FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience.

There is no valid argument for the destruction of our planet and any form of life on it.As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world - that is the myth of the atomic age - as in being able to remake ourselves. Be the change that you want to see in the world.
This blog does not promote, support, condone, encourage, advocate, nor in any way endorse any racist (or "racialist") ideologies, nor any armed and/or violent revolutionary, seditionist and/or terrorist activities. Any racial separatist or militant groups listed here are solely for reference and Opinions of multiple authors including Freedom or Anarchy Campaign of conscience.

Freedom is alone the unoriginated birthright of man

Freedom is alone the unoriginated birthright of man
Freedom is alone the unoriginated birthright of man; it belongs to him by force of his humanity, and is in dependence on the will and coaction of every other, in so far as this consists with every other person's freedom. - Immanuel Kant



Freedom Adds

Friday, July 3, 2015

Both Major U.S. Parties Are Plagues On Humanity

Both Major U.S. Parties Are Plagues On Humanity

Screen Shot 2015-07-03 at 11.02.29 AM

There has never been a dime’s worth of difference between the Clintons (Bill and Hillary) and Barack Obama, and less than ten cents separates the worldviews of these Democratic political twins from the Bush wing of the Republican Party.

Each has their individual quirks. Barack destroys international order and the rule of law while dabbling at song; Bill dismantled the U.S. manufacturing base and threw record numbers of Blacks in prison as he toyed with his trumpet; George W. played the fool who would Shock and Awe the world into obedience; and Hillary is the evil crone that curses the dead while screaming “We are Woman” like a banshee. But they are all the same in their corporate soullessness.

They all lie for a living, and they live to lie. Hillary Clinton commingled official and personal criminality through the medium of email. Knowing that, in a life dedicated to crime, she could never successfully sequester her private and public conspiracies, Hillary privatized all of her email correspondence during her tenure as Obama’s Secretary of State (in the perfect spirit of neoliberalism). The fate of millions of Haitians whose country’s earthquake and development “aid” are under the Clinton family thumb were doubtless bundled into the tens of thousands of messages she erased on leaving Foggy Bottom.

Republicans have harassed her ever since, seeking an electronic smoking gun to show Clinton’s cowardice or lack of resolve to “stand up for America” and “our troops” or some other nonsense. What the Benghazi affair actually proves is that the Obama administration was just as intent as the Republicans to maintain the fiction that the “rebels” put in power by seven months of NATO bombing of Libya were not various flavors of Islamic jihadists – some of whom were already turning on their erstwhile masters. The U.S.-Saudi project to create and nurture the international jihadist network is a bipartisan venture that dates back to Jimmy Carter’s presidency – and, therefore, nothing for Democrats and Republicans to fight about. However, the GOP’s churning of Clinton’s emails does provide a glimpse into her quest to run for president in 2016 as the woman who vanquished Muammar Gaddafi (“Qaddafi” or simply “Q” in Clinton’s usage).

“Hillary best expressed the ghoulishness of Americas ruling duopoly.”

A number of Clinton’s correspondences were with Sidney Blumenthal, a former Clinton family spin-master who wrote nasty things about Barack Obama while working for Hillary’s 2008 presidential campaign – which made it impossible for her to hire him at the State Department. Nevertheless, Clinton needed his talents for hype for the campaign ahead. Their emails in the summer of 2011 discussed how Hillary’s status as stateswoman could soar when the Libyan leader was finally eliminated. “This is a historic moment and you will be credited for realizing it,” wrote Blumenthal, feeding the crone’s huge gizzard of ego, according to an article in Monday’s New York Times. “You must go on camera,” wrote Blumenthal. “You must establish yourself in the historical record at this moment.” Hillary was anxious to seize the time to establish what Blumenthal described as “the Clinton Doctrine.”

The Times piece somehow concludes that Obama stole Clinton’s thunder with an 1,100-word speech, in late August, declaring: “The Gaddafi regime is coming to an end, and the future of Libya is in the hands of its people.” But Hillary best expressed the ghoulishness of America’s ruling duopoly two months later, in October, when Gaddafi was savagely butchered by screaming jihadists. “We came, we saw, he died,” cackled the banshee.

In the annals of global diplomacy, no more vulgar words have been spoken by a major power foreign minister or head of state. Yet, Clinton’s calculated quip perfectly encapsulates the bloodlust that is the common characteristic of both the governing duopoly of the United States and their suckling children in ISIS and the other proliferating al Qaida factions.

Thanks to Seymour Hersh, we now have a much more plausible scenario for the May 2, 2011, demise of Osama bin Laden, the “OG” of the U.S.-Saudi spawned global jihad, whose body will never be located. Virtually the entire U.S. account of his death is a lie, repeatedly contradicted on its own terms – another layer of fictional Americana in the age of empire in decline.

Jihadists find it difficult to take orders from infidels, even when theCrusadersare paying the bills and supplying the weapons.”

Clinton was hard-pressed to imagine how she might trump the president’s bin Laden death-watch extravaganza. Her opportunity came five months later, when she delivered her gruesome paraphrase of Julius Caesar on the occasion of Col. Gaddafi’s murder. In the context of Washington’s deeply racist foreign policy, Gaddafi and bin Laden were equally deserving of death, although Gaddafi was among the most fervent and effective fighters against Islamic jihadists: his government was the first in the world to request a global arrest warrant against bin Laden.

The Libyan Islamists were quickly transferred to the new U.S.-NATO-Saudi-Qatari front lines in Syria. The CIA station in Benghazi was at the center of the action – and got burned in the wild and unwieldy process of herding jihadists, who find it difficult to take orders from “infidels,” even when the “Crusaders” are paying the bills and supplying the weapons.

The U.S. consulate and CIA station in Benghazi were attacked on September 11, 2012. The next day, the Pentagon’s intelligence agency issued a report predicting that a “Salafist principality” – another term for an Islamic State – would likely arise in Syria as a result of the war, and that “Western countries, the Gulf States and Turkey are supporting these efforts.” Moreover, the establishment of such an Islamic “principality” would create “the ideal atmosphere for AQI [al Qaida in Iraq, which became ISIS, ISIL and the Islamic State] to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi” in Iraq – events that have since transpired.

The Defense Intelligence Agency report didn’t say so, but the “Western Powers” included the United States, through its CIA.

The Pentagon warning about the rise of an Islamic State may have had some effect on U.S. policy in Syria.”

The document was declassified this year as the result of a suit by a libertarian right-wing legal outfit. The people of the world continue to be fed the fiction that the U.S. is engaged in a long, twilight struggle against al Qaida Salafists whose international network was created by, and continues to benefit from, “Western countries, the Gulf States and Turkey.”

However, the 2012 Pentagon warning about the rise of an Islamic State may have had some effect on U.S. policy in Syria. One year later, in September of 2013, President Obama backed off from his threat to bomb Syria in “retaliation” for a chemical missile attack against civilians – a crime much more likely committed by western-backed Salafists. The conventional wisdom is that the Russians tricked a hapless Secretary of State John Kerry into agreeing to the peaceful, internationally supervised destruction of Syria’s chemical arsenal; or that the refusal of Britain’s Parliament to go along with an air assault on Syria made the U.S. position untenable; or that Obama feared losing a vote on the issue in the U.S. Congress. None of this rings true to me. The United States is not easily deterred by the opinions of Europeans, who in the end accept Washington’s acts as a fait accompli. And, it was not clear that Obama would have lost the vote in Congress – a vote that he requested, while at the same time declaring that he did not need the legislature’s permission to “punish” Syria for crossing his “red line.”

I think that high Pentagon officials and elements of the Obama administration – probably including the president, himself – took the Benghazi disaster and the Defense Intelligence Agency report to heart, and decided that it was better to keep bleeding the Syrians and their Russian, Lebanese and Iranian allies through a prolonged war, than to bomb al Qaida into power. For the U.S., regional chaos is preferable to the triumph of the, ultimately, unmanageable Salafists – unchained.

The thirty-plus year war against Iran would, however, be ratcheted up. The Bush administration was snatched back from the brink of a military assault against Teheran in 2007 when – to the great consternation of Vice President Dick Cheney – all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies declared, publicly and unanimously, that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program, years before.

“President Obama claims the right to disregard and methodically undermine international law through “humanitarian” military intervention.”

The spooks reaffirmed their consensus in the 2010 National Intelligence Estimate – again, that there was no evidence Iran has any intention of making a bomb. The Obama administration has since avoided asking the intelligence agencies for their analysis on the issue, knowing they would get the same answer. Instead, they rely on Israeli propaganda, pick and choose various “experts” from inside and outside the arms control “community,” or simply put forward unsupported statements on Iran’s capabilities and intentions: the Big Lie. While Bush was humiliated by facts supplied by his own intelligence experts, Obama has escalated the confrontation with Iran, applying crippling sanctions and the whole range of low-level warfare, in close collaboration with Israel – proving, once again, that Obama is the “more effective evil.”

