Good Americans Distrust Government—And they are the Majority

“Government, like fire, is a dangerous servant or a fearful master.” George Washington (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I postulate that being a good American means living in harmony with the spirit of The Constitution of the United States.  If that’s true, should we ever trust government?

Absolutely not.

The reason we have three, separate and independent branches of government (Legislative, Executive and Judicial) is to keep those governmental branches fighting among themselves and thereby prevent the emergence of a single, dictatorial government that worked for its own interests rather than those of the people.  The mandate for three branches of government (separation of powers) is evidence that the Founders didn’t trust the federal government.

The reason we have “checks and balances” in the Constitution is to protect the people from the federal government.  The Founders didn’t trust the feds.

The reason we have the 1^st Amendment right to free speech is to allow us to expose government corruption.

According to the “Preamble to the Bill of Rights,” the reason we have the entire Bill of Rights (including the 2nd Amendment) is to prevent “misconstruction or abuse” of the powers granted under the Constitution to the officers, officials and employees of the federal government.

Insofar as the Constitution was intended to allow for only a “limited” government, that Constitution was intended to protect against government’s inevitable and insatiable appetite for more power, more taxes and less freedom.  The Founders didn’t trust the federal government.

 

Supreme Court Justice Scalia: “The Constitution is Dead, Dead, Dead”

Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia testifies before the House Judiciary Committee’s Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee on Capitol Hill May 20, 2010 in Washington, DC. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia recently spoke at the Southern Methodist University (SMU) law school.  During his speech, he said that the federal Constitution is “not a living document:  It’s dead, dead, dead.”

That statement stirred some controversy.  I’ve received several email from readers who cite Scalia’s comments as proof that “even the Supreme Court now admits that the Constitution is dead and of no force or effect!“

These readers don’t understand that Scalia is exactly right.  It’s unfortunate that the debate over the reading of the Constitution has fallen into a “living Constitution” vs. “dead Constitution” dichotomy.  It’s hard to fight for a “dead Constitution”.  But that’s the fight we should wage.

Those who argue that the Constitution is a “living” document, argue that the meaning of the Constitution changes or evolves with time and context.  The people who favor the “living Constitution” concept are those who want rule by man (themselves) rather than rule by law (the Constitution).  Under the pretext that the Constitution is a “living” document, the Constitution can mean anything anyone in a position of power says it means at any time.  It can mean one thing today, another thing tomorrow and a third thing next week.

 

Government Corporations

There was a time when I and most other legal reform advocates assumed that all “corporate government” was bad.  Over time, I came to see that–as much as despise and distrust corporations–corporate government is at least a necessity and, properly conceived, a possible benefit for the People.

The fundamental question is not “Am I dealing with a governmental corporation?” but rather “Who owns–and therefore benefits from–the governmental corporation I’m dealing with?  Am I presumed to be one of the beneficiaries of that corporation or merely one of its customers or even employees?”   I.e., “Is the governmental corporation I’m dealing with a “public” corporation that is owned by all the People and therefore works for the best interests of the “public”/People–or is it a “privatized” corporation that’s owned by some private individuals and works for the best interests of those private individuals rather than for the best interests of the “People” in general?

 

Constitutional Elections Summit

November 4: Barack Obama elected President (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

On May 26th, A.D. 2012, Rudy and Erin Davis hosted a Constitutional Elections Summit at the Fair Park Bible Fellowship Church at Dallas, within The State of Texas.  I was one of the seven speakers.  Several of the speakers (Orly Taitz, Pastor David Manning, etc.) enjoy national recognition.

The Summit’s primary purpose was to explore the constitutionality of Barack Obama’s candidacy.

Although the subject matter might seem primarily “political,” the Summit was every bit as spiritual as an old-time, tent Revival.  The quality of the speakers and the variety of subject matter (“Man or Other Animals,” Imprecatory Prayer; “Birther” issues) made this “Summit” an event of truly national significance.  Unfortunately, only about 70 people attended the Summit.  We’d hoped for more.  But all the speeches were video’d and those videos are already up on the internet and beginning to attract attention.  I am hopeful that these videos (below) receive widespread attention.

 

Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Image via Wikipedia

This video (below) is four years old.  You may’ve already seen it.  But this video makes such an extraordinarily powerful presentation in favor of the right to keep and bear arms, that it deserves to be reviewed and recalled from time to time.

