal Government became an entity. It had a document telling IT how to function. Now, the elected officials, employees and military became members of that governmental entity. Therefore, when I took the oath of office, I was stating that I would abide by, adhere to, and protect the integrity of the document the citizens had given to instruct me in the limits of the government. The Constitution is the government’s mission statement.

But, that does not change its point of origin, or who is its higher power. That higher power was, is and always will be “We the People” and the States which gave the government its “marching orders,” its “mission,” its “limitations,” it “restrictions,” and how it works. “We the People” are the final arbitors of the Constitution, and NOT the Congress, the Executive Branch, or the Judicial Branch. “We the People… do ordain and establish this Constitution FOR the United States.”

(1) “Of.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 23 June 2016.

(2) “For.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 23 June 2016.

Thoughts on the Oath of Office

Posted By on June 13, 2013

When I launched this site I did so with a dedicated commitment to the Oath of Office I have been required to take a number of times in my life; first upon enlisting in the US Navy (and a couple of times more there), then when I became an employee of the Department of Defense working at the Charleston Naval Shipyard. You can read more about my thoughts on the About page of this site.

Recently a friend from my Navy days posted his thoughts on the Oath on facebook. Rocko (not his real name as he has requested anonymity) and I first met while at Tech School and became great friends. While I only served six years, Rocko went on to serve over 28 years. His was an illustrious career rising through the enlisted ranks, then becoming an officer. In his post Rocko echoes my sentiments perfectly.

Rocko in honor of your service, our friendship and our shared love of the Constitution I share your thoughts:

“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.”

Read this Oath and read it again. Then say it out loud! Contemplate it to try to understand it!

The very first line is no longer taken seriously (“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States”)… and many mouth the words that never make it to their heads for cognitive recognition and understanding. To enact laws that violate the Bill Of Rights and to operate a secretive intelligence operation that blatantly violates the Bill Of Rights is contrary to the Oath!

I would rather that they not take the Oath, than to break it and explain it away as giving up Liberty for Security! (Which, by the way, does not make it Okay.) By accepting this reasoning, The Lap-Dog-Media and Low-Information-Voters deserve neither. Unfortunately, soon we will all get neither!

I end with the last part… “and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.” Faithfully discharging the duties of your office (including the lowest member of the Armed Forces, which have the words “Obey the orders of the Officers appointed over me” (If those Officers are faithful to the office and the Constitution) [This] cannot be performed if you fail to understand and fulfill the first line!

Thank you, again, Rocko. I will honor our friendship for years to come.

Confederated States

Posted By on May 30, 2013

While much has been said in recent years regarding the nature of the early American Republic, much has remained hidden or even unspoken. As I continue my tutelage under the writings of St. George Tucker I uncover more and more wisdom from this shining light of the first generation of Americans that has been hidden under a basket, as it were. Often, and even worse, we hear historians, politicians, lawyers and common citizens attempting to compare, or even worse define the American Republic to earlier governments.

But the American revolution has formed a new epoch in the history of civil institutions, by reducing to practice, what, before, had been supposed to exist only in the visionary speculations of theoretical writers …. The world, for the first time since the annals of its inhabitants began, saw an original written compact formed by the free and deliberate voices of individuals disposed to unite in the same social bonds; thus exhibiting a political phenomenon unknown to former ages. (Note A, Tucker’s Blackstone)

How often have we compared our governmental form, that originally constructed within the Constitution with say the Roman Republic or Greece? How often have we heard that democracies only survive for two hundred years? How often have I, we heard others attempt to apply historic lessons from other nations to our own?

For me, the above reveal the lack of understanding of those listening to me speak, or attempting to establish their knowledge of history. On one hand I am provided an opportunity to educate and provide a better understanding, while on the other I am confronting an individual who professes, yet lack it.

We must understand that the American Constitution established something “unknown to former ages.” This type of government never, and I repeat never existed or was practiced in any nation in the world. There are those who would cite Rome and Greece, but again it must be understood that our founders, and the framers of the Constitution rejected these patterns, and eventually only incorporated a name, “Senate,” from either of these. The American Senate bears no resemblance to that of Rome. Our founders saw these two examples as wholly inadequate for a society of free men.

The foundations of the American States were laid in their respective colonial charters: with the revolution they ceased to be colonies, and became independent and sovereign republics, under a democratic form of government. (Note B, Section III, Tucker’s Blackstone)

What an interesting comment by Mr. Tucker. The “colonies… became independent and sovereign republics,” that is nations. The new nation-states of the North American continent joined together for common defense, and with a common purpose, to be free of the domination and tyranny of Great Britain.

