The Premise of the Enemy: Part 2

Why is political conservatism (small and limited government) losing ground against political liberalism? Why do they lose battle after battle in this war to the liberals? And it is a war. A war that is equally as old as the concepts of things like money, property and power.

It is widely considered to be immoral for someone to use the threat of force to take money from someone who is unwilling to give it. The word for when this happens is theft. That is what it means. It is generally frowned upon in civilized society.

How many votes does it take to make it moral for me to take your money from you against your will and use it for whatever I want? This question is something that you should answer for yourself.

When the Sixteenth Amendment was debated in the Senate the arguments for it were obvious. "We need the money for 'the good of the country.'" That's kind of ambiguous and arbitrary at best. Were I a prideful cynic I would say that argument reeks of them wanting the money to buy their own power, yachts, mansions, Gulfstream luxury jets, etc.. But I digress.

The arguments against it were purely moral and constitutional. I quote from Article One, Section Nine, "No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." In other more simple words, it is illegal at the constitutional level for the federal government to just take your money.

In addition to that there is the Tenth Amendment (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,) which means it is absolutely illegal for the federal government to give itself more power. Any amendment past that point, initiated by the federal government, cannot include a statement that says anything like, "The Congress shall have the power to..." and be considered a valid amendment unless the Tenth Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, is repealed.

The Sixteenth Amendment (The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration,) is directly contrary to the Tenth Amendment. In other words the federal government has taken upon itself, in direct violation of the Bill of Rights, the power take your money for whatever reason they want.

On top of the above listed constitutional reasons is the simple principle that it is immoral and criminal to use the threat of force to take money from people and use it for whatever the hell you want. It is just as immoral and illegal—should the Constitution actually be followed—for a government to take it as it is for a gangster to take it. The only difference between the two is the number of votes.

So let's look at what is accepted in society today and compare it to the argument for the Sixteenth Amendment.

The liberal argument is that it is okay for the government to take your money and use it how they want. The conservative argument is that it is immoral for anybody to take your money, against your individual consent, regardless of the supposed reasons for doing so.

Today it is generally accepted by the Republican Party that the Sixteenth Amendment is valid, even setting aside totally the irregularities in its ratification. It is accepted by the so-called conservative party that they, just like the Democrats and other forms of liberals, can take your money without your direct consent and spend it any way they damn well want to. The supporters of the Republican Party approve of this theft and unconstitutional expenditure as well as supporting the Sixteenth Amendment which supposedly makes it all "legal" for them to do so. Granted, it is less that they take on the "conservative" side but the principle is the same because they claim that they are "letting you keep more of your money."

In other words the "conservatives" have accepted the premise of the enemy.

General Eisenhower would and should have been fired if he had accepted in WW2 the premise that the Aryan race should rule the world, except it should be the United States in charge of the fascist world government instead of Germany. Had Ike done something like that he would have rightfully been considered a traitor to his country and the world.

Analogous to that, anybody who calls themselves conservative and supports unlimited government taxing and spending, as per the Sixteenth Amendment, or even simply recognizes that the idea is in any way valid, has gone over to the other side by accepting the premise of the enemy.

How can you ever win by granting the opponent their basic premise?

You can't!

The absolute best you could hope for is two gangs of liberals who support their own and oppose the other. In modern political terms this would be Democrats versus Republicans. Why not Spy versus Spy? It makes as much sense, is almost as productive and a lot more amusing.

Forgotten completely between these two unworthy and generally despicable gangs of government thugs is the idea that your money and property are your own and nobody should have more of a right to any of it other than you.

The Premise of the Enemy: Part One
The Premise of the Enemy: Part Two
The Premise of the Enemy: Part Three

The Premise of the Enemy: Part Four

The Premise of the Enemy

(Note: This was originally written prior to the 2020 election. There are some basic principles which still apply.)

I've been looking over the highlights of the second presidential debate between President Trump and former Vice President Biden from the other night and I just can't stand the way these guys were falling over each other to compare themselves to Lincoln. And in doing so they both fell headlong into one of my pet peeves.

The reputation of Lincoln is all built on false premises.

Let's talk about well documented historical facts.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."—Lincoln, 9/18/1858

This quote of Lincoln's is not the only damning words of his out there. Quotes like this are far more frequent than most of the People of the United States currently know or are willing to believe. 

The simple fact is that Lincoln was a racist. Lincoln did nothing for the sake of black people in and of themselves. He only "helped" them when it also suited his own political gain. He did not respect them. He used them for the sake of gaining or preserving his own power; after which he wanted them packed back into ships and sent off to someplace else other than here so his constituents could have the jobs. Yes, I can support this supposition in his own words.

The war was not over slavery. The war was about tax money from the Confederate States and every shot of it fired by a Union soldier in the South was a gross violation of the Constitution.

The United States was formed in freedom by independent and sovereign States which were all stand alone countries in their own right. They joined of their own free will and remained together in peace by their own free will under the Constitution right up to the point where Lincoln ordered his troops to kill them if they didn't remain. This is not a preservation of the United States, in peace, under the Constitution. It's plain and simple tyranny in a style that I'm sure would have been admired by Joseph Stalin. Lincoln's position is backed up by his receiving support for his reelection in correspondence from Karl Marx. The idea that States couldn't leave the Union was also agreed with by Hitler in his book "Mein Kampf."

The great lie is that Lincoln somehow was the savior of black people and that he preserved the Union. Because of this understanding of the history of Lincoln it is accepted that the Constitutional limits on the federal government can and should be violated with impunity. After all...Lincoln did it...and see how great he was? This premise, the unquestioning belief in Lincoln and the "greatness" of his unconstitutional actions, that his gross violation of constitutional law somehow preserved the Union in freedom, is what is dividing and destroying the country today.

So what does it really mean when Trump says he's done more for black people than anybody since Lincoln? The current state of our country is exactly what you get when you accept the premise of the enemy. The president of the United States has no constitutional duty or power to do anything about black people—or anybody else of any segmented voting block. To do so is outright corruption, by definition.

Donald Trump's regard for the Constitutional limits on the federal government are suspect at best. He only mentioned the Constitution once during the whole second debate. Biden didn't mention it at all. The moderator only mentioned it twice. I find that odd in a most disgusting way given that this is the job position they are applying for: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The only redeeming value of President Trump over Biden, from my perspective at least, is that President Trump does understand the economy and the Democrats are much worse for both the economy and the Constitution.

I do realize that for many people, on the right, this is a good enough reason to support President Trump. But know this, and make no mistake about it, when you vote for either of these guys you are not doing so in support of the actual meaning of the Constitution.

And if you keep buying into the premise of the enemy you are sooner or later going to lose no matter how many votes you get.


The Premise of the Enemy: Part One
The Premise of the Enemy: Part Two
The Premise of the Enemy: Part Three

The Premise of the Enemy: Part Four