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

Are You Awake, Yet?

Posted By on June 29, 2012

I have taken my time to write a response to the Supreme Court’s unbelievable ruling regarding the Affordable Healthcare Act. Now it is time.

A little over 60 years ago Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto made the following comment after the now infamous Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941, “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.” Well, actually what is more close to his own words is, “私たちが行っているすべての眠れる巨人を目覚めさせ、恐ろしい決意をもって彼を埋めることです恐れている” (Thank you Google Translate.) Hey, just trying to keep you on your toes, lighten up the air a little and throw a bit of humor into this.

Anyway, Admiral Yamamoto’s words should ring equally true today. The Supreme Court surely has awakened a “sleeping giant,” the American people. It is my earnest hope that all across this great land voters who haven’t voted in a while, or have never voted are now waking up to the dire danger we find threatening ourselves and our freedoms. We need to realize it is time once again to resurrect the words of John F. Kennedy, “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”

It is time, no, it is past time for every lover of freedom and the American way of life to awake from their slumber, their apathy and to rise up to become a might thundering voice. Now, like no other time, we need every voice shouting from the housetops, from the malls, the restaurants, the coffee shops, wherever they may gather to express their love for America and the Constitution. To rise up and to confront the BUMS, and the IDIOTS, the men and women of NO INTEGRITY occupying the offices of power in Washington, DC and to hold them accountable. It is time to FIRE the lot of them at the ballot box in November.

Now, like never before, “We the People” need to establish OUR sovereign right, that of unlimited sovereignty.

What will you do? Go peacefully on your way as our country and way of life is demolished? Will you sit idly by as men and women with no principles continue to snub their haughty, arrogant noses at us? Will you be on of the masses who continue to NOT VOTE, and accept whatever comes your way, including tyranny, oppression, massive national debt and loss of your freedoms?

I will close this brief and pointed post with a quote from the Bible:

How long will you recline, O sluggard? When will you arise from your sleep? A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to recline, and your poverty will come like a traveler, and your lacking like an armed man. Proverbs 6:9-11 Stone Edition Tanach

Are You Chasing Symptoms?

Posted By on June 28, 2012

Years ago, before I “evolved” into computers and now IT project management, I was trained in and worked as an electronics technician. For the first 15 years of my adult career I maintained and repair large scale electronic systems with computer interfaces. I know, it sounds really important, but there were times when it was extremely stressful, tedious, agonizing, mind numbing… well, you get the picture. Sometimes I was called on to fix a system that was not working, either at all or incorrectly. Over the years I learned it is easy to get sidetracked by the symptoms of failure, and lose sight of the real problem. I watched co-workers, contractors and – yes – engineers give in to this malady over and over again. From these lessons I learned to often go past the obvious to discover the actual failure.

Chasing symptoms leads to many emotions, reactions and results, most of them are not favorable. Let me see, there is lost time, it takes a lot of time to follow a symptom and chase it around “Robin Hood’s barn.” Then there is cost, it can cost a lot of money in replacing parts that aren’t broken, added labor, excessive testing, again, I think that is obvious. Energy, we can expend a lot of energy trying to fix something that is only a symptom to discover the problem still exist.  Motivation, as our energy is expended with no visible positive results, our motivation starts to wane; and that leads to discouragement, which in the wrong circumstance can lead to giving up.

On the other hand, when we stay focused on discovering the real problem, the actual failure all of the above negatives will rarely manifest. I learned to take the stress and rabbit trails to help me maintain my focus, help me to press through and keep me using proper troubleshooting techniques. Then when the real failure was identified, the fix effected and verified the end results to my emotional well-being were always positive, not to mention the compliments helped the ego.

So, now to today…

Everyday I receive a lot, and I do meanA LOT of emails from friends, family, acquaintances, grassroots groups, political and legal organizations, etc. bring to my attention, and our attention to the problems manifesting in America, our States, our governments (all of them), our political parties and the courts. Sometimes it is quite literally exhausting to open my email and see this mass of communications. Then when you couple that with the news on TV, the internet and on radio… Oy Vey! Can I be honest here? Sure I can, it’s my website, and my post and absolutely none of you are here to correct me and tell me I wrong! Well, I delete the vast majority of those emails without even opening them. If the Subject Line doesn’t immediately catch my attention, bye-bye; or if the text in the body doesn’t grab me, bye-bye. Don’t stop send them, because occasionally I glean something valuable from almost every person.

Then there are times when I’m talking to friends, acquaintances or those attending my speaking or teaching engagements and I hear the words and attitudes of discouragement and being overwhelmed flow forth. They tell me about how they don’t see any way they can do anything to bring about a change, or how they been doing this for so long they just can’t keep it up much longer. I’ve even had some tell me how the whole thing is making them physically sick.


You, the Tea Parties, the 9-12 groups, the grassroots organizations, the political parties are focusing on fixing the SYMPTOMS and not the ROOT CAUSE. You may get a little victory, or success here and there, but eventually the same problem rolls back around, and you go right back to trying to fix it, AGAIN.

A few weeks ago I attended an all day seminar on the Constitution and I finally heard someone else proclaiming the same thing. That, my friend, was refreshing and invigorating. This speaker talked about how he has never been more optimistic in his life at the possibilities of bringing about healing and restoration to the Constitution and the Federal government, and this man has been teaching this “stuff” for over 40 years. Then he talked about how much energy, time and money we are wasting concentrating on the SYMPTOMS in America rather than focusing on a real and meaningful solution.

Can you say, “vindication?” I did.

This man introduced me that weekend to the “Liberty Amendment,” and just a little bit more research has got me sold, and “shouting from the rooftops.” Again, it seems the primary focus today is, “it’s the economy, STUPID!” And both parties are trying to put forward solutions to bring about a remedy, but their focused on the SYMPTOMS and not the root cause.

Last August I wrote a post, “Single Issue Voters,” where I stated I was now a “single issue voter,” “it’s about the CONSTITUTION;” and how every issue in government can come back to that ONE issue. Well, the economy is no different. The Federal government has been violating the national Constitution for so many years we can find violations everywhere. Let’s take a look at a very simple fix, to a ROOT problem.

Let’s take a look at power #19 granted to the Congress in Article I, Section 8:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings…

Notice there are only 5, count them FIVE authorizations for the Federal government to OWN land, “for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards (for the ships of the Navy) and other needful Buildings…” AND NOTHING ELSE. Hmmm…. Let’s see what happened when the first state was admitted to the Union:

the first new state added to the Union was Ohio, which was admitted in 1803. Instead of giving the state all of the public lands, the federal government sold them to help pay off the national debt. Ownership was thereby “privatized” and immediately went on the ta rolls of the state. This procedure was followed in all of the new states east of the Mississippi as well as all the new states in the Louisiana Purchase. (The Founders’ charter of Freedom, “Healing of America Series” Seminar 2 Workbook, page 12, Thomas Jefferson Center, © 2009 by Glenn J Kimber and Julianne S. Kimber.)

For the Western States, that is every one West of Texas, Kansas, Wyoming and Montana, the Federal government owns an average of 49% of the lands in the states. Now look at Alaska and we find that a whooping 96% of that state is owned by the Federal government. Do you know that about 3 years ago the Federal lands in Alaska were appraised at a value of $17 TRILLION dollars? Wow, that would pay off the entire Federal debt!!! Now, add the lands in just four of the other Western states which have been appraised at another $17 TRILLION

Oops, He Did It AGAIN!

Posted By on June 17, 2012

Well, maybe “oops” is giving him way TOO MUCH of a benefit of the doubt. The D.I.C (Dictator-In-Chief, for those unfamiliar with this website) has once again shown his utter disdain, and disregard for the Constitution. Although the D.I.C took an oath to “support, defend and uphold the Constitution,” he has repeatedly exhibited a practice and propensity to usurp powers beyond that of the office of the President, to disregard and circumvent the laws legally established by the Congress, to establish new “laws” when Congress has failed to pass his desired legislation, to trample on the inalienable rights of the people to freely practice their chosen religious beliefs without the interference of the Federal Government, oh, how the list could go on and on and on and on…

Neglect of the principles of the constitution by the public functionary is a substitution of aristocracy, for a representative democracy: such a person no longer regards himself as the trustee, and agent of the people, but as a ruler whose authority is independent of the people, to whom he holds himself in no manner accountable; and he so degenerates into an usurper and a tyrant. (Note B, in Tucker’s Blackstone, 1803.) Emphases added.

The D.I.C has continually displayed these characteristics and practices of neglecting “the principles of the constitution.” Recently, he issued a change in policy by the administration that effectively states they will not abide by the legally established immigration laws passed by Congress and signed into law previously. He has attempted to get such measures passed by Congress, but they have failed to pass with the necessary votes. If this is such an important issue, then why is the voice of the people, through their lawfully elected representatives, being circumvented? With a national election only four and a half months away, couldn’t this have waited for the people to state their preference by replacing those members of Congress who voted against such a measure, and thus upheld the Constitutional separation of powers, keeping the legislation within the bounds of the Legislative Branch? If this is such a critical issue, where is the emergency?

Many pundits from the so-called center, moderates and right have recognized this for just what it is, a political stratagem in an attempt to secure more votes for a failing presidency. The D.I.C, his administration and his campaign staff recognize how the American public is not buying his touted “success” in economic reform. They realize the much vaunted success and prowess in foreign affairs in nothing more than the stumblings of an inexperienced, power hungry buffoon; even our allies see this and are distancing themselves from the D.I.C. They observe his falling numbers in poll after poll, even among his establish base; among the Jewish community there has been a sharp decline of over 20% in just the last month, while at the same time among African-Americans it has decreased by almost as much. We are seeing the ploys and distractions that are simply meant to distract us from the key issues of this election season.

Is this really about jobs? I don’t think so, for if it were, wouldn’t we see these targeted jobs being advertised as vacant across the land? Yet, in report after report we find employment down, and job creation abysmal. There are no jobs for the young citizens and legal aliens within our borders, let alone for a new influx of illegal aliens. If the Administration were to exhibit integrity and honesty in reporting we should see a marked increase in the unemployment figures next month, as this mass of youngsters is added to the roles of the unemployed and would receive unemployment compensation.

The D.I.C has shown himself to no longer be a trustee of the people, or the Constitution, and holds himself aloof, above the concerns of adhering to such an out of date agent of control. Truly he is exhibiting on every front that he truly is “an usurper and a tyrant.”

But the most easy and successful mode in which an aristocracy commences, or advances, consists in the secret and gradual abuse of the confidence of the people, in a representative democracy. Slight, and sometimes even imperceptible innovations, occasional usurpations, founded upon the pretended emergency of the occasion; or upon former unconstitutional precedents; the introduction of the doctrines of constructive grants of power; of the duty of self-preservation in a government, however constituted, or however limited…

The only preventative lies in the vigilance of the people. Where the people are too numerous, or too much dispersed to deliberate upon the conduct of their public agents, or too supine to watch over that conduct, the representative will soon render himself paramount to, and independent of, his constituents; and then the people may bid a long farewell to all their happiness. (Note B, in Tucker’s Blackstone, 1803.) Emphases added

Time and again the Federal Government has created some presumed emergency to justify their usurpations. In my lifetime I have observed numerous such events, and then watched the people sit “supinely” by as the government encroached once again on our rights, granted by “Nature and Nature’s God,” those inalienable rights so essential, so dear to the citizens of America. Now, once again, our voice, our representation is being trampled upon.

Oh, but David, you don’t understand, these young people were brought here by their parents, they had no say in the matter, their innocent. Oh, but David, they have gone to schools, colleges and universities and have become good citizens of the United States.

First, they were here illegally, THAT’S A CRIME. They shouldn’t have been allowed to attend public schools, IT’S AGAINST THE LAW. They could not legally attend any college or university, THAT TOO IS AGAINST THE LAW. If they did go to college or university, how did they pay for it? IT’S AGAINST THE LAW FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS TO RECEIVE ANY STUDENT LOANS OR GRANTS. So, they have at the very least committed FRAUD, and DECEPTION, or their “evil” parents had to circumvent the legally enacted laws of this country. No other nation on Earth allows this.

So, once again it comes back to us, you and me. Are we going to sit idly by and watch the usurpation continue? Are we going to be supine, yet again, and let the Constitution we have established be ignored, circumvented, pushed aside and trampled upon? Or are we going to stand up for America, to make it great once again?

As for me and my house,

I’ll gladly stand up, pledge to you, and defend her still today. ‘Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land, God bless the U.S.A.

More on Congress and Parliament of the 1700’s

Posted By on June 1, 2012

If you can read all of this post without getting angry, infuriated, nauseated and motivated to see a revolution this year in the ballot box, then you have no passion or love for this country.

This evening I was out eating, and I must say I will never go back to that establishment again. Now, I’ve had worse food before at a restaurant, but rarely was bad food accompanied by reading a commentary which provoked so much negative emotions and physical reactions. The first moment of physical displeasure came while eating a warm side salad, but then I had to ask myself, “is it the salad or the utter obviousness of the comparison with modern American government I am reading?” Next, came the fried flounder filet floating in its own bath of cooking oil, “please, David, don’t turn it over and have to see the grease, then maybe your can eat this,” but no it was the side dish of disgusting revelations of the more similarities between the British government of the 1700’s and the US Federal government of the last half of the 20th Century and up to today which provided added nausea of the moment. Finally, the flounder was done, the passable hush puppies consumed and I could concentrate on the best tasting part of the meal, the french fries while trying to continue reading Tucker. But alas, I soon tired of the fries and could no longer endure the dreadful revelations.

In February, 2010 MyStraightTalk.com launched to provide a platform for me to present the information and lessons I had learned and am learning from the pages of American History. If someone had told me then that the two most popular posts on this website would be ones where I exposed the truth of the British Parliament and government of the 1700’s and compared them to the American government of today, I might have thought you were crazy. But, it’s true, the most frequently viewed post of the past two years is “Congress & Parliament of the 1700’s” visited nearly 1.5 times more than the second most popular, “The English Government of the 1700’s.” When you combine the visits to these two sites there have been 941, the next closest post only has 155 visits. Shocking!

More than the shock of the last paragraph, comes the shocking revelations of this evening. In the past two articles I compared the Parliament’s disregard of the petitions of the British citizens living in the American colonies. Next, we examined the examined the comparisons of how the excesses are so similar, but nothing compares with what I read tonight. If the language wasn’t so obviously two hundred years old, the sentence and paragraph structures so foreign to the modern American English speaker; and if, just IF it were written in modern English, you would think it would be speaking directly about the modern American government, Congress, Judicial system the despicable occupants of the White House of the past 80 to 90 years with rare exceptions. Yes, I believe Reagan to be one of those exceptions, but even he acted and governed in ways which violated the Constitution.

The following comes again from Tucker’s Blackstone’s Note B to Volume 1. tucker is quoting James Mackintosh’s “Defence of the French Revolution” written in 1791. According to Tucker, Mackintosh was a a native pen “…whose stile and manner evince a superiority both of genius and discernment, whilst they leave no doubt upon the mind, that he had seen and felt all that he describes, may lead us to conclude, that the practical abuses, corruptions, and oppressions of that government…” (Tucker, Note B, 1803)

So, now to the first hand, eyewitness to the British government as written in 1791 by Macintosh and quoted by Tucker:

It is perhaps susceptible of proof… 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. (Tucker, Note B, 1803) Emphases added.

Oh, but wait, there’s even more shocking observations of the English government which are snapshots from history, portending 20th and 21st Century American politics:

Who can, without indignation 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** adds a million for every farthing that the pomp of ministerial empyricism 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, which the most zealous partizans 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.  (Tucker, Note B, 1803) Emphases added.

quixotism (a quixotic person) quixotic 1: foolishly impractical especially in the pursuit of ideals; especially : marked by rash lofty romantic ideas or extravagantly chivalrous action
2: capricious, unpredictable (quixotic, Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quixotic, retrieved 5/31/2012.)

And, oh, yes, there is more! Two more paragraphs more!

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 and determine,) the epoch can not 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[35] 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. (Tucker, Note B, 1803) Bold and underlined emphases added.

I don’t think I can add anymore. Is it really as obvious to you as it was to me? To me it is absolutely scarily apparent! Please post your comments and tell me I’m either wrong or missing something, and if I am tell me where.

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

Government and Sovereignty

Posted By on May 20, 2012

History is my most fickle friend, rarely does he respond to the question I ask of him. There are times when the answer I pursue is discovered easily, in the most obvious of places. Then there are those times when the search takes months and years. At other times I go looking for one answer only to discover another unexpected treasure. Finally, there are those frustrating times when history remains silent on a major question in my mind, nothing is more frustrating to me. Yesterday was one of those unexpected times of discovery while researching another question.

For those of you who have followed this blog for any length of time, you are aware of my frequent citation of St. George Tucker from his Tucker’s Blackstone, first published in 1803. (Please see “The English Government of the 1700’s” for more information on Mr. Tucker.) Yesterday I was searching for information, or descriptions regarding local, or municipal governments in the colonies or early states, so I turned once again to the pages of Tucker’s Blackstone. Tucker’s “Note B – OF THE SEVERAL FORMS OF GOVERNMENT” appeared to be just the resource to enlighten my search. A quick search revealed no hits, undaunted I proceeded to take in the 39 pages of information. Little did I know the treasures I was about to discover.

A few weeks ago, “The Federalist Papers” user on facebook, posted the following:

To the Constitution of the United States the term sovereign, is totally unknown. There is but one place where it could have been used with propriety. But, even in that place it would not, perhaps, have comported with the delicacy of those, who ordained and established that Constitution. They might have announced themselves ‘sovereign’ people of the United States: But serenely conscious of the fact, they avoided the ostentatious declaration. – Justice James Wilson, separate opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dallas) 419, February 18, 1793; Works: Vol. 1, Part I

That, my friends, is a very interesting statement. Nowhere in the historic record of the Constitutional Convention, or the early history of these united States do we ever read of someone discussing the “sovereignty” of the Federal Government. NOWHERE! We find numerous discussions on States sovereignty, and the sovereignty of the individual, but – again – NEVER for the Federal Government.

I was remembering the above as I was reading Tucker last night. As I read, all I could think of was, “oh, I can use this,” “Ooo, this is awesome,” “wow, why haven’t we heard this before?” Highlighting as I read became difficult. Why? Because every paragraph contained something of importance, often it was the entire paragraph. Looking at the pages I printed from the website, most of them are well over 75% highlighted, and that was after I began forcing myself to limit myself. The level of knowledge and wisdom expressed by Tucker are truly visionary, and painfully demonstrate just how far we have come from those early days of the republic. So, let’s take a look at a few of his comments regarding sovereignty and the government.

This unlimitable power, is that supreme, irresistable, absolute, uncontrollable authority, which by political writers in general, is denominated the SOVEREIGNTY; and which is by most of them, supposed to be vested in the government, or administrative authority, of the state: but, which, we contend, resides only in the people; is inherent in them; and unalienable from them.

Tucker begins to introduce to us that “unlimitable power” cannot be vested in any government. Why? Because in abides in an unalienable manner in the people. Noah Webster defined “unalienable” as, ” a. Not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as unalienable rights.” (“unalienable,” American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, © 1828, retrieved online 5/20/2012 from http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,unalienable.) Interesting, an “unalienable” right, freedom or power “may not be transferred.”  This brings to mind the unending chain of laws and court rulings in the past 100 years which have sought to limit and usurp the unalienable rights of the citizens of these united States by extension, and of the individual States in particular.

Back to Tucker’s Note B:

As the sovereign power hath no limits to its authority, so hath the government of a state no rights, but such as are purely derivative, and limited; the union of the SOVEREIGNTY of a state with the GOVERNMENT, constitutes a state of USURPATION and absolute TYRANNY, over the PEOPLE.

What a novel concept, and one unknown in modern America, a – or the “government of a state” has “NO RIGHTS” but those that are “derivative, and limited…” Therefore a sovereign power, i.e. the people,  where the sovereign power is the result of creation, nature, or Nature’s God cannot create, or yield to a government professing to have unlimited sovereignty since that government only exists as a result of receiving a portion of authority from an unlimited source, again, the people. Also, from the above quoted portion of Tucker, when a government attempts to join itself to sovereignty, it is simply a “usurpation” (taking something that is not granted to it) and results in TYRANNY over the legitimate sovereign power of the nation, the people.

Tucker Note B:

Since the union of the sovereignty with the government, constitutes a state of absolute power, or tyranny, over the people, every attempt to effect such an union is treason against the sovereignty, in the actors; and every extension of the administrative authority beyond its just constitutional limits, is absolutely an act of usurpation in the government, of that sovereignty, which the people have reserved to themselves.

This can best be expressed by referring to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution (Emphasis added)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or TO THE PEOPLE. Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution (Emphases added)

Dare I now express the obvious, as written by Tucker and in reference to the last two amendments of the Bill of Rights? Any legislative act, law, Executive Order or judicial ruling which is contrary to the express limitations of the Constitution are acts of “treason against the sovereignty” of the people and the several States. Dare I delve into un-Constitutional usurpations of power by the Federal government? Dare I mention the EPA, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation, Federal control over oil rights and drilling, President Obama’s Executive Order mandating insurance coverage for contraceptives, nationalized Healthcare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, limitations on the number of representatives making up the House of Representatives, the FBI, the ATF, the DEA, Welfare, Food Stamps, the Department of Agriculture; I could go on, and on, and on. All constitute acts of treason by the federal government according to Tucker.

Finally, for this post, back to Tucker and Note B:

It is easy to perceive that a government originally founded upon consent, and compact, may by gradual usurpations on the part of the public functionaries, change its type, altogether, and become a government of force. In this case the people are as completely enslaved as if the original foundations of the government had been laid by conquest.

Our government has gradually changed “its type, altogether and become a government of force.” Business operates in America today burdened by excessive regulations and taxes to the extend there is great fear in even the possibility of violating a federal mandate or law. Every year the citizens, yes, the law abiding citizens of this nation are tormented by the fear of the IRS. Our government has “become a government of force.” Thank you, Mr. Lincoln for beginning the transformation! (sarcasm) We have become enslaved and conquered by our own government which is GUILTY of treason of the most egregious level.

It is time for us to become educated in our history, our unalienable rights and our unlimited sovereignty as expressed by our founding fathers, that generation and Mr. St. George Tucker in particular. It is time we conduct our next revolution at the ballot box and replace the traitors who occupy the seats of power in Washington, DC.

Finally, (part 2), and lastly from Tucker. I will allow him to state what I have been endeavoring to proclaim for the past three years of this blog:

From hence it will appear that the nature of any government DOES NOT depend upon the checks and balances which may be provided by the constitution, since they respect the form of the government, only; but it depends upon the nature and extent of those powers which the people have reserved to themselves, as the Sovereign

%d bloggers like this: