Thursday, August 8, 2013

Edward Snowden: "The Nullifer" "My understanding is that espionage means giving secret, or classified information to the enemy. Since Edward Snowden shared information with the American people, his indictment for espionage could reveal, or confirm that THE US GOVERNMENT VIEWS YOU, AND ME AS THE ENEMY." Ron Paul I don't have the slightest idea of what Edward Snowden's notions are of the concept of nullification, but the essence of his heroic whistle-blowing in its behalf is certainly consistent with it's principle. And even while this episode continues to unfold, the hordes of the NSA's minions engaged in illegal domestic espionage continue to whine, and rant about the inappropriateness of his methods. Rather than transfer reams of classified intelligence material to investigate journalists, they say, Snowden should have gone through "official channels". Among those channels are supervisors, inspectors general, and individual members of congress. Any of these might have assisted Snowden in raising the necessary awareness of the problems that he saw while maintaining the operational security of the programs in question. Thus sayeth the "government agents"(read: system lackeys) It should be patently obvious to even the most casual observer that all such channels are bound to fail for anyone trying to seriously expose unlawful behavior. If any of Snowden's supervisors had any intentions of of putting an end to the unconstitutional programs being carried out by the NSA, it is highly unlikely that they would have needed any prodding by a lower level agent such as Snowden in the first place. Surely these men were as aware of the nature of the offenses as was Snowden. Thus, had they any inclinations to be faithful to the fourth amendment themselves, they would not be in need of any urging from a subordinate. It is possible, and even indeed likely that the inspector general was unaware of the extent of the spying, and may even be inclined to investigate the claims of illegal secret data mining, and the storage of private communications between Americans. This does not mean that such an investigation would ever lead to the exposure of the programs, or of them being ended. And, it most certainly would not be a safeguard of the freedoms of the persons responsible for the complaint. Indeed, it is highly likely that the person, and affects of the plaintiff would very likely come under scrutiny, and be subject to additional hardship as a subsequent reward for their forthrightness. The last option, that being Snowden going before congress, is so preposterous in its potential for effect that it is laughable to suggest it with a straight face. Congress authored, and wrote the legislation authorizing the spy programs in the first place. Congress established the FISA courts, and it approves the appointment of all senior government officials that provide the oversight of the NSA, and other intelligence agencies. Why should anyone ever believe that any senator is going to consider exposing the programs that they have birthed by asking questions of its legitimacy in this, or any other instance? For the record, congress was made aware of the extra-legal snooping that has been in the works for at least two years, and until this recent whistle-blowing by Snowden reached the ears of the general public, they expressed little in the way of concern for what was going on. The question must then be raised: is congress entirely impotent when it comes to providing a check against executive power, or is it complicit in expanding it? Irregardless, anyone suggesting that future whistle-blowers work through "official channels" are advocating a solution that will fail to deal with the particulars inherent to it. In this respect it is much like the prior instances of opponents of nullification suggesting an appeal to the courts, or the election of new representatives to overturn unconstitutional legislation. They are in effect saying: we don't want to hear it; go away! But for those interested in effecting real change, this answer is not an answer! It clearly didn't work for Bradley Manning, or Daniel Ellsberg when these men had the temerity to leak classified information that demonstrated the evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the government. Thus, the cry to use only "official channels" to correct government abuse of power in theory makes no sense, and empirically this has been the case as shown(quo ero demonstratum). Rather than wait for someone in authority in the government to make the right decision for "WE THE PEOPLE", we must take the bull by the horns through the power of the people in "the several states" via the enactment of the tenth amendment. This position will place us in direct opposition to what is taking place at the federal level. The enactment of the tenth is legal, constitutional, and requires only the right application of "The Rosa Parks method" to get the job done. The best repository for the statutes of liberty is in the hands of the people! The revolution is televised.

Thursday, February 7, 2013

The Trojan Horse

The following is an excerpt from the Master Plan of the United Nations:

Prior financial dealings with the United States have proved that America would not be penetrated easily. The founders of the US Constitution had masterfully erected individual, separate institutions to guard against an assault. These independent institutions made it difficult for an enemy to attach their mechanical linkages, and frail bridges that were designed to weaken a country's structure, and force its collapse. The only recourse was to directly confront the United States Constitution and dismantle it piece by piece.