There are those who will attempt to declare these states eventually subjugated themselves to the new Federal government, but these are only the voices of the present and not the past. There is not a single solitary voice among the first generations of Americans who would have espoused this position, in the North or South. And herein lies the basis of my statements in the past regarding how we cannot find an example of it being stated that the Federal government was sovereign.

Blackstone in his commentary (Vol. 1 page 49) writes:

By the sovereign power, is meant the making of laws; and wherever that power resides, all others must conform to and be directed by it, whatever appearance the outward form and administration of justice may put on.

This is the current model and function of the American government, but it is in contradistinction to that provided by the founders. Let’s go back to Tucker:

…the sovereignty of the people, and the responsibility of their servants are principles fundamentally, and unequivocally, established; in which the powers of the several branches of government are defined, and the excess of them, as well in the legislature, as in the other branches, finds limits, which cannot be transgressed without offending against that greater power from whom all authority, among us, is derived; to wit, the PEOPLE. (Note A, Tucker’s Blackstone)

Thus, we see the Federal government is limited in what it can and cannot do by the definition of powers and limitations provided within the Constitution, and as a result the Federal government has no sovereignty since it must answer to the true sovereigns of the land. True sovereignty requires the ability to legislate on any subject without restraint. Further, Tucker continues;

As these powers, on the one hand, are extended to certain objects, as to lay and collect taxes, duties, &c.so on the other they are clearly limited and restrained; as that no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state …. nor any preference given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another, &c.These, and several others, are objects to which the power of the legislature does not extend… (Note A, Tucker’s Blackstone)

But most telling is what Tucker writes as he continues the above:

…and should congress be so unwise as to pass an act contrary to these restrictions, the other powers of the state are not bound to obey the legislative power in the execution of their several functions, as our author expresses it: but the very reverse is their duty, being sworn to support the constitution, which unless they do in opposition to such encroachments, the constitution would indeed be at an end. (Note A, Tucker’s Blackstone)  Emphasis added

Thus the power and authority of the Federal government is constrained by the States and the people. Thus we see from Tucker that the States were “independent and sovereign republics and the people were the “greater power from whom all authority… is derived.” The Federal government was intended to only be a functionary of the States and the people with very specific, defined and limited powers.

Finally, Tucker’s closing paragraph to Note A is probably the most telling. I conclude with this paragraph and only add some bolding to emphasize the above statements:

Here then we must resort to a distinction which the institution and nature of our government has introduced into the western hemisphere; which, however, can only obtain in governments where power is not usurped but delegated, and where authority is a trust and not a right …. nor can it ever be truly ascertained where there is not a written constitution to resort to. A distinction, nevertheless, which certainly does exist between the indefinite and unlimited power of the people, in whom the sovereignty of these states, ultimately, substantially, and unquestionably resides, and the definite powers of the congress and state legislatures, which are severally limited to certain and determinate objects, being no more than emanations from the former, where, and where only, that legislative essence which constitutes sovereignty can be found.


Former President Protection

Posted By on May 23, 2013

Okay everyone I just had a crazy question come to mind from nowhere, and I need your help.

Has there ever been a threat against a former president of the United States, let alone an assassination attempt? For my part I cannot think of a single reported one. Additionally, this protection is extended to the spouses of the former president for their entire lifetimes, AND their children until age 16. Why? Most importantly, we will never know the cost of this service as they are kept secret.

With no known threat OR attempt is this simply a means of extending the imperial presidency?

Come on people make your comments. Am I missing something here?

Commentary on British Government from 1803

Posted By on May 22, 2013

Posts comparing the modern US Congress and the Parliament of the 1700’s continue to be the most frequently visited posts on this site. What drives this interest? What is compelling search after search attracting people to this site? I am honored and intrigued to discover that when I enter the search “congress and parliament of the 1700” in Google and Bing the top two returns are two of the articles I’ve written.

Note: The articles available online here are; “Congress & Parliament of the 1700’s”, “More on Congress and Parliament of the 1700’s” and “The English Government of the 1700’s”.

There is a plethora of information available on the British government, and its make up during the Revolutionary and early Constitutional periods. Yet, sadly, still the American public in general remains woefully ignorant of the subject. This ignorance is then translated into a lack of a more complete understanding of the causes of the American War for Independence (1775-1783). This lack of understanding translates into the often repeated maxim of American philosopher George Santayana, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” So, our lack of understanding and knowledge of our past is causing us to repeat the past by allowing our government to become the very incarnation of that which was rejected in the Revolution.

