Tag Archive: government

Imagine a world where there is no law, no government. If you want to keep something, you have to stay with it to defend it from roving mobs/gangs that will kill you to steal your stuff. There are others out there that, like you, just want to be left alone to live in peace.

Wouldn’t you seek out these same people? Sure you would. You’d want to collaborate with them so that someone can go out and gather food or supplies, while another watches over the stuff you already have.

Maybe, just maybe, you find more than one other group like that. But, you have to make sure that everyone is on the same page, right? There have to be ground rules. Of course there have to be rules. Imagine playing baseball without any rules. That game is over and people are fighting within 2 minutes, right? No good.

So, you make some basic rules that everyone has to abide by. For instance, no stealing the stuff of some other person or group while you are guarding it while they are away, and vice versa. Then, there have to be consequences for people who break the rules.

You know what just happened there? You created a government. Laws and government is what humans create so that their stuff can be safe while they are away from their stuff. I know you know that’s insanely simplified, and while not totally inclusive, it’s premise is true.

Not all governments are equal, but that’s another post.

If you want to know on what values and principles the American government is based on, buy my book. It’s awesome. Click HERE, or on the link at the right.

Understand your government, and know where you stand.

The wonderful Declaration of Independence is still in effect today. It has not passed away, no matter that it is over two centuries old. The fundamentals are still strong and solid, even though they are ignored on a regular basis by our leaders. But, that’s another post altogether.

The Declaration of Independence (DoI) is the “why” of America. It defines us, as a nation. Nothing that comes after can contradict it. If the country were a corporation, this would be the mission statement. The Constitution is the “how.” For a corporation, that would be the by-laws. As with a corporation, the by-laws cannot contradict the mission statement. Thus, the Constitution could not contradict the Declaration…and neither may any lower laws.

Has this always been followed to a “T”? Nope. But, it has been followed much more closely than it is today. In fact, starting with Woodrow Wilson (can’t STAND that guy!!), the elites and leaders of the country encouraged people to not even read the entire first part of the DoI, you know, the part that defines where rights come from? Yeah, that part.

Anyway, in the DoI asserts that “all men are created equal…”

So, what did the author and signers of this document mean by “equal”? Did they mean everyone should have the same amount of stuff? Did they mean that everyone has the same attributes, must be seen as equally talented or beautiful, or that they should all have the same likes or dislikes? Let’s read just a bit more.

“…that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” AHA! A clue! These are rights they are talking about, not stuff. Well, what kind of rights do they discuss? Oh, the suspense!!

“that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Egad, they don’t even mention jobs and houses, do they? Huh. Well, how can everyone be EQUAL if they don’t have the same things, look the same, believe all the same things, live the same way, etc.?

They are equal in the application of laws and freedom to exercise rights. No matter if you are famous, poor, rich, a politician, a lawyer…anyone and everyone…has the right to live. Unless a person has committed a crime, and been found guilty through due process in a court of justice, and that is bad enough to warrant the death penalty, no one can legally kill you. Period. THAT is equality.

No matter how in debt you are, how poor you are, or who rich you are; no matter the color of your skin; and no matter what your religion is, no one can keep you captive, unless you have committed a crime worthy of imprisonment, and only then can it be done by the governing body, never an individual. THAT is equality.

If you have enough money to buy a thing, that is your thing. You have the right to own it, and no one can take it from you, legally. Used to be that the lowest classes had no right to private property ownership. In this country, they made sure to lay into the very foundations of the nation the natural rights that we have been given by our Creator, and in this way, safeguard them from other humans thinking they can just take what is yours.

If you are born poor in this country, and you work hard (and work smart), you can become as rich and influential as you please. Before this country was founded, only those born to money had any hope of ever having a life of leisure. Only those born into certain families had a chance of being able to study what they pleased, unless they had the outstanding fortune of being taken in by a noblewoman who wished to help a poor soul. If every noblewoman did this, that would have been admirable, but there were so many more of the “common folk” that there was no hope for just about everyone else.

THIS is what our DoI is making clear: we are all equal in our Creator’s sight, we have all been given equal rights. There is no hyphen. The Creator did not give women’s rights, minority rights, or any other broken label. He gave EQUAL rights, and the color of your skin, your gender, your bank account balance, and your ethnicity is of no consequences. That’s why the statue of Justice is blindfolded: justice is to be blind, and therefore applied equally.

To do otherwise is to reject the concept of equal rights, and instead institute preferred or lesser classes in a country that was created to do away with classes altogether.

