The Common Sense of Natural Human Rights:
A Contemporary Essay on the Infringement of Americans’ Rights and How to Restore Those Rights
By Thomas St. James
(ISBN 978-0-9905563-4-3; Copyright pending, Case 1-10279289721)
There is a lot of talk these days about “rights.” Often, we hear phrases bantered about such as civil rights, human rights, and consumer rights. These phrases all sound good. They stir emotions in our chest and get us excited for action. But, in the rush of the 24/7 news cycle, between glances at our smart phones and computers, as we consume these phrases in our mind, how many of us pause to wonder where these rights come from? Where do our rights as human being come from? If someone were to ask you that today, what would be your answer? On the surface, the answer may seem simple. But questions we seldom ask ourselves rarely have simple answers simply because they are so rarely asked. Let’s explore this question more deeply by first examining “rights” that we encounter every day.
Let us start to answer this question by first exploring something we encounter every day: our jobs and professions. How did you acquire your job? Was it something you sought out or something that “you just fell into?” If you sought out your job, seeking that job was your initial goal; it was your aim. This is the case for the majority of us. For we have to have some sort of job in order to acquire money in order to buy basic necessities such as food, clothing, and shelter. What about the minority of us that just fell into a profession without particularly aiming for it? This happens, and there’s nothing wrong with acquiring a job in that manner. However, if that is your case, it is your right to choose to stay in that occupation. It was your right to both seek out a job and acquire it, and it was also your right to stay in the profession that you haphazardly fell into. Both were your rights. They involve the right for you to choose your job.
Did you know at one time people did not have the right to choose what profession they went into? Can you imagine that?! Why do you think there are so many people with names like “Smith” or “Miller” or “Farmer?” They were given these family names because that was their family profession. When people began using last names, the western world was using an economic and social system called the feudal system. In this system, people followed the professions of their family. They didn’t have a choice. In this system, they did not have the choice of what profession they went into. The feudal system consisted of a king at the top of the governing structure. Below him were lords and other lesser royalty. Below them, at the very bottom, were the masses of people: craftsmen, famers, millers, scribes, foot-soldiers. Societies needed a great deal of manual labor because there were few if any machines to help them accomplish their tasks. This feudal system began to die out between 500-300 years ago. There was a great Renaissance and Enlightenment of people. People were awakened (“woke”) as science and technology advanced. People outside of royalty began to conduct international trade by sailing across great oceans. They made money and created professions outside of the system. Slowly, people began to realize that they could accomplish different jobs than what their parents had done. Eventually, people began to question the kings and lords over them. They began to ask, “why should a king or lord dictate to me what profession I should do; why do I need this king?”
Now, let’s jump forward to current times. We should be very happy that we do not live in feudal times. We should feel fortunate that we have the right to choose the job that we want to have. Maybe we’ll make it, maybe we won’t; but at least we have the right to choose. So, let’s say you have a good, high-paying technical occupation like pipe fitting or drilling for oil, welding, or a skilled manufacturing job. But one day, an edict from government comes down and says, “This profession is now banned.” Your job has just been killed. Your livelihood has just been eliminated. Your income is gone. You now have no means to buy your basic necessities: food, clothing, rent for shelter, things for your children. Nevertheless, this government says, “We really do care for you; here’s a check for $600.” How does that make you feel? Don’t you have the right to continue in the job that you chose? More often than not, the government official that said your profession is now banned is not even an elected official. They are a bureaucrat; an appointed official who you had no say in choosing. Who gave this government the right to say which job is banned and which is not?
Let’s use another example. Let’s say you like cooking. Most people are good at eating, but few people are really good at cooking. For you, however, cooking is a passion. You chose to take a chance and follow your dreams and start a restaurant. And, through your own talents and struggles, you succeed. Your restaurant is successful, and you are doing what you enjoy doing! But there is a scary new international virus from China. So, the government again says, “Your profession is banned until further notice.” You’ve sunk your life savings into starting that restaurant. Now your restaurant is gone. Not only is your income gone, but everyone you’ve hired has now lost their jobs. Who gave this government the right to ban your job? Even with a scary virus, if people are afraid, shouldn’t your patrons have the right to choose whether or not they want to go to your restaurant? Don’t you have a right to run your restaurant? And what about your friend the musician who you hired to play live music at your restaurant? He is an artist; a truly amazing singer-songwriter. But now he has no audience. His art becomes useless because the government has denied him the right to have an audience. Who gave this local bureaucrat the right to ban professions? Do you even know who this local bureaucrat is? Did you vote this person into office? No. This bureaucrat was appointed or hired by people who you may or may not have voted into office.
This new system of allowing government to say which professions can and cannot exist (or which ones are deemed “essential”) is not the American system that we have known since our country gained freedom from a king in 1783. This is not a free enterprise system. This is a new feudal system. This is not “progressive.” This is regressive and oppressive. Still, I ask, who gave this government the right to take away your right to choose what profession you can enter? We will explore this question to a greater degree later in this essay.
Have your parents ever told you what the first words out of your mouth were as a child? For many of us, our first utterances may have been “no” or “dada” or “mama.” The exact word doesn’t matter a great deal. When we first started speaking real words as opposed to baby words, it gave our parents great joy. As we grew older, we began to make complete sentences. Soon enough, we were uttering things that shocked our parents! Soon they were scolding us. “Where did you learn to say that?!” they may have said. “I’m going to wash your mouth out with soap!” they may have threatened. Our impulse to say what we wanted to say was natural. We had every right to say what we wanted to say. Likewise, our parents had every right to tell us what we should and should not say. They were our first teachers and taught us right from wrong. Later, as teenagers, we likely began to resist their commands. We sought out our own paths as individuals. Indeed, individualism and individual identities are part of the maturing process. It is natural. It is a natural right.
Be that as it may, we now have people in our society who are acting like our parents. Many of these people are in the media. They are often nameless, faceless people behind a keyboard in some far-off cubicle. Some of those who tell us what we can and cannot say, however, are government officials. Some of these people are social media moguls; they write complex computerized codes to determine what is right and wrong, according to their opinions. So, who is in the right? Are these media moguls, politicians, and internet gurus our parents? Of course not! We have a natural right to say what we want to say, to speak what we want to speak, to have the opinions we want to have. This is a natural right given at birth and no person or global company has the right to prevent us from expressing our views. We are not their children!
Prayer is also another form of speech. Unlike European countries, we have no recognized national religion in the United States. And we should be very proud of that fact. But, prayer is definitely a God-given right, even if you don’t believe in God. Likewise, being allowed to freely assemble to pray as a group and worship are natural rights. State governors cannot suspend the right to gather to pray and worship under any circumstance. Just as we are not children of a state, governors are not our parents. As grown adults, we have the freedom to choose what we want to say and pray.
One last very important point on the freedom of speech. Let me begin with another analogy. Let’s say you have a favorite sports team. To prevent prejudice in this analogy, let’s say your favorite sports team are the Sharks. You have always loved the Sharks. Even if they make a poor play call once in a while, they are still your team. You always cheer for the Sharks. One day, however, you discover, to your shock, that a nameless, faceless government official in your county tells the world you don’t always cheer for the Sharks; 40% of the time you actually cheer for the Wildcats. You don’t learn this until after the season is over. “What?!” you exclaim, “How dare this bureaucrat say that I don’t always cheer for the Sharks!” That would be outrageous, wouldn’t it? On another occasion, the Sharks are playing against the Wildcats. You’ve never liked the Wildcats; you always cheer for the Sharks. During the game, the Sharks score a goal – they are the clear winners! You are elated. You go to sleep that night happy, wearing your favorite Sharks jersey. Then, in the morning, the news reports that the Wildcats are actually the winner. This is crazy – this doesn’t make sense. You watched the game with your own eyes! You saw the crazy momentum the Sharks had all night. You saw them score all the goals they needed to. What happened? After your own investigation, you discover to your shock that the rules for the game were changed during the game. This is also outrageous! After further investigation, you discover that it was actually foreign referees that changed the rules during the game and gave the win to the dreaded Wildcats. This is insane! This is not fair; this is not right. Well friends, elements of these scenarios are what happened during the 2020 presidential campaign. And, as a result, your freedom of speech was squashed.
Voting is also a form of speech. Actually, for a viable representative republic, voting is the most precious form of speech. It is through voting that We the People choose who are to be our representatives. It is through voting that we give our consent to have others run the government. What happens when this vital form of speech is squashed, curtailed, or manipulated? Chaos. Chaos ensues because we no longer have a representative republic; we no longer have a democracy. Instead, we have tyranny. We devolve from an enlightened form of government and go backwards to modern-day feudalism ruled by an elite group of oligarchs. And when tyrannical oligarchs are in control, no law written on a piece of paper can stop them. With unchecked power, your natural human rights will be inevitably suppressed.
In contemporary America, we hear every day about how “our diversity is our strength.” We champion diverse lifestyles, diverse races, diverse cultures, and diverse languages. American corporations seem to be in a rush to extol the virtues of diversity, to promote diversity, to embrace it as a doctrine, and to force employees to take diversity classes. As one major US corporation put it, “_______ [company] is committed to workplace diversity and to cultivating, fostering, and preserving a culture of inclusion.” One of our former First Ladies is quoted as saying “Our diversity – our diversity of faiths, and colors and creeds – that is not a threat to who we are, it makes us who we are.” In 2017, the Thomason Reuters company even developed a “Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) Index” to rank to what degree major corporations are beholden to the“Doctrine of Diversity.” But what about diversity of thought? In today’s America, diversity of thought and opinion is not allowed!
Diversity of thought is directly tied to the right to speak our minds and deliver our opinions freely. For what good is a diversity of thought if you are not allowed to express it? When Tech Titans, kings, and tyrants attempt to restrict our right to free speech, what they are attempting to do is to mold our minds and thoughts. When our right to free speech is maligned by a government or non-governmental force, their goal is to act as thought police. Who has the right to control your thoughts – no one! Have you ever had a bad thought and acted on it? Later, in your regret, what might you say? “Oh, the devil made me do it.” Are those that attempt to control our thoughts, mold our minds, and manipulate our thoughts devils? Yes, indeed they are. For what they are attempting to do goes directly against our natural rights as humans; their desires to force people to think a certain way or speak a certain way are an affront to our Maker. We are no longer children. Those that advocate restricting a diversity of opinions are not our parents. We are not machine-like computers who can be deprogrammed.
The growth of American thought police and the devilishness of their plans are not an exaggeration. Commentator Eugene Robinson stated on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, that, “There are millions of Americans…who somehow need to be deprogrammed.” Media personality Katie Couric rhetorically asked, “How are we going to really almost deprogram these people…?” A prominent member of the US House of Representatives targeted diversity of thought and speech when she recently stated, “We’re going to have to figure out how we rein in our media environment so that you can’t just spew disinformation and misinformation.” By “disinformation” and “misinformation” she was directly referring to opinions with which she does not agree. Their desire to destroy a diversity of opinions is not a secret; they are clearly telling us what they want to do. Not only is the concept of squashing our basic freedom to freely think contrary to natural law, the goals of these government officials and media manipulators are filled with two great points of hypocrisy.
First, those who champion the “Doctrine of Diversity” are usually the most vocal advocates for banning diversity of thoughts and opinions. This hypocrisy is not always evident, however, because it is concealed from us by the manipulation of the media. They feed us bite-sized morsels of so-called “news;” during one segment they feed us a panel of experts on how America is not diverse enough, on how corporations are not diverse enough, and how America is a generally bad place. They often fill the void between these comments and panels with commercials from pharmaceutical corporations on a multitude of illnesses we have and why you must take their drug because you are probably sick and have that illness, too. Two hours later, between sips of latte and long after you’ve forgotten the first panel, they feed you another panel of opinion experts telling us why the thoughts and ideas of people they disagree with are bad and you would be a terrible person to agree with them. In essence, these preachers of doom are programming your mind. When was the last time you heard some “expert” on television or on your social media venue say, “don’t listen to us; think for yourselves!” Never! The TV Priests of Gloom never want you to think for yourself. But that is what I advocate you do – think for yourselves! Do not allow your minds to be polluted. Tune out the noise that surrounds you like a warm blanket and be an independent thinker. Break free from your cocoon! If you do, one thing will become clearly self-evident: diversity of opinion is a natural right. No government entity or media mogul has the right to tell you otherwise. They were not born with the natural right to program your mind. Your mind is your own, independent organ.
Secondly, those who claim to be guardians of diversity almost always claim to also be the greatest advocates of equality. This may be their most striking hypocritical claim because diversity is the opposite of equality! If something is diverse, that entity lacks similarities; it lacks equalness! How can one logically claim to champion diversity and also champion equality? You cannot do so with reason as your guide. However, you can do so with an emotion as your guide because equality is a highly charged word. The key to understanding this watchword is to understand how people define equality. When the word equality is shouted out at a protest march, do those advocating equality mean equality of station and being or equality of opportunity and application of the law? Ah ha! These purveyors of emotionalism never define which form of equality they are advocates for, do they? So, be on guard when you hear the word “equality” shouted out. Ask yourself, in your own mind, “which type of equality is this person referring to?” Are they merely using the word equality because it sounds good and they know it will get you emotionally riled up? The logical answer is evident when you think about it. Those who champion diversity and equality are using these words to drive emotional wedges within our society. Their overarching desire is to divide people, not unite them. They know if they can divide a nation created with the motto E Pluribus Unum (From Many, One) they can destroy that nation.
So, be on guard when you hear the words diversity and equality. Use your mind. Think critically for yourself. Tune out the noise. There are hypocrites in our midst – wolves in sheep’s clothing who do not have your best interests at heart. And know this: the USA has greater equality of opportunity than any other place on the globe. We have the natural right to have diversity of thought, and diversity of speech. We have the right to choose our own destinies and the right to choose how similar or dissimilar we are with our neighbors.
Have you ever been in an argument with someone? How did it start? What was your earliest childhood memory of an argument? What was the worst and best argument you ever engaged in? Do you have the right to argue with someone? Of course, you do. Words are not sticks and stones, but words are weighty things. They can cause harm; they can hurt you and scar you very deeply (or they can also build you up and make you stronger!). So, what if some government entity one day told you that not only are you not allowed to argue with someone, but they are going to cut your tongue out so you cannot argue with someone. How would you react? This sounds preposterous, doesn’t it?! No government force has the right to cut your tongue out – it’s your tongue – you have the right to use it to defend yourself when someone says bad things about you and tries to harm you with their words. This is very logical. But what if someone tries to harm you physically? What if someone attacks you or threatens to attack you? Do you have the natural right to defend yourself? Of course, you do! The right to defend yourself is as natural as the right to possess your own tongue and use it. Likewise, you have the right to defend yourself with a firearm. It is a civil right to possess a firearm and use it when you are assaulted or to defend yourself or your family when a violation of you or your property is clearly threatened.
Gun rights is a highly charged issue. Guns can be scary. Guns can hurt people and kill people. Few of us have seen the force of guns used on a person in the streets or battlefield, but we are constantly reminded of their power in movies and television and on video games. Nevertheless, firearms are a necessary element of any free society. All societies have evil people. And evil people want to harm innocent people. Evil people have been with Mankind since the Dawn of Time and are not going to magically disappear until the End of Ages. Evil will always find a way to do harm. It is not always by violence, but all too often it is. When the right to bear arms is stripped away from any people, it is inevitable that dark forces will roll-in to oppress people. This is exactly what happened in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. Those who are opposed to a free people possessing firearms never tell you a very important caveat: they are not opposed to guns; they are only in favor of government entities possessing guns. And those who attempt to pass legislation banning guns from a free people are always people in the government. They will not allow government owned guns to be taken away – no, never! Government officials are people, too! What they are saying essentially is this: “we the people in government are allowed to have guns – you, the people outside of government are not allowed to have guns.” This is graduate-level hypocrisy!
Most of those hypocrites in government who are opposed to non-government owned guns are not in favor of a total ban. Instead, they want to legislate what type of guns people should be allowed to carry. They use scary terms like “assault rifles” or “military-grade weapons.” Some will argue that when the Founders of this nation included the right to bear arms as a foundational right, the technology of weapons was not as advanced. Single shot muskets did not have high-capacity magazines which could carry 20 rounds at a time. Indeed, this is true. But, perhaps those that advocate banning weapons that have 20 rounds in a magazine should also go back to using quills and ink wells; perhaps they should go back to using couriers on horseback rather than the internet! This technology argument is fallacious. The single shot muskets of our forefathers were the assault rifles of the 18th century.
Possession of firearms by a free people are a necessary ingredient to maintain a free society because it creates a balance of power between the people and the government. Gun bans are only created by legislators against free people; legislators never create gun bans against the government which they are a part of. To prevent a government from oppressing its people with their firearms, firearm ownership is an essential right of a free people. The logic of the natural right to defense is clearly evident when you tune out the noise and think critically on your own. Always imagine yourself being violently attacked before you verbally attack those who defend the right to bear arms.
Journaling is a wonderful hobby. When you write down your innermost secrets and thoughts, they organize your mind. Maybe you have never kept a journal, but you probably know someone who has. Even if you have never kept a journal, let’s pretend for a moment that you do. Who would you share your innermost thoughts with? Would you turn it into a scrapbook and add photos of good memories; perhaps memories of you and your loved ones, your favorite pet, an important vacation that you took. Those memories, those words, those photos, those are precious items indeed. They are your personal treasures, are they not? You have a right to keep those memories and thoughts private. This is a natural right as old as the dawn of Man. And no one has the right to steal them. So, how would it make you feel if they were stolen? Let’s say they were stolen by an unseen thief. You don’t even know who this person is. This is a greater betrayal than if it was your friend or sibling snooping through your scrapbook. Now, let’s make matters even worse. This thief, whom you’ve never met, sells pages from your personal journal to a government official. Not only has this thief made money off of their robbery, they have shared it for profit with a nameless, faceless bureaucrat. And, they have not even told you this! It is all done in the darkness. One day, you get a knock on the door. Some government official is putting you under arrest! You are being thrown in jail. Your head swims; you can’t believe this is happening. You plea to the law enforcement officer “Why are you arresting me? What right do you have to throw me in jail?” Their answer, “Because we don’t like your thoughts. We don’t like your words. We don’t approve of your memories. We saw your thoughts in your journal and we, the government, believe your thoughts are dangerous. That is why we are putting you under arrest.” Sounds ludicrous, doesn’t it? Well, this infraction of your privacy is exactly what is happening in America today. And it’s happening right under your nose.
When you search for something on the internet, it is being recorded by a corporation. When you purchase something electronically, your purchases are being recorded by a corporation. When you take a digital photograph and it is placed on the cloud, it is being recorded by and held by a corporation. This data is being sold to other corporations. The next thing you know, a pattern about your behavior is structured. Both the original corporation and the ones who purchased the data now know that you like Starbucks coffee, photographing puppies, reading about knitting, and pineapples on your pizza. They have built a file on you. And these corporations are sharing and selling this data to the government. What right do they have to share your thoughts, your ideas, your photographs? None. Neither corporations nor governments have natural human rights from birth. They were not born with natural rights as you and I were as individuals because they are artificial constructs.
Your words are your words. Your belongings are your belongings. That which you write, if original, you have a claim to them. Ideas that you generate, if patented, legally belong to you. Your photographs, likewise, are also yours. They do not belong to the state; they do not belong to a government; they do not belong to a corporation. They are your private items, thoughts, and possessions. They cannot be legally stolen. They cannot be legally shared without your consent. You have a natural, God-given, right to privacy. Just because your thoughts are stored on an electronic cloud does give thieves the right to steal them, share them, sell them, or use them against you to do you harm.
Have you ever been robbed? Perhaps someone broke into your car and stole something. Or did they slip into your house when you were gone? Or maybe they took your wallet or purse when you weren’t looking. Did you see the thief? Probably not; certainly not if he was truly gifted at his craft. Maybe at the most you got a glance at the back of his head or noticed what type of clothing he was wearing. His identity remains a mystery. Maybe you called the police. How did that go? Were they ever able to bring justice to this criminal? More importantly, when you were the victim of this theft, how did it make you feel? Did you feel vulnerable, naked, afraid – violated? You have every right to have those emotions after your property was taken from you. For, what right does a thief have to take your belongings? None! Your possessions are yours. You worked hard to acquire them. Yes, you were violated, indeed! And that is exactly what taxation is – taxation is theft! Taxation is theft because your money is your property and the means to acquire more property.
Taxation was a major issue in the founding of this nation. Prior to the creation of the USA, the inhabitants of the 13 colonies were British citizens, but they were largely self-governed. They did not have representatives in parliament (the British form of our congress). So, when the British government began leveling taxes on the citizens of the 13 colonies, they reacted strongly against these acts by the British parliament. Our forefathers believed that there should not be taxation without proper representation. They demanded a say in whether or not they were to be taxed. This is a logical demand. What good is a representative parliament if your thoughts, wishes, and desires are not represented? You have no voice. Without proper representation, a national government becomes either a dictatorship (ruled by a single dictator of laws – like a king) or an oligarchy (ruled by a handful of elites – “One-percenters” if you will). Both of these forms of government are alien to the American experience. Both are tyrannical. Both are oppressive.
Today it is common to hear the question about people paying their “fair share” in taxes. The level at which taxation is needed or desired has been a hotly debated topic since we declared our independence in 1776. But, before opining on the level, ask yourself and even more elemental question: are my desires regarding taxation being represented in congress? Does my representative truly represent me? The answer for the vast majority of Americans is clearly – NO. Your representative does not represent you. They are a part of a modern oligarchy. They are members of an elite and privileged class. They are the one-percent of the “one-percenters.” This question is not about political party affiliation. Our two-party system has evolved into a single club. There are only a few, very brave souls who are in this system to dare to speak for their constituents or dare to deviate from the oligarchist line. Ask yourself this: who has the stronger ear of your representative: you or their own party leaders; you or wealthy, unelected lobbyists in Washington D.C. who whisper in their ear and cajole representatives with gifts, special favors, power, and money? You are not talking to your representative every day. Lobbyists and party officials are talking to your representatives every day. And let’s be frank, we have grown so disconnected from our so-called representatives, that most Americans don’t even know who they are. They have become the nameless, faceless thief that votes to steal your money through taxation and use it as they see fit! Our forefathers bore the tyranny of taxation by an unrepresented parliament and monarch who ruled for life. We are now robbed by an oligarchy of political elites. And here’s an even more disturbing fact: these representative robbers are allowed to remain in that position for their entire lifetime, if they are crafty enough to manipulate our votes. Wouldn’t you like a lifetime job that pays a six-figure salary? Sure, who wouldn’t. Well, that’s what the members of this oligarchy possess. There are no term-limits on this oligarchy as there is for the president of the United States. And guess what – not only do they choose what level of your money they will steal, but your money goes to pay for their lifetime salaries! Their position as oligarchs inevitably leads to their status as multi-millionaire plutocrats. So, you are not only being robbed, you are paying the thieves who rob you! That sounds preposterous and stupid, right? Well, friends, welcome to Stupidville – you are living in it!
I will admit that some form and level of taxation is needed to have a properly functioning government. But what functions are truly necessary and what amount of taxation is needed? This, too, has been a hotly debated topic since the inception of our nation. Currently, we are burdened by local, state, and federal taxes. The number and types of taxes we are burdened with, however, are too numerous to address in this essay. One needs to only look at our thousand-plus page federal income tax code to understand how complex our taxation system is. But, what about the fairness of taxation. Do you like it when things are fair? Perhaps our earliest gripe as a child was, “Mom, that’s not fair.” We have a natural instinct for fairness. Fairness is, essentially, justice. We all yearn for justice. How often have you heard the slogan “No justice, no peace?” So, let’s address this with respect to taxation for a moment. Let’s use an analogy. Your mother has just baked a fresh apple pie. You can smell the sweetness of the pie fresh out of the oven. Let’s say you have seven brothers and sisters. Your mother should love you all equally. Normally, she divides the pie up into eight equal pieces. This is just; this is fair. But, one day, your mother decides she does not love all her children equally. She has chosen favorites. So, she now decides to cut the pie into different proportions according to her favorite children. One of your brothers gets a whole half of the pie just to himself! You get crumbs. Is this fair? Would this make you angry? Who would you be most angry at, your brother, or your mother? Certainly, this lack of justice would not help you love your brother more; this dictate from your mother would not help foster family unity, would it? Well, that’s how our income taxes are chosen. Our federal mother (who is really a body of oligarchs) chooses favorites. From those they dislike most, they are taxed the most. From those who they want to gain favor from, they give the most. In essence, they are paying for votes. They are taking your money and redistributing it to other people to gain their vote. This is not a fair system. And, worse yet, these oligarchs who divide unequally are most often the same people who claim they are for equality. Let the hypocrisy of that sink in. They preach fairness and equality, yet dole out inequality! Again, welcome to Stupidville! If these oligarchs truly believed in equality, they would tax every citizen an equal amount. Try suggesting this in a public forum. Try advocating for a “flat tax” or a “fair tax.” Watch what will happen. You will be savaged by the oligarchical elites. They will claim you don’t care about people. They may even delete your tweets and try to censor the logic of your argument.
Do not be deceived by tag lines. Paying taxes is not a “patriotic duty.” The politicians who are telling you this are the same ones advocating for you to be robbed by a greater degree. Those who use the tag line “paying your fair share” are the same ones advocating an unfair and unequal system of taxation. Those who use these bumper-sticker tweets are the same ones who increase their income and power from the backs of your labor. These pirate politicians are the ones who take your money, send it to foreign countries, reward big-businessmen in their circle of friends, enrich themselves with “perks,” and act as dictators of your dollars.
The Good News – The Bill of Rights
It should be clearly evident to all open-minded readers that we have natural born rights as humans. These rights cannot be given by a government, because no government is born in nature as individual humans are. Governments are created by and corrupted by people. As the veil has been lifted, it should also be obvious that our natural human rights have been suppressed by entities outside of our control. These entities include monopolistic global corporations and government “representatives” that do not truly represent us. Very often, these two powerful entities collude to suppress, trample on, and ignore your natural civil rights. So, how can there be any good news? How can the forgotten men and women of America find hope? Well, there is truly great news! We have a law against the suppression of our natural human rights. This law is the bedrock law of our nation, the U.S. Constitution!
Most Americans have not read the Constitution. To many, it is a boring old document; it is part of history. It is not as “sexy” as the latest reality TV show; it is too long to read in a single tweet. We fear it may be too legalistic to be understood by anyone but a learned lawyer, so why bother? Well, you should care because, not only does it contain very good news, but the Constitution guarantees the legal foundation for your rights. When our constitution was first drafted, it was a small document that contained seven simple sections on how the US government should be run. However, before it was ratified by the states, an important demand was made: it should not only be a document that tells people how government will operate, but it must contain provisions of what government cannot do to people or states. Thus, four years after the first draft was signed, ten amendments were added that guarantee our human rights. These amendments were vitally important additions to the document. These first ten amendments became known as the Bill of Rights. These rights were adopted in 1791 and are important for every American to know. Do not be daunted by the reading of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. You will find these words are written in a very straightforward manner. You will discover that it does NOT take nine men and women in long black robes to tell you what they mean. Don’t be fooled by media moguls who insist that these words need to be interpreted for you. Keep your mind open; you are smarter than you think!
1st Right. The first addition to the constitution stipulated that:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.”
As mentioned previously, the right to free speech is an essential element of a free society. Redressing grievances is directly tied to the freedom of speech. Many of people get caught up in the statement about religion because they don’t know their history. In most European countries, the government adopted a religion as the national religion. This was true in 1776 and is still true today! For example, in Great Britain, the Church of England (Anglican Church) is the official state religion; in Denmark it is the Lutheran Church; in Italy, the Roman Catholic church. These countries actually take tax money and give it to these nationally affiliated religions. Can you imagine your tax money paying for a church in America? Of course not; that’s ridiculous. But, it is precisely because we do not recognize the establishment of a state church nor prohibit the free exercise thereof that Americans have the strongest base of faith in the western world.
Also important in this right is the right freedom of the press. The press, or media as we often call it today, have always played a very important role in the lives of Americans. Did you know that Benjamin Franklin became America’s first self-made millionaire because of his printing and newspaper businesses? We should be very proud that we have a free media. Most countries have one or more newspapers or television stations that are actually owned and run by their governments – can you imagine that! The national newspaper of the former Soviet Union was named “Pravda” – which translates as “Truth.” Just how truthful can a communist dictatorship’s newspaper really be? But, then again, ask yourself, how truthful can global media or global social media corporations be? Sadly, their degree of truthfulness is murky at best. These conglomerates are owned by a private club of powerful plutocrats who are in bed with the oligarchs who rule over us. Power leads to corruption and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
If you have a friend who tells you something you didn’t previously know, you should be happy to have that friend. That person just provided you information that made you a little-bit less ignorant. Through that friend, you now know, perhaps, that a certain product you often buy at the supermarket will turn your white sheets pink in the laundry or that a certain type of car tire is prone to wear out faster than another. This is good information. But, what if that friend had an ulterior motive? What if they didn’t really have your best interests in mind, but their own? What if the things they told you were outright lies? How would that make you feel? Would they really be a friend – or might they be your enemy?
Unfortunately, with mass, instantaneous communication comes mass, instantaneous power. The mass media is not your friend. You don’t know these people. Why would you listen to them? What do you have to gain from listening to them? How might you be actually harmed by listening to them? Do not misunderstand me; my point is not that we should curtail freedom of the press. However, as individuals, we must guard our own minds. To gain the best advice, we must seek the broadest group of counselors possible. I say again, the media is not your friend. They want to manipulate your minds just as their advertisers want you to buy their products. Be on guard, Americans! Your mind is just as precious as your heart and there are those who want to manipulate your mind for their own power.
2nd Right. The second right added to the basic law of our nation reads:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
To you and me, those of us who are logical and use common sense, these rights are pretty easy to understand. Militias can be formed. Militias are formed to defend States. People can keep and bear whatever kind of firearm they like. There has been much argument about what type of firearm a person can own. The US Constitution does not stipulate. It does not grant you the right to possess nuclear bombs; that’s clear. The 2nd right mentions “arms” not bombs. This second basic right also does not restrict firearm ownership to people with a license. Afterall, licenses are really a form of tax, are they not? Nor does it say that magazines must be limited to “X” number of rounds of capacity. If you find this amendment troubling, as many do, then the legal solution is to amend the second amendment. Laws passed by cities or states or even the United States Congress do not supersede the words of the US Constitution…unless you live in a condition where tyranny trumps the bedrock law of the land.
Naturally, firearm ownership should be restricted from dangerous criminals and the mentally ill. Yet, firearm restrictions currently being discussed are directed at law-abiding citizens, not the criminals or mentally ill. In fact, each time additional restrictions on the mentally ill have been suggested in national legislation, they are blocked by those advocating for the rights of the mentally ill. What a bizarre world we live in when the rights of the mentally ill and felons are championed over the rights of law-abiding citizens. This makes absolutely no sense. It makes one wonder if those opposed to the Second Amendment are in fact mentally ill themselves. Despite their noise, however, the Bill of Rights is clearly on the side of the law-abiding citizen and we should champion this right. Allowing possession of firearms for both government officials and law-abiding citizens is a natural balance of power and one that the architects of the Constitution understood.
3rd Right. The third right has become somewhat archaic, but it was important enough to the Founders to specifically address it:
“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner prescribed by law.”
This was added because many British soldiers were housed in civilian homes prior to and during the Revolutionary War. Can you imagine if a squad of troops knocked at your home and said, “Hi, Ma’am, but, by order of the President of the U.S., we are going to stay at your house; we like your queen bed and your food; we hope you enjoy your couch.” That would be horrendous. Many of our rights are being violated today. Let’s hope this is not a violation that will be resurrected in the near future.
4th Right. The fourth right added to the Constitution is longer than the previous three, but it is very, very important. Recall my analogy of your having a journal, the contents of which were taken by a private corporation and sold to the government, which ended up in your incarceration. This very specific right defends against that! Our fourth fundamental right reads:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oaths or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons tor things to be seized.”
This fundamental right does not stipulate whether the search or seizure of personal effects is violated by government agency or corporation. Neither Uncle Sam nor Papa Google nor Lord Facebook have the right to take your searches, your thoughts, your comments, or your photographs, your movements and sell or give them to any other entity. There is a very fundamental law against these violations and that fundamental law is our US Constitution! The groundwork for this right had precedence prior to the Constitution when, in cases such as Entick v. Carrington (1765) and Wilkes v. Wood (1763), men critical of the British government were arrested for the thoughts they dared publish on paper. Unfortunately, the desecration of this right has evolved exponentially since 2001. Now tech monopolies work hand-in-hand with corrupt government officials to violate this basic right. They steal and manipulate your every keystroke without even a basic contract between you and the tech giant. Again, you should be outraged because this fundamental right is very clear in our Bill of Rights.
5th – 8th Rights. Our rights five through eight deal with crimes and courts. These four amendments are the basis of how our legal system operates. Most of us, fortunately, have not been put on trial (not yet, at least.) Our greatest exposure to criminal proceedings comes from Judge Judy’s TV show or movies inspired from John Grisham novels. Lawyers make the world go-round in our litigious society. But, love them or hate them, even lawyers have guidelines they must follow. The Founders of our nation wanted to make sure that we had a fair court system. They did not want people to be rounded up and locked up in jail, as is often the case in savage third world countries. These four rights may bore you. But, stay with me and please review them; each one gets shorter in length, I promise you. If nothing else, it will make you a more informed viewer of your next legal TV drama!
The fifth basic right, as spelled out in the Constitution, is the longest. It reads as follows:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”
The sixth right naturally follows the fifth and stipulates:
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherin the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
The seventh right reads:
“In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, that according to the rules of the common law.”
Lastly, the eighth right says the following:
“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, no cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
What our Founders were trying to do with these amendments was to prevent “Kangaroo Courts” from being used. They wanted an orderly, organized process for prosecuting individuals of capital crimes. Furthermore, they didn’t want anyone deprived of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” (So important is this phrase, that it is repeated in the Fourteenth Amendment.) Usually, this right has been observed in our nation, even under the calamities in which we currently find ourselves. However, many clever people have found a way around this basic right through the power of massive, corporate media conglomerates. In America today, right now, hundreds of people are undergoing an informal trial in the court of public opinion. The 24/7 news media is used as a tool to shape your opinion, the opinion of the people, the largest jury in the land. In so perverting the opinion of the people, courts are often forced into a dangerous corner: make a decision on the guilt or innocence of a person and risk a riot by an organized mob of masked “protestors,” who threaten to burn and loot cities because they don’t like the way a ruling may be made. Rioters loudly pronounce how they want the case resolved; the media is their megaphone. They shout “no justice, no peace!” while really meaning, “no revenge, no peace.” These rent-a-mobs are actually 21st Century lynch-mobs and the media are their accomplices! This is shameful and an abuse of the spirit of the 5th Amendment. It is not how a civil, orderly, and peaceful society should operate.
9th Right. The ninth right is one of the most fascinating of them all because it is the most nebulous. It is perhaps the most ignored right that has been guaranteed to Americans (or, at least, it ranks next to the 10th Amendment as the most ignored right in the U.S. Constitution). The Ninth Amendment states the following:
“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
So, finally, we have an expressed right that may need a bit of translation from lawyer-ees into plain English. So, lets break down the big words and explain. “Enumerate” means to count off or name one-by-one; to list. “Construed” means to interpret or translate. “Disparage” means to belittle or degrade in importance. So, the ninth right basically means:
The list of certain rights in this Constitution shall not be interpreted to deny or degrade other rights of the people not specifically listed.
The main author of the Bill of Rights was a genius named James Madison. He is actually known as the Father of the U.S. Constitution. Later, he became our fourth U.S. President. Prior to the final draft of the Bill of Rights, in 1789, he wrote to Thomas Jefferson and stated, “My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration. . .” I recognize this sentence’s use of double negatives may be confusing, but remove them and it becomes clear what Madison meant: there are other basic rights that are not specifically listed. And here’s another important catch, these other fundamental rights are the rights of the people – NOT the rights of the government or government officials or global corporate conglomerates.
So, what might be some of these other rights? Well, one of them is the right to privacy. The Bill of Rights does not use the phrase “right of privacy,” but it is protected by both the Ninth Amendment and Fourth Amendment, regarding searches and seizures.
Another unspecified right guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment is the right to have an accurate vote. As I previously mentioned, voting is a fundamental part of free speech. Voting is how we express our voice for whom we want to represent us and lead our nation. It only makes common sense that our vote be accurate. The 2020 presidential election clearly had enormous and egregious errors. Fraud during that election was captured on both video and in forensic research. It is not within the scope of this essay to review those errors. However, I ask you to keep an open mind and do your own research. The three volumes of the Navarro Report are a good written source to review. Likewise, the two-hour documentary “Absolute Truth” is good summary in video format. Whether or not you believe there is sufficient evidence or not is immaterial. But, ask yourself a critical question: if there was no fraud, why would the declared winners of that election be completely resistant to a detailed forensic audit of all the voting machines in question? That doesn’t make sense. Innocent people beg for all the evidence to be revealed when they are accused of a crime. Guilty people who commit crimes try to hide their crimes and label their accusers as “conspiracy theorists.” The actions of this current executive administration and their party officials are evidence enough of massive crimes. Your ninth and first amendment rights were sacrificed on the immoral altar of deviant power!
10th Right. The tenth right that James Madison and our Founding Fathers included in the Bill of Rights is one of my favorites. Unfortunately, it has been one of the most ignored and trampled upon fundamental rights by the Federal Court System. This one is short and easy to understand:
“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.”
The 10th Amendment is often referred to as the States’ Rights Amendment because it guarantees that each of our sovereign 50 states in the USA have their own inherent rights that supersede the government in the District of Columbia. It says that the rights that are not specifically addressed in the U.S. Constitution to the federal government are given to the states. But, that’s not all it says. It also says the rights not addressed are given to “the people.” That’s you and me! By adding, “or to the people,” you can see how this is a logical progression in order after the Ninth Amendment.
Have you ever wondered why some states have different laws than other states? It is the 10th Amendment that gives the states these rights. Have you ever considered why we don’t have a national public education system; why one state’s educational standards are different than another’s? That’s because of the 10th Amendment. Why do some states have state income taxes and others do not? It’s because of the 10th Amendment. The Constitution was set up as the basic law. It was the rights of the states to decide the bulk of the other laws. Even within states, different counties and cities have their own unique laws. This is also because of the 10th Amendment and springs from the “to the people” clause. This is a beautiful amendment because it guarantees and enshrines the power of diversity among states. Are we not to celebrate our diversity? Don’t we hear all the time that our strength comes from our diversity? Isn’t diversity supposed to be a kind of holy grail of our nation? Well, it’s not to those who claim to be Diversity Divas.
As I previously mentioned, those who usually preach diversity the loudest are the ones most opposed to diversity. Open your ears and open your minds. The same Leftists in our political system and in the media who preach diversity are also the ones who most loudly proclaim you can’t think a certain way; you’re not allowed to say what you like; the U.S. Capitol is a “sacred temple” and you must bow down to their wishes. How can these self-proclaimed defenders of the “Doctrine of Diversity” be so two-faced and deny diverse display of opinions? Because we allow them to be. Diversity among people is a good thing or we become mind-numbed robots. Diversity of states is a good thing or we become burdened by a tyrannical central government made up of self-proclaimed elites. I was reared in Texas, but went to New York for college. I’m proud of Texas beef brisket barbeque as much as New Yorkers are proud of their New York pizza. I enjoy the soft twang of a Texas accent but happy to hear the diverse accents of New Yorkers. I would never dare tell New Yorkers that they should not be allowed to eat pizza the way they make it or force them to eat jalapeño spiced barbeque sauce on beef brisket. I would not force New Yorkers to wear Arizona bolo-ties around their necks or California sandals on their feet. I would not force New Yorkers to learn how to hula dance like those of Hawaii or accept hunting elk in Wyoming. If you are a self-proclaimed believer in diversity, you must accept that there are different accepted cultural and legal norms between various sovereign states. You must embrace and defend the rights of the states to set their own course, to make their own laws, to experiment in different ways to succeed and fail. If you do not embrace the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, then you are not a true lover of diversity. The rights of the states and the people to be free from the autocracy of a central government is the cornerstone of our republic and shall not be infringed!
More Good News – A Path to Secure our Rights
Our most basic and fundamental rights as guaranteed by the basic law of this republic are being violated on a daily basis by an elite club of doctrinaire politicians in the District of Columbia, giant media conglomerates, and monopolistic data-driven corporations. Their tentacles reach into our daily lives like an evil serpent and they are quickly strangling our natural human rights. Our system of government has been eroded from a decentralized form based on individualism to a centralized one based on tyranny and power. We are all negatively affected by this lurch to centralization, regardless of which political party you claim affiliation with. So, what can be done? How can we regain our basic freedoms? The first good news I shared with you is that our basic founding document gives us the legal basis for our natural civil rights. The second piece of very good news is that we can turn to history as a guide to secure the rights that have been infringed upon. At 245 years old, our nation is the longest surviving representative republic in history. The people of this nation have experienced wrongs in the past, and we have been successful in righting these wrongs and restoring our natural individual rights. We can do so again through peaceful protest, organization, unity of effort, and boycotts.
The first example unique to the American experience is our oldest example. It began before the birth of our nation in the 1760s. Between 1764 and 1765, the British Parliament passed a number of laws (called Acts) that infuriated our forefathers. These included the Sugar Act, Currency Act, Quartering Act, and Stamp Act. The Sugar and Stamp Acts were a form of taxation on American colonists. They were imposed to help pay for the massive debt the British government had run up during the nine year-long French and Indian Wars. The Quartering Act forced colonial assemblies to allow British Troops to stay in public and private establishments at the costs of the local colonists, not by payment from the royal crown. The Currency Act made future use of colonial currency illegal. The Currency Act forbade the American colonies and their independent banks from issuing new bills of credit and the reissue of existing currency. It effectively took over the colonists’ banking system and resulted in a mass shortage of paper currency. The results of these acts only exacerbated an economy in America that had been hit hard due to the disruptions of the war. People suffered. Homelessness increased. As Benjamin Franklin noted, “The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the prime reason for the Revolutionary War.” But, before the war began, people acted wisely with mostly peaceful protests and boycotts against British goods. These actions were organized and took on different forms. Small groups of protest organizers, like the Sons of Liberty, pushed colonial legislatures to form committees to correspond between the colonies. The colonies unified for the first time in protest against the British central government. Nine of the thirteen colonies met together in what they called a Stamp Act Congress to establish a unified list of grievances to parliament. As a result of their unified and organized protests and boycotts, the Stamp Act was repealed by parliament only one year after it passed, and the duties imposed by the Sugar Act were dramatically reduced.
Despite the repeal of the Stamp Act, parliament stiffened in its resolve to assert control over the colonies. As soon as the Stamp Act was repealed in March of 1766, the parliament passed the Declaratory Act which stated, essentially, that the British Parliament, which contained no representatives from the colonies, had the final say on all laws within the colonies. In 1767, five new laws were passed by parliament, collectively known as the Townshend Acts, which included new taxes against the colonists. Again, the colonists protested. Many colonists refused to put up with these new taxes, especially in the port city of Boston. As a result, the British sent troops into Boston. Still the Colonists restrained themselves. One day, in 1770, when some of the colonists threw snowballs at the British troops in Boston, shots rang out. Five dead Americans lay in the snow, shot by the British troops. This event was known as the Boston Massacre. Yet, despite the bloodshed, the Americans focused on ingenious, peaceful forms of protests, like the Boston Tea Party. In 1773, they formed another congress to unify their grievances against parliament and develop peaceful strategies of resistance and protest. In 1775, everything changed. The British troops in Massachusetts decided to confiscate the colonist’s guns and gunpowder located in the town of Concord. The local militia showed up to block the troops. Initially, the militia started to part on the road and allow the troops to pass. Yet again, shots rang out. This time, five years after the Boston Massacre, eight Americans were killed by British soldiers. As peaceful as the early Americans had attempted to be, when the British tried to confiscate their arms, this was the straw that broke the camel’s back. It would be eight long years of war before our nation would find their ultimate freedom from the tyranny of a distant central government that did not allow their voice to be heard through proper representation.
The second example came about 200 years after the first example during the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. Constitutionally, the long road to equal rights for black Americans began with the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment on December 6, 1865, ending slavery. Three years later, the Fourteenth Amendment granted black Americans citizenship and guaranteed equal protection under the law. Two years after that, on February 3, 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified, granting former slaves the right to vote in national and state elections. These three amendments ended nearly a century of moral wrangling that the Founding Fathers had over the rights of black Americans. Many states, however, strongly resisted these constitutional amendments and passed what were known as local “Jim Crow” laws to discriminate against blacks. Very sadly, in May of 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-1 in Plessy vs. Ferguson that racial segregation was legally permissible. The fact that seven men in long black robes believed they could trump constitutional rights and discriminate against millions of black Americans seem horrifying to us today. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court’s self-proclaimed power to rewrite law continues to be unchecked.
Nevertheless, in 1954, the Supreme Court had a moment of wisdom and reversed their horrible 1896 decision in Brown vs. The Board of Education. This marked the true beginning the modern civil rights movement. The next year, in 1955, a woman named Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a city bus in Montgomery, Alabama. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a 26-year-old Christian minister at the time. He led a boycott of the Montgomery city busses in protest against their discriminatory practices. During the year-plus long boycott, King was arrested, and his house was bombed. But, he knew he had moral authority. Through his studies of the Bible, King understood that God, not government, had given him rights that no man nor government could liquidate. He also understood that the road to freedom was through non-violent protest, organization, and boycotts. In 1960, he participated in another unique form of protest called a sit-in, in which he and other blacks would sit-in on racially segregated lunch-counters at public stores in Atlanta. Again, he was arrested for his peaceful actions. The next year, in 1961, Atlanta declared their lunch counters would be segregated. King continued his methods of non-violent resistance, despite being jailed multiple times. He turned the tide towards equal rights, equal protection under the law, and enforcement of the Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. King’s acts of courage led to the monumental Voting Rights Act of 1965 which ended discrimination against blacks voting in elections and reinforced the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution. With equality of the legal opportunity to vote solidified, I’m certain that the framers of our Constitution, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and others, smiled broadly down from Heaven.
In many ways, the struggle for freedom by our Founding Fathers in the 1760s parallel the struggles by the leaders of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s because they involved voting rights. Americans prior to the Revolutionary War failed to have representation in the British Parliament. Black Americans prior to the 1965 Voting Rights Act failed to have the right to vote and, thereby, failed to have representation in Congress. Today, however, we are facing a different evil that is a kind of two-headed hydra. First, our votes are not accurately tabulated because of local political party fraud and the influences of foreign and domestic computer software manipulation. Second, even when the person we choose to be elected wins, they fail to represent us. Through either threats or bribery, big monied special interests and party officials sway our elected officials to vote as they see fit, not as we see fit. These travesties must end and both heads of this monster must be severed!
Americans have a roadmap to freedom based on those that have bravely and intelligently come before us. Men like John Adams and Martin Luther King, Jr. paved the way for us. They showed us how we can win, despite what appears to be insurmountable odds: boycott, peaceful protest, litigation, civil disobedience, local organization. For example, no one truly needs Google, Twitter, CNN, or Fox News because there are alternatives. These behemoth media companies, or their advertisers, can be boycotted. Both people and states also have the right to litigate against a tyrannical executive administration. If a state’s rights are infringed upon by unconstitutional laws of a central government, it is the right and duty of that state to ignore those laws. Most importantly, local patriots must organize on a local level to defend their natural human rights. Unity of effort at the local level inspires others and spreads with a populist appeal. And finally, get creative and think outside the box! It has been said that “today is 1776.” This is not accurate. However, today may be very well be 1765 or 1965 all over again. If we are brave and creative now, our freedom can be won without bloodshed. Let us recall the words of our Savior, “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore, be shrewd as snakes and innocent as doves.” (Matthew 10:16)
My fellow Americans, I urge you all to think for yourselves. Open your eyes to the tyranny in the District of Columbia. Do not allow corrupted D.C. Beltway-Bandits and foreign powers dictate the direction of our nation! Hold your shoulders back and walk with pride against those who demand you limit the diversity of your thought or seek to cancel your rights expressed in the Bill of Rights. Teach others, your neighbors, your friends, your work colleagues to raise their voices in opposition. At the local, state, and national level, demand from every government official a fair, open, and honest method of voting and voting tabulation. Demand that representatives truly voice your beliefs and not those of mega-wealthy special interests, who would rather fill congressmen’s pockets than obey your directives. Remind those in government that they work for you; you are not to work for them. Demand your nation once again become a truly representative republic. Demand that the money they confiscate from you through onerous taxes be used in a limited and fully accountable manner. Get out of your seats and into the streets. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a Christian pastor who protested against Nazi Germany. Let his immortal words rally you to action:
“Silence in the face of evil is evil itself!”
Your rights were not given to you by any government. You were born with them. Government did not give birth to you. You were born in nature by individuals, your mother and your father. Since it was not the government that gave birth to you, they cannot dictate to you what your rights are. There are higher powers in force. It is true that the U.S. Constitution was written by men and not God. But, these men were attempting to express as clearly as possible what rights God gave you at birth. Perhaps you don’t believe in God. That is your right. Perhaps you even view government as your god, because of the incredible power government has and your lack of ability to perceive the power of God. That is also your right. But, even if that is the case, you must admit that all men are flawed creatures. None of us are without sin. Why would you want to abdicate your rights to the power of a flawed group of men and women instead of claiming the rights given to you by nature at birth? If you abdicate your rights to bureaucrats, they can limit your rights to as they see fit. If you do that, you become their slaves! To be free, to be free from government slavery, it is better to recognize your rights are from nature and God rather than from the flawed and power-hungry grips of men and women in the District of Columbia.
Likewise, your mind is your own. You are responsible for your own thoughts. You have the freedom to program it yourself with productive and creative ideas. The government does not control your mind. Do not allow your mind to be polluted by television and social media forces who do not have your best interests at heart but are instead interested in their own power. Epictetus was a Greek slave who gained his freedom sometime after the death of Roman Emperor Nero in 68 AD. He became a renowned philosopher. As a former slave, he understood the sweet taste of freedom better than most of us, in both physical and mental forms. As he stated in Enchiridion,
“If a person gave away your body to some passerby, you’d be furious. Yet you hand over your mind to anyone who comes along, so they may abuse you, leaving it disturbed and troubled – have you no shame in that?”
I will conclude this logical essay with a declaration not penned by me, but a man wiser than I. What you are about to read is the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776. Those parts in bold italics are of my own doing yet reflect rights or grievances very similar to the situation we see ourselves in today as American citizens. Likewise, I have bulletized these specific grievances purely for organizational purposes. When you are reading the “He” in the bulletized list, Jefferson was referring to King George III. In contemporary America, as I have mentioned, we do not live under a single tyrant but an oligarchist body of bureaucrats and plutocrats, which include our current president, his administrators, many federal judges, most members of the U.S. Congress, and private elites that manipulate them. Therefore, as you read this document, feel free to replace “He” with “They” for a more logical context. I ask you to follow not just the logic of my previous words to guide your conscience, but the words of this declaration. For, it was this declaration that initiated our freedom as Americans. These rights I have addressed cannot be given by a government; they are given to us by our Creator. I believe we must all in good conscience once again declare our individual rights. We must demand that the natural human rights annotated in the Bill of Rights be upheld. We should not be shy in declaring them; we must be as bold as the original founders of our nation. We must defend them with our breath, our fortune, and, if necessary, our blood. Tens of thousands of patriotic American soldiers paid the ultimate sacrifice to defend the natural rights of people in lands far beyond our borders. We must be inspired by their heritage and listen to their ghosts crying for us to defend our own domestic rights as Americans. America is the Home of the Brave, and bravery, in the face of domestic tyranny, must now be on display! The natural rights, which I have addressed, are inherent to all the people of the world and the world is watching us; the world is yearning for Americans to be bold in the defense of our quickly eroding liberties; the world needs American liberty to once again ring as clear as a heavenly bell, to act as a clarion call, to be a guiding light to the future of Mankind.
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
In Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.