I have found a source who quotes a book written by James Mackintosh, a British citizen, in 1791. The following excerpt is used by permission and can be found online at Tucker’s Commentary on Blackstone, Note B. And followed up with some of Tucker’s commentary:

“It is perhaps susceptible of proof,” says this nervous writer, “that these governments of balance and control have never existed but in the visions of theorists. The fairest example will be the constitution of England. If it can be proved that the two members of the legislature who pretend to control each other are ruled by the same class of men, the control must be granted to be imaginary. That opposition of interest which is supposed to preclude all conspiracy against the people can no longer exist. That this is the state of England, the most superficial observation must evince. The great proprietors, tided and untitled, possess the whole force of both houses of parliament, that is not immediately dependent on the crown. The peers have a great influence in the house of commons. All political parties are formed by a confederacy of the members of both houses. The court party by the influence of the crown, acting equally in both, supported by a part of the independent aristocracy: The opposition by the remainder of the aristocracy, whether commoners, or lords. Here is every symptom of collusion: no vestige of control. The only case where it could arise, is where the interest of the peerage, is distinct from that of the other great proprietors.”

“Who can, without indignation,” adds the same writer, “hear the house of commons of England called a popular representative? A more insolent and preposterous abuse of language is not to be found in the vocabulary of tyrants. The criterion that distinguishes laws from dictates, freedom from servitude, rightful government from usurpation, the law being an expression of the general will is wanting. This is the grievance which the admirers of the revolution in 1688, desire to remedy according to its principles. This is that perennial source of corruption, which has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished. If the general interest is not the object of the government, it is, it must be, because the general will does not govern. We are boldly challenged to produce our proofs: our complaints are asserted to be chimerical, and the excellence of our government is inferred from its beneficial effects. Most unfortunately for us, most unfortunately for our country, these proofs are too ready, and too numerous. We find them in that monumental debt, the bequest of wasteful, and profligate wars, which wrings from the peasant something of his hard-earned pittance; which already has punished the industry of the useful and upright manufacturer, by robbing him of the asylum of his house, and the judgment of his peers: to which the madness of political quixotism [sic] adds a million for every farthing that the pomp of ministerial empyricism [sic] pays; and which menaces our children with convulsions and calamities, of which no age has seen the parallel. We find them in the bloody roll of persecuting statutes that are still suffered to stain our code; a list so execrable, that were there no monument to be preserved of what England was in the eighteenth century, but her statute-book, she might be deemed still plunged in the deepest gloom of superstitious barbarism. We find them in the ignominious exclusion of great bodies of our fellow citizens from political trusts, by tests which reward falsehood, and punish probity; which profane the rites of the religion they pretend to guard, and usurp the dominion of the God, they profess to revere. We find them in the growing corruptions of those who administer the government, in the venality of a house of commons which has become only a cumbrous and expensive chamber for registering ministerial edicts …. in the increase of a nobility arrived to a degradation, by the profusion and prostitution of honours [sic], which the most zealous partizans [sic] of democracy would have spared them. We find them, above all, in the rapid progress which has been made to silence the great organ of public opinion, the Press, which is the true control on ministers and parliaments, who might else, with impunity, trample on the impotent formalities, that form the pretended bulwark of our freedom …. The mutual control, the well-poised balance of the several members of our legislature, are the visions of theoretical, or the pretexts of practical politicians. It is a government not of check, but of conspiracy …. a conspiracy which can only be repressed by the energy of popular opinion.”

If this be a true picture of the government of Great Britain (and whether it is or not, I shall leave it to others to enquire [sic] and determine,) the epoch can not [sic] be far distant, which Judge Blackstone hints at in the introduction to his commentaries. If ever it should happen” says that enlightened author “that the independence of any one of the three branches of the legislature should be lost, or that it should become subservient to the views of either of the other two, there would soon be an end of the constitution.” In which case, according to Sir Matthew Hale, the subjects of that kingdom are left without all manner of remedy.

Such, then, being the history of the British constitution, the most perfect model of these mixt governments, (as agreed on all hands by their admirers, and advocates,) that the world ever saw, we may apply to them generally, the observations of an excellent politician of the last century. “If all the parts of the state do not with their utmost power promote the public good; if the prince has other aims than the safety and welfare of his country; if such as represent the people do not preserve their courage and integrity; if the nation’s treasure is wasted; if ministers are allowed to undermine the constitution with impunity; if judges are suffered to pervert justice, and wrest the law; then is a mixed government the greatest tyranny in the world: it is tyranny established by law; and the people are bound in fetters of their own making. A tyranny that governs by the sword, has few friends but men of the sword; but a legal tyranny (where the people are only called to confirm iniquity with their own voices) has on its side the rich, the timid, the lazy, those that know law, and get by it, ambitious churchmen, and all whose livelihood depends upon the quiet posture of affairs: and the persons here described compose the influencing part of most nations; so that such a tyranny is hardly to be shaken off.”

Related Article Links:

Congress & Parliament of the 1700’s
The English Government of the 1700’s
More on Congress and Parliament of the 1700’s
Commentary on British Government from 1803

Taking the 3AM Call

Posted By on May 19, 2013

Red_PhoneDuring my lifetime I have had to take many calls at inconvenient times, as a father, a senior technician, a manager and even as a friend. Many of these required interruptions to my plans, sleep and often comfort. In these cases I had to be ready to hear the other party and make clear decisions when necessary. The decisions had to consider many options and required actions, but of course none ever rose to the level of threats to national security, even though some did have to take into consideration lapses in security to military assets.

In the 2008 Presidential Campaign Hillary Clinton produced a commercial which begged the question of who was properly prepared to take a crisis phone call at 3AM. Voters were asked to consider who they wanted taking a call on a phone in the White House when “something has happened in the world.” Would you want someone with experience and knowledge, or someone who lacks that experience? The clear implication was that Hillary had the necessary experience while Barack Obama lacked it. The Obama campaign’s response was to deflect the substance and limit the impact by focusing on how the commercial played on the fears and emotions of the public.

Well, now it has become evident that neither of these two, Hillary Clinton and President Obama, were prepared, or willing to take the tough call and make the critical decisions regarding an ongoing attack on an American Consulate, even though the call came early in the evening. As a result, four brave Americans were killed that night.

There are those reading this who would state this has been investigated and these to incompetent individuals have been cleared. The problem is they were “cleared” by an internal group that had been appointed by them. That’s like asking my daughters to adequately, and impartially investigate me, or worse to have a committee I’ve paid for, I selected and I put in place to investigate me. Even the least critical person would admit this type of scenario reeks partiality and collusion.

Further, all the evidence and possible evidence has not been reviewed. There remain approximately 20,000 to 25,000 subpoenaed documents which have not been released. But those which have been released reveal a damning possibility of conclusions.

We have no idea where the supposed Commander-In-Chief was on this evening, even though the White House makes every effort to account for his location in almost every other major event. Additionally, we have no idea even where he was, and have been told today that this is an “irrelevant fact.” (Stated by Obama aide Dan Pfeiffer on a Sunday morning show today, May 19, 2013.)

Really? Irrelevant? An American consulate was under attack, the life of the American ambassador in jeopardy – and eventually lost, additional assets and personnel remained under attack and the location and actions of the Commander-In-Chief are irrelevant? Military forces who could have responded were told to “stand down,” and where their commander was, and what he was doing is irrelevant? This is a colossal failure of leadership, in fact, Leadership 101 – the most basic of leadership skills.

We’ve been told there were no American forces who could have arrived in time to save the ambassador or the men killed at the CIA safe house. How did they know this? When the call first came in from Mr. Hicks that the consulate was under attack no one knew how long the attack would last. True there was a lull in the attack, but again, how was it known if the attack would resume? when the attack would resume? and how the the resumed attack would last?

Without the remainder of the subpoenaed documents we are left to make only suppositions based on what has come to light, and the suppositions are damning:

  1. The President did not want to assent to anything which contradicted his stated position that Al Qaeda was no longer a viable terrorist force, and presented little or no threat to America assets.
  2. It made the President look very bad in the midst of a re-election campaign, thus threatening that re-election.
  3. Both the President and the Secretary of State were both incompetent and inadequately prepared to confront a major security crisis, even though they had been warned of a threat earlier.
  4. Worst of all, if they did know there was inadequate time for a military response, then the only way they could have known was to be in collusion and communication with the forces attacking the consulate itself. OH MY!

The Administration and its cohorts have made numerous counterclaims, but the problem with each one is revealed facts and communications invalidate each one:

  • Not enough time — Whistle-blowers and reliable anonymous sources have detailed the timeline and location of forces who could have responded within the time frame of that horrible night.
  • The talking points were those provided by the CIA — the trail of disclosed documents reveal the final version did not resemble the CIA’s in any way AND that the Director of the CIA General Petraeus disagreed with the final version.
  • Republicans have cut funding for embassy and consulate security — FACT, spending has increased over the past few years.

There is much more which is available and could be noted, but these are available through multiple other sources, including ABC News investigative reports. We are confronted with an Administration and a State Department which are, and have been run by individuals incapable of making critical, leadership decisions. These leaders have been, and are only interested in keeping their power and perpetuating their lies. There is a coverup surrounding the events and communications regarding the Benghazi Consulate attack on September 11th, 2012, and it is just another example of the ongoing incompetence of this Administration and its lackeys.

It is time, no high time they are held accountable for their ineffective actions, and dangerous inaction. Neither the President, or his earlier accuser Hillary Clinton were or are qualified to answer that critical call at 3 AM when something happens in the world, let alone a call that came at around 5:15 PM Washington time.

Revive the Real Militia

Posted By on April 19, 2013

In recent months the debate over “The Second Amendment” has heated up and along with it the accompanying debate over what is, or is not “a well regulated militia.” Most of the debate, within the media, has focused on modern definitions and has included a total lack of understanding regarding the purposes and intents of first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly referred to as “The Bill of Rights.” So, can we definitively identify what the founding generation meant by “militia”? Can we discover who were members of the militia according to the Federal Government? What actions were taken by the Federal Government as a result of the ratification of the Second Amendment?

Well, as those of you who have followed this blog are aware, the reason for this post is I have discovered the answers to the above questions. I believe the answers are revealing and important for us to consider.

The first ten amendments, again, commonly referred to as “The Bill of Rights,” we finally ratified when Virginia became the tenth State to ratify ten of the twelve amendments which had been sent to the States on December 15, 1791. Therefore, we need to identify some type of action by Congress, or some writing which would be contemporary to this time frame which would shed light on the questions. Further, this period is during the First Congress of the united States (Note: the current Congress is the 113th), and if we could find something enacted by them this would be critical to our discussions; should I even mention who was president at this time? Okay, for those of you reading this who don’t have a clue, the president was George Washington.

Less than FIVE months after the ratification of the Second Amendment, the First Congress passed TWO bills which were signed by President Washington and thus became law. The first was passed by Congress and signed by the president on May 2, 1792, and provided for how the militia would be called up for service by the President. This is often called the “First Militia Act of 1792.” The “Second Militia Act of 1792” was passed on May 8, 1792 and became law with the president’s approval. This second act was modified twice prior to “The War of Northern Hypocrisy,” oh… I’m sorry, “The War of Northern Aggression,” oh… that’s still controversial, “The War to Break the Power of States and Establish an Overreaching Federal Government,” oh… still not good, okay, “The American Civil War.” The first revision took place in 1795 and the second in 1814. In fact, this could be considered the first national law of conscription.

Why would I dare state this was a “conscription” law? “Conscription” is defined as, “compulsory enrollment of persons especially for military service : draft.”1 The second act defined:

“…That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia…”2

So, we can readily see here this act clearly states the militia will be made up of “every free able-bodied white male citizen…” between the ages of 18 and 45. Hmmm…. Every one? Yes, every one. Not those who had enlisted in the military, or those who had volunteered, but every single able-bodied male (with a few specified exceptions). Thus, according to the First Congress AND the first President (i.e. George Washington), the militia consisted of every “white male citizen” of these united States.

Were there any requirements placed on these citizen members of the militia by the law? Glad you asked. Yes, there were, the man was to:

…provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided…3 (Emphasis added)

Amazing!! Here the Federal Government REQUIRED every white male to own the assault rifle of their day, along with ammunition. How far have we come? Then the Federal Government and Congress required the possession of firearms, BUT today the government and congress want to restrict and even TAKE firearms and ammunition AWAY FROM the citizens. Well, I guess the major difference would be the laws enacted in 1792 were enacted by people who did not trust government, and even feared the power of the citizen, while today the laws are being pushed through by a powerful, all encompassing government which is attempting to limit ITS fear of the citizens. Dare I say the government of today has lost its fear of the citizen? From their actions I would say they haven’t, but that they are doing everything they possibly can to take the power of control away from the citizen, or “We the People.”

These laws remained in force until 1903, and were only amended in 1862 when the Union Congress added the stipulations to include black males as well. Again, hmmm……

A major revision of these took place in 1903 as a result of the Spanish-American War and the very negative consequences experienced with the various State militias which were called up. In fact, there were some governors who refused to transfer their State’s militia to the federal authority because they saw that the militias were to be restricted to the territorial boundaries of the united States. This was also experienced in the War of 1812 when some militia units wouldn’t cross into Canada and remaining federal army units were soundly defeated. Even further, some states refused to activate their militia during the War of 1812, practicing “State Nullification.” (Again, hmmm…. as these were States of the Northeast.)

In 1903 the new act (often called “The Dick Act”) further clarified and defined the term militia as follows:

That the militia shall consist of every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able; bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age, and shall be divided into two classesthe organized militia, to be known as the National Guard of the State, Territory, or District of Columbia, or by such other designations as may be given them by the laws of the respective States or Territories, and the remainder to be known as the Reserve Militia.4 (Emphasis added)

Again, we see here there is more to the militia debate than just the National Guard. The National Guard are by definition “the organized militia,” BUT we also see that every male not in the National Guard is considered by federal law to be a member of the “Reserve Militia.” Further, it is not abundantly clear in this latter act as to where the rifles were maintained, but I get the impression they were held in the custody of the individual member.

Therefore, if we take the Second Amendment and all of these various “Militia Acts” we find the various governments, both State and Federal, are placing themselves in violation of these. Since the Second Amendment declares “A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State…”, and now with the knowledge that Federal law defines the militia as every “able-bodied” male between the ages of 18 and 45, and – again the Second Amendment – “…the right of the people to keep and Bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

This just further demonstrates how the governments of today have no clue about history, or even the laws of these united States. We need to hold them accountable for their actions which are not only un-Constitutional, but also ILLEGAL by federal law. To ensure “the security” of our freedoms, States and nation we need to revive the local militia to demonstrate just how serious we are in securing our freedoms. BUT at the same time we must practice caution and not give in to the conspiracy fanatics and those which are racist and/or extremist. We must be circumspect, mature and calm in our actions and not give in to emotions and paranoia.


1 “conscription,” Merriam-Webster Online, retrieved April 19, 2013 from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conscription.

2 “The Militia Act of 1792”, retrieved from http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm.

3 Ibid

4 “The Militia Act of 1903”, Wikisource, retrieved from http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903.

The Ignorance of the Masses AND the Media!

Posted By on November 8, 2012

I’ve always been taught there is a difference between ignorance and stupidity; ignorance you can fix, but stupid is beyond help. Never are these two in greater display than during election campaigns and on Election Day. Oh, I almost forgot, then there is arrogance and elitism manifested in the media. During these times the American public just sits back and glibly sucks it all in, not thinking or asking critical questions.

There are two events which I utterly and completely HATE, 1) media broadcasts of planned political speeches and 2) Election Day programming broadcasting the returns. Yes, I HATE these with a burning, fiery passion and unmitigated gall. For the speeches, I refuse to turn to the channel carrying the live event prior to the last couple of minutes before the speech begins. WHY? Because the only thing on is the pre-speech analysis where these self-consumed talking heads tell us what the person is going to speak on and what he/she is going to say during the speech. SHUT UP! I’m an intelligent person who understands the English language I can hear the words myself without your all fired importance trying to impress me with how much you know. (You really only end up making yourself out to be stupid and arrogant.) Then, as soon as the speech is finished, they go into these unending diatribes explaining the poor uneducated masses what was just said, like WE DIDN’T JUST HEAR IT! Idiots!

And then there is the second thing, election return broadcasts! Oh My God! The complete and utter arrogance, ignorance and often stupidity of the reports is astounding. They “call,” or “project” wins before even a small smidgen of the votes have been tallied. Last night, for instance, FoxNews “projected” Obama to win Pennsylvania with only 4% of the votes being reported. What complete B…S…! All of the networks called Ohio, and it continued to vacillate back and forth ALL NIGHT! This morning before 6 AM they were still calling Ohio as a win for Obama and there were 2-3 times as many UNCOUNTED VOTES as the difference between the tallies for the two candidates. In other words, Ohio could have still just as easily went to Romney as late as early this morning.

Then comes the ultimate ignorance, when they declare the winner! Wrong, wrong, WRONG!! On Election Day night the individual with the highest vote count and/or PROJECTED Electoral College votes is ONLY  the Projected or Presumptive winner. We are still over a month, yes a month, away from the winner. Before the winner can be declared, each State’s Attorney General must certify the results for their State. Until this is done we’re still not even HALFWAY to a winner. Then the Electors for the Electoral College must be assigned and sent to Washington to cast their votes on the First Monday after the Second Wednesday of December. STILL NO ELECTED President. Finally, the results of the Electoral College must be read before a joint session of Congress on January 6th. Now, yes NOW the election is over and the Election results are final, and NOW we have a newly elected President, not before, and this is two months after Election Day.

This is how our Presidential election works. So, to declare on Election Day night we have a winner is just plain and simple STUPID. Why don’t you tell Harry Truman how Dewey defeated his re-election bid in 1948? The press and the media declared Dewey the winner, only to be embarrassed when ALL the votes HAD BEEN counted.

Why don’t you tell Andrew Jackson that he was elected President in 1824, only to have that entire election turned on its head in 1825? After all the votes had been counted Jackson had 41.3% of the vote, John Quincy Adams had 30.9%, Henry Clay had 13% and William H. Crawford had 11.2%. There was no clear majority of Electoral College votes. Therefore, by the conditions of the 12th Amendment the election then fell to the House of Representatives. Henry Clay withdrew and the House voted for Adams. Needless to say Jackson was just a little upset.

Watch tomorrow for an article on the importance of the Electoral College and how we still need it today.


R U Thinking – Or Just Repeating?

Posted By on October 24, 2012

History is such a fickle friend, companion and “lover”! You think you get to know her and then, BOOM! You find out she led you astray. You “learn” something. It “sounds” good. It “looks” good, then, BAM! You listen to, or even read something written by someone you think you can trust, only to discover, CRASH! They were incorrect in their information.