Know where you stand.

And, buy a copy of my book (link to the right, top of the page) and understand the entire DoI…with cartoons…how cool is that?

I have met some social liberals who were not statists. They called themselves Libertarians and/or peaceful anarchists. I will address these two groups in another post. I also know some social liberals who call themselves fiscal conservatives, but they are kidding themselves. When push came to shove, their statism showed right through. But, what IS a statist?

A statist is a proponent/advocate of statism which is defined as: a concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry. Basically, anyone who advocates that the government “do something,” is a statist. Anyone who looks to government to solve problems is a statist. Policies of statists create “big government.”

Sadly, many statists don’t even know they are statists. They’ll say things like, “Well, I don’t believe we need more government interference, but they need to make sure businesses can’t refuse service to anyone.” Yep. That’s a quote from a thread on my Facebook page. This person self-identified as a Christian conservative who was for small government. This type of disconnection from reality is NOT uncommon…look at John McCain. Need I say more?

But, here’s where it gets really tricky. I have seen many an argument about “Republican” and “Democrats,” when really the discussion should have been about statists in both parties. One party wanted one kind of big government and the other party a different kind of big government. In the end, there is no difference when dealing with statists. Some want total government quickly and some are content to get there more slowly. The goal is the same.

It’s not the direct fault of most people that they have no clue where the Constitution lies on the continuum and what it means to be a statist.

Most of us were told, in school, that Communism and Socialism are on the “left” and Fascism is on the “right.” We all believed this, right? I mean, sure, that makes sense…until you ask where the Constitution and anarchists fit in this supposed spectrum. What we have is a bunch of names for different types of total government. So, where do the Constitution, Libertarianism, and Anarchy fit?

The graph that accurately shows the spectrum looks like this (from The 5,000 Year Leap):


Truly, government equals coercion. You don’t pay taxes because you want to. You pay them because, if you don’t, they’ll fine you, or eventually throw you in jail. You don’t get a driver’s license because it’s a wise thing to do. You get it because driving without one will be made unpleasant by the state government, if you get caught. Coercion. Sometimes it’s necessary to have coercion (laws against murder, etc.), but we have to know that it is, always, coercion.

So, we see that the argument we have about “right” and “left” in this country – mostly by elected officials (think Lindsey Graham and Nancy Pelosi) – is really about how much total government we want. Pelosi wants massive government, and Graham wants slightly less massive government. The REAL place we were meant to be was even further into the space of where a republic lives…where the rule of law is paramount.

The Rule of Law is where all laws apply equally to every single person in this nation, where everyone gets equal protection under the law, where every single individual has rights that are given to us by our “Creator.” I’m not making this up, either! This is the basis for our entire country. These rights cannot legally be infringed upon by anyone. They are not given by men, because, if so, they could be legally taken away by men. Our founders and framers set up a republic for us.

First, right now, click on the link at the right and buy my book. It’s a book that’s great for kids and adults alike. It’s funny history with cartoons…what’s not to like?

Then, watch this video. This video (worth EVERY SECOND it takes to watch) will explain why we are a republic, and what the consequences of being anything else are:

Now, after watching this, and reading this post, you’ll know what I mean when I reference “statists.” Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists, and Fascists ALL fall under the title of statist.

Make sure you know where you stand.

One of the best economists is the world is Thomas Sowell. He is a stalwart for liberty and truth. Well, now he is. He started out as a Marxist. Not the kind that covers it up and says they are just for “social justice” or whatever, but a full-on, “Yep, Marx was right!” kind of Marxist. He even studied under Milton Friedman for a year and still thought his views were right. It takes a special kind of stubborn to do that.

Then, he got a job with the Department of Labor. He was specifically involved in the area of minimum wage enforcement. He soon found that the department never, not once, checked to see that the laws they were enforcing were helping the people they were supposed to help. In fact, they avoided it. They were only interested in one thing: making sure they kept getting more and more funds so the department could grow. That’s IT.

He then took it upon himself to see if the increases in minimum wage helped the target demographic they were supposed to help. Turns out, what it did was cause vastly more unemployment for that group. Did the department heads care? Nope.

That’s when he woke up and realized that he was ever-so-wrong.

So, when you support minimum wage increases, what you are saying, in essence is: I SUPPORT POLICIES THAT CAUSE POOR PEOPLE TO BE AND STAY UNEMPLOYED.

