The United States of America is Not a Democracy

I continue to hear government officials, media types and other talking heads refer to the United States as a democracy. Our country is in no way a democracy. Anyone who refers to us as such has no credibility about what they are talking about. You might as well call a horse a chair, or a tree a blanket. Even after many people have been educated on this simple idea, it continues to consistently pop its head up.

I recently saw a press conference with Congressman Steve Cohen . He was announcing the filing of charges of impeachment against Trump and said “Taking this action because of our great concern about our country, our Constitution, our national security and our democracy.”. That is where everyone should tune him out.

In congressional hearings recently where Jeff Sessions was being questioned about the Russian “connection” a Congressman asking him questions referred to the United States as a democracy on multiple occasions. George Bush in a recent speech about Donald Trump mentioned the United States being a democracy repeatedly throughout his speech. You can listen to most talking heads on TV who also repeat the mantra of the United States of America being a democracy or adhering to democratic principles. Might as well call our country a bingo parlor. That is just as accurate.

Why do these people continue to call us a democracy instead of a republic? Are they ignorant? Maybe. Do they have an agenda? More likely. That agenda is repressing the idea of unalienable rights and the protections that a republic affords to those that live in one. That agenda is the continuing perversion of words and the chronic repression of what the founding ideals of this country are. The agenda of misinformation dealing with the Constitution and how our government disregards the law is also part of it. Bottom line it is just another in a long line of falsehoods about why our country was founded and what ideals have made it great. This is often referred to generically as the “dumbing down of America”.

A democracy is a horrible system to participate. A majority of the people (50% +1) decide what is legal and illegal. In a democracy there are no unalienable rights. There are no restrictions on the government. There are no protections for any minority group. There are no property rights. Democracy is mob rule. The passions of the people are the driving force of the nation.

There could be many laws on the books, but once 50%+1 decides differently then the laws are changed. In a democracy the people could decide that freckles are punishable by death and it would become law. The majority could decide that your property should be confiscated to be torn down to make a park. The passions of the people are law.

A republic vests the power to make changes in the laws to representatives picked by the people. The methods of choosing a representative in a republic are varied. Our constitutional republic, which is the only true descriptor for the United States of America, involves the compact we call the Constitution of the United States of America which defines our federal governmental system and its interactions with the states. It is a document which delineates the size and power of government.

Our Constitution describes a nation that consists of sovereign entities we call states which have delegated specific enumerated powers to a federal government that they created. Three branches of government were established which serve as checks and balances to each other. Each has specific duties which are described by the document. Our federal government is one of limited powers, not plenary, with the majority of power left to the states and to the people.

The idea of unalienable rights referenced in the Bill of Rights is also included. Listed there are some of the rights which we the people possess and government is required to recognize. We have the idea of more rights being available to the people, via the 9th Amendment, and the ironclad statement in the 10th Amendment which states that if a power is not specifically delegated to the federal government then they do not possess it but instead it is left to the states or the people.

“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.”

Is it any wonder why those in power today, or their bootlicking sycophants, want to keep Americans ignorant to our status as a republic?

I am not going to beat this idea to death. But I will say- when you run across anyone who describes the United States of America as a democracy be wary. Either they are ignorant of the truth or they are peddling snake oil. Neither one is worthy of your time. This idea of democracy existing in the United States needs to be expunged and the truth of our roots as a republic embraced and understood by Americans once again. This is one step on the path back toward liberty and prosperity.

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. The book would make a great present for anybody 16 and up.

Advertisements

We The People and the Oath To Office

The United States is a nation of laws. Ours is not an arbitrary government where the opinions of some are the rule. Because of the laws in our constitutional republic, there is something that all public officials, elected officials, and most people who work for the government have in common. That is their oath to office.

It used to mean something to Americans when our country was young, but nowadays it is at best a requirement for getting a paycheck. When the oath to office is properly understood, it becomes apparent that we the people have much more power over our government than we currently recognize.

In my discussion I will deal with the federal government and the State of Florida, since that is the state in which I live. Most other states I have investigated have similar ideals that are espoused, you can check with your state constitution for the specifics. I recommend all people read their state Constitution regardless.

In the Florida Constitution, it is clear who has to take an oath, get a bond, and exactly what is said.

Article 2 Section 5(b) Each state and county officer, before entering upon the duties of the office, shall give bond as required by law, and shall swear or affirm:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the state; and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of <title of office> on which I am now about to enter. So help me God.”.

Florida statutes also is relevant.

