Keeping the Constitution Working

When I announced my run for the presidency in 2016 I also announced the formation of a new political party to support myself and other candidates who may be like me; dedicated to the following of the United States Constitution. The name of this party is hereby officially the, I Will Follow The Constitution Party, or abbreviated the IWFTCP. I also think it necessary to produce a set of rules for those who wish to join my political party. That is the purpose of this post.

Here at the I Will Follow The Constitution Party there is really only one hard and fast rule. You must, in all things related to the federal government of the United States, without apology or excuse, follow, and insist that all members of the federal government, as well as those running for federal office, follow the Constitution of the United States, in context, and as it is written. Okay, that's a rather complicated sentence so the short version is that you must follow the Constitution. Always.

That's it. There are no other rules, restrictions, qualifications, or any of that other tripe that other political parties engage in to try to force you to comply with the values of their life. There is no "moderate" or "conservative" or "liberal" or any other thing like that here. It's completely binary; Constitution one hundred percent with no alternative. We here at the IWFTCP, while being supportive, or not, of whatever other values you do or don't have, don't give a rat's ass for whatever else you believe, or not. Or maybe we do, but it's none of our freaking business anyway, because we only have one business—the following of the United States Constitution.

Membership is the easiest thing in the world because there is nobody who is going to enforce it on you. All you have to do to join my political party is say, "I Will Follow The Constitution," and sincerely mean it. If you don't mean it, you're out by your own considerations. If you do mean it you are a full member in good standing with honors. There are no dues to pay. Don't send me any money because I don't want it. However, if you wish to pay some dues anyway, join the military, and when you take the oath and come to the part about supporting and defending, "the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic," mean it with all of your heart, and as far as the IWFTCP goes, your dues will be fully paid with the highest of honors and a lifetime membership.

Now as voluntary members taking on the burdens of the IWFTCP, there are some things that need to be done if we are to be successful in our singular goal. I've narrowed it down to ten things we have to be aware of and do at all times if we are to put this country back on track with the Constitution. These ten things are somewhat axiomatic and philosophical, while at the same time completely secular, so they should violate nobody's religious interests. These are not rules, per se, because there is really only one rule; follow the Constitution. I offer them merely as suggestions of things an IWFTCP member in good standing could, or perhaps should, do to keep the Constitution working.

1. You should have the correct Constitution. I know, I know. It's very basic but that's what the Constitution is about. You have to have the Constitution of the United States rather than the Constitution of say, Russia or France. (Could someone please tell Justice Ginsburg this?) The current version of the U.S., consisting of twenty-seven amendments is available many places on line and in many forms. There are also little pocket Constitutions, sometimes with the Declaration of Independence, that you can get pretty cheap from most anyplace that sells books. I have a PDF right here on my desktop. Were it a hardcopy it would have been worn out and replaced several times over, given all the times I've referred to it.

2. You should know the Constitution. Okay, you don't have to memorize it, verbatim and in full. Just read it enough to get the wheels greased. That way, for example, when some politician says to you, "healthcare," your BS detector goes off and informs you that there is no federal power in the Constitution to do anything whatsoever about it, and anything that they are doing about it is treasonous against the Constitution. In my own humble estimation Article One, Sections Eight and Nine, plus a very clear understanding of the Tenth Amendment, should give you almost everything you need to know about the things the federal government is and is not allowed to do.

3. You should know the Constitution is correct. This is probably the most difficult part of it because there has to be some historical understanding to back it up. Otherwise it becomes a faith rather than something that can be proven, argued or observed. While I tend to back people of faith up fully, a person's intangible belief is a weaker argument for convincing a non-believer than clearly demonstrable facts. There is the additional problem, which I will not expound upon too much here, that several of the amendments are themselves violations of the Constitution. In short, however, any amendment that contains words to the effect of, "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation," are clear violations of the Tenth Amendment and should be repealed, with those powers transferred to the States.

But I digress. The point is that the Constitution is a limitation on the powers of federal government to interfere with the business of the State or the individual lives of the People. Within that context there is a maximal amount of individual freedom with a minimal amount of interference from the federal government. It could be said to be axiomatic that, "less government equals more fun." That is the point of the Constitution. Through knowing and observing this to be true you can also know that the Constitution is as correct as any governmental philosophy that has ever existed on this planet.