It’s the results that matter, and minimum wage laws dramatically hurt those they are intended to help. They even keep low skilled workers from ever being able to get a foot in the door, to then gain experience, to then get promoted and get raises. If they can never get the job in the first place, because their work is not worth the cost of the amount they are required to be paid, how can they ever have a chance to pull themselves out of poverty? They can’t. Then, the government steps in and gives them “welfare,” which is anything but good for the soul.

So, the laws first destroy the chances of being self-supporting, then, the “fix” laws cause their souls to be crushed. How would you feel if the laws first blocked any chance of success, and then offered to be your very low paying sugar daddy? It would suck the very essence of self-respect out of you, that’s what it would do. And, yet, that’s what we have and the same people who will be unemployed very quickly if they get their way are picketing for $15/hour. It’s economic suicide.

You may think that you don’t support hurting poor people, or want that, because you have the best of intentions. But, there is a very, very old saying that applies here. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Social Security Is No Such Thing

When FDR came out with this plan of SS, he hyped it as taking care of old people. Who doesn’t want grandma and grandpa to be able to live their lives without fear of starving in their old age?! But, he lied.

Here’s what really happened, and what is still happening.

The system was set up that you only got money if you had the audacity to live past your life expectancy. Isn’t that just lovely? This was not about retirement, not about the golden years, but the few who actually lived past when you were supposed to already be dead.

This, for me, is around age 71. That is the life expectancy of people born in 1974. So, the way it was set up to work is that I would only collect after that age, not the 67.5 years old I have to be, according to the SS reports I get sent.

Many that “signed up” for SS never saw a dime. They died having paid in, but never got their pay out. What a plan, huh??

Anyway, the years rolled by and the government, who has multiple sets of books (known in the real world as “fraud”), saw ALL THIS MONEY rolling in from the entire workforce of the USA. They, being greedy little weasels, promptly spent it all and still do. Imagine a brief case with a bunch of IOU’s in it and that’s the SS Trust Fund. Now, they pay out to old people what they take in from the workers. That, in real life, is called a Ponzi scheme – think Bernie Madoff…who is in jail for doing just what the government does daily.

Now, here comes the REAL kicker (yep, it gets all the more lovely): if you took the money the government steals, um, I mean, withholds from your pay check and put it in the safest, and lowest dividend paying, investments, you’d get multiple times the return than what the government “gives” you when you retire. Not only do they force you to pay in to pay others now, but then you get shorted, in the end.

The biggest and most crappy part of this is that there aren’t enough workers to keep paying out to people who are retiring in huge numbers. They haven’t figured out how to fund trillions of dollars worth of “entitlements” that they have promised the American people.

Oh, and get this: the law that says they HAVE to pay you back? They can change that at any time. In fact, the law is clear that there is no promise of payment to anyone, ever. Got that? There is NO guarantee that you get anything, ever.

Some safety net, huh?

Back when we were still part of England, there were classes of people. If you were born to a scullery maid, you’d never have even the opportunity to go to university, let alone a well-paying job. You were not to look people of a higher class in the eye, and you were literally stuck in the class where you started, no matter how smart you were or how hard you worked…none of it mattered. That’s what “classes” mean.

In America, people talk about the “middle class.” Well, that’s bunk. We have NO classes here. We are all born EQUAL, have equal protection under the law, have equal opportunities to make the best of what life has doled out for us, and no one can tell us we can’t look anyone in the eye…even the president.

See, the “middle class” is a myth. There are people who currently make what we currently deem to be “middle class wages,” (which changes all the time, by the way). But, that means nothing in terms of wealth…or worth. With regular people, they tend to look “poor” at first, then when they get more experience, get promotions and the like, they make more money. Then, they start to look poorer later, when retired, but that’s because retirement funds don’t count as INCOME. See? It’s a farce. A very large number of older Americans have even left the realms of “middle class” in the dust when it comes to wealth.

What you will never hear from countries that have Socialism or true class structures (see the Untouchables in India for an actual example of class structures is operation today) is someone being poor dirt poor and “making it” or even people just living the lives they carve out for themselves. That’s reserved for America where we don’t have classes and we don’t have people who are stuck forever in poverty due to the way the government is structured (massive taxes that prohibit the upward mobility that used to happen so very much in this country).