Texas state representative, Suzanna Gratia-Hupp, whose parents were killed by an insane gunman while her gun was out in the car, gives moving and bold testimony about one reason that the second amendment protects our God-given right to keep and bear arms.

I would add (as I did for 60 Minutes, Coast to Coast, Follow the Money, etc.) that the reason for the 2nd Amendment (as with all ten Amendments known as the “Bill of Rights”) was to protect the People of the States of the Union from the federal government.

 

Marxist Insurgency in America

Image via Wikipedia

U.S. Army General Jerry Boykin discusses his background and training as a Green Beret in understanding Marxist insurgencies and how the current U.S. government actions parallel Marxist tactics.

General Boykin expressly supports America’s “constitutionalists” and  implicitly supports the “sovereignty movement”.

Good to know.

Somebody “up there” likes us.

video

00:06:01

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7w3ZEbC09k&feature=player_embedded#at=86

 

“ABC This Week” Analyzes the Constitution

Image via Wikipedia

Five successful, seemingly intelligent journalists discuss The Constitution of the United States.  In doing so, they largely display their collective ignorance.  Even George Will–who can be overpowering with his knowledge of facts–seems to have no real understanding.

None of them seem to even suspect that there may be other documents  as authoritative as the Constitution (see, “The Organic Laws of The United States of America“).

I’d bet that most people who read this blog or listen to my radio shows, will find this discussion laughable–and also a little chilling.  How th’ hell can even the “elite” be so damn ignorant?

video   00:48:32–but only the first 29 minutes deal with the Constitution.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/255556/abc-this-week-sun-jul-3-2011

 

Penn & Teller Burn the American Flag

Image by mutantlog via Flickr

The ideas of real patriotism and individual sovereignty are beginning to gain traction.  We begin to catch glimpses of them even in Hollywood and Las Vegas.  Are these ideas whose time has (again) come?

Penn & Teller offer us a very intelligent “trick”.

Video

00:04:34

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF2iX2VG6e4&feature=player_embedded

 

The States of the Union vs. the Territory

Image via Wikipedia

I embrace the fantastic hypothesis that the federal government has created a second, alternative set of “states” that are, in fact, administrative districts of a “territory” rather than States of the Union.  In essence, this “State-vs-territory” hypothesis argues that “TX” is a territory while “The State of Texas” is a member-State of the perpetual Union styled “The United States of America”.  Whichever of these venues (territory or State of the Union) that you inhabit will determine your rights, your duties, your taxes, your liabilities to arbitrary, unlimited government or your liberty within a limited government.

The idea of two, alternative “venues” (the States of the Union and territories) is at least fifteen years old.  So far as I know, the first person to advocate this concept was Paul Andrew Mitchell (writing under the pen name of “Mitch Modeleski”) in his book The Federal Zone.  The concept was picked up and amplified by Richard Kegley, TJ Henderson, Ed Wahler and Dennis Craig Bynum in A.D. 2006 in a book entitled USA v US.  I’ve studied and explored this concept for at least 10 years and, fantastic as it seems, I believe this hypothesis to be true.

I realize that the idea that our own federal government would intentionally “overthrow” the governments of the States of the Union, supplant those State governments with territorial administrative agencies seems too fantastic to believe.  I’ve spent at least 10 years looking for evidence to disprove this incredible hypothesis.  But after ten years of looking all I can tell you for sure is that: 1) It looks like a duck; 2) it walks like a duck; 3) it quacks like a duck; and 4) it goes good with orange sauce.  I still can’t prove that it’s a duck, but I’ve seen nothing in 10 years to suggest that it’s not.

 

The Organic Laws of The United States of America

Image via Wikipedia

Today, most people have never heard of the Articles of Confederation or the Northwest Territorial Ordinance.  Although virtually everyone has heard of the “Declaration of Independence,” virtually no one realizes it is not merely an interesting historical document but is, in fact, as much the law as The Constitution of the United States.

Instead, virtually everyone presupposes that The Constitution of the United States is not only the “supreme law of the land” (as per Article 6 Section 2 of the Constitution), but is the only “law of the land”.  As a result, people presume that in order to understand the “law of the land,” we need go no further back in time than to the Constitution.