Through the establishment of the Federal Reserve, the road was paved for the formation of the United Nations(UN). It was through this United Nations organization that the elite international bankers intended to conquer the world. This was the establishment of global government, and the beginning of the New World Order(Novus Ordo Seclorum), a monstrous campaign that spared no effort or expense was created to misinform the American public regarding its purpose and direction. Senate opposition was rendered so impotent that there was no significant outcry against the the enactment of the UN Charter. Subsequently, forty-two members of the US delegation adopted the UN Charter. The US Congress then opened a bank account in the name of the United Nations. They authorized the US State Dept. to make annual payments out of the US Treasury for whatever amount the General Assembly of the UN felt was necessary to cover its expenses. The general consensus determined that the UN Headquarters should be in the United States. At a cost of $8,500,000, the 17 acre site for the United Nations headquarters in NYC was donated by one of the richest banking, and oil families in America. The $65,000,000 cost to construct the UN building was an interest-free loan paid for by the American taxpayers.

All of this took place without public knowledge or approval even though Article 1 Section 10 of the US Constitution specifically prohibits states, or their subdivisions from entering into any treaty, alliance or confederation with a foreign political organization (as does The Logan Act). The United Nations, and its charter was a monster of great destruction that was now permanently attached like a leech to the US Constitution. The basis for the charter held the idea that there was a universal morality that was superior to the interests of any individual nation which included the initiation of a social charter pledging the formation of a new global society based on world governance.

The establishment of the United Nations Organization was the de facto installation of a world government with an international control of armies, a universal system of money, the authority to eliminate and implement tariffs, and quota restrictions on world trade as was felt to be necessary.

This ability to make treaties provides an extraordinary power that opens the door for the subversion of any existing governments. Treaties create international law, and therefore, also control the making of domestic laws. This makes them superior to domestic law since "treaty law" can override the Constitution. As a result, under the Constitution, treaties become the supreme law of the land. Treaty laws strip power away from the branches of Congress, and under the heading of "executive orders" give them to the President, or to whatever foreign body the "executive branch" owes their allegiance. They also take powers from the states and transfer them to the Federal government or some other international body of government, thus undermining the rights guaranteed to the people by their constitutional "Bill of Rights".

The instant that the United States became a member of the United Nations,the Constitution was made null, and void, the "sovereignty" of the US was gone, and the government of the United Nations became the legal government of the United States. That means, in effect, that any treaty enacted since October 24, 1945 that attached the United States to the UN charter-even if it is unconstitutional, as it usually is- by any members of the Executive, the Judicial or the Legislative Branches of the government is perfectly legal and binding under treaty laws.

You might counter this argument by stating that upon entering public office, every US official takes an oath to uphold the Constitution against any foreign, or domestic enemies. So any illegal act against the Constitution, including the transfer of Constitutional powers to a foreign government, is just that - in a word, illegal. And further, that any government official that promotes or endorses an unconstitutional law has automatically violated his oath, nullified his official function, violated the Constitution, and has committed an act of treason. Further yet, any public official who is aware of of such a crime against the people being committed is obligated by his oath to report the crime lest he be accused of aiding and abetting the crime and engaging in conspiracy to treason by their silence.

The problem with this line of thought is that every member, past and present, of each of the three branches of government that have held office since October 24, 1945 has violated his/her Constitutional oath to oppose any such action. Therein lies the dilemma; no one will enforce the law against anyone else, because, to quote the line from the movie The International, "everyone is involved".

Hence, we have the creation of the Council of Foreign Relations, the in-house representation of the United Nations Charter Government that sits and functions as the US Government in the District of Criminals. Knowing this, it is readily understood why no charges have been filed against the present head-usurper in regards to the violations of the US Constitution that have taken place concerning the circumstances of his birth, or when he violated Constitutional law by chairing the UN Security Council. We can also understand why no charges were filed when he sent American fighter jets and troops against Libya without congressional approval. It is also clear why charges weren't brought against the Secretary of Defense when he testified before Congress that "he takes orders only from the United Nations"- an outright act of treason against the Constitution he swore to uphold.

I can accurately continue by the mention of the numerous instances of the Congressional passing of unconstitutional laws, along with the writing of the unconstitutional Executive Orders that have taken place under every sitting president since FDR. It also provides explanation for the reason that every American serviceman and woman now wears a UN Charter Patch on the shoulder of his or her uniform as part of his or her military dress. Nothing is as it appears to be, my friends.

The American people, for the most part, still believe that they are living under a republican government, and that the US Constitution is still the law of the land. They believe that their votes are counted and make the final determination of who is elected and who will govern them. They cannot understand how the officials that they have elected to represent their interests don't do what they have elected them to do when it is so painfully obvious what needs be done; that even they, in their little-mindedness, can comprehend it.

I once posed the question: "Can America be saved from stupid people?" It seems I have my answer. All of the members of the three branches of the US government know perfectly well that America is no longer a republic, and that the Constitution is nothing but an obsolete piece of paper intended from the outset to support neither tyranny, or freedom in any but an insipid way. However, the matrix created by this document has been very useful in achieving the goals of the New World Order. Therefore, they must keep the people living in this matrix. It is the duty of every bureaucrat, and their media lackeys at Fox (Faux) and CNN (Communist News Network), NBC,CBS,ABC, et al to make sure that the people stay in this matrix; at least until they have eliminated all of their legal rights, and the physical capabilities to engage in insurrection to restore those rights. That is what has always been behind their efforts to confiscate the guns from the American citizens, and why this must eventually happen.

There is a story in Greek history about a famous horse that comes to mind. It seems that the Greeks had been at war with Troy for many years. They had tried on numerous occasions to breach the famous walls of the Trojan city. Each time, they were thrown back to count their losses, bury their dead, and make a new plan of attack. Finally, with the planned departure of their hero, the great Achilles, the Greeks were ready to admit defeat and return to their homeland. As they began gathering themselves for the journey, Odysseus had the idea that they might make a great horse from the wood left by the wreckage of some of the Greek warships. And, so he built the horse with a secret unseen compartment inside that would hold a small contingent of Greek soldiers in the hope that the Trojans would let down their guard and open the doors to their city, thus allowing the Greeks to penetrate their impregnable defenses. The success of this venture, of course, would depend on the Trojan's response to their "gift" in the wake of what would appear to be the Trojan's ultimate triumph over the Greek armies of King Agemmemnon.

When the Greek armies left the shore of Troy, it seemed that the Trojans had won the day, so they decided to bring the horse inside their walls to celebrate their great victory. I am sure you know well the rest of the story as does every student of history. The Trojans were utterly defeated, and their city destroyed by the Greek army that was hiding on board their ships in an adjacent bay waiting for the signal that their men in the "horse" had breached the walls, and were in the city of Troy.

Thus, we have the origin of the now famous quote: "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts"!

The "Trojan horse" was responsible for the dismantling of the great city-state of Troy, and the United Nations was the "Trojan horse" that has dismantled the United States Constitution, and thrown the American nation, and every other nation in the world, into their ultimate destruction and demise.

All of the illegal UN Charter acts, agreements, and treaties, Global Diversity Assessment, World Trade Organization, NAFTA, GATT, the creation of the Federal Reserve, NATO and now the formation of Agenda 21 have served to bring about the destruction of the US, and other world nations.

To achieve the ends of this so-called "New World Order", all of the nations of the world must be made to be put on equal footing economically. This has had the greatest effect on the United States simply because we have been the most prosperous nation on earth for the last century in the history of the world. Now it is time for some hard truths, if we have any stomach left for them.

First, we need to admit that we have not really been a republic in any way but form for close to a century, that American imperialism ended any notions of that with the invasion of Cuba and the Philippines at the end of the 19th century. We are often called "conspiracy theorists" in order to denigrate our version of the truth, but it is the truth to say that our elected officials, to the last man and woman without a doubt, have sold us out to a "higher bidder" and are thus guilty of treason to their sworn oaths to uphold the US Constitution. That every nation, including, and most especially the US, surrendered its sovereignty when it joined the United Nations.

The Bible puts it like this: "the dragon gave its power to the beast; and all the kings of the earth give their power to the beast. Then they all asked, "who is powerful enough to make war against the beast?" The "dragon" is Satan; the "beast" is the UN. All of the nations of the world gave their power to the UN, so now I ask you, "who is able to make war against the UN?"

Through the phony two party system, the Global Elites select and then nominate both party's candidates so that a vote for either of them is a vote for the Elites, and never one for the people. Moreover, the only issues that are ever allowed on the ballots are the ones that further their agenda. No other candidate or agenda will never see the light of day. If any candidate or issue of the people ever happened to slip through, which is highly unlikely, they would be rendered impotent from the outset by the "lamestream" media lackeys as "just a voice in the wind", and then summarily dismissed as being "frivolous" by the corrupt judges and American courts ala the bogus birth certificate of our pseudo-president.

 So, without a single shot fired in retaliation by the so-called "gun culture", the United states was conquered by a band of criminal bankers a hundred years ago. I have recently joined an All-American clergy group called The Second Amendment Pastors. I have done this because I believe that if there is any hope of restoring the American Revolution as a viable and active philosophy of government in these United states today, we must make our stand like the embattled farmers did at Lexington and Concord in 1775. Remember, it was the British attempt at "gun confiscation" that set the stage for the rebellion.

As a "Second Amendment Pastor", I have promised that I would educate those given into my care of their "inalienable right to freedom" as it has been given by God, and of their need to defend that right by the keeping and bearing, if necessary, of the "teeth of liberty", as Washington called their arms.

To this end, I have devoted my sacred calling. Will you stand with me? The hour for action has come. If you do not own arms presently, get them ASAP! and learn how to use them. When the Federal goon squads come to take them from you - and they are coming, make no mistake about it - refuse their "gold", and give them "lead" instead!

It was once said that "a few good men could save Rome". I believe that that can also be said about this nation. Petition the governor of your state to re-institute the "Militia of the several states", which he should be leading. You won't likely get an answer from him, but you will make him/her think!!! Be vigilant. It is the price of safety! Gird your loins with the truth that will set you free!!!

I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death.
- Patrick Henry

"OOMDH" (out of my dead hands).

The Revolution is Televised.

Saturday, August 11, 2012

Conspiracy of Disinformation

Since RWR and I began blogging together, I have been paying close attention to the politics of the times. I have noted a growing conspiracy of silence and disinformation about libertarians, and their ideals for government. This has been especially true in regards to Ron Paul, the libertarian-minded presidential candidate who has been stirring the Republican Party stew for the last couple of terms. Paul has been vying to be the party's presidential candidate for the last four years, but has received little support from the party by virtue of the fact that there are some very powerful forces that do not want him. These party members would not want him even if it was demonstrated that he was the only Republican who could unseat the head-chimp-in-charge, which is probably true.

The lamestream media, which is a big government lackey network, does little more than patronize Paul with comments like: "His ideas would be good for the 19th century, but they are irrelevant for the world of today". It is as if today's raging deficits, smothering regulations, curtailments of liberties, and endless meddling in the affairs of other nations, all of which are illegal, all of which were brought on by the modern Democrats and Republicans, and all of which are opposed by libertarians, are somehow beneficial to the American people in their present form. The plot further thickens when you hear the recent silence of the media when the "National Taxpayer's Union" announced that Ron Paul is the only candidate in either party who has a viable plan to reduce the national debt. This statement was ignored by the media minions when it should have been run with banner headlines. They would rather continue with their bandied quip: "He can't win, so why bother paying attention to him?" Meanwhile, their "parade of champions", Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, Bachmann, Huntsman, Cain have all risen, and fallen by the wayside. It is interesting to note in light of this, that Ron Paul is the only one among them who the media continues to stigmatize with a "can't win" label, and who still remains in the race - and yes, they have even gone so far as to report that he is no longer in the race in spite of the fact that he is still filling auditoriums wherever he speaks and still remains a viable candidate for the presidency.

In addition to ignoring Paul, the media spreads misinformation about what he and other libertarian-minded individuals think. I have personally heard everything from, "if libertarians had their way, there would be no stop signs" to "libertarians want corporations to control our lives". I am a libertarian, and I have never read or heard of such malarkey expressed by any libertarian anywhere - especially the "corporate control" gibberish. If this were true, why aren't the corporations funding Paul and other libertarian-thinking candidates? Instead they are all backing Democrats, and Republicans. The reason for this is that libertarians want to repeal more than a century of laws passed by both parties that favor corporations. They are scared shitless of libertarians because we insist that they live or die by how well they do in the marketplace, not by how well they do in Congress. Libertarians favor a policy of no bail outs, no laws protecting corporations from startup competition, no favors at all. In a libertarian world, the individual is king instead of the corporation. If libertarians had been a significant presence in Congress four years ago, none of your money would have been used to bail out the Wall Street cronies of Congress. The sad truth about corporate politics is that the overwhelming majority of corporations donate to either the Republican or Democrat parties, or both. They expect to be well paid for their investment in legislation passed by Congress that favors them. They also expect lucrative government contracts to be funneled in their direction. Obviously, these corporations are not going to be donating to any libertarian candidates, because there will be no payback for them.

Unbeknownst to most voters, the Federal Reserve is a private corporation. As such, it has the support of both major parties. The "fed" has more control over our country, your wealth, and your economic welfare than any congressman, president, or judge. To give an example of all of the good that they have done you in a century of operation, the "fed" has undermined what was once a rock-stable currency in the dollar to where it is worth just 1/25 of its value when they first got control of it in 1913. While the Democrats, and the Republicans don't even want to talk about this, libertarians and Ron Paul want to shut down this unconstitutional leviathan!

Come November, we could be witnessing the most important election of our lifetime. Will it be just another milepost in what appears to be the decline of a great republic, or will it be a Second American Revolution? The choice has never been clearer; the time has never been better!

The revolution will not be televised!

Thursday, June 28, 2012

ObamNeyCare Upheld

America is (screwed).  Not forever, but the greatest country on God's green Earth has just gone the way of the Soviet Union, and there's not a damned thing that can be done about it until November 1, 2016 - IF there's still an America in existence to deal with it.  Thomas Jefferson just rolled over in his grave.

Mitt Romney?  Forget all about him.  He's toast come November.  Just another bullshit kiss-ass Republican without the balls to stand up and do the right thing until it's "politically expedient", which is always too late.  He's just another John McCain type who has spent his career kissing Donk ass in the hopes it will get him somewhere.  Now he plans to run on a platform of repealing legislation that he basically wrote.  Obama will have a field day with that.

For my part, I will vote write-in if necessary.  For the part of the Republican Party, they would be wise do call for and execute a do-over.  Not that I expect that, but this decision has basically guaranteed the speedy demise of the Republican Party.  Come 2016, there will either be another viable party to vote for, or the current crop of Republicans will have been forced to move on.  That is, of course, on the condition that Republican and conservative voters are both smart enough and strong enough to make it happen.  I cannot guarantee that.

I also cannot guarantee that there will still be a Constitution to defend by that time.  If somehow taking over an entire industry and calling that a "tax" is now "constitutional", then just about anything is.  Any and all restrictions placed upon the government are hereby null and void.  The people now have no say whatsoever about anything.

For American government to be properly restored to its legal limits, illegal laws must now be ignored and broken.  Sage's Revolution MUST take place, and take place NOW.  Americans MUST get off their fat sorry asses and fight - with words, with votes, and if necessary, with arms.  Obama's socialist utopia is at hand, and if Americans just sit back and let it happen as they have for the last hundred years, the depression of the last four years will be looked upon as the  "good old days".  You think you have problems now?  Just wait.  They already have your money.  They now have taken your freedom.  Next will be your life.

Are you prepared to stand?


Cross-posted at

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

The Campaign Begins

OK folks. Here's the deal:

No one running for President is really any good.

Furthermore, Republicans are so obsessed with beating Obama, they've completely abandoned the concept of implementing a successful, constitutional, and beneficial agenda. Want proof? Watch the way they've all been fawning over Chris Christie wanting him to run. Chris Christie as President would be little better than Obama in the White House - pretty much what you got with George Bush. Are we REALLY missing Mr. Bush so much that we would want him back again? Christie is Bush and Al Gore combined. In fact, you could probably get both Bush and Gore into one of his suits! Just a little humor there, Mr. Governor!

Don't get me wrong. Chris hasn't done a bad job here in New Jersey. We've long needed someone to stand up to big unions here and he's done that. Still, the economic tailspin continues. That means there's still too much government in Trenton - and it's NOT because there's so much governor!

Today, I am announcing my candidacy for President of the United States. I seek the Republican nomination, but am willing to run under the Federalist banner as well. It's time Americans got the Constitutional government they have always deserved.

I plan to run a very different kid of campaign. I have no plans to travel all over the country shaking hands and kissing babies. I just can't afford it - and neither can the taxpayers or the people I intend to represent. I will not run ads on television or radio. I will not be encouraging people to give up their precious time with their families or at their jobs to campaign for me. Those who believe in Federalism will surely be willing to spread the word on their own terms, as it is truly the only hope for America.

I will not be attending debates or visiting with foreign leaders. These people have nothing to do with America's true needs, and their opinions mean nothing beyond whether they will cooperate with us. I don't have to travel to their capitals to get those answers. If they want to see me face to face, I am more than willing to visit with them on our soil and at their expense.

I will acquire transcripts of the major parties' debates and answer ALL of the relevant questions here on my blog. I will answer questions honestly regarding other candidates instead of demonizing them in an effort to improve my chances of winning.

If elected, I will implement the Federalist Platform to the best of my ability. I know that I will likely face a hostile Congress and Supreme Court, but in situations involving differences, I will force them to override my veto. My personal opinions on matters will be subservient to the will of the Founding Fathers and their Constitution.

A major tenet of Federalist philosophy is the dismantling of illegal government programs. These will be dismantled in reverse order (meaning newest first). The newest programs would be the easiest to eliminate, since older programs and those using them would be entrenched more deeply. Each program would be released to the authority of the states, where final decisions regarding their fate would be made.

A further tenet of modern Federalist philosophy is the elimination of federal debt. In order to accomplish maximum debt reduction, tax codes must be adjusted so as to maximize revenues instead of to punish success. Initially, taxes would be cut to 1984 levels until the tax code set forth here on my blog could be finalized. This would increase revenues and provide funds necessary for paying down the debt. It should be anticipated that it would take approximately two years to implement the new tax code.

While a robust and state-of-the-art military is essential to American security, our presence overseas is neither needed nor wanted by many we seek to protect there. Therefore, those nations desiring our help will be asked to pay for it. If they don't want our help, they can simply choose not to pay the bill. If they cannot afford it, they will need to dismantle some socialism and cut some taxes to raise the money. Our nation's interests would be much better served with our soldiers guarding our own borders and fighting those who have chosen to fight us. Military action taken during my term will be taken with the purpose of defeating the enemy and coming home. Should a new enemy surface as a result of our departure, we will destroy that enemy as well - and come home. Forward bases overseas would be kept only as needed and only for purposes of protecting US citizens and those who pay for the protection.

It will not be enough to simply have a Federalist president. Americans will need to read the Federalist Platform and elect people who agree to implement it. We will need officials who are not only friendly to our beliefs, but who are willing to stand up for them.

I thank you for your time. God Bless America!


Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Freedom Government(Sage's Tax Plan)

" It can never be too often repeated that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our leaders are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war(Revolutionary)we shall be going downhill. It will no longer follow of necessity to resort every moment to the goodwill of the people for support. They will soon be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will even forget themselves, but in the sole purposes of making money, and will never again think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. Whatever shackles, therefore, that shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war will remain on us long, and will only be made heavier 'til our rights revive, or expire in a convulsion." Thomas Jefferson: "Notes on the State of Virginia(1782)

I believe we are approaching a narrow, but distinct window of opportunity. With the economy soon to go farther in the tank than it already is, the "freedom movement" is possibly gaining the quantity, and even more importantly, the quality of Americans necessary to slough off the tyranny of the federal fleas. This will still not be easy, but I am optimistic(for an avowed cynic) that it is achievable. I think it will probably go one of two ways. We will either discover an extraordinarily clever technologically based avenue to cover our massive debt, or be forced to defend ourselves with arms as the shit hits the fan, and all hell breaks loose.

As far as the first option is concerned, and in light of my good friend RWR's posting of his tax plan; one which, by the way, I do believe would be a very viable operative if implemented, I have some fiscal suggestions of my own that, although some may view as "radical", I think are worth considering.

For the record, I would propose that the federal government be funded fully by user's fees, or some form of "head tax" that is linked to this concept. For example, if the cost of defending the nation against attack from its enemies cost, say $1200 per year, why not bill people,rich or poor, directly for that amount? Foreign tourists would pay about $3.50 per day simply tacked to their visa fees. It costs the same to protect a millionaire from attack as it does a street person, and both would pay a uniform cost of $7.00 to go to the movies, so why shouldn't something that it just as uniform in its application, and infinitely more necessary be funded the same way? It should be remembered that defense is like vitamins, and exercise, they are necessary because they are an investment in the prevention of ruin for the entire society. The rich should not of necessity pay more for it, because, in the end, they derive no more benefit from it than the poor. It would be like charging Porsches more at the car wash than Priuses.

Congress could be funded by a national lottery. Each elected Congressman would be paid $1,000,000 per year. This would pay his salary, and related expenses. Here is the catch, every word of law he votes for costs him/her $10.00, and what he doesn't spend, he gets to keep. Congress would therefore, be voting for fewer, and simpler laws; which would then translate into a major bonus for WE THE PEOPLE! Wouldn't you rather pay your representatives big bucks to do less, and reap the benefits than continue with the present system of tax, and spend? If Congress can pay farmers to not raise food, then we should pay them to not make laws!

I have long been a believer in the restoration of character-defamation based punitive damages in the event of frivolous lawsuits. The answer to this problem could be found in requiring the loser of a civil suit to pay for all of the costs plus the opposition's attorney fees, and by having the courts charge a premium on any legally enforceable contract that is to be repaid. That would guarantee the court's enforcement of the terms in the event that the loser weasels, while at the same time discourage the ongoing abuse of the legal system. The end result would be lower prices, and improved service with the truly legitimate litigants paying for their own services only instead of being forced to reward outrageous legal fees to the criminal elements of the legal profession.

All police, and criminal courts would be voluntarily funded by insurance premiums similar to car, or homeowner's insurance. If you want the protection of the police, or the judicial system "YOU" pay for it. If you don't want this protection, and are willing to take the involved risks of not having it,(as many are now doing by not having fire, or health insurance) then you neither receive police protection, or
court justice. Anyone convicted of a crime would be required to make monetary reparations, plus pay for all punitive fines. Thus, the "customers" would be the ones paying for the criminal justice system. YOU USE IT, YOU PAY FOR IT! What could be more fair, or free then that?

Perhaps not all of this is feasible, but in light of the present system's failures, let's at least consider some new ideas. I'll bet you have some too!

And how about Congressional programs? If the people demand illegal programs from their elected representatives, let them do so by vote. If they vote for it; they benefit from it, AND they pay for it! If forty million voters demand a welfare state, then let it be their welfare state, and their's alone! The rest of the country will neither use it, nor pay for it! This will put an end to people making themselves feel good at the public's expense. No longer will people be robbing Peter to pay Paul! Let the Socialist's live with their Socialism, and put the collectivists out of "our" misery.

The whole of the point that I am making here is that if people are held personally responsible for all of their actions, and I mean "all of them" we will not only become fiscally solvent, but finally be functional as a truly "free" people.

You can K.I.S.S. me now!(keep it simple sammy)

The Revolution is televised

Thursday, August 11, 2011

The Future of an Illusion

The defining moment when changes in demography, and attitude made the United States "post Jeffersonian" is difficult to pinpoint. My placement of this moment would of a certainty be somewhere between 1890 and 1920, which was the time period during which the USA went from it's being a "national" nation, to it's being an "international" nation. With it's entrance into WW1, there was no doubt as to what it's future would now be. And while the US had become "post Jeffersonian" in its manifest; it had ironically remained, at least in the hearts, and minds of its people, the complete modern embodiment of the fully sanguine presence of it's most famous Founding Father. If Thomas Jefferson were to announce his candidacy for the POTUS 2012, there is not a doubt on my part that he would easily win the popular support of both, or either of the two major parties, and go on to win a historical landslide victory in the November election. I am not sure however, that the modern ship of state would be ready to accept the political implications of a happening of this magnitude were it to occur. The sea of change that separates his world from ours is such that not only have his core convictions been swamped by the tides of time, but also that the shape of the shoreline upon which the tides have washed has been completely reshaped, and reformed.

The proof positive that I offer for this posit is to be found in the fact that every single grassroots movement for the reform of government has been a dismantling operation that has been designed to "take out the trash" of built up political debris that has been accumulating since the founding of the republic. From the 1860's to the 1960's, from the Civil War, to the Goldwater revolution, to the Reagan revolution, to the "Contract with America in the 1990's, to the Tea Party revolt currently underway, the desire of "WE THE PEOPLE" has been the shifting of political power from the federal, to the state governments.It would seem that since the end of the Cold War in 1989, the present American government has replaced the old Soviet Union as our own domestic counterpart of the "Evil Empire".

And this is all pure Jefferson. Like Jefferson in 1800, modern grassroots movements are born with a morbid fear of any centralized authority;while,at the same time, blindly overlooking the legitimate reasons why centralization became necessary in the first place. For Jefferson,this was a sordid truth from the beginning(1787). For modern movements the date is more indefinite, and likely to be determined from one's own perspective. However, the consistency of logic throughout is that the federal "monster" that has developed in post-Jefferson America is both dangerous, and unnecessary. It is also becoming more aware in the hearts, and minds of many Americans that this "monster" is also outside of the walls of the prison that the Founders for good reasons, originally placed it in.

The problem, as I see it, is that up to the present, this posture has been one of argument rather than action. That while the present view of most Americans is that the federal encroachments on personal freedoms has gone too far, very few are seriously contemplating the elimination of Social Security, or the Federal Reserve, both of which are "federal encroachments", and are "monsters" outside the walls of the Constitutional prison in its original intent. And, that in truth,it is for this very reason, that the ongoing assault on the powers of the federal government have had zero effect on the growth of federal spending, or the size of the beltway bureaucracy. Nevertheless, before we throw away the baby with the bath water, I believe that it can be said that it is in fact the residual power of Jefferson thought, and philosophy that has kept government on the defensive, to the degree that it is, for all of these years, and further, that this potent thread of remnant Jeffersonianism is the driving force behind the Conservative/Libertarian wing of the Republican Party today. For the record, it would seem that a majority of Americans still concur with Jefferson in the belief that, as Carl Becker puts it, "the only thing to do with political power is to abate it".

With that in mind, I believe that Jefferson's most enduring, yet least understood legacy is the principle of religious freedom. This has been most recently defined via negative, and I believe thus counter to the Founder's intent, by the SCOTUS as the complete separation of church, and state. This is a point that would have greatly distressed Jefferson in light of his extreme distrust of this governmental branch. The principle in question has gone from the position that the government has "no business interfering with a person's religious beliefs, and practice" in the late eighteenth century, to the position where the government is the determinant of the parameters of a person's religious beliefs, and practice in the early twenty-first century. This reversal has been thinly veiled, and disguised as "protecting the rights", and thus the "freedoms" of a person to worship as they please, but has,in fact, produced the exact opposite result via "democracy"(read:mob rule). Note the subtle shift in authority here from the "God of the Bible"(Creator), to the "Lord of this World"(government). This strand of thought is a "bone of contention" that I will chew on farther down the road. It is, however, purely Jeffersonian in its form, and intent.

On the other hand, it flies in the face of all we know about Jefferson to equate him with the advocates of racial equality, or any modern multi-racial ideals. All existing evidence portray him as a staunch believer in white Anglo supremacy in all of its forms, as were most members of the revolutionary generation. In addition, it can be said that he went far in identifying the differences between the races as products of nature, and thus ordained by God, rather than products of environment which is the modern understanding of this phenomenon. It was Lincoln, rather than Jefferson that expanded the "natural rights" section of the Declaration of Independence to include men of color.This may explain why MLK chose to deliver his "I Have a Dream" speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial rather than the Jefferson Memorial. And while it can be rightly said that he(Jefferson) was an enemy of slavery, it cannot be rightly expressed that he was equally a friend of integration, Sally Hemings not withstanding.

For all of these reasons, any invocations either past or present of Jefferson as "the apostle of freedom" are to some degree, misleading, and thus are inaccurate. Nonetheless, the truly powerful Jeffersonian legacy that has changed very little, and even yet remains strong with us is the parameters that contain the framework for all considerations of personal freedom. It should be noted that Jefferson was alone among the revolutionary generation in his seminal belief that government begins with an individual sovereignty that is a natural right from the Creator,and that this right was to be protected by the mechanisms of government. John Adams, James Madison, and even more so, Alexander Hamilton began with the assumption that in order for government to be effective, it must needs address individual freedoms within in a larger public context. Jefferson, on the other hand, believed that by the true expression of the highest form of individual liberty removed finally from all forms of feudal repression, a type of natural harmony of like interests would be produced that then would create invisible forms of discipline throughout the strata of society. The bulk of the twilight correspondences between Adams and he dwelt on Adam's failed attempts to apprise Jefferson of the truth of this illusory thinking. However, the temptation of this philosophy in the early years of the republic's boisterous optimism was simply too great for the idealogue that was Jefferson. It would not be seen until long after his death in 1826, that with the coming of the end of the Frontier Era, and the dawning of the inequalities of the Gilded Age, that his vision would finally be exposed for the "illusion" that it truly was. By then the Jeffersonian philosophy of individual freedom as a divine right was firmly established in the hearts, and minds of the people as a bedrock principle of American government, and thus the starting point of all future political dialogue. Thus, other than in times of great national distress, or crisis; individual sovereignty remains the heart conviction, and home base for all political thinking. It continues to be the framework for all political conversations in ways that have had us questioning all communal proposals for public rights in their various forms, and putting their promoters on the defensive perpetually. In short, Jeffersonian thinking in respect to the ideal of "self government", although a contradiction in its present application, remains the abiding belief of most Americans. That is why the telling of Americans that to improve their democracy they must "lose themselves in the comforts of a collective life" falls on deaf ears. In truth, there has never been any real notions of an "American democracy" without its equally accompanying thread of "American individualism", and nothing suggests that there ever will be save through subtle misrepresentation, and clever manipulation.

Like it or not, realistic or not, American political ideology will be forever framed in Jeffersonian language as an argument based on the absolute sovereign rights of the individual over the collective. As the years have passed, the simplicity of the Jeffersonian vision, "illusion" if you will, has only increased in its political, and moralistic implications, even as the size of the American electorate has grown larger, and more unwieldy. As a candidate for office, if we could ever persuade him to run, he would remain, as in the past, a formidable contender.

The Revolution has been televised.