Political Correctness, Idiocy and the Attacks on Our republic

The attack on western institutions, traditions and values continues in this country unabated. These attacks are perpetuated by those traitors in our midst who, through the support of a sympathetic media and useful idiots (usually simply ignorant people) in our society, are looking to institute a socialist society here in the United States of America. The transformation is well on its way and continues under the cover of political correctness and just plain stupidity. Socialism is an enemy to freedom, liberty, and prosperity. History has proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt. On the other hand, a limited government instituted exclusively to protect the rights of the people has to been shown as the best way forward to freedom and prosperity. Political correctness, idiocy and a program of indoctrination is the culprit of our ongoing demise.

Let’s begin with the attacks on white “supremacists”. Supposedly hate is bad yet these are people you are allowed to hate. It is ok to hate these people because we are told they are evil. It is politically correct to hate these people because we are told to do so by the media and some of our leaders. We are allowed to espouse and perform violence against these people because of what they supposedly think. How are the thoughts of some people, devoid of any action, infringing on your rights? How does what a person believes injure anyone? It does not. It is political correctness devoid of any reason that is the culprit. It is a campaign to silence anyone who questions the orthodoxy of the left.

More people continue to wake up to this fact. As the insane attacks continue on those people who speak out against the socialist forces attacking our republic, more people are questioning the doctrines of the enemies of America. We used to believe in free speech and freedom of assembly. Now, some in our society have a higher calling – political correctness. This is how republics are destroyed. This is how rights are eliminated and tyranny triumphs.

Robert Lee is an announcer for ESPN who was pulled off the University of Virginia’s game due solely to his name. In a surrender to political correctness, ESPN has taken this step to avoid offending anyone who will be watching the game. An ESPN spokesperson justified the removal of Lee from the announcers spot because ESPN executives “collectively made the decision with Robert to switch games as the tragic events in Charlottesville were unfolding.” More political correctness at work. Again, more pandering to the lowest common denominators of society and those that perpetuate the redefining of America.

Speaking of Charlottesville, it has become known that the attacks on those who were opposing the removal of the Lee statue were perpetuated by government forces who were opposed to the rally in the first place. Did you know that the protestors were denied their constitutionally protected right to peaceably assemble by the Charlottesville government and only through an injunction issued by District Court Judge, Glen Cochran, were the people opposing the removal of the statue allowed to protest and exercise their constitutionally protected rights? The left initiated violence, the police called the assembly “illegal”, withdrew and allowed the violence to escalate. The political correctness movement lead to violence once again.

Political correctness is behind the removal of these confederate statues also.  In my latest article, Civil War Truths, I expose the lie that the War for Southern Independence, a.k.a. The Civil War, was about slavery. It was about economic subjugation by the North. Yet the false narrative of slavery leads to labeling anyone who wants to protect southern heritage and the truth as white “supremacists”, “nationalists”  or the overused term “racists”. This is just more opposition to free speech under the guise of political correctness and a denial of the truth.

Our government continues to bankrupt our nation via the unconstitutional Federal Reserve and illegal expenditures. They continue to support unlawful aggression across the globe under the guise of American safety and being the world’s policeman. Our children continue to be indoctrinated with socialist dogma in our schools. Our federal government completely ignores the law of the land and issues edict after edict under the facade of the Constitution and “helping” Americans. Our government continues to redesign society through its detrimental immigration policies, and on all levels continues to grow and raises taxes to confiscatory levels to pay for that growth. We are traveling down the road to the destruction of our republic and the gift of liberty given to us by previous generations. The only thing that concerns most are trivial matters. It is no wonder our liberties are being trampled and our country transforming into a socialist atrocity.

Make no mistake – without drastic changes to our path, we will see a bloody revolution in our near future. Americans who understand liberty, unalienable rights and the Constitution will only remain peaceful for so long. I do not advocate for violence as a solution, but I see no other alternative if the tenets of political correctness are our guides in this country while the traditional values, laws and ideals are scrapped. We were bequeathed the most precious gift one generation can give to another – liberty. Americans used to understand this. Now many Americans only understand the idea of political correctness and not offending anyone. The lessons we have learned as Americans are disappearing and are being replaced by socialist teachings. Government is the problem. They are not the solution. If Americans continue to be diverted by the inconsequential then we will continue our slide into mediocrity and irrelevance. Patriots, Awake!

Join me at Constitutional Cappuccino to get plugged into a website that is all about the education Americans need to move our country back to its proper trajectory. My new book “Patriot Ammo: The Words Behind Our Flag” is also available and teaches of our founding documents and principles. It is a great tool to repudiate the leftist teachings of tyranny that many have received in schools.


Civil War Truths Pt. 2

As Confederate monuments continue to be torn down, there is a push by some to repaint the events surrounding the Civil War to justify their eradication. There are many falsehoods being spread about that need to be refuted. These actions and this rhetoric is just another in a long line of attacks on Americans institutions, traditions, and history. The truth is important to preserve. We, as a people, need to do what is right, not what is comfortable or politically correct.

Eleven states decided in the early 1860s that they did not want to be in the Union anymore. They formally removed themselves from the United States of America and started their own country, referred to today as the Confederate States of America, or  the “Confederacy.” They were then attacked by the United States of America, and a war ensued. More Americans were lost in this war than any other conflict, before or since, by almost a factor of 10. It was an illegal war that need not have happened.

Many today say it was over slavery. That assertion is a bold faced lie which most people used to recognize as such.  Many laud Lincoln as a great leader, but his motivation for entering the war was economic, not moral. He also set the standard for later presidents to ignore the Constitution during times of war.

First of all, secession is not violence; it is how this country was founded. The violence occurred when the bullies that were left behind decided to attack. We celebrate that fact every July 4th. When the southern states seceded, they did so because they did not want to be part of the United States anymore. Secession is an idea that is supported by our own Declaration of Independence.

Slavery was an issue but economic issues were much more prevalent. The South accounted for over 80% of the tax revenue generated at the federal level. Lincoln was a fan of the American system which was very much like the merchantile system that Britain had imposed on the colonies which led to our revolution.

This American System was characterized by high tariffs which impacted the South much more than the North to be used for internal improvements which was spent in the North much more than in the South.  Tariffs enacted against the South were a common occurrence by the time secession was finally initiated. For example, the Tariff of Abominations of 1828 had South Carolina talking about secession if it was not repealed.  This trend continued on, and in 1860, the southern states had enough and began to secede.  There was no violence, just goodbye. They were not going to be exploited anymore. On Dec. 25, 1860, South Carolina declared unfair taxes to be a major cause for their secession:  “ The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three-fourths of them are expended at the North”

Another fallacy spread by some to justify the entry of the North into the war was that the South fired the first shot in the conflict, and the North properly retaliated. This is a blatant mistruth. South Carolina seceded December 20, 1860. Fort Sumpter, a fort located on Charleston harbor, was still occupied by American troops until April of 1861. Lincoln had promised to evacuate the fort (after all it was in a foreign country at that point) but did not pursue doing so. Just the opposite.

On April 12th, ships arrived to resupply the fort, not evacuate it. The ships were driven off and the Fort was bombarded. Earlier in January, the same scenario had occurred, and those ships were driven off as well. Most do not know that the ONLY casualty from that bombardment in April was a mule. No men were killed. The next day the soldiers holding the fort surrendered, and South Carolina forces took control of it. The majority of forts in the South had already been voluntarily evacuated. This was the proper course of action to take, but in Sumpter’s case, Lincoln was looking for justification to support a war he wanted to wage.

The biggest lie spread about the Civil War was that it was initiated over slavery. The American people used to know this was a lie. Was slavery pertinent? Of course. It was one of the reasons that the South seceded. Was slavery the reason that Lincoln attacked the South? Of course not. But many people parrot that lie everyday not realizing that Lincoln’s own words refute the idea.  The actions and rhetoric from the North said NOTHING about going to war to free the slaves.

There were four candidates in the 1860 elections. None of them were in favor of the abolition of slavery. The abolitionist movement was very small and had little political power. The idea of abolishing slavery was not included on any of the candidates’ platforms.

In his first inaugural address, Lincoln made it clear he was not going to end slavery. He stated early on in the speech: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

Just a couple of paragraphs later, Lincoln reiterated the right of the states to determine their own destiny and restated a campaign pledge that was part of his platform:

“Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.”

Lincoln then went on to voice his support for the Fugitive Slave Acts. His own words certainly destroy the idea that slavery was an issue from the North’s or his own perspective.

In a letter to Horace Greeley, In August of 1862, Lincoln continued to voice his opinion that the institution of slavery was not in jeopardy from him:

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.”

The war had been going on for over a year at this point.

When the Emancipation Proclamation in September of 1862, Lincoln characterized it as a “military action.”  To this point, the war had been going badly for the North. Most battles across the map saw Southern forces winning. Lincoln was desperate. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation which freed NO slaves in the North, and excluded freeing slaves in Union occupied areas in the South to keep those Southerners mollified. Nor did it free slaves in the border states. It only applied to the places that the Union held no sway. Lincoln was criticized by many who implied he did this to stage a slave uprising, an idea that was very unpopular in the North, the South and even Europe.

Another effect the Emancipation Proclamation had was to cause riots in some northern states, dersertions of Union soldiers, and Northerners moving to Canada to evade the draft. New York City experienced significant riots over the fact that conscription had started and those men were going to war to free the slaves. Until the Proclamation, the idea of slavery being the purpose for the war had not been espoused.  Over 100 people were killed in the quelling of these riots in New York City alone.

It should be noted that General Robert E. Lee, a target of those looking to pull down statues, had already freed his slaves, slave he had inherited, not bought, before the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation. General Ullyses S. Grant, retained his slaves until 1865 when Missouri outlawed the practice. Grant had emancipated one slave in 1859, but his wife continued to own slaves at White Haven, the family home, and as personal servants.

Lincoln’s view of blacks contradict the narrative espoused by those attacking our history and advocating for the removal of Confederate statues. In  his 4th debate against Douglas, Lincoln stated:

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

Lincoln’s actions during the war showed his disdain for the rule of law and the Constitution. He suspended habeus corpus and imprisoned tens of thousands without due process, just like FDR did when he imprisoned Japanese during WW II. He ignored the Constitution which states that this is a power of Congress and a Supreme Court opinion reiterating the same. He shut down newspapers in the North that disagreed with him and had editors arrested for unpopular opinions. He had a sitting US Congressman, Clement L. Vallandigham, dragged from his home and put in a military prison for his speeches on the floor of Congress because they “discouraged enlistments” in the Union Army.  Lincoln authorized military tribunals to try anyone arrested which was also against the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. This was especially important in border states where convictions by juries would be problematic.

History teaches us that::

  • A group of states decide that the voluntary union they had entered was no longer good for them so they left. An idea supported by our Declaration of Independence.
  • A megalomaniacal President who, supported by big business and bankers, launched an unprovoked and unlawful attack against those states to keep them in the union for the tax revenues, not to abolish slavery.
  • The same President who later recanted everything he had previously stated to make the war about slavery. The great flip flop of American history.
  • The same President who greatly expanded his own powers which infringed on the rights of Americans and ignored the Constitution all in pursuit of “saving” our country.

The narrative being pushed is that only white supremacists or racists oppose the removal of Confederate statues and is being supported by lies. The North initiated aggression for the express purpose of keeping the tax revenues from the Southern states to support Northern modernization. Lincoln was a tyrant. He is painted as a hero to protect big government and crony capitalistic interests that would be harmed by the truth.

I will finish with a quote from Thomas Jefferson: ” Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom”

Join me at Constitutional Cappuccino to get plugged into a website that is all about the education Americans need to move our country back to its proper trajectory. My new book “Patriot Ammo: The Words Behind Our Flag” is also available and teaches of our founding documents and principles.

No Victim, No Crime

“No Victim, No Crime” is a concept that used to be known and practiced throughout our nation. It is a simple, yet highly moral way the law was constructed in our country. This idea supports the idea of limited government and liberty. As we move away from this ideal, we see the results— the growth of the police state. More people are being arrested for actions which have not infringed on the rights of others. The common sense idea of what constitutes a crime has been radically redefined and people’s inability to evaluate if they are law breakers with it. It is time we get back to basic principles and stop supporting tyranny.

The easy to understand the concept of “No Victim, No Crime” originates from the idea of personal ownership and rights. You own your body, your life, and your property. Only when someone infringes on those items, have your rights been violated, and we define that as a crime. Someone injuring you in some way is an offense against the body. Someone kidnapping you or restricting your activities is a crime against your life. Someone damaging or stealing your property is an attack on the fruits of your labor and an attack against your property. This should be the extent of crimes in America and used to be the standard.

Today, we have numerous “laws” on the books which take a preemptive stance on the commission of a crime. Think of texting and driving. Is it a good idea? Probably not. Is it infringing on another’s rights? No. Can it lead to someone losing control of their vehicle and hurting someone else or damaging their property? Yes. But it is only potential. Nothing has occurred yet. This line of “logic” would also make driving while angry a crime, eating while driving a crime, and putting on makeup while driving a crime among others. All of those activities can be distracting and cause accidents. The term used is “distracted driving” in most of the laws passed and will in the future encompass more activities than just texting and driving. Count on it

This is the way oppression occurs. An idea to protect the people spirals out of control and reduces our freedoms while allowing government to grow and become more intrusive. It is the rule of (un)intended consequences.

These laws are touted as safety measures that may indeed be good ideas but should not be law. The idea we use the force of the state to encroach on someone’s life when they have not violated anyone else’s rights is dangerous and morally reprehensible. It was Benjamin Franklin who stated, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” The situations concerning preemptive laws such as these are exactly to what he was referring.

Another field where this becomes apparent is in drug laws. People using drugs hurt no one else nor infringe on another’s rights. Is drug use good for humans? Sometimes. Should people take drugs for recreational purposes? Probably not.

Who owns your body? You do, and if someone can tell you not to take drugs that means that they have control over you, and you are no longer free. If two people make a voluntary transaction involving drugs, how has that infringed on anyone’s rights? It has not.

To be clear, if someone on drugs gets into a car accident, or they steal from you to feed their habit, then they have violated your rights and deserve punishment, exactly like the person who was not on drugs who committed the same acts should be punished. It is the actions that infringe on rights we need to identify and punish.

These laws fuel the police state we see today. According to the US Department of Justice statistics from 2015, possession of drugs represents 51.9% of the people locked up in federal jails. According to the Prison Policy Initiative, over 20% of the more than 2 million people locked up in jails across the nation are there for drug offenses. Why is this relevant? Many prisons today are privately run and make money on occupancy. Just like a hotel or motel, the more people they have in them, the more money they make. Lobbying efforts to make more laws to jail more people is a driving force and is counter to a free society. Add to that the unconstitutional asset forfeiture laws we have which allow police to profit from your arrest, and it becomes clearer why there is a conflict of interest.

James Madison said, “It will be of little avail that the laws are made by man of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.” Allowing our lawmakers to create laws that have no basis in our common law makes it almost impossible for a person not to be a criminal. In a Wall Street Journal story, it reported on a book which stated the average American commits three felonies a day. In his book “3 Felonies a Day,” Harvey Silvergate says that this is true. He may be a little over the top in his analysis, but it does spotlight a truth of our society. Most people, if not the entirety of the population, have no idea what the extent of the law is. Our lives are not a movie and “Minority Report” should not be a motive for new laws.

Injustice has entered our legal system, and it must be stamped out. If no one’s rights were violated, then a crime was not committed. To think otherwise is allowing others to enforce their will upon you. The American public must wake up and fight for the principles of liberty and self-ownership. These are the foundation upon which our nation was built. To allow these principles to be violated allows the gross injustice more Americans are experiencing every day. “No Victim, No Crime” is the right way to live. It is equal in its enforcement, eliminates opinions from becoming law, and is indeed the most moral way to construct laws.

I write mostly about the Constitution and the founding principles of this country. I was told and agree with that some basic truths which support the ideas of our founding are missing from our lexicon and need to be talked about. If you are interested in the Constitution and the Ideals it espouses, Join me at Constitutional Cappuccino where I expose people to the truths we the people used to know and which made us the freest and most prosperous nation ever to grace the face of this Earth. Also you can take this link to see the first chapter of my book “Patriot Ammo: The Words behind Our Flag”.

Who Owns Your Life?

I thought it to be a simple question. Who owns your life? What I discovered was that many people have not really given the question any real thought. Most gave answers that they thought were correct but were easily swayed by simple questions.

By now, everyone has probably heard of the guilty verdict in the case of Michele Carter and her part in the suicide of Conrad Roy III. With her urging through text messages, Conrad committed suicide, and Michele was brought to trial and was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Most agree it was a heinous act. Urging someone to follow their dark thoughts and take their own life had no defenders. But that is where consensus ended.

Whether she was guilty of a crime brought on much contention. Free speech was brought up and argued a great deal. “How could words make her guilty when he was already contemplating suicide?” “You can’t yell fire in a movie theater so there are limits to free speech in our society.” “She took advantage of a mentally unstable person and he is dead because of it.” “She only urged him to do something he already wanted to do.” The argument went back and forth with no clear winner.

Then I asked the simple question, “Who owns your life?”  Is suicide against the law, and if so, why? To me, it was a simple concept. You and you alone own your life. That is a basic principle of liberty. If someone else owns your life, then you are a slave, and that person is your master. I thought we had finally figured that out, but it seems that some people, when faced with the idea of suicide, had changed their mind.

Suicide, in most cases, is abominable. There is nothing you can do to yourself which is worse. To end your own life is to take away the greatest right you have- the right to life. But sometimes it is the correct decision. I recognize that a life of enduring pain could drive some to this action, and rightfully so. I can fathom the notion of risking your life in a suicidal attempt to save others as some have done on the battlefield. But then you encounter other people, who, in a fit of pique, depression, or overriding passion think that suicide is their only solution. Human nature is strange and often leads people to make rash and illogical decisions. But does that make suicide a crime? Only if you want to control another person’s life.

There still is only one answer to the question though. Who owns your life? You and you alone. To claim otherwise is to say someone has a  greater right to your life, and that makes you a slave. There is no better word to describe this condition. What you do with your life is your decision. The products of your life are yours, and yours alone. This is a basic principle of liberty some seem to have forgotten.

Today, government confiscates at gunpoint (make no mistake about that) the fruits of your labor and routinely gives it to others. By taking away what you produce, they also take away that part of your life which produced it. That is not liberty. That is bondage. You are no better than the serfs who used to work the fields for their masters and were allowed to keep a portion of what they had grown, with the rest being taken from them by their rulers.

Giving freely to a person in need is charity, and is a noble practice. Having something taken from you involuntarily and giving to others is theft and is contemptible. To support this idea of robbery makes you equally disgusting. Yet, that is what is repeated every day by some who try to invoke guilt on those who are against the redistribution of wealth in which our government regularly indulges itself. The “poor,” the “needy,” the “children,” they all need our help, so some invoke the power of government to do what they perceive others will not do voluntarily. No matter the recipients of the largess, it is still theft.

No one has more right to the fruits of your labor than you do. No one owns your life, but you. Government throughout history has proven itself a poor ward for people in need. More often than not, the problems faced by those in need is created by the same government that is invoked to help those people. The government creates a problem, then others want more government to fix the problem. This is a cycle that is cruel and never ending in its operation.

There used to be a time when people helping people was the norm. Family, friends, church, and charity organizations helped those in need. Was it a perfect system? No. Was it an ethical system? Yes, it was.

Today we face the juggernaut of government and its adoring sycophants who preach the power of the state as superior to the power of the people. Is this a perfect system? No, of course not. Is it ethical? No, again is the answer. They ask for slavery in the guise of helping others. This may seem harsh but it is the truth. People helping people is the true solution.