Title XLVI- Chpt. 876 – CRIMINAL ANARCHY, TREASON, AND OTHER CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
876.05 Public employees; oath.—
(1) All persons who now or hereafter are employed by or who now or hereafter are on the payroll of the state, or any of its departments and agencies, subdivisions, counties, cities, school boards and districts of the free public school system of the state or counties, or institutions of higher learning, except candidates for federal office, are required to take an oath before any person duly authorized to take acknowledgments of instruments for public record in the state in the following form:

I, , a citizen of the State of Florida and of the United States of America, and being employed by or an officer of and a recipient of public funds as such employee or officer, do hereby solemnly swear or affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida.

Who does this include? Each state and county officer. Anyone who receives a paycheck from the state, or any city or county here in Florida is required to take this oath. The governor. His whole cabinet. The county commissioners. Mayors of counties and cities. School board members. Judges. State House and Senate delegates. Police. ALL take this oath. Most of these people are also required to obtain a surety bond.

What is the surety bond for you might ask? The surety bond acts as an insurance policy that protects the taxpayers from monetary penalties incurred by individuals in government. The bond will pay out any claims when the principal (the person who is required to have a bond) fails to abide by the terms of the bond. The principal will be required to repay the surety for these payouts. This is the action mechanism for the oath. A public official who violates any provision of the law or their oath can have their bond required to pay for any monetary damages against them. If a bond is revoked and one cannot be obtained, then the public official cannot legally receive a paycheck from the entity where they work. In Florida, the state or other entities who employ the official usually pays for this bond. But if a person was uninsurable they couldn’t, by law, receive a paycheck from the state or any other entity within the state. Think about how powerful that is.

There was a group a while back I ran across, S.U.F.A. (States United For America) who had a novel idea. When a public official takes an oath, they are offering a contract to anybody who in their area of influence. When a Senator says that he will “support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida”, he/she is presenting a contract to anyone in their district. According to SUFA, all a person has to do is officially accept the offer. Think of any business that offers a service to the public. There is no connection between the two until the consumer acknowledges and accepts the terms of the contract for the service that was offered. It is the same for oaths to office. Imagine taking a Representative or Senator that has violated their oath to office to trial by jury for violations of that oath? That would be a powerful incentive for the person to follow the law. It would also let the people, in their capacity as a jury, to enforce the rule of law.

Here in the State of Florida, all political power rests with the people. This is plainly spelled out in Article 1 Section 1 of the state Constitution. These is the first clause of our state Constitution.

SECTION 1. Political power.—All political power is inherent in the people. The enunciation herein of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained by the people.

This is a very powerful statement and supports, among other things, the idea of prosecuting officials who violate their oaths to office. We the people are the top of the political pyramid and those we elect work for us. They are our employees. Just because they are elected does not mean that their obligation is over to us. Just the opposite. This is the power of owning the political power in a state. This is the power we have relinquished as a people and need to recover. We have MUCH more than a vote when it comes to public affairs and government actions. We have a duty and a right to make sure the people we place into government follow the laws as written. Their job is to secure our rights and whenever any of them violate that basic tenet they need to be held accountable. Their oath is their pledge to all of the people they represent. No matter their political ideology following the law is not optional. We the people must hold them to their word. We the people must make sure that the laws are followed or consequences will be realized. To ignore this is to allow the rampant government we witness today.

At the federal level we have the Constitution and US codes which support the idea of honoring the oath to office.

The last paragraph of Article 6 of the US Constitution describes who is required to take the oath:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution”

In the Constitution, only the president’s oath is spelled out specifically. Article 2, Section 1 Clause 8 states:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Title 5 USC 3331 defines the oath to office for federal employees.

“I, <name of oath taker>, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Title 5 USC 3333 requires an affidavit by the employee.

(a) Except as provided by subsection (b) of this section, an individual who accepts office or employment in the Government of the United States or in the government of the District of Columbia shall execute an affidavit within 60 days after accepting the office or employment that his acceptance and holding of the office or employment does not or will not violate section 7311 of this title. The affidavit is prima facie evidence that the acceptance and holding of office or employment by the affiant does not or will not violate section 7311 of this title.

Which leads us to Title 5 U.S.C. 7311:

“An individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he—
(1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;
(2) is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;
(3) participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia; or
(4) is a member of an organization of employees of the Government of the United States or of individuals employed by the government of the District of Columbia that he knows asserts the right to strike against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia.”

Simply put, if a government worker supports unconstitutional activities or organizations that are contrary to the Constitution they have violated their oath and have negated their right to work in government for the people. If they register a vote that is contrary to the supreme law of the land then they have violated their oath and lose their ability to hold office. This is the potential power of the oath to office. This is why it exists.

The United States is a nation of laws. The supreme law of the land in the Constitution which almost all of the employees of the various levels of government take an oath to uphold and defend. When these employees break their oath they break the law which should lead to a trial by a jury of the people. If wrong doing is determined then expulsion from whatever office they hold at the time is the minimum penalty. This idea applies to all who take the oath. This is one way we can hold officials accountable for their actions. This is another check and balance we have allowed to erode over the years and one that must be employed at the present to rein in the out of control government we see today.

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.

A Way Support Our Troops

Many people claim to support our troops. They admire the sacrifice our service men and women have made to serve this country. These heroes realize that when they sign up, they are putting their lives on the line to keep us a free nation, and we honor them for that.

Most people will defend them when they are erroneously smeared, and we mourn when they are killed. I believe peoples’ sincerity when they state these beliefs. But there is something we the people can do, and do right now, that would truly be supportive of our men and women in the armed forces—  we could bring them home.

These brave men and women put their lives into others peoples’ hands to protect our country. They take an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies—  foreign and domestic. That is their charge.

The people who put them in harm’s way, Congress and the President, also take the same oath.  A big problem we have today is Washington sending Americans to various destinations around the world illegally. These politicians are breaking their oath. Invariably, some Americans are killed because their jobs are dangerous. I would think that sending troops around the world to be put into danger and possibly die which is not supported by our laws would upset more people that it does.

Maybe it is ignorance of the Constitution. Maybe they have the erroneous idea that we need to be the policeman for the world. Maybe they haven’t put two and two together yet. Whatever the reason, it is misguided, and it needs to be corrected. The results are the loss hundreds and thousands of American lives to unlawful acts by our government— men and women we supposedly cherish.

To some of us, the Constitution is still the supreme law of the land. We believe that the structure of our government needs to return to its original size and intent. We realize that our politicians are breaking the law on a regular basis, and in this case, the sending of troops to foreign lands without a declaration of war is resulting in the deaths of servicemen.  It is unacceptable.

Every President and Congress since I have been alive has engaged in conflicts that are contrary to our Constitution. The last time we declared war was in 1941 when the United States entered into WW II. Ever since then, every “war” we have engaged in has been illegal and not supported by law.

Either we are a nation of laws or we are not. There is no middle ground.

According to my research, we have between 600-900 bases worldwide. Even one base overseas is too many. None of those are authorized by law. We put American personnel at risk for nothing. Well, not exactly nothing— people make a lot of money because of these deployments. When an ordinance is used, companies make money replacing it. Private contractors who do the jobs the military used to do are employed at exorbitant prices while their employers make even more money. A lot of what is destroyed is often rebuilt by American corporations who profit immensely. Americans overseas equate to large profits for huge corporations. This is another in a long line of unlawful redistributions of wealth, but this one invariably costs us American lives.

President Eisenhower warned us about this on January 17, 1961. In his farewell speech, he warned us of the military-industrial complex. He was very direct in his discussion on this topic. He warned that a large armament industry could lead us to abandon our “peaceful methods and goals.” “Only an alert and knowledgeable citizen can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense, with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty can prosper together.” That was the end of his speech. Powerful stuff coming from a President who was also the Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Western Europe during WW II. Why don’t we heed his words?

So what I suggest is that we make it an issue. We need to confront politicians and let them know how we feel. Support the narrative. Bring our troops home. There is nothing of enough value overseas that is worth even one American life.

When more troops are killed, remember that it could have been avoided. That son or daughter, mother or father would be alive today if we abided by the law. Capitulating to the whims of war hawks and those who profit from our unlawful activities is no longer an option. If you truly support the military then do the right thing, support bringing our troops home. The unlawful and immoral actions of those who break their oaths of office to put these true Americans in harm’s way must be stopped. Support the Constitution and the young men and women who swear to protect it. Bring them home.

We Hold These Truths – The Founding Principles of the United States of America

I realize as I interact with people that some of the constitutional principles I espouse are hard to understand because of their lack of a foundation concerning our establishment as a nation. The basics of what our country was founded upon is a simple yet powerful idea that has been forgotten over the imposing two centuries since we became a republic. It was a radical idea at the time, but it has been shown to be a powerful system to promote prosperity and liberty. These ideals were laid out for us in the Declaration of Independence. These were the basis for staging a revolution and creating a country. These are the bedrock ideals of the United States of America.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — 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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

This is the most important section of the Declaration of Independence. These 111 words tell everyone who reads them the reason we took the audacious chance to revolt, and it also speaks volumes about the problems we see from government on all levels today. These words have been forgotten by many people and are thus ignored by our lawmakers and those that do their bidding. These words are the foundation of what made this country great. The government that was created by our Constitution respected these words in its creation.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident”

Many countries have existed throughout time, yet the simple truths that were listed in the Declaration were never espoused or implemented. Our country was the first. This statement reflects that the principles to follow are easily discernible to the author of this document and those who approve of it. It implies that the principles that follow can be understood by any who are exposed to them. In particular, it depicts the culmination of the many lessons that western civilization had taught over the centuries to any who would care to examine the facts. Our founders were such men.

“That all men are created equal”

This has a simple but profound meaning. It simply states that no one is born to rule over others. It was still a belief at the time that there were those among us who are born to be rulers. Ancestry and conquest were the vehicles used by most at the time to rise to power. Either born into the right family, anointed by God or being able to raise a sufficient force to conquer a nation were the criteria for becoming a ruler. This idea is rejected by this statement.

“that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”

The most powerful statement of them all. Our rights are unalienable. They do not come from man. They do not come from government. They do not come from a piece of paper. Rights are a part of a person just like one’s heart is. These rights cannot be taken away or denied. They are yours to enjoy because they are part of you.

“that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

These are the most important and easily discernible of our natural rights. Life is at the top of the list because without life all other rights are moot. Life encompasses your body and the ability to implement actions that you want to take. Liberty implies that you are only restricted in your actions when they begin to impose on another person’s rights. All other actions by individuals are supported. Whom you associate with, whom you work for, what hobbies or other actions you take are for you, and you alone to decide. This is not a government matter. The pursuit of happiness is wrapped up in this thought also. Private property ownership is a key to that pursuit. Private property includes your physical belongings, land, and home, and your personal beliefs. Government should not be concerned with any of these ideals.

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men”

This is the reason we have government. The government exists to protect our rights. This protection extends to any entity that would infringe on them, foreign or domestic. Government is to be invoked only when a person’s rights are violated. There is no other reason we instituted the government that we did other than for this one simple idea.

“deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”

This is the most misunderstood or ignored passage of the document. Superficially, it means that we elect those people who will represent us in government. But the full meaning escapes most people. Its message is that our government can only have the powers that we the people already possess. That is what makes it “just.” If a person cannot act in a way toward another person then the government cannot act in this manner either. If we the people do not possess a right to do something how can we give that power away? It is not ours to give. If one person cannot do something, why do some think that a hundred, a thousand or a million people gathering together suddenly manifest this power? This is the root of many problems we face today.

“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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

This is the mandate indicating that the government is a creation of the people and when the people feel their government is opposed to the furtherance of liberty and prosperity, then it is the right of the people to form a new government. We are the rulers of government. not the other way around.

As we move away from these principles, we see the results— a more obtrusive and tyrannical government. A steady decline in prosperity and the freedom of the people to pursue their dreams. A government that continues to grow larger and appropriate more of Americans hard earned wealth and property is what we are witnessing. We see a government telling the people what to do. We see a government who consistently and often breaks the laws that created it.

Our government produces nothing. They simply take from one to give to another. That is blatantly wrong and must be stopped. Every building that they build, every person they employ, every staple, pen, or vehicle they use came from Americans pockets. Every high wage and pension they offer to government employees is paid for by Americans. Every dollar they give to a foreign country is paid for by Americans. Government produces wealth like a tick produces blood.

How long ago did government move away from the idea of protecting our rights and instead try to tell us how to live our lives? When did the free market get co-opted by government? When did we lose control of our money and the fruits of our labor? When did we acquiesce to becoming subjects of our government? When did we go from sovereign to subject?

The answers differ, but the fact remains— government at every level is to blame for the majority of problems we face as Americans. For our country to survive this must be addressed. This is not a question of “if.” This is a question of “when.”

We continue to ignore our founding ideals and the true problems we face as a nation. Instead we are diverted into endless talks about the symptoms of the true problems which lead us ever closer to our destruction. There is a central nexus to our problems— the unconstitutional and out of control government that burdens our lives. All levels of government that continue to make inroads into abridging our freedom must be reined in. To ignore this simple truth is to run away from any real solutions.

We were given the gift of liberty, but its maintenance is our responsibility. We, the people, are failing our country and future generations which will have to fight once again to realize what we were given by our forefathers. Education and action are what is needed— a coming together of the disparate groups that attack the symptoms of the problem yet leave the central rot in place.

Division is a tool of those looking to destroy our country. We need to stop with the endless distractions to the true problems we face and come together to solve them. A limited constitutional government would go a long way toward that goal. We may have differences between us, but there is a threat that dwarfs all of it and is the root of most of it— our own government. This is nothing new in history.

Hopefully, we learn the lessons of history and take appropriate steps to solve the problem. Many billions of people rely on us to do so.

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.

The Continued Attacks on American Ideals

Western civilization was built on some basic tenets. Ideas such as consent of the governed, unalienable rights, and limited governments set up to protect those rights are central to our belief structure. Every day, we see the consistent bombardment on the institutions, beliefs, and ideology of our country. Censorship, violence, misinformation, and lawlessness are everyday events in the lives of Americans and are the vehicle for the enemies of America in our midst. Properly identifying the problem is the first step to eliminating it.

Censorship is a tool used by the enemies of America. Terms such as “white supremacist,” “nazi,” “alt-right,” and “white nationalist” are some of the current leftist attacks on Americans used to silence opposition, impugn character, and create division. These terms are currently being turned on our Founding Fathers and the principles that were used in the founding of our country. These attacks which lately have been focused on Confederate generals are now being redirected to men such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and even Christopher Columbus. Soon you will see these corrupted ideas applied to directly to our Constitution. Mark my words, if you oppose the modern-day liberal agenda with any efficacy and support constitutional ideals, these terms will be applied to you as well. You will be told to shut up because you are an extremist. As more Americans wake up they reject these attacks for what they are- censorship.

Censorship has taken a more violent turn as of late with Antifa and BLM. These groups show up at rallies and protests, and when they cannot shut them down, they initiate violence to stop their opponents from speaking. The actions of these groups are leading to institutions refusing speaking engagements for “controversial” speakers due to the possibilty of violence. These attacks have been cited to support recent efforts to further militarize our police. This violence and the “solutions” offered are in direct oppostition to the laws of this nation and the ideals we were founded upon. Capitulating to violence and those who would initiate it is an un-American idea and only emboldens those who perpetuate these violent acts.

Americans used to believe in the “sticks and stones” ideal and the credo that “I may not agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.” Some are trading their liberty for “security” by capitulating to the violence we are witnessing while others are justifying this violence by advocating it to silence their [pick one: racist, homophobic, nazi, supremacist] opponents.

These violent groups use aggression to shut down their opponents and stifle our founding ideals of free speech and freedom of association. As people realize the truth they are rejecting this un-American conduct. You don’t have to agree with what these groups say. You do, however, have to protect their right to voice their opinion in a peaceful way. Advocating for violence or government intrusion to silence these people puts you firmly in the anti-American crowd.

Misinformation has been going on for decades. The government run public school system is a major player its distribution. The true ideals of our founding are replaced with the falsehoods that our country was founded upon slavery, bigotry, and oppression. Many of this generation believe these lies because they did not get a proper education. Many have the belief that more government is the solution to our problems. Just the opposite is true. True education would include the greatness this country has achieved because of a limited government and how our country has positively changed the world. True education would include comprehensive studies of our form of government, the Constitution of the United States of America and Declaration of Independence. The continuance of our republic depends on the people being informed and in charge of their government.

The media has been complicit for many decades pushing misinformation while ignoring the lawlessness displayed by government at all levels.  When is the last time any major media outlet has questioned the constitutionality of any thousands of laws passed by Congress? How about the questioning of the continued presence of the 400+ government agencies and departments currently operating in Washington DC in blatant defiance to the supreme law of the land? How about questioning the very existence of the private corporation that unlawfully controls our money supply in the United States of America—  The Federal Reserve? Have you heard of any support of our constitutional values in defiance of the unlawful military actions taken in the last 60+ years? How about the media’s questioning of the unconstitutional redistribution of wealth here in America and abroad? Nary a peep.

In just a couple of centuries, the United States of America set the benchmark for free societies across the world and across history. The Founders of this country took the bold step to reject the notion that some are born to rule and stated that we the people can be the rulers of ourselves. The Founders stood up to tyranny and declared that our rights are not dispensed by government but instead are unalienable and given to us by our creator. They rejected the overwhelmingly pervasive ideology of the time and put their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor on the line for these principles.  As We, the people, allow these attacks on our founding principles to continue, we see the results. Poverty replaces prosperity. Dependence replaces liberty. Lies replace truth. And through it all, no matter who is in charge, government continues to get bigger and more oppressive. True Americans must stand up for our founding ideals and reject the traitorous propaganda and actions currently being implemented in our country.

“It does not take a majority to prevail… but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”    Samuel Adams

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.

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 arbitrary stance on the commission of a crime. Think of texting and driving. Is it a good idea? Probably not. Is it infringing on another person’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 arbitrary 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 I read recently, 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.

I wrote this article in a direct response to 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.