Obama has nearly completed knocking off victims on the “hit list” of countries that George Bush was working on when General Wesley Clark ran across it in 2002. Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Somalia have been invaded since then, and Sudan was stripped of a third of its territory. Only Iran and Lebanon remain intact and outside the U.S. imperial umbrella.

The Republican-Democratic duopoly plays tag-team in promoting theProject for a New American Century – a doctrine promulgated by neo-conservatives in 1997 that has served as the guiding light of both the Bush and Obama administrations. The differences between the two teams are merely rhetorical. The Bush regime is described as “unilateralist,” although it employed the same “Coalition of the Willing” approach to aggressive war as does the Obama administration. President Obama claims the right to disregard and methodically undermine international law through “humanitarian” military intervention, whereas Bush claimed to be “spreading democracy.” Same weapons systems, same mass murder, same objective: U.S. domination of the planet.

The spooks reaffirmed their consensus in the 2010 National Intelligence Estimate, that there was no evidence Iran has any intention of making a bomb.”

There’s nothing democratic or humanitarian about the U.S. imperial project. Therefore, its maintenance requires the deployment of 24-7 psychological operations worldwide, but directed primarily against the U.S. public.

Republican strategist Karl Rove was far more honest than his Democratic counterparts when he explained to a reporter, back in 2004:

“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

Election seasons are reality-creation festivals, during which the two corporate parties pretend to put forward different visions of the national and global destiny – when, in fact, they answer to the same master and must pursue the same general strategy.

The continuity of GOP-Democratic rule – the near-identical depravity – is horrifically evident in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where six million people have been slaughtered by U.S. surrogates since 1996: the largest genocide since World War II. Successive U.S. administrations – Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, assisted by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice, the high U.S. official most deeply implicated in the entirety of the genocide – have armed, financed, and covered up the Congolese holocaust. Each administration has collaborated with its predecessor to hide the crime and obscure the question of guilt – and then to continue the killing.

Decent people do not vote for political parties that produce such fiends, who deserve Nuremburg justice of the capital kind. Any talk of “lesser evils” is both stupid and obscene.

By Glen Ford,

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber-

The Abuse Of Absolute Power

The Abuse Of Absolute Power


Guantanamo Bay, Cuba – “The existence of the approximately 14,000 photographs will probably cause yet another delay in the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as attorneys for the defendants demand that all the images be turned over and the government wades through the material to decide what it thinks is relevant to the proceedings.”

This was the Washington Post a few days ago, informing us wearily that the torture thing isn’t dead yet. The bureaucracy convulses, the wheels of justice grind. So much moral relativism to evaluate.

“They did what they were asked to do in the service of our nation,” CIA director John Brennan said at a news conference in December, defending CIA interrogators after a portion of the 6,700-page Senate Intelligence Committee report was made public.

Serving the nation means no more than doing what you’re told.

God bless America. Flags wave, fireworks burst on the horizon. Aren’t we terrific? But this idea we celebrate — this nation, this principled union of humanity — is just a military bureaucracy, full of dark secrets. The darkest, most highly classified secret of all is that we’re always at war and we always will be. And war is an end in itself. It has no purpose beyond its own perpetuation.

This is the context of torture.

At least this is what occurred to me as I reflected on the most recent non-news, that the existence of multi-thousands of photographs of U.S. black site operations are out there somewhere, classified but known and pulsing. What more can we learn that we don’t already know?

“On Nov. 20, 2002, (Gul) Rahman was found dead in his unheated cell. He was naked from the waist down and had been chained to a concrete floor. An autopsy concluded that he probably froze to death.”

So the Los Angeles Times informed us in December, in an article about two psychologists, Bruce Jessen and James Mitchell, who were serving their country in the early days of the War on Terror by developing the CIA’s torture methodology.

“When he was left alone,” the article reported, describing another detainee’s experience, “(Abu) Zubaydah ‘was placed in a stress position, left on a waterboard with a cloth over his face, or locked in one of two confinement boxes.’

“In all, he spent 266 hours — 11 days and two hours — locked in the pitch-dark coffin, and 29 hours in a much smaller box. In response, he ‘cried,’ ‘begged,’ ‘whimpered’ and grew so distressed that ‘he was unable to effectively communicate,’ the interrogation team reported.

“The escalating torment, especially the waterboarding, affected some on the CIA team. ‘It is visually and psychologically very uncomfortable,’ one wrote. Several days later, another added, ‘Several on the team profoundly affected . . . some to the point of tears and choking up.’”

And a few weeks ago, The (U.K.) Telegraph, quoting from the Senate Intelligence Committee Report, described the experience of Majid Khan, who “was raped while in CIA custody (‘rectal feeding’). He was sexually assaulted in other ways as well, including by having his ‘private parts’ touched while he was hung naked from the ceiling. . . .

“‘Majid had an uncovered bucket for a toilet, no toilet paper, a sleeping mat and no light. . . . For much of 2003 he lived in total darkness.’”

And the awkward part of all this, for defenders of the military bureaucracy, is that these torture procedures produced no information of any value. We sold our soul to the devil and got nothing at all in return. Bad deal.

Whatever details about the torture program remain classified and buried, these stories, along with plenty of shocking photographs, are fully public. There’s enough data here to open a deep conversation about what it means to be a nation and what the limits of power ought to be. What I see instead is a sort of official resignation — on the part of media and government — to the inevitability of out-of-control power in the pursuit of self-defense.

Philip Zimbardo called this phenomenon the Lucifer Effect: the utterly corrupting nature of total power over others. Reports of CIA torture are rife with observations that the interrogators were out of control. The information they sought from the utterly powerless detainees in their keep was a treasure to be extracted, like oil or diamonds from the bowels of the earth, and no technique was too inhumane, too morally odious, to achieve that end. Call it human fracking. It’s for the good of America.

The awareness that must emerge from a decade-and-counting of torture revelations is that absolute power over others does not keep us safe and should not be pursued. And torture is only a minute fraction of the wrong we promulgate through unchecked militarism, the aim of which is domination of the planet.

Step one in the unhealthy pursuit of power is the dehumanization of “the enemy.” The consequences of what we do after that will always haunt us.

By Robert C. Koehler,

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber-

Don't Give Up on America

Don't Give Up on America

As I’ve said, I was very alarmed, though not particularly surprised, by the two Supreme Court decisions last week in which the court’s majority blithely bastardized the English language, the Constitution, the rule of law and the very idea of truth in order to further advance the progressive agenda in this nation.

But what troubles me more than the court’s betrayal of its duty to safeguard the Constitution and the rule of law is the apparent complacency among the public about these decisions and the radical shifts we are witnessing in our culture.

Why do some seem resigned to the transformation of our society? Why have they surrendered? Do they strongly believe in anything anymore? Do they not understand the implications for the future of this nation — if not for themselves, for their children?

We all seem to agree that to a great extent politics flows downstream from culture. The problem for conservatives is that the left understands this better than we do. They long ago took over our major cultural institutions, indoctrinating society through the schools, universities, media and Hollywood to their anti-tradition and radically secular ideas.

It has been a brilliant, grand deception because the left’s ideas are anything other than the salt and light they present them to be. They offer themselves as tolerant, inclusive, compassionate and morally superior decriers of “hate.” Yet they are the intolerant and often bitterly hateful ones who are trying to suppress opposing voices and who demonize everyone who dares disagree with their positions.

Leftists have been denigrating America’s history, culture and values and denying it. But don’t you dare suggest they don’t love the country they have spent so much energy trashing and trying to fundamentally change.

They have insisted they just want the freedom to live and let live; they just want equal rights. In no way do they mean to encroach on other people’s rights. They are harmless, seeking only an equal seat at the table.

Yet across the board their actions contradict their words, and their subsequent positions flagrantly breach their promises and assurances.

In economic policy, the founding American ideal of equal opportunity is no longer enough for them. By itself, it is inherently unfair, because some people have more talent, better connections or a privileged race or gender status. So they demand equal or more equitable outcomes. They use the tax code, administrative regulations and unconstitutional legislation to even the score. But isn’t something screamingly wrong and unsustainable about a society whose lower half of income earners pay zero income taxes?

On same-sex marriage, gay activists said they only wanted equal recognition and an equal right to marry. They wouldn’t dream of encroaching on the religious liberties of Christians. How quickly their true intentions emerged once they scored their Supreme Court victory. They were never going to be satisfied merely with a lawless Supreme Court decision forcing states to accept their redefinition of marriage. They are determined to use the power of the state and economic coercion to neuter and punish dissenters.

Leftists are not about live and let live. They are about wholesale control. Their movers and shakers see society as their project, and they can change everything and everyone through government and their domination of the culture. There is no live and let live in their bones.

In view of all this, it is amazing that so many conservatives, traditionalists and Christians are blind to the hostile, aggressive and unquenchable appetite of the leftist movement. It is chilling to me that they don’t realize this trend is going to continue until there is either a cultural or legal confrontation or the left stamps out all dissent. The left is never satisfied even with winning; they must stomp out the opposition. Just look at what they’ve done to the Christian businesses with which they gratuitously picked a fight over same-sex marriage. Look at the concentrated assault on Donald Trump, even if you don’t agree with some of his statements. Look at what they do to anyone who doesn’t comply with their 1984-ishness.

I repeat: Is our side asleep? Have they given up? Are they numb? Do they care? Are they cowards? Would they rather be thought of as wonderful and tolerant by these intolerant people than stand up for what they believe in? Or do they believe in much of anything anymore?

I find it inconceivable that in the past five years Americans' opinions concerning same-sex marriage have changed as drastically as certain polls and commentators suggest. It’s as if because President Obama came out and admitted he favors same-sex marriage, everyone else is compelled to agree. Even if the polls show this, I don’t believe a majority yet accepts, in its heart of hearts, that same-sex marriage is the way to go. My suspicion is that it’s more a reflection of the bullying and propaganda than a societal change of heart.

Could I be wrong on this? Could society be that fickle — so apathetic about serious issues that they can turn on a dime? I’m not buying it. But I do believe people increasingly lack the courage to voice dissenting opinions against the politically correct position.

But I haven’t given up hope. We can’t give up on America. I don’t believe American conservatism and traditional values are dead, but they are very, very sick. They need a doctor — in the form of a fearless proponent of our ideas, which spawned the greatest nation in history and can help to bring it back. During this chaotic GOP primary process, hopefully a leader will emerge who believes in America and can inspire like-minded people toward a political revival. In the meantime, a spiritual revival in our culture is long overdue.

May God not give up on but once again bless America.

By David Limbaugh

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber-

Artificial Intelligence Takes the Battlefield: Who Is Really Running Jade Helm 15

Artificial Intelligence Takes the Battlefield: Who Is Really Running Jade Helm 15?

Who is really going to be running Jade Helm 15?

There is more to the story than just training for martial law in states designated as “hostile states” – already a chilling pretext with overtones of greater federal power that could spiral out of control.

But it seems that it is actually A.I. – artificial intelligence – that is at the helm of an enormous and unprecedented military drill. A scary thought for sure… but what does it really mean?

If analysts are correct, it seems that “JADE” is an acronym for a DARPA-developed A.I. quantum computing technology that produces holographic battlefield simulations and will be in charge of the drill in order to “master the human” domain and predict human response.

Level 9 News, who appeared in the above interview with John B. Wells, gave a 38-minute YouTube presented about what exactly she has uncovered concerning JADE Helm as an artificial intelligence exercise – talk about adding layers of meaning to the 2015 Bilderberg discussion of A.I!

Read more: Bilderberg Wields Artificial Intelligence: “A Tool to Massively Amplify Our Ability to Control the World”

Level 9 News wrote under the header “Rise of the Machine” that:

“JADE” is an A.I. quantum computing technology that produces holographic battlefield simulations and has the ability to use vast amounts of data being collected on the human domain to generate human terrain systems in geographic population centric locations to identify and eliminate targets, insurgents, rebels or whatever labels that can be flagged as targets in a Global Information Grid for Network Centric Warfare environments.

The JADE II battle field system is cognitive and intuitive. It can examine prior executed battle plans and and devise ‘new and better’ strategies to increase the ‘kill chain’. The II generation of JADE has the capability for two way communication with drones through the OCCOM technology which is one of the next generation integrations to this system.

In short, JADE HELM will not be battles directed by Generals and Military Commanders, but by a computer. It is a cognitive software program based on a Network Centric Warfare System at the HELM.
The rapid weaponization of drones – with thousands now taking over skies – was just the beginning. Along with coordinated efforts with human military teams, the A.I. computers are already being rolled out for the battlefield. In a short time, weaponized robots will join them, and autonomous, learning, thinking computers will thereafter put humans out of the loop of decision making – and take lives into their own hands.

This document (PDF) describes a military A.I. strategy that fits this view of JADE Helm… including an AI program named JADE II. Whatever the full scope, these future trends for conflict and population control should be closely monitored.

Aaron Dykes and Melissa Melton Dykes created,

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber-

'We the People'

'We the People'

“We the People.” We’ve heard that phrase so often it’s easy to overlook its significance. But as we mark our nation’s birthday, we should take a moment to ask ourselves: What is the role of the people?

Our nation is unique because of its universal founding principles. At the heart of these principles is the belief that people are free by nature and possess inherent rights. The use each one of us makes of these rights will naturally be different, and the outcomes of those choices will naturally differ, too. But the choice remains ours.

Freedom is thus inextricably bound up with living our lives as we see fit. This is self-government in the truest sense of the term. We the people need not slavishly defer to experts. We can be trusted to govern ourselves.

That is why government must remain limited: The people have given it only limited powers, as described in the Constitution. When we allow government to take more than we have given it, our choices become meaningless. At worst, unlimited government is tyrannical; at best, it imposes a dull uniformity that crushes true diversity and saps the independent spirit of the people.

The Founders strove to create a government that couldn’t be dominated by a single faction. That faction might be a minority or a majority. But no matter its size, it would inevitably seek to promote its own narrow interests at the expense of the liberties of the people.

One purpose of the Constitution’s checks and balances — one reason it divides and limits power — is to restrain the ambition of the powerful and promote “the general welfare.”

Yet as the federal government has grown over the past century, its business has increasingly become taking from Paul to benefit Peter, then borrowing from Peter to pay off Paul. What supporters of big government call the general welfare is merely the artful distribution of favors to particular factions.

The federal government is not supposed to be the most important institution in America. In securing the general welfare, it’s supposed to do only those things that are provided for in the Constitution.

It must, for example, provide for the common defense and regulate our relations with foreign nations. It must respect our right to enjoy the fruits of our labor by taxing lightly, and defend the freedom of the marketplace by ensuring the rule of law. And it must remember that the family and religion are where we learn virtue, and that without virtue, government cannot be both limited and free.

As John Adams stated: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” In the United States, government requires not merely the consent of the governed. It rests ultimately on the ability of the people to govern themselves. Thus, the first role — the first duty — of the people is to ensure that they remain virtuous and free.

That is why the American system is based on the rights of the individual, but not on individualism. When Thomas Jefferson wrote that “it is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor,” he captured a vital truth of American freedom. The Founders placed great hopes in the Constitution, but they knew that no paper constraints could preserve liberty. That duty rested ultimately with the American people.

The role of the Constitution was to restrain and to check, and — as Washington wrote — to “raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair.” The words of the Declaration, the lives of the Founders, and the design of the Constitution can inspire, but on their own they cannot preserve the American republic.

Only the American people, steeped in the principles that inspired the Founders and animated the Declaration, can do that. Almost 240 years after the Declaration of Independence was signed, it’s worth asking: Are we up to the task?

By Edwin J. Feulner

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber-

Why Not an ‘Independence From the State’ Day?

Why Not an ‘Independence From the State’ Day?

I’m about to witness my 61st “Independence Day” in the US Collective. And all I see forthcoming is still another celebration of failure, still another empty gesture from clueless citizen/slaves who have no independence.

The supposed “independence” noted and celebrated is recorded in the document known as The Declaration of Independence.  Those enslaved by a king at that time, declared themselves subjects instead to some, as yet, undefined government master (later to be defined as a “republic”). The document rails about such worthy goals as equality among men, inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and government operating only at the consent of the governed.

But when present day loyalists view their present day reality through their star spangled eyes, do they see the ultimate achievement of these documented goals?

Once the hot dogs and beer are digested and the fireworks smoke clears, what do they have? Freedom? Independence? Liberty? Quite the contrary.

What they in reality have is a multi-century, linear regression from a declaration of the sanctity of the natural rights of man and the glory of individualism to an annual affirmation of conformity, unquestioned loyalty, collective obedience, and the glorification of human sacrifice when committed in the name of the king.

And not the old king, but the new one.

What in reality they have is the unfortunate opportunity to witness a spectacular, historical failure. The institution created and charged with protecting those declared, natural rights has instead morphed into the greatest threat toward their weakening and eventual abolition. Words on parchment outlining law, custom and structure regarding such an institution have been proven impotent to restrain the growth of a predator so large and menacing, that it not only threatens complete evisceration of individual wealth and liberties within its declared territory, but also the lives, wealth, property, and security of people throughout the world.

Seeing that that such a large, powerful and centralized political structure is not only inadequate, but inherently dangerous toward the stated goal of preserving liberty, aware individuals can only view celebrating such a structure as utterly senseless.