At least, that’s what America USED to be. Now, we are more and more into socialism, which means a ruling class…and everyone else, including you. The ruling class we have elected for ourselves do not hold themselves to the laws that they write for us, earning higher wages is punished with higher taxes punishing success, and the ensuing stagnation of the economy is what always happens when people in republics do this. Pretty soon, if we don’t shape up, we will have a real middle class…and like most socialist countries, the “middle class” will be actually poor. But, when everyone is starving, no one is hungry, right?

Personally, I follow Jefferson’s feelings on the matter:

I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.

Amen, Jefferson, Amen.

Pick up a copy of my book by clicking the link at the right! Seriously, when is the last time you read a history book that didn’t put you to sleep? Well, now’s the time!!

Noah Webster Quote

From our friends at The Federalist Papers (whether you read their blog or like them on Facebook, they are awesome!)

Let me get this straight:

The President has refused to carry out Obamacare as it’s written, delayed portions and totally canceled others. He has given exemptions to all manner of big corporation. All of these things are altering a duly passed law by Congress. He is NOT a legislator. His actions are illegal.

Further, he has refused to even discuss the matter with lawmakers, yet will negotiate with the terrorist funding head of state of Iran and has armed our enemies in Syria (side note: this is also illegal…as in treason).

He has rejected requests for WWII veterans to see their memorial (and used money to pay more guards than Clinton allowed in Benghazi). Keep in mind this, and many other memorials he blocked off are PRIVATELY FUNDED, and have never been affected in any of the other 17 government shutdowns. To boot, he has stationed these guards (who are getting paid) to block off the memorial that is supposedly closed because of a lack of funding.

He has refused to sign any bill that changes Obamacare in any way (like the medical device tax that even Democrats want to repeal),or any continuing resolution that does not fully fund Obamacare (you know, the one HE hasn’t even executed fully…which, again, is illegal activity).

He supposedly taught the US Constitution but seems to have forgotten that whatever functions of the government get funded is decided entirely by the House. That is THEIR prerogative. It’s called “separation of powers.” It’s ALL up to the House as to what to fund and what to not fund*. Now, the Senate can keep from passing a bill by voting it down. But, it’s the Senate’s fault, not the House’s, for the shutdown.

After all this, he and the Democrat leadership call Republicans names and blame them for the shutdown.

What am I missing??? Does ANYONE really buy this nonsense?


*As a side note, many of the problems we are facing with government funding stem from the fact that most of the laws these people are trying to enact are unconstitutional. If you wish to know if any law is legal, but you don’t know if it is, please put it in the comments and we can discuss it either here or in another post. 🙂

Grab a copy of my book The Declaration Made Easy by clicking on the picture on the right! It’s great for kids and adults alike!


This amendment seems like it should be awesome! Let’s read Section 1:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Okay, this sounds legit, right? No one, not even state governments, can deprive people of their rights.

The next logical question is: WHO will enforce this? Answer: the federal government. No longer would it be given to the people to do.

This means that, previously, it was up to the actual sovereign (We the People) to make sure The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are followed, not the Feds. With this one fell swoop, it took that sovereignty and gave it to the big boys…who always screw things up. (If you disagree, name ONE THING they have done, that has interfered with the sovereignty of the people, that has turned out well.)

Now, this amendment is awesome because it reiterates what is already in the US Constitution. Here is the original, the 5th amendment:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

What’s the difference? See how the 5th says NO PERSON shall have these things done to them, and the 14th specifically requires states to be held to this. This is quite different from the 5th, which is incumbent on everyone to follow. It’s a small difference, but it really does matter. See, before, We the People were charged with this responsibility, it was not delegated to the Feds. Did they all live up to it? No!! It was a high bar and people failed miserably.

BUT, it was getting better. I mean, Lincoln was voted in on a platform where one of the first agenda items was abolishing slavery! Granted, this scared the Democrats so much they tried to secede and started a war, but that’s another post altogether.

In other words, the only thing we needed to do, as a nation, was run on platforms that reiterated the need to follow the US Constitution. And, if anyone were to argue that blacks were not persons, they could just take the tact that Lincoln did when debating Douglas: make him prove his assertions. (Hint: he never could).

If you want to read about how Lincoln smoked Douglas in his ridiculous arguments that blacks should be allowed to be enslaved, please comment.

Please feel free to get a copy of my book The Declaration Made Easy by clicking the link at the right. It’s perfect for kids of all ages and really does make this amazing document easy to read! 😀



**updated spelling error 9/10

The Second Amendment. It’s a statement of a natural right that each human possesses. It’s not a human right. Those are given and taken away by other humans. No, fundamental rights are rights that are endowed to us by our Creator, and we shaped the government around them. These rights existed BEFORE the government of the nation that became known as The United States was formed.

We have other rights like that. The right to move about, to speak, to write, to not be found guilty of crimes without proof, etc. We cherish our rights, but don’t seem to give the same level of credence to all of them.

I’m going to say something that will shock even those who support a person’s right to keep and bear arms. There should be NO CONCEALED CARRY LICENSE LAWS. I mean it, and here’s why.

Gun Pic

Do we press for laws that make it necessary for a person to obtain a license before they speak, lest they commit slander?


Do we press for laws that make is necessary for a person to get a license before they write, lest they commit libel?


Do we press for laws that make it necessary for a person to obtain a license before they walk from one place to another, lest they jay-walk or walk into someone else’s private property?


Then, why do we require a permit for a person to carry a gun?

Some of the arguments are that a person might not know how to use it, they might hurt someone, or they might be a criminal.

1. If a person doesn’t know how to use a gun, they might make a mistake. That’s true. Does anyone here believe that a 4 hour course is going to make a person an expert. If you believe that, I have some land for sale I’d like to talk to you about later. For more on this, by an expert that will “out-expert” just about everyone reading this, read here.

Also, in this, I might point out that people can do considerable damage to a person’s life with slander and/or libel. A person could be ruined, made destitute, and end up dying on the street with slanderous statements, if enough people believe. That’s why there are laws against it. Just like there are laws against reckless discharges of a gun, yada, yada. Next!

2. Of course they might hurt someone. It’s called risk. You might get hit by a bus when you walk outside your front door. Do you risk it? Yes, because it’s a low risk. There are plenty of states that allow open carry without a permit. Do you hear about these states having gargantuan numbers of random people randomly shooting? Nope. You hear of mass shootings in “gun free zones.” Next!

3. They might be a criminal. Well, yeah. If they are, do you think they give a lick about laws anyway? What else ya got?

This is the bottom line: We are being charged BY THE STATE to exercise a fundamental right. They take finger prints. They charge a fee. They keep tabs on us.

If we had to register our editorials with the state and show our license to write, would you feel the same as you do about concealed carry laws?

Here is my radical proposal – allow people to exercise their right to defend themselves, and THEN, if they commit a crime with the weapon, they get punished. We’ll call it “due process of law.” Pretty snazzy title, right? I may have borrowed it from somewhere…

My sister is a cop. She told me open carry laws are a joke because you want to keep the criminals guessing who’s armed, always unsure, never bold like where they know all law-abiding citizens are unarmed. I agree. But, let’s not make people bow to the State to get the license that would allow them to defend themselves.

So, I restate my premise – the only concealed carry law I want to see is one that states that people have the right to exercise their Second Amendment right WITHOUT having to get a license to do so.


The 10th Amendment seems to be a point of contention. Many of our statist friends say that this amendment give the federal government free rein to do whatever it wants, citing the part “not prohibited to it” to mean that it is referring to the Federal Government. But, take a moment to apply basic English rules to it, and you’ll see this is in error.

Here is the text, in whole:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

So, we see that we can take out the part offset by commas as it would read: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Easy Peasy! If the powers are not delegated to the US, they are to remain with the states or people. BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE!

This is where it gets dicey. Statists want the offset portion to be highlighted!! “See?” they say, “If they are not outlined OR if they are not denied specifically to the feds, they can do it!!”

Keep your pantyhose on! Let’s delve into that.

Here is the offset part: “nor prohibited by it to the States”. Oh, whoops. Looks like our statist friends didn’t take enough English classes to understand complex sentence structures.

This reads: “nor prohibited by it [“it” means the US Constitution] TO THE STATES. As Scooby-Doo says, “Ruh-roh!”

The following four statements identify that which is for the feds to do, and that which is for the states:

If a thing is not delegated to the United States Congress, it goes to the states and people. (These are few and defined, and found in Article I for a full list of items they are in charge of handling.)

Regarding the states, if it’s not denied to the states, it belongs with the states and people. (This list is almost endless, save the few things denied to them in Article I – such as making treaties with foreign countries.)

The only thing left for the feds to do is that which is specifically delegated to them by the Constitution, and nothing more.

Thus, the next time a statist says to you, “I don’t see the word healthcare in the Constitution!” You can say, “Exactly!” Maybe you will have time for a quick English lesson or two for them.

Any questions?

%d bloggers like this: