O, We Privileged Few

According to this news report about public housing in Missouri, "...the House Financial Services Committee adopted an amendment to allow guns in public housing projects."

"Allow"? What do you mean by "allow"? How can a right be "allowed"?

A right cannot be "allowed", but a privilege can; that is exactly what Americans are indoctrinated to believe. Take for example the oft used phrase,"Driving is a privilege, not a right." What makes it a privilege? Why are we required to purchase licenses and permits for so many things? Concealed Carry Permits are supposed to be a hard-won victory by the American gun owner, despite some areas of the country revoking them, yet is it now necessary to buy one's rights from the government?

This fits right along side Sotomayor's confirmation hearing, in which, during the opening remarks by Senators, one Democrat mentioned "the right to bear arms" in a list of laws that are less than clear in their possible interpretations.

"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." ~Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Such ambiguity! There is, for some strange reason, so much debate over this sentence that the same offices that once instated this law, under new management, now reject it.

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry
ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect
the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning
may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the
probable one in which it was passed." ~Thomas Jefferson

I have carried myself back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, I have recollected the spirit manifested in the debates, and I have conformed to the probable meaning in which it was passed.

And, in so doing, I hold to be a truth that the Second Amendment does not grant the right for individual, private citizens to keep and bear firearms without government interference on any level; rather, the Second Amendment guarantees it! No legislation can, by definition, grant any right, only declare it; rights lay dormant in every human being; nation, creed, or gender notwithstanding. One merely needs to exercise their rights for them to be made manifest.

Today, the intense corruption in our government has eroded beyond recognition our right to keep and bear arms, and we now subscribe to privileges, that may be regulated at a whim by a majority of non-representatives.

I now refer you to a spewing forth of opinion, left on a newspaper's website by an author unknown, the topic being a local ban on smoking in public. The full quote as written follows:

"It's a privelige.  Most of everything you have and do is not a right... Did anyone in Emporia actually finish school?"

This is the product of over one hundred years of compromising our standards and rights to appease tyrants and their misled progeny. The National Rifle Association, for instance, prides itself on compromise, and its members never question the fact that compromise includes "giving-in" from both sides of an argument.

I would suggest that our supposed privileges are few and far between, yet our rights are so many, that they border on being innumerable. We must stop compromising our freedom away, or we will face the consequences of tyrannies that are already upon us. Privileges are for subjects, but rights are for a free people.

Independence Day - The Declaration

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds 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 to 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 shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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 meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration 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 harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to 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 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 offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring 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 in 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, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and 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 endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is 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 attention 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 the 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.

"There, I guess King George will be able to read that."

~John Hancock

Appointing the Great Ones

Much humor can be found in the writings of the Greek philosophers, such as Aesop and Aristotle; they had a great deal of insight into the world of politics, since they had absolutely nothing else to do.

"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." ~Aesop

Someone once said that if Washington suddenly came back to life, he would sue us for calling him the "father of our country"; I tend to agree. If I didn't know of our country's very worthy and honorable beginnings, I would think that our country has always been a sinkhole of sin and crime.

I have come to the realization that if any one of the founders ran for office today, they would be laughed out of Washington, perhaps even detained for interrogation. They would probably even go back in time and apologize to Benedict Arnold.

At least we were a good country while it lasted.

What's That Rumbling Noise?

I think it's about 1.5 million American patriots rolling over in their graves.

Why have we reached such a state of depravity that we are forced to choose between a Fascist and a Socialist for president? Why must we have a government made up of professional politicians and career-long criminals? Why has my country and its people crawled, walked, skipped and jumped down the path of moral depravity?

How is it that we have broken every rule and principle of Freedom, proudly defending every institution of modern slavery?

I don't even know what America used to look like; I'm too young to even know what it was like to live in a truly free society.

"'Republic': I like the sound of the word. It means people can live free, talk free, go or come, buy or sell, be drunk or sober how ever they choose. Some words give you a feeling; 'Republic' is one of those words that makes me tight in the throat."... Some words can give you a feeling that make your heart warm; 'Republic' is one of those words."
~ John Wayne, in "The Alamo"

Too few people even know what "Republic" means. Too often, governments opposed to the idea of a free Republic use the word to describe their own country. (People's Republic of China, for one.)

What we have is a Federalized Constitutional Republic, but most Americans falsely call it a "Democracy". Only our elections are democratic.

A Democracy is rule by the people, but a Constitutional Republic is rule by law through representatives.

But, nobody cares. Nobody wants to care, anymore. There would be a national outcry if the voting on "American Idol" was rigged, but not if our own national elections were.

Those who realize the truth may only turn to God for the answer; others will turn to destruction.

Greatest American Politician: Patrick Henry

Patrick Henry

Greatest American Politician
May 29, 1736-June 6, 1799

His most famous speech:

"No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.

This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at the truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received?

Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlement assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none.

They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves.

Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.

There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Greatest American IV

The last of the polls has begun, and it looks like we have a clear winner!

Feel free to discuss the polling.

Greatest American Poll III

The last poll, concerning the philosophy of government, has ended.

The tally now stands: Patrick Henry, 4; a tie stands for second place between John Adams and George Washington, each receiving 1 point.

Comments for the benefit of discussion are welcome.

Greatest American Poll

Whew! I almost forgot to change out the poll!

The tally now stands with Patrick Henry in first place with two votes, and John Adams in second place with one.

To let you know, I will not vote in any of the polls unless there's a tie; I want this to be reader's choice.

I'm thinkin' about starting a "Worst American Politician" poll...oh, never mind.

Greatest American Politican

Please excuse my lack of posting, but I have been stricken by a Third World plague.
Having been wallowing in freakish misery for the past couple of days, I have neither hunted nor blogged. I have discovered that my winged adversaries (read: doves) have taken advantage of my absence, and have made the telephone wire outside of my house a rest stop. I’m glad they’ve had time to fatten! Anyway...

Due to a recent discussion between Stephen Boyd and myself, I shall endeavor to create a list of the greatest American politicians during the founding of the U.S., to be chosen by you.

I am compiling the names of the United States’ founders, and will be polling my readers accordingly.

The list will be based on political stance, as well as over all achievement.
This task will last well into next month, so please bear with me on my undertaking.

The poll will have you select one of the Founding Fathers based on their respective stance on the currently stated issue. The issue will be changed every week.

The order of issues will be:
1. Stance on the 2nd Amendment;
2. Philosophy of Government;
3. Religion or morals;
4. Best quote.

So begins the undertaking!

(Notice: I will be very put out with people that vote more than once!)

Recollect The Spirit Manifested

Considering that he’s at the top of my list of America’s greatest politicians, I’m surprised I’d never found this quote from Thomas Jefferson before:

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." ~Thomas Jefferson

It is this quote that may quash the debate over the Second Amendment.

If only a vox populi could publicly ask any member of congress, ask any chief of staff, ask any candidate for any office, “If the Second Amendment doesn’t mean that the general population may keep and bear arms to their own satisfaction, what does it mean?”

To this they might say anything, but show them Jefferson's quote and the arguments from the Founding Fathers, and the debate would be won.

The time for debate is over!

The 2nd Amendment Poll

It's in a dead heat between "Self-Defense" and "Protection from Government".

Okay, I admit it, I voted on my own poll for "Protection from Government".

I'm glad the tie is between those two, because those are the only two correct answers. If nobody else is going to vote, then I declare a tie!



I shall include relevent quotes:

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." ~Thomas Jefferson

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" ~Patrick Henry, 1836

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." ~Nunn vs. State, 1846

McCainiac

The presumptive nominee of the Praetorian-Wolf Party has chosen his running mate, the Governor of Alaska. Now, this governor has previously stated on FOX News that she's not worried about being VP right now, she's only concerned about how Alaska can better serve the United States.

Now, I don't know which is more disturbing: a governor that prefers serving the central government over retaining state sovereignty, or the fact that JOHN MCCAIN JUST CHOSE A FEMALE VICE PRESIDENT!!! Pardon my outburst. Yes, indeed, McCain's VP pick is Sarah Palin. While she is ultra-conservative, government is one of the places that is given specifically to man.

So, here America sits in a political war between Fascism and Socialism. Or is it war at all?
Is it not true that both major political parties are merely two sides of the same coin?

As a side note, I'm sorely disappointed by the Libertarian Party candidate, Bob Barr. He was formerly employed by the CIA, and issues have arisen concerning his morality.

I highly support the Constitution Party candidate, Chuck Baldwin, though; an uncompromising Christian leader who supports the Constitution and adheres to the original intent thereof. Could he get any better?

Fit for Service

These quotes were just too large for the sidebar, so I decided to just go ahead and post them.

"When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, 'just men who will rule in the fear of God.'

The preservation of [our] government depends on the faithful discharge of this Duty; if the citizens neglect their Duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the Laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizen will be violated or disregarded.

If [our] government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine Commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the Laws."

-----------------------------------------------------

"In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate -- look at his character.

It is alleged by men of loose principles, or defective views of the subject, that religion and morality are not necessary or important qualifications for political stations. But the scriptures teach a different doctrine.

They direct that rulers should be men who rule in the fear of God, men of truth, hating covetousness. It is to the neglect of this rule that we must ascribe the multiplied frauds, breaches of trust, speculations and embezzlements of public property which astonish even ourselves; which tarnish the character of our country and which disgrace our government.

When a citizen gives his vote to a man of known immorality, he abuses his civic responsibility; he not only sacrifices his own responsibility; he sacrifices not only his own interest, but that of his neighbor; he betrays the interest of his country."

~Noah Webster

Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin both, in my mind, are fit to serve as the President of the United States of America.
Maybe they will combine forces in the next election, if there will be one; you never know.

Ideations on the 2nd Amendment: PART 1

Those who would not only refrain from exercising their Second Amendment rights but would also try to keep others from exercising it, say that the only people that should own guns are the Police and Military.

Hmm.

Well, the best American response to those people would be in the words of Samuel Adams: “…Go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

I could go on and on about how if we should ban guns because they’re dangerous, then maybe we should ban cars too, but I won’t. I don’t want to put any ideas into their heads.

Shall we see what the Founders warned us concerning those who would have us without arms?

First, let me remind you of the wording of the Supreme Law of the Land: “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.”

I don’t recall, off the top of my head, whose side thinks they benefit from the commas in the Second Amendment, but I can tell you that there are so many commas thrown hither-tither that it looks like they’re just trying to fill in space.

It’s such a little amendment compared to the others.

Anyway, let’s dissect the issue by chopping into three parts:

PART 1: A well regulated Militia.

PART 2: Being necessary to the security of a free State.

PART 3: The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 1 makes reference to an organization called Militia, and the need for it to be well regulated.

Federalist Papers number 29 indicates that the Militia would be, as the word is defined, comprised of the whole people, within certain age limits, for the defense of the public against all enemies, foreign and domestic, with the distinct role of replacing the national army for the common defense.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." ~George Mason, during Virginia's ratification convention, 1788.

Also, it is given that the role of training such a group would be given to the respective states according to the discipline prescribed by Congress. It even states in the Federalist Papers that it is unforeseeable what the future Government might do, so it is necessary to set certain unchangeable guidelines for the future, such as the Second Amendment.

But, I guess we don’t care very much about rule of law, huh?

"Another source of [tyrannical] power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
~Noah Webster

The purpose of the militia was apparently to be a military establishment, comprised of as many men that could hold a firearm, as an all around protector of the people, and to an equal extent, the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson: In Heaven or A Heathen?

A very confusing thing: one minute I could swear that good ol’ Thomas Jefferson was a bona fide Christian, the next minute he looks like a Deist, and then again he looks like an all out Heathen! I find such a trend with several of the Founding Fathers.

Heaven knows I have no lack of respect and admiration for the men that instituted such an unrivaled system of governance (despite the state of peril it is in today), but it is a discomforting feeling to think that the very men whom (nearly) every citizen of the United States admires could have possibly been in direct personal rebellion against God. Here’s how I’m looking at it.

It seems to me that Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian for the most aggravating of reasons: he saw little to no difference between the Catholic Priesthood (read: Monopoly, or Monarchy, or Despotism), and the truly Bible-Believing Christians. I see this non-distinction a lot today. These are a collection of quotes that lead me to this conclusion about him:

“But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State." --- Thomas Jefferson to S. Kercheval, 1810

In this quote, I thought, when he says “those who professed to be his special servants,” he was speaking of the apostles, but I now wonder if he was directly referring to the Catholics, especially when he uses the term “special servants,” and, certainly, the apostles never referred to themselves as anything other than “glorified dust,“ if you will.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests." --- Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1803

Here, I am still quite puzzled, as the Trinity is quite biblical, and not a specifically Catholic held belief. This shows, clearly, that Jefferson was not a reader of the bible, therefore, not a true Christian. Again, he was so blinded by a dislike of Catholicism that he removed himself from that area of his life to the point of disbelief in God, so I assume. I think he could have understood the Trinity by this simple analogy: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial; three branches, one Government.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose." --- Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

Obviously speaking of the Catholic monopoly over men’s very lives. I share his opinion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its luster from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man. The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent morality, and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial systems, invented by ultra-Christian sects (The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of the Hierarchy, etc.) is a most desirable object." --- Thomas Jefferson to W. Short, Oct. 31, 1819

Well, this sums it up in a nutshell; Jefferson was apparently morally upright, apparently well intentioned, and apparently misled by his own worldly mind. This, to me, shows that without the Bible, no one knows God’s truth from Man’s untruth. As far as I can see, he never believed in Jesus as the Son of God, he only admired him as a man.

While Jefferson was not a Christian, at least he was good enough to help make it a law to allow others to be Christians.

Good man morally, Great man politically, pitiful man Spiritually.

The Gadsden Flag

In 1775, two battalions of Continental Marines were recruited in Philadelphia, in accordance with an act of Congress.

The first Continental Marines that were recruited there carried yellow drums depicting the soon to be famous coiled rattlesnake and the words "DON'T TREAD ON ME".

In the same year, one Colonel Christopher Gadsden, a member of the Marine Committee tasked with organizing the first mission of the newly formed Continental Navy, presented to the freshly appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, Commodore Esek Hopkins, a flag with a field of brilliant yellow, its charge, a coiled rattlesnake of thirteen rattles, below it the infamous words of defiance.

The flag was given with the intent of being the Commodore's personal standard.

The yellow ensign was also presented in Charleston, South Carolina, where it often flies to this day.

Though mostly forgotten, the butternut banner is as old as the nation itself; many men fought and died under its sempiternal phrase. Shamefully, the Betsy Ross flag coaxed it out of history books as the flag of the Revolution.

Not many Americans know what it is or means.

Old Glory remains the flag that symbolizes the Union of States, but the Rattler Flag stands as an emblem of the ideology and aspirations of the Nation thereof.

That is why I fly one of America’s very first flags.

An Article about Confederation

Our government structure is a Federalized Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. The only form of Democracy involved is in the election process, where majority rule.

But note that we are a Federalized Constitutional Republic; we have a central federal form of government. These United States were not always so, though.

When the Declaration of Independence was written and signed, we were under Articles of Confederation.

Believe it or not, Confederate isn’t another word for a slaveholder.

It means a decentralized form of government, with no concentration of power; each unit of local Government has as much power as the next.

In the late 1780’s, when the Constitution was being written, one could say that there were basically two political parties: Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

The Federalists were those that felt not that the current government wasn’t big enough under the Confederation, but that it wasn’t strong enough to exist as a Union; it had no provisions for the collection of taxes, among other basic things.

The Anti-Federalists were those the felt that the fewer powers that a central government had the better, as the idea of “Americanism”, if you will, was the sovereignty of the individual.

Just so long as the government was in-fighting, they felt, the people couldn’t be oppressed.

As you know, the Federalists won, but with a few compromises with the Anti-Federalists.

The Federalists were against the idea of a Bill of Rights, stating that if an enumeration of an Individual’s writes were put into law, it might cause the Government to take any rights not enumerated.

Never the less, the Constitution was written with a Bill of Rights, (for what it was worth), and the Confederation ended.

Not another Confederacy sprouted up in America until 1861, but that died just five years later due to an overwhelming invasion by an opposing government.

You may have previously noticed a Confederate States of America flag on my blog header; I removed it because the C.S.A. is gone and I have an allegiance to the Constitution. But, I didn’t put up the current U.S. flag in its place, I put up a flag of 1770’s, as it is the flag of what America used to be.

The current flag represents the current state of affairs, as the flag changes with the times , and I don't like the current state of affairs.

I think I would prefer that we still lived under a Confederation, but who knows what it would have been like.

Never the less, I am an individual, free and sovereign, answerable only to the law of God and the law of this land, respectively. I neither owe, nor am I indebted to any state or governing body, past or present.

I support my Constitution, and pray God brings confusion on upon its enemies, be they peasant or prince.