Perhaps a new way to celebrate Independence Day is to shift the focus of collective independence to individual independence. The idea that claiming a collective independence will protect our inalienable liberties seems to have failed. How about a more individually oriented, decentralized approach- all based on the sanctity of individual sovereignty and the truth that no man is born another man’s subject or slave?

Claim true independence by withdrawing your consent and allegiance to a criminal regime posing as a benevolent master. Separate yourself mentally and emotionally from the death cult that values human sacrifice for the collective over the life giving accomplishments of free living individuals.

And why stop there? Why not expand the scope from a localized effort to reassert our rights as freeborn sovereigns to a worldwide campaign of individual empowerment and liberation?

Instead of foolishly celebrating a past independence from one king, just to become enslaved by another, let’s actively declare and celebrate an independence to all present day state masters.

By Roger Young

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber-

Survey: Over a Third of Americans Would Like to Expatriate

Survey: Over a Third of Americans Would Like to Expatriate

It’s been found that year after year, more Americans are leaving the United States and renouncing their citizenship. It’s a trend that, while small, has been seeing explosive growth. Just a few years ago only a couple of hundred Americans took that course of action. But last year, a record 3,415 Americans said goodbye to their citizenship.

Of course, that number is just a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the population. However, moving to a new country is often a tedious an expensive process. If it were easier, how many people do you think would be willing to leave this country? A new survey conducted by the peer-to-peer money transfer service known as TransferWise, asked that question to 2000 American residents and citizens. They found that 35% of them would consider leaving the good old US of A.

What’s especially interesting, is that they found this interest to be much higher in younger Americans. 55% of those between the ages of 18 and 34, said they would consider moving to another country. Obviously, something must be seriously wrong with our nation if so many young people are willing to leave; a notion that would have been unthinkable just a generation ago.

By Joshua Krause

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber-

Unconstitutional Court Rulings

Constitution was written by the people, of the people and for the people, and that the people and the States are the authors of that document, and the final arbiters of what is or isn't constitutional

Unconstitutional Court Rulings

If you look inside the pages of the United States Constitution, among the expressly granted authorities to the federal government, you will never find judicial review.  In fact, the judicial branch was originally intended to be the weakest of the three branches of government.  Yet, using the power of judicial review, of which the courts granted to themselves largely based on the written opinion of Chief Justice John Marshall regarding the Marbury v. Madison ruling in 1803, the Supreme Court recently set the U.S. Constitution upon the final path towards extinction with rulings regarding marriage, health care, and elections.

In the cases of health care and marriage, the high court sided with federal control over issues that have never constitutionally been authorized to the federal government.  In the case of elections, the Supreme Court of the United States determined that States cannot verify citizenship of voters at the time of registering to vote, despite the fact that the manner in which the electoral process is held is largely left to the States, and one must be a citizen in order to vote in the first place.

We the People, through our States, are the authors of the social contract we call the U.S. Constitution.  Prior to the writing of the Constitution, the States had original authority over all powers.  The States granted some of their powers to the federal government so that the central government may take care of external issues like common defense, trade with other nations, and diplomacy; and issues regarding preserving the union like the postal service, resolving disputes between the States, and securing the national border so as to protect the States from invasion, or imminent danger.  Local issues belong with local government, and the central government was established to handle other issues that are not necessarily local.  The powers not granted to the federal government, and not prohibited to the States by the Constitution in places like Article I, Section 10, are reserved to the States, or to the people (as per the Tenth Amendment).  This concept was established specifically to keep the federal government from intruding upon issues that are best left to local governments, and draws from the concept of “self-governance.”

Separation of Powers is a concept that is closely tied to the distribution of authorities among the many parts of government.  In addition to the separation of powers between the federal government and the States, there is also a separation of powers between the branches of government.  In the first sentence of each of the first three articles of the Constitution the Separation of Powers is defined.

Article I, Section 1: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Article II, Section 1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Article III, Section 1: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Legislative Powers are the authority to make law, modify law, and repeal law.

The executive Power is the authority to execute the laws of the land as they are written by Congress, and the execution of these laws may be carried out through regulatory agencies, and executive departments.

The judicial Power is the authority to rule on cases within the authorities granted by applying the law to the cases.

In the case of the federal courts, the judicial Power does not include interpreting the Constitution, or applying their opinion to the law in order to change it.  The judicial Power also does not include taking cases that are not authorized to the federal government, and then striking down State laws or State Constitutional Amendments on State issues.  These issues are to be addressed by the representatives or the people within each of the sovereign States.

It is a common argument that the courts exist to interpret the law, but if they are interpreting the law in a wrong manner, how are we to do anything in response to their “interpretation” if their decision is considered to be final, and if we don’t understand the language of the law in the first place?

In the Declaration of Independence, the language reveals to us that we are the possessors of Natural Rights.  Our rights are given to us through the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.  We are “entitled” to those rights, “endowed” by our Creator to possess those rights, and the truth of our ownership of our rights, and the nature of those rights, is “self-evident.”  We own our rights, and they are unalienable, or inseparable, from us.  Even if imprisoned, though I would not have access to my rights, those rights would still belong to me.  Because we have ownership of our rights, it is our responsibility to defend those rights, to take the actions necessary to preserve our rights and to protect our access to those rights.

There is no such thing as Constitutional Rights.”

There is no such thing as “Constitutional Rights.”  The Constitution does not grant us our rights, nor does it guarantee our rights, no more than the Constitution would grant or guarantee your ownership over a piece of personal property.  That property, like your rights, belongs to you, and it is your responsibility to secure your property against those that may desire to take that property away from you.  To assist us in securing our rights, government has been created.  For example, your right to your private property cannot constantly be secured by you when you have to depart your home to go to work.  Therefore, to help secure your property, government has been created so that there may be law enforcement or fire protection.  These services help secure your property, but they do not guarantee that your property will be in the same condition you left it in when you return.  It is likely your property will be protected, but much of that depends upon your own actions.  Did you lock your door?  Do you have a security system in place?

Your rights require that you take action to defend and protect them.  The Bill of Rights, for example, was not written to ensure that the federal government guarantees those rights.  The Bill of Rights was written to tell the federal government that your rights are none of their business.  Your rights belong to you, and the message to the federal government is, “hands off,” “don’t touch.”

The First Amendment begins, “Congress shall make no law.”

The Second Amendment ends, “shall not be infringed.”

The Third Amendment begins, “No Soldier shall.”

Special: Americans Urged to Search Their Names Before Site Gets Taken Down
The Fourth Amendment instructs that the government “shall not” violate your right to be secure in your “persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

The Fifth Amendment explains that the government shall not deprive you of your “due process of law.”

In other words, the Bill of Rights does not guarantee you your rights, or tell the federal government to guarantee those rights, but the Bill of Rights says to the federal government that our rights are none of their business.  Your rights were given to you by God, and government has no claim over them.

Understanding the nature of your rights, and to whom they belong, helps us understand that the federal courts cannot constitutionally take a case just because it is believed it is in regards to your “constitutional rights.”

The idea that the federal government has that power comes from the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which expanded upon the language in Article IV., the “Privileges and Immunities” Clause, which demands that the citizens of each State be treated equally under the law.  In some cases, where States used tactics to steer around such a requirement, the Constitution has been amended to address such infractions.  For example, in an effort to keep blacks from voting, the Democrats in the Southern States had in place a policy of “Poll Taxes.”  Poll Taxes are a kind of capitation, or “head tax,” that required a tax be paid by each individual in order to vote.  The tax, since most blacks were too poor to afford the tax, was a way to keep blacks from voting, while not violating the Equal Protection Clause because all people were equally required to pay the tax regardless of who they were, ensuring that technically folks were being treated equally under the law.  The 24th Amendment was proposed and ratified in order to end the practice of poll taxes in the States.

Prior to the 24th Amendment, poll taxes were perfectly constitutional.

Your rights, then, are not something that should be handled by the federal government unless there is an Amendment specifically addressing such an issue.  The federal government is prohibited from making laws, or legally ruling through the judiciary, on your rights.  Your rights are something that must be handled at the local level.  The Bill of Rights specifically applies to the federal government, and not to the States.

For example: The Second Amendment addresses the right to keep and bear arms, explaining that the right is “necessary to the security of a free State” (a free California, a free Virginia, a free Illinois, and so forth), and that the right “to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

“Shall not be infringed” is a pretty definitive phrase.  It says, “hands off, do not touch.”  What that means is that every single federal gun law is unconstitutional, including background checks and waiting periods.  But, should the language of the Second Amendment also apply to the States?  Should the States be prohibited from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, as well?  Or, should a State, if the people in that State find it necessary, be able to regulate guns or gun ownership?  Should a criminal who shot people during an armed robbery let out of prison for good behavior be able to go out and buy a gun immediately after being released from his state of imprisonment?  Or, should your local government be able to set standards regarding gun ownership in order to protect the populace from that kind of person have such easy access to a firearm?

Folks love to say to me, “But what if the States also become tyrannical and begin to unfairly infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms?”

My response is, “Don’t let them.  With freedom comes responsibility, which includes the responsibility of ensuring the power players in government are kept in check.”

Eternal vigilance, my friends.  Liberty requires eternal vigilance by all members of society.  Our laws are influenced by those that participate.  If you are not participating, you are a part of the problem.

Locally, it is the responsibility of We the People, and our State representation, to properly handle these issues regarding our rights, and it is none of the federal government’s business how we handle those issues locally, even if they think we are doing it wrong, and they are somehow so high and mighty that their decision should rule over ours.

The reason for this opportunity to exercise some regulatory power regarding rights at the State level is because rights are not cut and dry.  Your right to swing your arms, for example, stops at the tip of my nose.  My right to own a firearm stops if I abused that right and the other gun owners and citizens are fearful as a result of my continued ownership.  So, locally, laws can be made to protect the public.  We just have to make sure we don’t cross the fine line between responsible regulation, and tyranny.  As a virtuous society, that fine line is self-evident.  If we become a debauched society, we struggle to recognize that line, and it is inevitable that we will cross it.

It’s like when we think about stop signs on the roadway.  Sure, I may think I should have the right to cross an intersection without having to slow down and stop.  But what about the other cars?  Does not my right to fly through an intersection come under scrutiny because other drivers will then be interfered with as a result?  So, as a virtuous people, we establish stop signs, and everyone abides by them regardless of the limiting nature they present.  But if we are a debauched society, the rule of law no longer applies, and the stop sign begins to mean whatever we want it to mean.  In a culture like that, do you think the occurrence of violent collisions will increase?

When a society ceases to be a virtuous society, the violent consequences of debauchery are inevitable
When a society ceases to be a virtuous society, the violent consequences of debauchery are inevitable.  If we are not a society that practices a firm reliance upon the protection of divine Providence, standards become corrupted, and liberty is placed in jeopardy.

This is where the ruling regarding homosexual marriage enters the picture.  I get it.  People want to love, or have physical relations, with whom they desire.  There are people who would like to be able to do a number of things in society that is not culturally acceptable, and/or intrudes upon the rights of others.  Having your “lifestyle” is your choice.  Fine.  Have you lifestyle.  But at what point does that behavior interfere with the rights of others?  At what point does using the coercion of law to force compliance become tyrannical?

Homosexuality carries with it a very despotic nature.  From a Christian point of view, homosexuality is a sin, so the purveyors of the gay lifestyle are intent on justifying the behavior.  Therefore, they feel obligated to label their “struggle” as a civil right that is somehow on the same level as racial or gender related struggles for equal rights.  However, the majority of the people have been reluctant to side with the homosexual agenda, so the slow evolution of societal acceptance without using some kind of prod to move the herd in the direction they desire was not an acceptable plan.  The gay lobby has resorted to using the force of law to coerce the public to accept them, and their behavior, as normal, or suffer the full penalty of law.

The problem is that there is no authority granted to the federal government in the Constitution regarding marriage.  Therefore, as per the 10th Amendment, marriage is a State issue. . . and in my opinion, a church issue.  By unconstitutionally pulling the federal government into their fight for justifying their sin, the homosexual agenda has taken their case all the way to the Supreme Court, and now with a ruling that struck down State laws on the issue, it is now believed that nobody can “discriminate” against gays in any way, shape or form.  With that power in their hands, the homosexual agenda has now indicated they plan to target businesses, learning institutions, religious institutions, and anything else they can attack, to ensure there is no “discrimination” against gays.

Homosexuality is a social issue, a morality issue that Christianity stands against.  Religiously, the behavior is considered sinful, and dangerous to the proper functioning of a society, largely because the family unit is among the foundational building blocks of a successful and prosperous society.  The Bible is filled with verses cautioning against homosexuality, not just because it is a behavior that is sexually deviant, but because of the nature of the “lifestyle,” which can be destructive to the cultural adhesion of a society that remains free primarily because it is a “virtuous” society.  If a culture abandons its godly nature of virtue, it is incapable of freedom.

As a result of the Gay Marriage court ruling by the United States Supreme Court, all five rights enumerated in the First Amendment are at risk

As a result of the Gay Marriage court ruling by the United States Supreme Court, all five rights enumerated in the First Amendment are at risk.  If one is unable to hold a religious opinion against homosexuality, it places one’s right to practice one’s religion freely at risk.  By passing pro-homosexual legislation in response to the ruling, Congress will be making law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, an action expressly prohibited by the First Amendment.  One may also suggest that the Congress would be making law respecting an establishment of religion, a religion some may know as “secularism.”

Our Freedom of Speech, the second right enumerated in the First Amendment, is also at risk.  At what point will voicing an opinion in opposition to the gay agenda result in fines or jail time?  Through political correctness we are already being told that we must hold our tongue on this issue.  Free speech that disagrees with liberal left policy is already not acceptable in many circles, and in many cases is considered “hate speech.”  Will hate laws eventually be passed to fight against “discrimination” against homosexuals?  At what point will the Holy Bible be labeled as a “hate speech document,” and be outlawed or banned as we are now seeing the left attempt regarding any icons that might remind us of the Old South and the Confederate States (since the liberal left has blamed the confederate battle flag for the Charleston shooting)?

Freedom of the Press, the third right enumerated in the First Amendment, is already under attack.  Not only are outlets that do not fully agree with leftist propaganda, such as Fox News or the Drudge Report, under constant assault, but there is also the constant threat of bringing back the “Fairness Doctrine,” which does not allow an opinion to be voiced without the opposing opinion immediately being provided.  Of course, when it comes to leftists beliefs, such a “fairness” approach is never considered.  Evolution and the pro-homosexual agenda come to mind.  Eventually, reporting in a manner that may be construed as “discriminatory” against homosexuality will be censored, and banned, on the airwaves.

The fourth enumerated right in the First Amendment is the “right of the people to peaceably assemble.”  Freedom of Assembly was a very important right to the colonists as they approached the American Revolution.  Can I have “Straight Pride” meetings?  How about a “Straight Pride” parade?  How about a “Heterosexual Book Club?”  Will our right to assembly be honored if we had a “Traditional Marriage Convention” in San Francisco?

I see no arguments against Gay Pride events.  I may disagree with their behavior, and believe they have dangerous plans for this country, but their right to assembly has always been honored.

The final right enumerated in the First Amendment has already been taken from you in regards to the homosexual agenda.  Unelected people in black robes have determined that the laws of States, and the petitions of We the People regarding homosexual marriage, do not matter.  You do not have the right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances” because the matter has been settled by the Supreme Court.  It doesn’t matter if marriage is a State issue, and it doesn’t matter if you have a religious or political opinion that opposes gay marriage.  Your petitions are no longer acceptable on the matter.  The matter is settled, and the Supreme Court has ruled against there ever being petitions for a redress of grievances to the government on the matter of homosexuality, or gay marriage.

In a debate regarding the judicial oligarchy we have seen on the rise in this nation, I always refer back to the Constitution.  My first argument is that the Founding Fathers sought to create a federal government, but limit its authorities through the chains of the Constitution.  The authorities to the federal government are few, and expressly enumerated, and in order to add any authorities, such a request is subject to 3/4 ratification by the States through the Article V. amendment process.  However, with Judicial Review, the federal courts are told they have the authority to determine the constitutionality of any law, even State laws on State issues.  To determine the constitutionality of laws is to determine where the authority lies regarding those issues.  The federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court, are a part of the federal government.  Therefore, in these rulings, what we have is the federal government deciding for itself what its own authorities are.

In what way does that conform to the concept of limited government?

Concept of Americanism revolves around self-governance

Lastly, the concept of Americanism revolves around self-governance.  Europe doubted America would survive because they believed a nation cannot survive without a ruling elite making all of the decisions for the uninformed public.  They believed in a general will, a will of the people that only the ruling elite could recognize, and if any person was to oppose the laws by the ruling elite to achieve the general will, that person must be restrained by the body politic.  Man must be forced to be free.  In America, we rejected such philosophies, and the Founding Fathers rejected the concept of a ruling elite that made all of the decisions. However, they did not go to the opposite extreme of democracy, either, understanding that a tyranny of the majority carried with it dangerous possibilities, as well.  So, we have a representative republic that includes checks and balances that, early on, largely included the presence of the State legislatures, as well.  As a result, the United States of America prospered, and grew to become the world’s primary world power.

The Constitution begins with the words “We the People of the United States,” a phrase I often paraphrase as saying, “We the People of these States that are united.”  So, understanding that the Constitution was written by the people, of the people and for the people, and that the people and the States are the authors of that document, and the final arbiters of what is or isn’t constitutional, do you think the Founding Fathers would have supported the concept that all laws and questions of constitutionality would rest upon the shoulders of nine unelected people in black robes who think they are above the law and can decide what the law says despite how the law is expressly written or how the Constitution was written, drawing instead upon case law (opinions of other judges in history) or ideology? And, if you really want to be accurate, our nation is really upon the shoulders of a swing vote like Justice Kennedy.  Does that fit the concept of limited government?  Does such a system where such a small number of unelected lawyers that are supposed to somehow fit into the concept of checks and balances designed to protect our nation from the oligarchical rule of a powerful few truly reflect the concept of limited government as provided by the Founding Fathers and the United States Constitution?

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber-

God is…

We made a decision to turn our will and lives over to the care of God as we knew him”.

God is…

By Sarge

People believe because they have intellect and a repository of knowledge in the books written over the ages makes them omnipotent. They think themselves smart when really, they only have intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to gather information and store it, possibly to use it to change things in their world; possibly not. But do they have “Smarts”?

“Smarts” is a colloquial term meaning they have the ability to take what’s been learned and possibly profit from and apply it to their lives to better theirs and the lives of those around them. It’s at this state we must come to wonder about those describing themselves as: atheists, agnostics and humanists.

Atheism involves a person having NO belief in a God or higher power. His world is a flat plain with no hope of afterlife, divine intervention or final affirmative judgment given for actions taken or not taken. Life is merely a matter of momentary existence either continuing under the control of the actor or having an effect by the inaction of that same person.  It is a belief in spiritual nothingness.

Agnosticism is when a person has no real knowledge or simply doesn’t have the necessary empirical data sufficient to prove the existence of a God. In his world there is no surety of the existence of any deity. There’s no certainty that theism (the existence of a higher power) is anymore logical than the stance taken by the atheist.

Then there’s the humanist. This is a person believing science and logic as developed by seeking information that’s quantifiable and measurable are the only way to explain the unexplainable. We come to understand the manner in which we reproduce and create life to continue our race, so we think we can continually replicate the process without problems. Now with the fact we’ve mapped the human genome we believe there’s incontrovertible truth that we’ll be able to control birth defects, diabetes, heart disease etc., etc., ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

Humanism is the belief man will and can develop moral judgments and ethical actions based on his personal theories developed from debate and his personal understanding of the consequences of action/inaction and the responsibility the human must take for those actions or inactions. The belief is there should be no reliance on a religion or God. Science and philosophy are the two main parts of any ethical definition to be sought out and continually adapted in order to find the truth in any situation. No religious ideology or dogma is acceptable in the pursuit of this truth. Faith is an unacceptable option and thus is rejected outright.

In our politics today we need to turn away from the secularization of government and turn back to our knowledge of our true higher powers

Humanism started in the 1850s. It was a theoretical exercise in academic ethics and challenging debates concerning the ability of man in society being able to conduct himself ethically and morally without the guidance of any religious instruction or dogmatic immersion. But everything debated was developed over the thousands of years of belief echoed through history. The terminology placed in question was developed by societies developing customs and traditions to be followed and emulated through the ages.

Where the development of Humanism started in the 1850s, religious dogma and the definition and divination of pantheons defined and delineated the moral compasses of people around the world, HAVING faith and belief in unseen forces directed the actions of man. Across the globe people banded together in families, clans, societies with like belief systems. They developed into nations and states having deified the unknown forces and developed traditions, customs and beliefs from generation to generation. The word of mouth transmission of stories, legends and ethos for all to understand were thought necessary for survival from the influences of the unknown. The ethos is the fundamental spirit of any culture. It’s the foundational sentiment informing the members of the society of the particular beliefs and customs of the society and the predominant assumptions of a hierarchy in the order of things; especially the mystery of nature and the world.

What is being pursued here is an understanding this new format of thinking, where man seeks ascendency over his gods and goddesses, is an intellectual rebellion driven by philosophical egotists thinking they alone know everything that’s right, wrong and in-between based solely on their extended educations and immersion in philosophy. Man has never been known for his humility until driven to his knees by adversity he must ultimately admit has pummeled him to that posture. The old adage: “there are no atheists in foxholes” is true. I know from experience. Even though I trained and worked to be the best at the specific crafts and expertise necessary to do my job; I called upon every deity I knew of in Native American Culture and the basis of my religious instruction as a Roman Catholic when placed in harm’s way.

Man is a delicate animal. He’s not the strongest, the heaviest or the fastest of the animals. While he suffers all of the travails of weather and the elements as any other of the animal kingdom because he can think and reason and fear, he has a psychology that needs attendance and patronage. His emotions must be balmed so as to assuage his fears and give him hope. This is where he exceeds the rest of the animal kingdom: he can reason.

When he places an overly heavy emphasis on his personal strengths and comes to doubt that strength when put to a physical test endangering his survival, he must have something to fall back on. That would be faith. And faith is something you place your trust in when you have nothing else. Faith is what you call on when your belief in yourself flags and you must continue onward with nothing else in your arsenal.

We must make a decision to turn our will and lives over to the care of God as we know Him where it concerns the conduct of government and the controls of those who would govern us. Our placement of our faith in men and women betraying our trust and faith regularly leads us back to the premise we must redirect that faith and trust in a higher power we expect better of.

Throughout our history Man has looked to the unknown for guidance. We’ve looked for omens to direct our course. We’ve sought guidance through supplication of our ancestors, our superstitions and our deities. It’s only when we admit our frailty, our weakness of moral direction and definition as shaky pillars of our societies that we learn of our subservience to powers greater than we.

In our politics today we need to turn away from the secularization of government and turn back to our knowledge of our true higher powers. After all, nature can destroy anything and everything man can build over a sufficient period of time. Nothing made by men is permanent.

God is.

Thanks for listening

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber-

The Law

The Law

We Americans are obsessed with rule-following and the law to the point of ignorance. We think of rules and laws as something from on high that must not be broken. We don’t believe we are free to ignore the law, even if it kills us to obey it. We quite literally accept the notion that the law is what is supreme and the law is what is noble and that it is the law that must be defended at all costs. We give our lives to protect the law.

The fact is, that makes no sense. At all. Where do I begin?

The law can’t be supreme, only our lives can hold supreme meaning. Laws cannot be noble, only people can be noble. The law doesn’t need to be defended, because it can’t be harmed; in fact, it doesn’t even exist except inside people’s heads. People need to be defended, because we can be harmed, we can cease to exist. And because we are irreplaceable and life is sacred, we need to take steps to defend and protect life. Therefore, giving our lives to defend something that can’t be harmed makes no sense. What is the law for if it is not to protect and defend our lives?

Here are a couple of obvious basics about laws, which will probably not come as any surprise. In the first place, the law and the rules are nothing more than words. They are words written on paper or posted on signs. The words do not come from on high, or from beyond, nor are they eternal and immutable. They are not by any means guaranteed to be fair, or right, or moral, or correct, and there is no legal obligation for them to be any of those things.

Laws are in fact wholly arbitrary and they are written to protect the interests of those who write them. That’s why law in its current form exists. That’s why it is so heavily propagandized and lauded in countless TV shows where we get all teary eyed over ideas like justice and righteousness, and we assign only the highest ideals to those who make our laws and those who are heavily armed and will shoot us in the back to uphold them.

Yes, we are trained and taught over and again to obey the laws. We are threatened with frightening stories about what happens when you break the law. We are constantly shown examples of those who break the law. They are held up to us by the scruff of the neck, eyes blackened by police brutality and torture, all legal, of course, and we are told hair-raising stories of their dastardly deeds and the wrongs they’ve done to the innocent. The message is clear. Only bad people break the law. And when the law is broken, terrible things are the consequence. Without the law to steady the keel of social order our whole system would break down and devolve into chaos and disorder, violence and cruelty, and it would all go to shit overnight. It would end everything.

Excuse me while I yawn. Yes, yes, I’ve heard it all a million times just like you have, but I’ve actually sat down and thought about it. And what I found out is that, honestly, all of that is pretty much crap. All of it is contrived and designed to keep you and me and everyone else living inside of self-enforced boundaries that prevent us from treading on the lawns of those who want us to believe we have no right to walk wherever we like in a country that we pay for 100 percent. That takes some amazing brainwashing. And we clearly do have that brainwashing, because we all live in utter and desperate fear of doing the wrong thing, or being perceived to have done something wrong, and the mere sight of those glowing red lights in our rear-view mirrors is enough to make even the bravest of us tremble with stomach-churning anxiety.

It’s really quite revolting, in my humble opinion. I think it’s time for all of us to at least stop long enough to look this whole subject right in the eye and size it up. Let’s see what it really is, and who it’s all about, and what the reasons and true purposes behind law truly are. This short but interesting adventure could possibly change the way you think of law and rules entirely, and it may very well empower you in ways you never knew existed. It might not do a thing for you, and there are definitely those who will be unable to do this exercise, feeling that they are breaking yet some other unwritten law. The one that says do not question authority. This exercise will indeed separate out those who believe authority is granted by the people, from those who believe authority is natural and cast in stone and must never ever be questioned. To those fitting the latter description, you have my condolences. To those who are unafraid to take an intellectual trip into the idea of laws and rules and get a new perspective on things, I say let’s do it.

Laws and rules are written by human beings no different than ourselves. The only difference between those who write the laws and make the rules and the rest of us is that they have the pen and they are in the official “rooms” where our laws are written. That’s about it for qualifications. That is it for correctness, righteousness, accuracy, morality, ethics and every other adjective you might automatically assign to the concept of law. The bottom line is that laws and rules are a man-made thing. They are not necessary to human life. Human life can and has existed and thrived without a single law being in existence. The reality is that life on Earth can get along just fine without man-made laws being imposed on us, we don’t need them in any way, shape or form to live a good and meaningful life and do what we’re here to do in this world.

It is man-made law that needs us to exist, it cannot continue without us. It needs us to agree to acknowledge it and abide by it, but there is in fact no natural thing, no natural obligation for any humans to obey any man-made laws.

I know that sounds strange, but look at it this way. Think of the other animals in the world, and that is what we are, we are animals, just one of the many kinds of animal life on this planet. Can you name one other animal besides man that obeys any man-made laws? Do dogs and birds and cats keep off the grass, because there is a keep off the grass sign posted there? No, they do not. They don’t care about any signs, and they don’t care about any rules, and it’s not just because they can’t read. Even if they could read, they still wouldn’t care. To them, if a place exists and they want to walk on it, they just go walk on it. The entire concept of permission or allowance or rules would be something they simply would not understand.

To them, the idea of not being allowed to walk somewhere or do anything “because it is against the law” would be meaningless. And that’s because it really is meaningless. It’s all made up by guys who want things that way, it’s not based on any kind of natural law. “No Trespassing” signs will not prevent a single deer or bear or raccoon or rat or cricket or worm from going wherever it wants to. It couldn’t care less about any posted signs, and the fact is it would be very difficult to take aside a raccoon or deer and explain to them that there are laws and that those laws must be obeyed.

The deer, if it could understand you, would listen to you speak and then it would look at you and say, “Why? Why must I obey any creature on this planet beyond myself? According to who? I am in charge of my life, and this world belongs equally to all who live on it. I need no permission to go anywhere or do anything I like. I may eat whatever I find to eat wherever I find it. The food belongs to no one. If I find it and am eating it, obviously, it is mine to eat. No one else can own it. What a ridiculous idea. You are funny human, and unfortunately not too bright. We animals bow to no man, or beast. We are free and the world is ours. There are no rulers, rules or laws that are real beyond the laws of nature. We do not recognize your false claims of ownership of what is freely ours and always has been.”

And they would be right.

There are no other animals than man on the face of the Earth that would give one second’s consideration to anyone telling them, “You can’t do that!” Animals wouldn’t even pause long enough to flip you off. It would literally mean nothing to them what we think or demand of them or each other. Our notions of obligated obedience are complete nonsense to them (and they call them the dumb animals).

All the other animals on Earth understand what life is and who they are, and they know the real laws of the world, and they simply live by them. They don’t need animal police, and they don’t wage animal wars. They don’t have animal gangs who run around destroying other animals homes just for the fun of it or to hoard all of the food even though they could never eat it all, but only don’t want others to be able to eat. The animals wouldn’t put up with that for one second even if it ever did happen in their kingdom.

I’m afraid that whole hoarding and ownership thing is only in our kingdom, and it’s no more valid here than it is out there, only we’re not smart enough to realize that. Our minds can be gotten into and messed with so much that we no longer understand that we all have the right to food and shelter and life; or at the very least that no one has any conceivable right to prevent us from having those things. Animals know that without needing to talk about it. They have no compulsion to grab it all up for themselves and let all the other animals starve to death or be deprived of the use of the natural shelter all around. It’s natural, simple, straightforward, obvious reality.

Animals also don’t kill unless it’s for food or in self-defense, with the exception of some species’ testosterone-saturated males who will sometimes act like jerks and do mean things, but that is the exception, not the norm. Most often these males will fight each other around mating seasons. This is the time that they are driven to prove themselves the strongest, smartest male in the group, and when they achieve that status, the females say, “You will do to father my offspring.” It’s not very romantic, but it sure is sensible. And the males are happy as can be, because they get to do the one and only thing, more than often, that they’re any good for. I’m sorry, but it’s true. I don’t make this stuff up, check it for yourself.

It is the female, the lioness, who is the hunter and who brings home the bacon for the family. It is the female and the matriarch who is the spiritual leader and boss, from elephants to the humans smart enough to realize that and go with the flow. The males are lazy and aggressive and are often otherwise, sorry, but basically useless and annoying. That’s the breaks. That’s not to say they aren’t a hell of a lot of fun and we’d be lost without them. Okay, I’m having some fun at the expense of males, I couldn’t resist. Males are indeed needed and they are pretty cool.

One example of a very cool male is a 500-pound silverback gorilla. They are so strong they could tear your head off in a second, but you know what? They don’t. There’s something there worth noticing.

The amazing power these creatures have is not something they abuse, even though they could abuse it for personal gain anytime they wanted to. They have no desire to abuse others with their power. Once again this is an aberration mostly human animals suffer from, with our powerful males feeling no compulsion at all to restrain their ability to abuse others for personal gain, or just for the pleasure it gives them to do it. They get off on it. For the gorillas, self-restraint is a natural law that does not require policing to enforce. It only requires being a natural animal to understand the world they live in, and they have a natural respect for the lives of others. Why would they be motivated to be abusive of anyone? What would it get them that they don’t already have? You see, it’s not a burden for them. It’s common sense based on the reality and truth of natural law.

It’s really very simple and reasonable when we’re talking natural law. It only gets complicated when we’re talking about human-made laws, because those are basically a whole lot of crap.

The whole point of human-made laws is to prevent people from doing certain things. That’s really what it boils down to, and it’s not always a bad idea. Sometimes the best thing a community can do is get together and decide things like, it’s not okay for people to kill each other just because they want your stuff. It’s not okay to walk into someone else’s house and take their stuff. It’s not okay to hurt people because you want their stuff or just because you don’t like them. Everyone agrees to the rules, because they’re equal and logical and they apply to everyone in a fair and sensible way.

Having those rules in place makes sense and it allows the people of that community to have a shared value system, which can be a very good thing. It lets people feel safer as they go about their business and it allows steps to be taken when someone breaks the rules and causes harm or damage to others that is unfair or unjustified. It makes their community a nicer place to live, because they’ve agreed they won’t be victimized by evil people, and they will stand together and run those bad guys out of town, or otherwise deal with them.

It’s all just too tiresome, frustrating and time consuming when bad guys breeze in and rape and pillage the place every five minutes, and face it, who wouldn’t get real tired of that sort of thing? Laws are put in place to define an agreed-upon right and wrong and to uphold and defend that shared agreement to benefit the whole community. It’s a good arrangement for a group of honorable people to live by.

The trouble is, mankind is often not very honorable. In fact, some people are downright rotten to the core. They will lie and overstate things, make false claims and accusations, and they do it to get something they don’t deserve, but want anyway. And they aren’t ashamed of it in the least, at least until they get caught and are proven to be greasy slimy liars who end up in jail. That’s another series of laws we quickly passed, “No greasy slimy liars when it comes to public dealings.” You can do it at home with your own family, but not to anyone else, because we don’t have to put up with your private tyranny and delusions of grandeur and entitlement to have it all your way. There is no such thing in the real world, pal, so keep it to yourself. (Unless, of course, you’re the President of the United States. He’s the decider, according to him. Like I said, delusions of grandeur.)

It’s all quite reasonable. And to the extent that the laws are made and agreed to by the same people who will have to follow them, then it’s a pretty good deal. They can change their laws when they need changing, and no one is forced to comply with anything against their will.

But the laws have to be fair and treat everyone equal or it’s not law anymore, it’s corruption. And all of that is easy to see when you’re directly involved in your own self-governing. Where the people are the law, it’s quite difficult for a cadre of weasels to move in and take over, because they have no power over anyone else.

And that’s precisely why the entire idea of power over others was shoved into the law books. Human weasels exist. They are real and they want to be in charge of others. If you think about it for a minute, it should become apparent why anyone would want to have power over others. Claiming that you have power over others entitles you to get away with wrongdoing. It entitles you to treat others unfairly and prevent them from being able to do anything to protect themselves from you. Power over others is great for the sociopaths who crave it so badly. Power over others is not a normal thing to want, and most of us would have little desire for it.

Power over others is not a natural thing. It is not necessary and it is rarely something people welcome. We don’t like anyone having power over our lives, and we don’t need it. It doesn’t help us in any way. When anyone has power over our lives it only helps them, those who have the power. It enables them to decide what the rules are, regardless of whether we like it or not, and there are only two rules once power over others is introduced into the law books:

Rule number one is that he who has the guns makes the rules.
Rule number two is that he who has the money makes the rest of the rules.
There is no rule number three. That’s all of it. It doesn’t matter if there are a million laws on the books, those are the two that it all boils down to. And they say the law is too complicated to understand. Nope. It’s as simple as can be.

Those who are represented by rule number one, and those who are represented by rule number two may disagree with the ranking order, but that’s really nothing that affects the rest of us. It doesn’t matter who’s number one, the end result is all the same to those who don’t get to make any of the rules. What it boils down to for us is that the rich people will make rules all day and all night that say rich people matter and you don’t, and the guys with the guns will show up and get you if you don’t happen to like those rules. That’s our whole legal system in a nutshell. Go ahead and tell me I’m wrong. You can’t. That really is what it is.

Something else it is, is totally invalid. The laws that put power over others on the books are false laws based on nothing valid. Power over others is not a necessity of life. We don’t need no stinkin’ power over others, nor do we need anyone to have power over us. We would do just fine, thank you, without power on this Earth. We’d be fine, we would thrive, we would get along somehow without being told what we cannot do by twits who think they own us. It is they who would not fare well. They would cease to be. It is they who need us in order to continue existing, not the other way around. That is what I mean when I say “natural” law.

Because what is the law really if it is not the law of life? If it is not the law of simple truth? If our man-made laws are not the written expression of human truth, then they can’t be valid. And the fact is, we don’t need laws to be written if they are natural laws, because natural laws can’t be broken. Natural laws cannot be shot dead or eradicated or destroyed or corrupted. They just are what they are, because that’s what they are.

For instance, it is a natural law that females give birth. You can pass a man-made law that requires men to give birth, and women will be arrested if they keep it up, but you already know that man-made law won’t change a thing. It’s a stupid law. It’s demanding that natural law be subordinated to some stupid human’s idiotic will. It doesn’t work that way and there’s nothing you can do about it.

As amusing as that may be, it is not a silly measurement of validity, it’s really quite valid, and it’s something more serious and real and worthy of our consideration than those men who make our millions of man-made laws would like us to notice.

There really is such a thing as natural justice. We are all capable of knowing what feels fair and right. We are capable of witnessing acts and of knowing right away if they were just and fair or criminally unjust. It’s a simple thing to determine, and this again is something we need no man-made laws to frame or define for us.

Justice is within us, and it is self-evident; when we know the given facts, we can come up with the just conclusions. It’s a beautiful thing that the rest of the animal world enjoys every day. But in our part of the animal kingdom we can’t seem to get everyone to play fair and be honest, or be reasonable, or be led by a sense of justice or fairness. In the human animal, there is an anomaly, people who don’t care about what’s fair or right or just and who have no interest in anything beyond getting what they want for themselves no matter who it belongs to or who they must hurt or cheat to get it. These people are obviously not right in the head, but unfortunately, these people tend to be the ones that make our laws, because they are also the ones who crave all that power over everyone. It is because of them that our whole system of laws has turned into the convoluted polluted mess of incomprehensible legalese spaghetti it is today. Our laws are now too many and too confusing to be of any use to the vast majority of us. We literally need to hire consultants who spend their entire lives buried in law books to have any chance of making our way through the nightmare that is our legal system. This system is not user friendly, and it doesn’t even try to be.

The law has become so far removed from the average citizen that it has become a monster. It consumes us in our ignorance. Because the law and those who “uphold” it are both self-concerned and self-worshiping, there is little doubt that our current system of so-called law and order, our system of justice, is only concerned with it’s own power and continued control over the public and very little else.

We are always right to challenge the law anytime we see it working in contradiction to simple truth and justice, and sadly, it often does just that. The bottom line is that our system of laws is no more real or valid or powerful than we decide to let it be, and although it would claim to have power over us, it does not and cannot, there is no mechanism or proof of any such thing. We can walk away from it any time we like and just blow it off.

We can say, “You are invalid and we are no longer interested in playing your stupid power games that control us and our lives and are patently unfair. Leave us alone, you are nothing. We are better off without you.” We can indeed turn and walk away anytime, and that is the truth, the natural law, our birthright, something that cannot be changed. It is the reality of human law.

It is always up to us what our own laws are, and it is always up to us whether or not to accept them, obey them, abide by them or have anything to do with them. The only power human law has is the power we give it. And the power we give it can also be taken away, by us.

That is the reality of power, and the fact is that reality has been subverted and propagandized by very clever, very devious, very evil people who have sold us the notion that they must have power over us to keep us safe. That is always a lie. No one can keep us safe. If you think that through, you’ll realize the truth of it. Fear is the tool that enslaves us. And nonexistent power is what keeps us beneath those who feed off of us and deprive us of natural justice.

There are no beings on this planet who have any entitlement to control others. In order to do so they must use force, and that is never legitimate power, obviously. Force is not power, it is force. It is the lowest form of human existence on this planet. Any moron can be violent, it takes no thought or intellect or talent. Force is the cheap trick that seeks to cover the truth of its own invalidity with the blood of others. It is never respected, it is never valid, and it is what lies at the core of the laws that we are forced to endure and live by today.

That threat of force is with us at all times, and it is never concerned with justice. It is only concerned with our total compliance. It is instantly exerted at the slightest sign of our disobedience or disagreement. I would say that the legitimacy of our entire system of laws is in serious question, because when laws are just, there is no need to use force against anyone. Why the need for such brutality, if this is such a just system of laws? Why the lust for such extreme punishment, if this system is so fair, reasonable and compassionate?

People everywhere are all too happy to live in a just world, and many of us would really like to try it. It is usually only when people are deprived of justice that they refuse to comply with the laws, and when they do that, they are severely punished. Who does it serve to condition us to see government brutality and murder of citizens for failure to obey the law as a valid thing for governments to do? It doesn’t serve us. It serves them. We are never threatened by the public airing of grievances to determine what is fair and what is right. Only the governments of the world are threatened by the idea of real justice for the people. Are you beginning to see the pattern?

This is the ugly reality, and the truth is that power corrupts. The entire notion of power is something to reconsider, because as far as I can tell, it really has no validity in this world.

Our American freedom is a grand illusion, and the law is only a tool of those who want to control us so badly. It is the highest trick they have, which they alone can use to get us to believe they have such a thing as power over our lives. This is why they do their business in court.

If we rejected this unnatural man-made system of law, what device would exist that they could use to convince us that we are obligated to do things their way? What device could they point to and claim that by virtue of this device they have control and power over all of our lives?

There is no such device. Nothing exists that allows others power and control over us except this one thing: not the law itself, for it has no power or virtue on its own, but only our belief that the law must never be broken. That belief alone is what perpetuates the status quo and allows this broken system to continue with no hope of our cleaning it up and making it honest. We don’t have the power to do that. We only have the power to walk away, but they have ways of dealing with that too. They seem pretty desperate don’t they, if that’s what it takes to keep people under their control. There is nothing about their claims to power and control that is valid enough to make it unnecessary for them to use force against us, to force our compliance with their laws and self-interested demands.

This is also why they control the courts, and why the courts and all who work in them work for those who control us and claim to have power over our lives. The courts do not exist for us and they do not exist to bring justice. They exist as a tool of officialdom and majik to make us believe that when we are deprived of justice in court that they have won fair and square and we are obliged to accept whatever they say. It is a tool that enables them to retain false power and control regardless of truth or justice.

It’s all quite obvious once you see it, it’s right there for all to see. If we can see through the propaganda that makes us all believe that just because it is a law it must be respected and obeyed and upheld, we could set ourselves free from our self-imposed self-limiting erroneous beliefs. That we must obey all laws and rules is nothing but a huge propaganda job that’s done on our minds, not for our benefit, but for theirs. If those who control us were truly interested in justice, it would be they who would be explaining this to you, not me. But they will never be this honest, because the risk is just too high that we would reject their phony power and reject their control and deny their false claims to run the world to their liking. If it was our choice we would choose natural justice to rule ourselves and we would make them go away. And they know that.

And now you know it too. Interesting, yes? Do you look at the law any different now? Geez, I hope so. And I hope it’s gotten you closer to the reality that we’re all consistently denied knowledge of. The power really does belong to us, and we can change it all any time we like. The constitution doesn’t give us the right to live in a just world, natural law gives us that right. That is the real natural law that can never be broken. It belongs to us all, and it always will. If only we knew it, maybe we could finally put an end to the injustice that rules our world and begin the simple work it would take to make our world a better place for everyone.

Angie Riedel

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Joseph F Barber-