I feel like I’m writing a messed up, crazy script for the old Batman television series. “Golly, gee, Batman!”

Most people read my posts and never question me. I hate that! A few, very few ask questions. While an even fewer number challenge me. I wish you ALL would challenge me. Why? What if I’m wrong? Who will correct me? It is in the challenge that I have to dig a little deeper, search a little longer, research a bit more thoroughly. Then I either become even more convinced of my position, or knowledge OR I discover I’ve been incorrect, or even flat out WRONG!

Over the years of studying, researching and discovering the treasures of history I’ve come to know one thing above all else, to be a SKEPTIC is a good thing. Why? Because all too often the purveyors of history often have some hidden agenda, some preconceived notions, some lingering bone to pick with someone, some inadequacy in their research; all of which lead to incorrect information. Yes, these even apply to me. We’re all guilty.

All too often we will sit in a class and take the information being delivered at face value, after all isn’t he or she the professor? Don’t they have a degree to back them up? Or even worse, they appear on a television show, yes, even Glenn Beck, and are touted as being experts. Therefore, they have to be right.

Then what happens? We go off spouting what we’ve “learned” and make ourselves out to be fools for having given in so readily. There is all types of misinformation out there. It all sounds good. It all reports to be based on facts and documentation, BUT IS IT? That is the question we should be asking.

In these past couple of years I’ve heard any number of things stated as historical “fact,” only to discover it is historically invalid, even with the most basic amount of research into the subject. Well, David, can you give us an example, or examples?

Well, I’m really glad you asked, and – yes – I can.

How many of you have heard in the past couple of years that John Hanson was really the “first black president of the United States”?WRONGWhere is the old grating buzzer when you need it, or even the gong? Even a cursory search of the this subject will uncover a plethora of information, and scholarly research which has been dedicated to debunking an entire series, or should I say, “pile” of untruths which are circulating about Mr. Hanson, and the most common of these is that he was “black.” Try it, prove me wrong with documented research, and if you find some contradictions, then comment and challenge me, I’ll respect you for it.

How about this? Texas is the only state in the Union which has the right to secede based on the “Texas Annexation Treaty of 1848,” or something like that? Or even further, Texas was the only State admitted to the Union in the manner it was since it was an independent Republic prior to joining the Union. Both of these are, again get the buzzer, WRONG! First, just a very simple fact. How could Texas have become a State based on a treaty from 1848 when it became a State on December 29th, 1845? Hmmm…. Can I prove it? YES! Can you disprove me? Go find the answer. I’ll even give you a hint. Go to The Avalon Project Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy, a work of the Yale Law School, Lillian Goldman Law Library as a start for you research.

Or, how about this one? Wentworth Cheswell was a black man who rode North the same night as Paul Revere to warn the colonists, namely Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys. His actions brought Ethan Allen et al  to the Battle of Bunker Hill which they helped win? Here comes the gong, WRONG! First, Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys were nowhere near Boston in the late Spring and Early Summer of 1775, they were in New York and its environs. Secondly, Wentworth Cheswell was home in Durham, New Hampshire in April, 1775. Therefore, he couldn’t have rode with Paul Revere to warn any one of the march of the “regulars” from Boston.

Well, well, see, even your most trusted sources can be wrong from time to time.

I challenge you to discipline yourself to read and listen to historians with a skeptical, and questioning mind. Don’t just believe everything you hear and read, even from MyStraightTalk.com. Go learn for yourself, study, research, become educated. And most importantly stop vomiting out whatever someone else told you about history. Go discover history’s rich treasures for yourself.

Now, I’m waiting for your comments and challenges. Good luck and happy hunting!

The Modern Divine Right of Kings

Posted By on August 21, 2012

For the past few months I have been allowing a few ideas to pollinate, seed, sprout some roots and grow before just spouting off. Now I have some of these ready to write, so you will see some new articles in the coming days. Also, I’ve been bouncing the ideas and concepts off of my friends to watch them mature and endure the adversity of argumentation. The first of these has actually been coming to the point of the written page for a number of years, it has only recently been elevated to the first priority by some current events and through meeting some new people.

During the 18th Century, the 1700’s for those of you in Rio Linda (to steal the phrase from the Rushmeister), the people in the American colonies and Europe were in the final waning years of the practice of a doctrine called, “The Divine Right of Kings.” The freedoms sought by the English citizens in the earlier revolution in the mid- to late 1600’s were in direct opposition to this doctrine. Further, the migrations of immigrants from various countries to America were efforts to free themselves of the chains and bondages imposed by the monarchs throughout Europe.

divine right of kings, doctrine in defense of monarchical absolutism, which asserted that kings derived their authority from God and could not therefore be held accountable for their actions by any earthly authority such as a parliament. Originating in Europe, the divine-right theory can be traced to the medieval conception of God’s award of temporal power to the political ruler, paralleling the award of spiritual power to the church. By the 16th and 17th centuries, however, the new national monarchs were asserting their authority in matters of both church and state. King James I of England (reigned 1603–25) was the foremost exponent of the divine right of kings[i]

Notice this is the “doctrine…of monarchical absolutism”, the king, the monarch or the crown had absolute, unquestionable power within the borders of his/her realm. Since the crown’s authority came directly from God, then the crown was the law of the land, and as such was above the law. This was often referred to in Latin as Rex Lex, or very simplistically, the king (rex) is the law (lex).

The bishop Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet (1627–1704), one of the principal French theorists of divine right, asserted that the king’s person and authority were sacred; that his power was modeled on that of a father’s and was absolute, deriving from God; and that he was governed by reason (i.e., custom and precedent). In the middle of the 17th century, the English Royalist squire Sir Robert Filmer likewise held that the state was a family and that the king was a father, but he claimed, in an interpretation of Scripture, that Adam was the first king and that Charles I (reigned 1625–49) ruled England as Adam’s eldest heir. [ii] (underline emphasis added)

Again, notice, “the state was a family and that the king was the father,” does that sound a little bit familiar? As the “father” the king, or the monarch, was to take care of the people, the subjects of the realm. He made sure they were fed, albeit not well, and protected, also, when it came to defending against aggressor armies the peons, of course, were required to voluntarily – and at their expense – join the army. It was later, late 17th and 18th centuries when the armies began to be supported by the king, the government.

With the Protestant Reformation, and the Enlightenment, the doctrine began to come under attack. One of the first shots fired across the proverbial bow of the divine right of kings came from an obscure corner of the British Empire, Scotland, and from an oft unassuming Scottish Presbyterian minister, Samuel Rutherford. In 1645 Reverend Rutherford published a book that would shake the very foundations of the British monarchy, Lex Rex, or in contraposition to the above, the law is King, therefore even the king is subject to the law.

Those who have read anything about American history, and the sources of our governmental philosophies have heard of John Locke. Even the Encyclopædia Britannica mentions Locke in the cited article:

The antiabsolutist philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) wrote his First Treatise of Civil Government (1689) in order to refute such arguments. [iii]

But few if any have heard Rutherford was a source, if not possibly a primary source from which Locke received some of his inspiration.

Our forebears were a hearty lot, self-sufficient and resilient. They chaffed at the various encroachments into their lives by the crown. The crown controlled the imports, the exports and later began taxing the very restricted products allowed to come ashore here in the colonies. The crown and the parliament began controlling the prices of our goods, and the prices of the goods we purchased. Why? We were family, and the crown knew better than we did what our needs were. All of these were even further encroachments limiting our freedoms, our self-determination, our rights. This led, eventually, to the American Revolution and independence from our “father,” the king.

With the establishment of the Constitutional Federal Republic our founding fathers limited the power of the government to impact, or control our lives. The greatest gift of heaven was freedom, self-determination and individual responsibility, and our founders gave us all these with a limited, compact Federal government.

Fast forward to today and we find an all pervasive, out-of-control federal government which strives to control everything. We have even seen this to the municipal level in New York City as Mayor Bloomberg declares he knows better than we what we should drink, and how much, and what we should feed our babies. We are witnessing the final stages of the reincarnation of the divine right of kings, only this time it has wrapped itself in the garments of the Constitution, and disguised itself in the halls of Congress, the Supreme Court, the Executive Branch, the various State governments and those of our counties and cities.

Our government now determines the safety of our food products, our work habits, our furniture, our toys, our medicines, our electronics, our cars, our boats, our clothes, and on and on. The government now controls the formulation of our gasoline, diesel fuels, our milk, our building materials, our air conditioning gas, our household cleaning products, and on and on. The all-knowing governmental branches now control our work hours, our pay, our insurance, our taxation, our investments, our… Well, you get the point, the government thinks and acts as if it knows better than we how to take care of us. A modern manifestation of absolute power, of a sacred right and the divine right of kings.

It is time for us to rise up, assert our divine rights, our inalienable rights and our right of revolution at the ballot box. It is time to fire as many of these illegitimate usurpers, and pretenders to being servants of the people and replace them with men and women of integrity who are and will be true servants of the people. It is time we once and for all drove a spike through the heart of the evil divine right of kings, and finally nailed its coffin closed, so it never rise from the ash heap of history.

[i]divine right of kings.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2012. Web. 20 Aug. 2012. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/166626/divine-right-of-kings>.

[ii] ibid

[iii] ibid

%d bloggers like this: