Flags, Freedoms, and a Cup of Tea

A note: minor correction to my previous post, "Commentary coming longly." Sorry for the wait, peeps.

Our rights are inherent, that is, God-given, therefore the Bill of Rights gives us nothing but a guarantee that there are boundaries which the federal government will not cross. That guarantee stands to this day, whether those who now sit in the very offices which facilitated the creation of the greatest document of representative government in the world, the United States Constitution, will honor it or not.

As President Soetoro might say, with thumb and index finger firmly joined, "let me be clear": the Constitution is valid, the Bill of Rights is valid, the Second Amendment is valid, and they are valid as written.

We now approach the two hundred and thirty-fifth anniversary of the battles of Lexington and Concord; the nineteenth of this month will probably be remembered with greater significance than in previous years due to the unmistakable tension of all domestic political and economic issues coming to a head. This strife has been thrust upon the Freedom-loving people of America to an extent unparalleled in the known history of the western hemisphere.

Historically speaking, the menial enslavement of Africans overshadows the brutality capable by governments in the modern day, but the requirements and strangleholds of this government over the whole people, not secluded to one group, presents a far more dangerous form of slavery over a man's well-being and individuality, as it is undeclared, misunderstood, and invisible to many of its own victims. It causes no scarring beyond that of generational theft, and incurs no suffering beyond that of endless debt; like a virus, it is invisible yet deadly if left untreated. I have heard all too often, "America is still the greatest country in the world, and nothing can change that, so enjoy the freedoms you still have." Blind and irresponsible.

The American Revolution was said at the time to not be for light or transient causes. The conditions the U.S. government now places over its subjects are much more injurious to our lives, liberties, and pursuits of our own definitions of happiness than the British monarchy could have reasonably conceived at the time of its rule over this continent.

Our collective answer to this usurpation has been lackadaisical and disrespectful to those who fought and died in the Revolution, and it is disrespectful to God, whom I would suspect is disappointed that a country, which was an impressive embassy to the world for His Kingdom, is now in such a state of disrepair and sinfulness.

Indeed, what is our current course of action in reaction to the hardcore tyranny now upon us? Tea parties - the original namesake of which had means far different from the modern rallies across America. Modern tea parties require you to stand outside with people who are more or less agreed that the country is in ruin (or "about to be", in the case of many who know little of what the state of our country truly is), but the first tea party was protesting a particular tax on tea, an exorbitant and unreasonable tax, so the Boston Tea Party involved the active destruction of British shipments of tea in Boston Harbor.

Take a moment to think about the comparisons between the first tea party and the tea parties of today.

The reasons are the same, more or less, the goals are pretty close, but the method is the biggest difference. It was an impressive, economic blow to the monarchy and merchants of Britain to destroy their valuable property, and it was quite effective, as the despotic reaction from Britain further galvanized the people against Britain, and eventually, though quite belatedly, caused the repeal of the tax. Modern tea parties in the major cities, the ones with all the press, usually involve standing, sign holding, chanting catchy slogans and puns, making YouTube videos, and inviting career politicians to come speak and use all manner of patriotic key-phrases and key-terms to snatch as many votes as possible to ride on the unpopular coattails of the Democrats. There are no solutions or remedies in that, my friends.

Now, as you know, the legislature of my state of Kansas has just passed their version of the Firearms Freedom Act, which states any firearm made in Kansas is exempt from federal authority. This is good, but it is also somewhat humorous that no one makes firearms in Kansas. Reasonable gun laws are now within reach for Kansans, as the more locally minded Kansan legislature may now establish our own laws that will specify the regulatory authority of the government's place in the people's right to keep and bear arms

The Second Amendment is a big issue today, and there is currently a drive on the parts of many people right now to send Gadsden flags to President Soetoro and others to warn them that the people will not give up their guns willingly. This, in my opinion, is pointless. If we could have sent King George III a million Gadsden flags back in 1775, do you suppose he would have stopped his reign of terror? No, because tyrants only understand force. I think President Soetoro and his company are overjoyed that their grand scheme of subversion of all things American is being resisted by tea parties and mail-in campaigns. What a coup, indeed.

You may have seen the repeated showings of a clip of Soetoro denouncing Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh for being so "troublesome", saying that they're confusing people about the issues. This was an absolutely classic example of a not so easily recognizable trick for lessening the effects of unrest and dissolution, and that is to falsely prop up the weakest element of resistance as the strongest, thus enticing the people into supporting a failing plan of action. In this instance, Glenn Beck, who recently compared Thomas Paine to himself (no, not the other way around), is paired with Rush Limbaugh, who is the darling of the Spineless Puppet Party Republican Party; with their forces combined, they may take this nation back from those nasty-wasty Democrats and give it back to the freedom-loving, trustworthy, and moral Republicans.

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.

Common Sense: Comedy?

Though he and Lou Dobbs are pretty much the only watchable mainstream news people today, Glenn Beck often ticks me off, and he has done it once again.

Glenn, you just shouldn't take one of our nation's founding images and customize it to bill your comedy tour; neither should you take the title one of our nation's founding writings, Common Sense, and use it to promote stand-up routines. Lectures, perhaps, but not comedy tours.

The things spoken of in Common Sense aren't meant to be funny; men died for the ideology expressed in those papers. They were shot, stabbed, bayoneted, and slowly bled to death because they believed in what was written in Common Sense.

Also, the political image of the rattlesnake representing America, "Join or Die", is now a marketing ploy?

The Revolution wasn't funny to anyone back then, and probably wouldn't be today if anyone actually knew about it.

Why are Americans being drawn to the symbols of our Revolution? Because today we are assaulted daily by cold, heartless thugs, just as we were back then.

Eugenics, disarmament, un-Constitutionality, censorship, unlawful detainment, deception, over-taxation; these things are bringing those symbols and words of the Revolution back to their rightful prominence in the American mind; not for you to use as advertisement for your tacky comedy tour, but to remind Americans of our rocky, bloody, war-racked past, so that at least we can avoid allowing tyranny to come upon us while we sleep.

But no, Glenn, you don't want us to sleep and you don't want us to watch, you want us to laugh? This is no laughing matter.

This is the time when we are supposed to sober ourselves out of our drunken stupor and confront the enemies of Liberty on the ideological battlefield; you cannot do this on a comedy tour!

I'm sorely disappointed and ashamed of you, Glenn.

Wilson, the Fed, and the End of a Free America: Part 1

Stemming originally from a commenting conversation I had with Mike Powers about the man in days long past, as well as the recent attention he has garnered in the opinionated-media like Glenn Beck, I'm going to express my opinion of Woodrow Wilson's Presidency.

Having gained praise from the Left for his economic plans and his furtherance of globalist agendas, and having gotten rebuked for his policies by the Right, I thought I'd center this post on Wilson's own words:

"A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men who, even if their action be honest and intended for the public interest, are necessarily concentrated upon the great undertakings in which their own money is involved and who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom." ~Woodrow Wilson, 1913, quote from his book The New Freedom.

He was speaking of the newly incepted Federal Reserve, which is not only un-Constitutional, but is no more "federal" than Federal Express.

The implications of the Federal Reserve not being federal are more than might be at first thought.

Whether Congress authorizes the monetary powers of the Federal Reserve or not, the fact remains that they have no Constitutional powers to do anything, rendering them a private entity; therefore, what you call "dollar bills" (if you would pull one out and look at the top) are actually "FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES", holding no value, intrinsic or attributed, other that that of de facto imposition by the Federal Reserve.

Furthermore, as it is a private entity, the monetary power in these United States is not in the hands of elected representatives of the people, but appointed officials in the Fed's Board of Governors.

Since our monetary system is not only run but based on un-Constitutional powers, is it any wonder we're going under? What does the Constitution say about who makes the money?

"The Congress shall have power... To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;... No state shall... make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts" ~U.S. Constitution

Now, today we have little Timmy Giethner testifying before Congress, when asked where it is in the Constitution that he and the Fed get their power, he responds that their power comes from the Congress.

News for ya, Timmy: Congress doesn't get the last say in government!

CPAC, CFR, and The Constitution

"We want every American to be the best he or she chooses to be.

We recognize that we are all individuals. We love and revere our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. [Applause]

We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life. [Applause] Liberty, Freedom. [Applause] And the pursuit of happiness. [Applause]

Those of you watching at home may wonder why this is being applauded. We conservatives think all three are under assault. [Applause] Thank you. Thank you." ~Rush Limbaugh

A great speech overall, but I have a few issues with it, and with the speaker.

First of all, you will notice in the second paragraph that he mentions the "inarguable truth" in the preamble to the U.S. Constitution that we are endowed by our creator with the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Before I continue, let me mention that he was awarded the "Defender of the Constitution" award.

The preamble to the Constitution, you know, the "We the People" document, doesn't say anything about life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness; that's a quote from the Declaration of Independence.

"Ooh, Soory!" ~Alex Trebek

Secondly, how can a man who talks to millions of people everyday, setting the opinion of those who would receive it (don't worry, I'm not a Fairness Doctrine crazy; I know he doesn't set public opinion), be given an award recognizing his "defense of the Constitution", and be lauded as a leader within the "conservative movement" when he puts out the disinformation that the Council on Foreign Relations does not exist.

The Council on Foreign Relations, which has been mentioned on mainstream news programming as actively functioning, is a think-tank for Globalism and one-world government. Many members are politicians such as, admittedly, Dick Cheney:





Ha, ha, ha; Cheney, you are soooo funny.

To understand the basics of the CFR, it requires a goodly amount of time, which I don't currently have, as it is late and I'm slightly cranky. *Smiles Weakly*

Here's an "okay" video that I found; more informative info will follow:

I Don't Think She's In Kansas Anymore

Kathleen Sebelius, the Tyrant of Topeka; the Fürhrer of the Flatlands; the Sunflower Stalin; the woman who puts the "Wich" in Wichita has been appointed by BO to health secretary.

"Go, Pilgrim, and declare it from the gently rolling Flint Hills to the snowcapped Rocky Mountains, from the softly flowing Neosho to the raging Missouri; shout it from the summit of Mt. Sunflower, 'Sebelius is leaving Kansas!'"

Yes, Kansas' little Pookie has now been chosen by the Big O to be health secretary.

Did I mention she's for abortion?

Pro-murder, and anti-gun. Yeah... great health secretary. May God Save America.

Perhaps Kansas will get a semi-sane governor. Then again, perhaps we can rent out our ocean-front property on the east coast of Kansas.

Takers, anyone?

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 Congress been up to Lately?

This occurred on March 13th of 2008; strange how we never heard anything about it.

Congressmen were also at a later date individually threatened by unnamed entities with the possibility of imminent economic catastrophe and martial law if they did not pass the first $700,000,000,000.00 bailout bill.

"All the public business in Congress now connects itself with intrigues, and there is great danger that the whole government will degenerate into a struggle of cabals."

~John Quincy Adams

In Defense of O'Bama: Facing the Music

Exhibit "A":

Don't worry, I haven't turned-coat.

Never even suspect that you will find anything nice, supportive, or truly defensive of Obama and his Socialist agenda on or near this blog any time soon.

However, I must speak out on one issue.

The above photo has been used to demonize Obama; even I have pointed to it in the past to show his anti-American sentiments. But, that was before I saw, and heard, the video.

Ladies and gentlemen, put your hands over your ears for a slaughtering of the national anthem.

I submit to you Exhibit "B":


Honestly, if I were to stand by and listen to such a hideous rendition of the Star-Spangled Banner, I wouldn't put my hand over my heart either.

I would be more inclined to put my hand over my stomach.

(NOTICE: This post is mostly tongue-in-cheek. The author is nowhere near to supporting Obama or defending his Socialist agenda. The author is an American and is very much opposed to Socialism in any form. The author was born in America, speaks American, and has been known to cling to his guns and his faith. The author knows that some knuckle-heads out there actually like Socialism, and they voted for Obama. The author doesn't hate these people; rather, he wishes for them to live to be very, very old so they can fully reap what they have sown. The author also dislikes McCain, so don't think he isn't fair and balanced. The author also takes pleasure in calling the new President "O'Bama", because he likes to make fun of his name, though it is true that Obama does have Irish roots. The Emerald Isle isn't pleased.)

Slavery and the Insanity of the 1860's: The Honest Truth about Honest Abe

I was just thinking about the oft disputed relationship between the "Insanity of the 186o's", if you will, and slavery.

First of all, I feel it unnecessary to go into any great detail of how slavery, of any form, is repugnant in a free and Christian society.

Also, I feel it equally unnecessary to go into any great detail of the supposed "inferiority" or "superiority" of any man compared to another of differing skin shade, or the segregation thereof; this is equally repugnant in a free and Christian society.

What is noteworthy, though, is the position of the North and of the South on the matter, especially when contrasting them with the current presuppositions of modern opinion on the subject.

The most common opinion is that the South wanted slaves and the North didn't. To relegate both sides into such a paradigm, though, would be naive, as well as disrespectful to the men who died in that war.

To begin with, Abraham Lincoln, the supposed "Great Emancipator" of the slaves, may not be the greatest example of a Christian war-time President.

In response to a letter from Horace Greeley, somewhat critical of Lincoln's handling of the crisis, the President writes what I feel summarizes Lincoln's truest stance on the institution of slavery in America during the war:

"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was."

If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them.

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.

What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.

I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."

Greeley replied to this, once again critically, charging Lincoln to consider whether his domestic policies, as President, were following the law or rising above it.

What is clear to me is that Lincoln was opposed to slavery, but not to a degree that he would have wanted a war to end it. He perhaps saw slavery as his personal justification for a war that had already begun. The war greatly disturbed Lincoln to the point of near madness; in that, I pity him.

He abused his powers domestically by eliminating Habeas Corpus, among many other things, but I don't believe he was purposely usurping power; rather, I think he was simply unqualified and unconditioned to hold his office during the war.

I don't despise Abraham Lincoln; rather, I see him as a greatly fabled man, too caught up in matters beyond his control.

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.

A Congressman Speaks Out!

Notice the two emblems on either side of the flag.
I have always wondered why they would want to put the symbol of Fascism in the House of Representatives.

Samuel Clemens: A Man Beyond His Time

"When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years."

"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."

"The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin."

"No country can be well governed unless its citizens as a body keep religiously before their minds that they are the guardians of the law and that the law officers are only the machinery for its execution, nothing more."

"My kind of loyalty was to one's country, not to its institutions or its officeholders. The country is the real thing, the substantial thing, the eternal thing; it is the thing to watch over, and care for, and be loyal to; institutions are extraneous, they are its mere clothing, and clothing can wear out, become ragged, cease to be comfortable, cease to protect the body from winter, disease, and death."

"For in a Republic, who is "the country?" Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant -- merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them."

"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the congress is in session."

"Fleas can be taught nearly anything that a Congressman can."

"Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."

"The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin."

"Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society."