You own your own life. Never forget that.

My usual focus is on the Constitution, but I have realized, with the urging of others around me, that some basic concepts which used to be widespread are not as well-known as they used to be. Mr. Michael Pickens, thank-you. If you are interested in liberty and returning these United States of America back to its proper trajectory of prosperity and freedom, then join me at Constitutional Cappucino. My New Book “Patriot Ammo: The Words Behind Our Flag” is also available from the site. That link will take you to the first chapter which I offer for free.

The Commerce Clause Explained

The misuse of the “Commerce Clause” is one of the most frequent attacks on the Constitution of the United States of America that our federal government utilizes. It has been used to justify car regulations, gun free zones, and Obamacare among other things. This simple clause has been perverted to push an agenda of big government corruption, control, and cronyism. What originated as a simple idea has morphed into one of the most intrusive excuses government uses for its unconstitutional activities.

The Commerce Clause is part of Article 1 Section 8 and reads: “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;”

This has a clear and simple meaning. Commerce is defined as “an interchange or mutual change of goods, wares, productions, or property of any kind, between nations or individuals, either by barter or by purchase and sale.” It is trade. Any commerce between the states is subject to the federal government, and if a state has an issue with another state, it is the proper place for the federal government to decide the issue. That is it. The free flow of goods and services across state lines is important to the health and vitality of this country.

What the state does within its boundaries is not rightfully subject to the Commerce Clause. By giving the federal government a say in the interstate commerce between the states, it eliminates most of the motive for one state to take advantage of fellow states because they know that these actions will not be tolerated. If this was left up to the individual states, then problems could arise. This was the case in early America.

Our federal government now says that it can now regulate any activity which has a substantial impact on the economy. This has come to include the regulation of anything that crosses state lines and the process which created the product or service. It has also come to include the means by which items are moved across state lines. Trains, buses, cars, and trucks are now regulated, and the justification is the commerce clause.

In a spectacular repudiation of common sense and the Constitution (not the first nor the last time), the Supreme Court in 1943 ruled in Wickard v. Filburn that a farmer who had grown too much wheat in violation of the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938 was guilty of interfering with interstate commerce. The original idea that farms could be limited in their production came from the commerce clause.

But, in this case, the farmer, Wickard, had grown an extra 12 acres of wheat, not for resale but to be used to feed his own livestock. It was the court’s decision that his growing of this wheat affected the market because it kept him from having to use the market to purchase the grain he needed. This was where the idea of Congress having power over any activity that has a substantive effect on the economy was born.

This decision was cited in the majority decision (not of Roberts, who wrote his opinion alone, but the rest of the court’s majority) authored by Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the case of NFIB v. Sebelius where it upheld the individual mandate of The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).  The “logic” used was that people not buying insurance detrimentally affected the market by their omission from it and could be fined to encourage them to participate. So, instead of regulating commerce, our government dictated how individual Americans are supposed to act and spend their money. This is a result of interpretations of interpretations by the courts giving new and unsupported powers to the federal government.

Another travesty that most do not know about is the relationship between gun free zones and the commerce clause.  In 1990, Congress passed the Gun Free School Zones Act citing the power of the commerce clause to do so.  This was found to be unconstitutional in the landmark Supreme Court decision, United States v. Lopez.

The government argued its case by citing that the power to regulate guns in a school zone was important because the possession of a firearm in a local school zone substantially affected interstate commerce because violent crime would raise insurance costs, and those insurance costs affect commerce. They also stated that violent crime reduces individual’s desire to travel to high-crime areas within the country, thus affecting commerce.

Finally, they stated that crime threatened the ability for children to learn, thus reducing national productivity and negatively affecting commerce. Thankfully the Supreme Court got this decision right, but it shows how pliable the commerce clause is now in the hands of the Congress, and it demonstrates how Congress manipulates the Commerce clause to have a much broader meaning than our founders or their words intended.

Back to the structure of the commerce clause and the use of “and.” Does it make sense to think that our government can limit the production of wheat from a foreign farmer because it affects commerce here in the United States? Is it logical to believe that our Congress can make laws governing the proclivity of guns in a foreign country because it will affect commerce here? That is the power of the “and” in the clause. Anything that is argued that gives Congress the power over the states through the commerce clause must be just as applicable to foreign nations.

The original intent of the commerce clause is plain to see for anyone who knows our history. During the time when the Articles of Confederation were in place, some states erected trade barriers to their fellow states. The purpose of the commerce clause was to eliminate these trade barriers and create free trade among the states. What it has morphed into in the interim is fully repulsive and not supported by the Constitution.

I previously mentioned Wickard v. Filburn. How did we get to the point in this nation that the federal government can tell farmers how much of a crop they can grow and also compensate them for not growing crops? How can the federal government get involved in the internal workings of an individual farm and tell the farmer what to grow and in what quantities?

Where is this found in the Constitution?

It is not found in the document. It is the use of case law and interpretations of interpretations which have led away from its clear and simple meaning.  A simple statement concerning the regulation of commerce among the several states has morphed into the federal government telling farmers how to farm. It has morphed into the federal government telling car manufacturers how to make cars. It has turned the federal government into the national toilet dictator. The federal government tells you what light bulbs you are ALLOWED to use and what kind of food you are ALLOWED to eat. The federal government now tells families how much of their lifetime earnings they are ALLOWED to give to their descendants through the inheritance taxes. Where is ANY of this found in Article 1 Section 8? None of it is found there.

This, and most of what Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court does nowadays is unconstitutional. Why do the American people allow this activity? The Declaration of Independence offers an answer:  ” All experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

For a few, that threshold is already attained. For most others it has not yet been reached. Let us hope we can start to effectively address the challenges we face as a nation before extreme measures must be taken to protect our way of life.

Join me at Constitutional Cappuccino to get plugged into a website that is all about the education Americans need to move our country back to its proper trajectory. My new book “Patriot Ammo: The Words Behind Our Flag” is also available for sale and educates the patriot in the ways to uphold and defend the Constitution from attack. The link takes you to a free preview of the first chapter of the book.

Remember: Education is the cornerstone of liberty.

Why Is The Constitution Ignored?

Why is it that so many Americans have turned their back on the Constitution of the United States?

The clear and simple meaning of the Constitution has been allowed to be perverted or simply ignored, and there is no national conversation about it. The majority of stories in the media totally ignore the existence of the Constitution and some in Congress who, when asked about the constitutionality of a bill, scoff at the idea. Very few people, if any, call either out on their behavior.

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, yet it has been relegated to the back bench by too many Americans. This needs to change if we are to maintain our status as a free nation.

Congress is the only entity in our federal government that is allowed to make laws. That is confirmed by the first sentence of the Constitution. It is very clear what powers were delegated to Congress.  Article 1 Section 8 details these enumerated powers. These were powers the states originally possessed but were delegated to our newly created federal because it was determined a central authority could better do the job. These powers were described by James Madison, the “father” of the Constitution, in Federalist 45:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

This is the list of enumerated powers delegated by Article 1 Section 8:

“The  Congress  shall  have  Power  to  lay  and collect  Taxes,  Duties,  Imposts  and  Excises,  to  pay  the  Debts  and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;  but  all  Duties,  Imposts  and  Excises  shall  be  uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To  declare  War,  grant  Letters  of  Marque  and  Reprisal,  and  make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of  the  United  States,  reserving  to  the  States  respectively,  the
Appointment  of  the  Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To 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,  dockYards, and other needful Buildings;—And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into  Execution  the  foregoing  Powers,  and  all other  Powers  vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof”

These are the only laws which Congress is allowed to administer. 

What is missing from above?  Education. Drug regulations. Environmental laws. Business regulations. Social Security. Automobile regulations. Food regulations. Healthcare.

Add to these enterprises the agencies that have been created illegally in our federal government. Who needs Congress when you have the EPA? Or BLM? Or the FDA? The FCC? Or ATF? OSHA? FDIC? The USDA? Homeland Security? The Department of Labor? The Department of Education? The Department of  Energy?

Those are just a few of the hundreds of agencies and departments that rule our lives and are not authorized by the Constitution.  None of these items and many more tasks the government performs is not authorized by the Constitution and are thus, by definition, unconstitutional.

Add to this argument the simple statement of the 10th Amendment:

“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.”

Why is it that we have no stories which address this problem? Nary a peep is heard when we send troops to a foreign country without a declaration of war or Congress makes a “law” concerning healthcare. Both happen too frequently, yet the dialogue we see does not ever question the legality of these actions.

Government officials break the law almost every day, yet no one is called out for their conduct. Our representatives in government take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, but no one is held to that oath. Why aren’t we the people talking about this?

It is my goal to educate people on the relevance and meaning of the Constitution of the United States of America. It is not a hard document to understand and contains the solutions to many problems we face today as a nation. Education is the cornerstone of liberty and must occur for us to once again put our country on the trajectory that has made us the most prosperous and free nation the world has ever seen.  Otherwise, we will be relegated to the scrap heap of history and join other failed nations in the gutter of historical mediocrity. We owe it to the billions of people yet to be born to pass on the gift of liberty that was bequeathed to us. Support the Constitution. Support America. Support Liberty.

Join me at Constitutional Cappuccino to get plugged into a website that is all about the education Americans need to move our country back to its proper trajectory. My new book “Patriot Ammo: The Words Behind Our Flag” is also available and teaches of our founding documents and principles. Linked is the first chapter for your free perusal.

People, It is Independence Day, not In Dependence Day

In 1776 a group of influential men got together to announce to the world that our colonies here in America had endured enough oppression and that we were announcing our independence from our “mother” country Great Britain. In this announcement we listed our principles for doing so, the offenses against us that drove us to this action, and a general plan for making it happen. These men put their their “Lives, Fortunes, and Sacred Honor” on the line so a people could fight to be free of their oppressors. These were great men and the result of their commitment and their supporters actions is nothing less than a miracle- The United States of America. The land of the free and the home of the brave. Time to dust off that legacy and make it true once again. Time to understand the importance of the Declaration of Independence and why it is as relevant today as when it was written.

All Men Are Created Equal The principles our ancestors fought for ran counter to the powers that governed at the time. In an era of monarchs and tyrants, our Founders represented the thought that “all men were created equal” which means no person is born to rule over another. It means that an equality of opportunity not outcome was a right to be protected. It did not mean that men and women were all equally talented nor did it imply that equal outcomes are desirable. Freedom is not free, free men are not equal and equal men are not free.

They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights Another important concept was that our rights come from our creator, not from other people or from the government. Our rights are inalienable. They are a part of us and can never be removed. They can be trampled or ignored, or rightfully abridged by a jury, but that does not mean that we do not possess those rights. Specifically mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.This simple list is unfortunately overlooked too often or not truly understood.

Life Life is the most important right a person possesses. If that right is taken away no others rights really matter. What does free speech mean to a dead person? The right to peaceably assemble? How about a jury trial for a corpse? All ludicrous. This idea of life is where the 2nd Amendment originates. Your life is your responsibility and protecting that life is also your responsibility. According to our beliefs you should be able to protect that life anyway you see fit, as long as it doesn’t infringe on another’s rights.This leads naturally to the concept of liberty. No one else controls your life or can tell you what to do with that life.

Liberty Unlike freedom, liberty has the component of restricting action when it comes to violating another person’s rights. Your body and the actions you take with that body are for you and you alone to control, as long as those actions do not infringe on another’s rights. No entity has the authority to tell you how to live your life in any way. Any restrictions from government that are put into place that impeded the free actions of a person who is hurting no one else is wrong and not supported by our founding principles. Anyone can voluntarily enter into agreements to make whatever deals they want to place restrictions on how they interact with others. But these restrictions must be voluntary and agreed to by all parties. Otherwise any contract between two consenting adults is perfectly fine and not subject to government interference.

And the pursuit of Happiness Putting life and liberty together creates a person’s pursuit of happiness. You utilize your body, take actions and interact in the world to do what you want to pursue happiness. This pursuit often leads to the creation or aquisition of property. Property used to be known as physical as well as intellectual property. The freedom of speech, of assembly, of the press all stem from this idea of intellectual property. The 4th Amendment is a protection of these rights. The 5th, 6th and 7th Amendments with their due process ideology also support this right to your pursuit of happiness and protection from arbitrary interference. It was a founding principle that your property was your own and no one including government had a right to take it without due process. Property taxes and income taxes were not condoned. Private property ownership and keeping the fruits of your labor were understood by all.and acknowledged to be an integral part of a free nation.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men Realize that we create our own government. The reason we create this government is to secure our rights. Having rights is not enough. This is why we move away from the state of nature and anarchy. We want a structured society where the rights to life, liberty and property are recognized and defended. We the people can pursue our life secure in the knowledge that our rights are being protected from all that would infringe on them. This is the only reason we have government.

Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed Probably one of the least understood of our founding principles. The consent of the governed means more than having proper representation by elected officials. That is important but not the full extent of the meaning. It means that the power of the created government cannot never exceed the power of the individuals. If a person or a group of people do not possess a power over another person or item, then how can they bequeath a power they do not possess themselves? In the proper pursuits of government, we see the actions that individuals could take but instead delegate to a central authority. The local police and fire departments are examples of this concept. The Court system and dispensing of justice. Protection of our borders. Standardizing currency, weights and measures, and bankruptcy laws are some examples of proper government. These are activities and ideas that the people can and would rightfully do on their own if there were no government. The central determination of these standards is needed when sovereign entities interact.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it The rest of the initial statement of the Declaration of Independence speaks of the right of the people to identify bad government and to change it however they see fit. it supports the idea that government is a mechanism, a construct that we the people create to secure our liberty and prosperity. When government deviates from that course, we the people can and should fix it. It is our duty.

In the finishing of the ideological introduction, the Declaration speaks to human nature and our tolerance for abuse. I will not comment. I will simply share it.

“ Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”

This is a cursory look into the minds of early Americans about the kind of country we wanted to create. I realize that perfect societies do not exist nor is liberty ever fully realized. Both are concepts we constantly strive for but fall short of because of our nature. It is in that strife where liberty and prosperity can exist. More frequently nowadays there is no fight but capitulation by the populace. That is not liberty and will not lead to prosperity.

When did we lose our way? Why are we the people pursuing being In Dependence to the government instead of independent from them? Many people talk a strong game but when adversity hits or problems in society arise they are some of the first to ask “what is government going to do about it?”. Crime, pollution, infrastructure, food and medical regulations are some of the areas people demand government take an active role in. They have the erroneous belief that government is the solution. Government is the problem. Many of the difficulties and challenges we face as Americans today are results of government interference or malfeasance. Mostly are unconstitutional actions to boot. Yet all we get is more laws, new regulations and new agencies to combat (i.e. perpetuate) the outcomes of previous government interference. Why do we have 10’s of millions on food stamps if more government is the answer? And to add salt to the wound and identify one of the true problems of our current government- most of these activities are not paid for by taxpayers, we are borrowing from future generations to sustain our current one. That topic gets the cursory “balanced budget” treatment and then quickly ignored. But I digress. Let’s look at today’s society from the perspective of the Declaration.

All Men Are Created Equal- Except those that are or have been oppressed. Or those who have challenges in life. Or are part of a protected class. All people need to be looked out for and it is the duty of government to make that happen. Taking money from some to support the lifestyle of others is now a responsibility that government has taken on. You are greedy or don’t care about the poor or if you oppose government redistribution of wealth. Everyone deserves a living wage.

They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights- Rights now include things such as food, clothing, shelter, “reproductive” rights, education and healthcare to name a few. Government defines our rights and they are the ones who tell us how much of a right is good. Peculiarly, most of the new “rights” cost a lot of money to make a reality.

Life- As long as you realize that you are a custodian of the state and they ultimately control your life and body. Your children must comply. You must comply. We will tell you to what extent you may protect your own life. We will tell how you must raise your child. Common Core. Vaccinations. We will tell you what food and what medicine is acceptable for you to use. We are from the government and are here to help you. Resistance is futile.

Liberty- Just remember that the state has strict rules above and beyond what infringes on another’s rights. Where you can fish and hunt. Most private transactions between consenting adults- food sales, medical care, real estate, financial help, personal care, electrical work, pool work, veterinarian services, automobile repair to name but a few. Why do I need to pay the state for permission to buy a slurpee from 7-11? Regulations limiting choice such as licenses regulating a plethora of industries that inhibit competition and new start ups, personal permits to build or modify a house, the need of personal licensing and sanction of the state to perform most services nowadays. You can’t cut hair without a license. You cannot clean fish without a license. You cannot wait tables without getting the proper credentials. God forbid you sell medicinal products or lemonaid to your neighbors. This is not counting any of the “professional” services that require much more interaction with the state and the bureaucracy. Almost all interactions between consenting adults is now scrutinized by government.

And the pursuit of Happiness- Your “happiness” is highly taxed and regulated. Property taxes are one of the biggest offenders. Who owns your house when you “pay it off”? Don’t pay property tax for a few years and you will know the real answer to that question. Who owns the fruit of your labors? Depends really on what tax bracket you are in and the tax structure of the state you live in. A confiscatory tax structure is the norm and it is NOT the price for civilization. It is theft and corruption for the most part just like paying for the privilege of living in the United States and its use of of a death tax- i.e. the inheritance tax. Why should the government have any claim to the after tax fruits of your labor? And the money we use. The fiat currency that has lost over 80% of its value since we were taken off the gold standard in 1971 by Nixon has made it much harder for people to pursue their happiness. It used to be the norm that many families had one worker in the family and without a college diploma make enough money to buy a house, raise kids and retire in the future. The American Dream is a pipe dream for more and more people. Government is the problem, not the solution.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men- Governments are now mommy and daddy. They tell us in specific terms how we are to live our lives and have penalties for those of us who dare disobey. Rights are what the government tells you they are. Even the most basic rights are subject to interpretation. Bake the cake. 1st Amendment zones. Gun free zones. Marriage. NSA spying..

Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed- Nowadays government makes it up as they go along and most people applaud it. The Constitution is ignored most of the time. People demand that legislative bodies that “do nothing” are bad and the measure of success for them is passing laws. The abuses of government abound. Put it in this perspective- picture your neighbor doing the job that government has taken on. Can you neighbor tell you that you must pay him or her to install a pool? Can your neighbor can tell you what food you are allowed to buy? Can they dictate what drugs you put into your body? How about the size of your toilet or type of lightbulb you can use? Can they demand that you pay them a little money every time you buy something? If we the people do not have that power, then why can “government” have that power?

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it- Let’s remember the lessons of the Civil War. A president went against this very concept and more Americans died in the ensuing war than any other time in our history. States rights is a bad term to many people even though it is the basis of our republic. “Government is what it is and politicians are going to lie to us. So what?”. That attitude and expectation must be changed for us to survive as a nation.

Our founding principles detailed in the Declaration of Independence were revolutionary at the time and were paid for with blood and lives. Over the decades we have allowed our government to grow beyond it purpose. Dangerously so. We are a nation of laws and as we move away from that concept and accept the opinions of our fellow man as law we ignore the lessons of history and allow tyranny to gain a foothold.

Even with all of the challenged we face, our life as Americans is superior to most and definitely better than our ancestors experienced. Our perceived prosperity masks our trajectory as a nation and its unsustainable course. It is very important we realize in which direction this country is moving in. It is not in the direction of liberty nor prosperity.

We the people of the United States cannot continue to ignore the lawlessness of our federal government. The Constitution is just not a good idea, it is the law! Our founding and the nation it produced was a miracle. We have it within our power to peaceably turn this around and make the changes needed to maintain our sovereignty as a nation. Ignorance is an enemy. Apathy is another. The constant program of demoralization we face as a people needs to be attacked head on. We DO have the power to make the necessary changes. We the people DO have the power to right America and return her to the proper path.

Visit me at Constitutional Cappuccino on Facebook or my Website. Check out my new book Patriot Ammo: The Words Behind Our Flag which is a civics lesson for those who want the truth. It is strong enough for adults but written for high school students.

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

                                                                                                Patrick Henry

The Pulse Tragedy : Why it Can Happen Again

It is the anniversary of the killing of 49 people in the Pulse night club. It was a horrendous event that sparked national outrage and a nonsensical response by our local leaders. The problem is that nothing has changed to prevent or minimize the chances of this happening again. Prayer vigils, special flags nor proclamations by city or state leaders do anything to address the problems which allowed this tragedy to unfold the way it did. This has become about the victims and ignores the reality that nothing has been done to empower citizens to prevent a similar tragedy from happening.

Some truths that need to be known.

The police are not tasked with protecting your life.  There have been over 10 cases brought against police where the Supreme Court and lesser courts have determined the police are not responsible for your life if you are murdered. Police in the Pulse incident did not enter the club for almost 3 hours after the shooting began. I do NOT fault police with their actions. It is not their job to protect individual lives. They contained the situation and proceeded when a plan was finally implemented.  Bottom line: you, and only you,  are responsible for your own life.

We have laws on the books here in Florida which state it is illegal for anyone to carry a gun into a bar. I understand the “thinking” behind the law but it left law abiding citizens at the mercy of a deranged killer. The idea that officials at the state level have violated their oath to office is repugnant and should be a crime.  I must have missed the part of the 2nd Amendment which excluded our right to protect ourselves when we enter a bar. Our representatives violated their oaths to office by infringing on the right of people to keep and bear arms and are culpable. There could indeed be problems for drunk patrons that are armed when in a bar.  But as the tragedy of Pulse and other mass shootings are looked into, it becomes apparent that gun free zones are hunting areas for the deranged. I guarantee you that those victims in Pulse would have armed themselves if they had been given the chance, but they were prohibited from doing so by our ignorant and outdated laws. I, like Thomas Jefferson, prefer dangerous liberty to peaceful slavery. Most people when faced with reality agree.

The response by our leaders is also telling.

Buddy Dyer, in his reply to a petition to enact gun control regulations here in Orlando, diverted the conversation by saying only lawmakers in Tallahassee can make those decisions. He is correct but instead of affirming the truth about people’s responsibility for protecting their own lives, he dodges the question and ignores the reality of the situation. I am unaware of any legislation or initiatives which have been implemented to allow people to better protect themselves from madmen like Omar. Silence is consent Buddy. Why do agree that disarmed people are a good idea? Buddy Dyer’s continued ignorance of reality is disturbing. Buddy Dyer did declare June 12th as Orlando United Day. That is the best he has I guess.

Rep. Carlos Guillermo-Smith and Sen. Linda Stewart early in 2017 filed a bill to ban “assault” weapons here in Florida in response to this tragedy. This is a typical knee jerk reaction by the anti-Constitution radical left and nothing new. They “spoke of the need to prevent another massacre like the one at the Pulse nightclub”. Newsflash- these tragedies are hard to prevent, if not impossible. Lone wolf attacks are very hard to detect and stop. There solution was to disarm law abiding citizens which would have NO effect on what happened inside of Pulse that night. None. They used the tragedy to further their own ignorant agenda. Criminals are criminals because they don’t obey the law. Linda Stewart further stated that “But it is also worth mentioning that the people killed by gun violence every day have rights too” yet she violated HER oath to office and tries to restrict those rights by banning “assault” weapons. Typical extremist hypocrisy.

Let’s not forget the politically correctness exhibited by federal authorities in this situation. All references that the gunman made to being aligned with ISIS were censored. In the partial transcripts that were released by authorities, any references Omar Mateen made about his ties or allegiance to ISIS were scrubbed. After MUCH public pressure the transcripts were finally released in their entirety. Political correctness and a twisted agenda seem more important to the authorities than reporting the truth. Public safety is a campaign slogan not reality here in Orlando it seems. Time for people to wake up.

In conclusion, nothing has been done that would minimize another attack like the one that occurred in the Pulse nightclub. We mourn the dead, have street rallies and hoist special flags for them but we have done nothing to address the problem that still exists. We owe it to the 49 dead and those of us still alive to allow people to be able to protect themselves. Protecting ones life is a natural right. the most important we have. That is where the right to keep and bear arms is derived.  Police are not responsible for protecting your life and our representatives keep law abiding citizens from doing it themselves. This is insanity. We remain sitting ducks in gun free zones. Idiocy and political correctness reign.


Reconstructing Civil War History

Since the revisionist crowd has hit Orlando and are pushing for the removal of a Confederate Statue from the grounds of Lake Eola citing blatant lies as their reason, I feel it is incumbent on those of us who actually know the history of the war to speak out. The Civil War was not started because of slavery. It had nothing to do with white supremacy or hate. These ideas are ludicrous and those that push this fabrication have no basis in fact. The war had everything to do with the continued economic subjugation of the southern states by the federal government.

Slavery was not the reason for the attack by the North. It is true that some of the southern states did cite maintaining slavery as one of the reasons for their secession, but this truly makes no difference. It does not matter why the South left the Union. They are not the aggressors in this conflict and merely exercised their sovereignty as states to peaceably leave the United States of America. It is the North’s response to this legal action which merits scrutiny.

Slavery was an established practice and supported by law. The Fugitive Slave Acts and the Dred Scott decision both supported the institution of slavery. In the election of 1860, not one of the candidates ran on an abolitionist platform. Far from it. Abolitionists were a very small minority of the people and had little influence.

Lincoln ended up winning the election. Lincoln had plans which were upsetting to the South which had nothing to do with slavery. On the campaign trail. he supported the Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott. He was in ardent opposition to abolition. Lincoln in his first inaugural address stated:

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

He further stated that if he was to do something then he would be acting against the Constitution in doing so. Lincoln made it crystal clear during this speech that slavery was NOT under attack under his administration. What was under attack was the secession of the states from the Union. He wanted to “save the Union”.

Flashback to 1776. When we declared our independence from Great Britain, we in effect seceded from their influence. Secession was recognized as a right of any state or group of people who felt they were not being governed correctly by those in power. This was one of our founding principles.

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”

No one disputed the right of the sovereign southern states to secede until Lincoln came along. The voluntary union that the states had created by the Constitution had no qualms about secession. Talks of secession had been bandied around for a few decades before the issue resurfaced in the 1860’s. These cries for secession came from the northern states in most instances. No one had any legal or moral problems with the action. Why should they? Our country was formed by a voluntary agreement between the sovereign state to form this nation. The states made the decision on their own to be part of the country.  It was a voluntary act and could be reversed if necessary.

Why Did the North Attack? This had everything to do with Abraham Lincoln and his support of Henry Clay’s “American System”. This was the agenda that was pushed by Lincoln throughout his political career and was the main plank of the Whig Party. This system was about unconstitutional government sponsorship of internal improvements, a centralized federal bank and protective tariffs to fund it all. This is also where the idea of the United States of America becoming the world policeman got its start. This system protected northern industry while invoking high tariffs on exports by the South. It protected northern interests at the cost of southern solvency. By the 1860’s, the South accounted for over 70% of the tax revenue that the federal government took in. In contrast, the high majority of money spent on internal improvements were spent in the north. The south was the loser in this unconstitutional system and the main reason they left the union. This is very similar to the merchantile system set up by Great Britain that led to the colonies revolting.

This was not the first time that southern states had threatened secession. In 1828 a tariff was passed that became know as the ‘Tariff of Abominations”. It was so unpopular that in South Carolina secession was openly talked about and the tariff was nullified by the state legislature. A compromise was finally reached but the problem still festered.

These tariffs were also the reason that the South needed to be forced to stay in the union and why Lincoln attacked. Without the southern states the USA would have gone bankrupt or the American System would have had to been done away with. Instead Lincoln chose to conduct THE most bloody war in American history.  It was all about money, influence and a departure from constitutional values. Lincoln proved during the war he had no love of the Constitution. It should be no surprise that he opposed the legal secession of the southern states.

The out of control government we see today is directly tied to the illegal war waged by Lincoln and his supporters. He was the one who initially took us away from the Constitution and its promise of a limited government of enumerated powers. Lincoln’s actions during the war prove beyond a shadow of a doubt his disdain for the Constitution and the ideals it espouses.

How many know that Lincoln suspended habeus corpus and jailed 1000’s of people in the north without charging them with a crime? How many know that the “war” against the south was never declared by Congress? How many know that he nationalized the railroads? Or his deportation of a sitting congressman from Ohio for opposing his war stance? How about his imprisonment of newspaper publishers who were opposed to his policies? Or his conscription of newly “freed” blacks to serve in the military against their will? Ever heard of the American Colonization Society and its aim to deport all newly freed black slaves out of the country? How about Lincoln’s statement on the proper relationship between whites and blacks?

“I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.”

This is who the ignorant are defending when they attack the confederacy and support the actions of the north during the War Between the States. The mental gymnastics required to support this position cannot exist when the truth is revealed. The lie of slavery being the cause of the Civil War is easily revealed yet it is still pushed by the ignorant.

On this Memorial Day in 2017 I am amazed that some think to attack American servicemen by improperly segregating the Confederate serviceman from his rightful place in our history books. These men and women died for our country and have been since recognized as American veterans. Confederate soldiers are buried in Arlington National Cemetery. Yet here in Orlando thanks to Mayor John Dyer, “Buddy” to some, these servicemen are being ostracized by his attacks on a memorial which honors those that died in service to their country. The Mayor has being touted for the presidency of University of Central Florida. How can a person who supports the revision of history and opposes recognizing the truth about the War Between the States have any position in an educational institution? His political pandering and repudiation of the truth makes him unfit for the position. His stance on this matter will not be forgotten.

The program we see today of erasing the history of the confederacy plays into the anti-American agenda. Diverting the conversation away from the illegal war and its hostility to our Constitution is what these actions against history are based. We have people who are attacking the history, traditions and institutions of this country to subvert our way of life here in the United States. Reducing the War for Southern Independence to slavery is simplistic and false but is required to move the un-American agenda of the radical left forward. Instead of identifying Lincoln as the fraud he is, the man who trashed our Constitution and set us on the path of tyranny, many instead praise him for “ending slavery” while ignoring any of the facts of the matter. The utter void of truth that is spoken about the Confederacy and what it stood for is nothing new. Neither is the contempt of those on the radical left for destroying the freedom we enjoy in this country in the name of “progress”.

Article 2 Section 2: Why War is Necessary: Not What you Think

I have just seen another story that misrepresents the whole war powers argument. Both stories I read were from reputable sources and both stated that Article 1 Section 8 clause 11, which states “To declare War,Grant Letters of Marque and reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water” under the enumerated powers of Congress was end all be all of war. That is not true. When people understand the whole truth it makes much more sense and reveals a lie that has been spread for decades.

Article 2 Section 2 tells the rest of the story. It reads: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States”. That means simply that the President is only the Commander in Chief when there is a war that is declared. The Congress is the one who declares war and they are in charge of the military the rest of the time.

The idea is simple. When there is no war the armed forces should not be deployed. They need no immediate leadership to guide them through important situations. This time would be used organizing and training the troops. But when war is declared, it must be one person who leads the military. War by committee has some awful drawbacks with the most serious being quick decisions that may be needed. It is not that the President was thought to be going to the front lines but there needs to be a civilian authority who oversees the big picture of what needs to be done. He is the one to make the decisions that affect the course of the war effort. The President is also checked by the Congress if he gets out of control. Congress can easily take back control of the military with a vote. This is a major check and balance.

The Founders never envisioned the President being the full time Commander in Chief. The whole idea of the War Powers Act and the use of AUMF (Authorization to Use Military Force) is in violation of the simple meaning of the Constitution. On this point the document is quite clear. It is not convenient for those who want aggressive actions taken, but that is how the Constitution is structured.

When war is declared a number of things change. Enemy combatants become a reality. Interactions with the declared enemy becomes illegal. The rules on the high seas change and many other lawful acts are initiated. There is much upheaval caused when a war is declared in addition to the actual fighting. One other interesting point,  it is recognized that after a declaration of war that the enemies are given a chance to make amends before hostilities can commence.

Washington DC wants it both ways. No declaration of war but a way to initiate hostilities when convenient. A President who is in full time control of the military, taking the burden off of Congress. The power to tell the President when he can go into battle without declaring a war. In this the press has been complicit. How many times have you heard the President referred to as the Commander in Chief? The United States has not declared war since 1941 initiating our entry into WW II. That is the last time a President has rightfully been the CIC.

I write this because President Trump has just taken the action of sending missiles against a sovereign country, Syria. There has been no declaration of war. The United States is supposed to take the high moral road but in this case like so many others as of late we are breaking our own laws to invade a sovereign country. Our blatant statements about regime change are repugnant to this American. Unless it is a threat to the security of our country then American lives nor resources should not be expended. In cases of true threat or where we need to engage in war then we declare war and fight accordingly. We should respect the sovereignty of other countries like we want our sovereignty respected.

Atrocities were committed in Syria. That is not being questioned. What is being questioned is how relevant the Constitution is anymore. I fear for our future if we continue to disregard the Constitution of the United States so often and so completely.