4. You should teach correctly the correct Constitution. That's an uphill battle for sure! And it requires the most patience. There is so much false data about it in circulation that it boggles the mind to try to comprehend it all. For example, have you ever heard that the Constitution says that, "black people are only three fifths of a person"? Wrong, false, not even close to what it actually says. Well, let this serve as an example of how to teach correctly the correct Constitution. Open up your copy of the Constitution, hopefully obtained in step one above, to Article One, Section Two. Read the words that are actually there. Don't take someone else's word for it, even mine. Look at what it says. Got it?

That's how it's done. Don't tell them what it means. Above all don't argue with them or be a troll about it. Make them read it and understand it for themselves. If they don't understand the words get them a dictionary and teach them what the words mean. But they must read the words from the actual Constitution for themselves and understand them. If you can get them to demonstrate that understanding, so much the better.

Occasionally it will happen that there is some background needed to fill in the gaps. The Framers of the Constitution didn't explain within the actual text exactly what they were talking about in all cases. For these instances I recommend only two historical sources; The Federalist Papers, and James Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention. Don't go to any other source with a "more modern interpretation." They are almost all pure bunk.

5. You should apply the Constitution. This is where elections come in. It is none of my business whom you support for any office. But if you are a member of the IWFTCP in good standing (by your own consideration) you should never, never, NEVER!!! vote for someone who will not follow the Constitution. What I do is go down a prospective candidate's web page, with Constitution in hand, and look at what he or she is proposing to do with federal power. If I can't find anything in the actual text of the Constitution to support what they suggest as a use for federal power, I mark them off my list and never look back. Such a person, who would not follow the Constitution while holding federal office, is committing treason against their oath and the Constitution. Period.

Draw the line in the sand and don't cross it for any reason. More importantly, let them and their supporters know that's what you are doing. It's about supply and demand in that sense. If we demand it, sooner or later someone will have to supply it or face political oblivion. This is a movement we are trying to start here. Do not for any reason support someone who will not follow the Constitution.

6. You should see that the Constitution is correctly applied. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of issues this can be applied to. An example (and it is just an example) of this would be the so-called, "marriage equality rights." Now for those of you who are rather hot headed on this subject, I would ask that you take a momentary step back, count to ten, a hundred, a thousand, or whatever it takes, and read this part of my text above again: "We here at the IWFTCP, while being supportive, or not, of whatever other values you do or don't have, don't give a rat's ass for whatever else you believe, or not. Or maybe we do, but it's none of our freaking business anyway, because we only have one business—the following of the United States Constitution."

The FACT is that the federal government has absolutely no, none, zero, zip, nada, power to affect marriage rights or equality at all. This kind of power is just not in the Constitution except as in the Tenth Amendment where all things of that nature are left to the States and the People. It is none of the federal government's business who, or how, you, as a consenting adult, choose to relate to any other consenting adult. I would also say that it is none of any government's business to insert itself into any person's personal relationships anywhere, anytime, for any reason. But that's just me. What you believe is up to you. And if you think a local or State government should have that kind of power it is beside the point of this article to comment on it. The IWFTCP is only concerned with federal power and State power as described in the Constitution. Your morals are your own, as it is you that has to live with the responsibility and consequences.

So when the Supreme Court issues a decree (again, for example) that States have to recognize marriage equality because the Fourteenth Amendment (one of them that is unconstitutional anyway) says, "blah, blah, blah, blah," you should know the Constitution is not being correctly applied and take whatever legal and peaceful actions you can to correct it, or nullify it.

7. You should hammer out of existence unconstitutional laws. To be blunt here; every federal or State law (where State laws apply to it) that are not specifically mentioned as an appropriate power in some Article, Section or Clause of the Constitution has to go. Obamacare? Bye bye! Welfare? Hasta la vista baby! And for those who want to repeal and replace Obamacare; really? Please! Any replacement would be just as unconstitutional!

There are some very difficult ones here. Sorry folks. There is just nothing in the Constitution about Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Now before you recoil in horror at the propaganda possibility of throwing grandma off the cliff, these are programs that a lot of people have paid into as a result of forceful and unconstitutional federal laws. This is debt that the federal government owes on the promises that they made to people who contributed to these programs. To not pay that money back, or give appropriate value in return for it, would be just as unconstitutional as continuing those programs. It is for people who are more number oriented than I to figure out the exact specifics as to how to do it. Nonetheless, those sorts of programs must end with fair value given for any money taken.

8. We should knock out incorrect applications of the Constitution. When some dolt of a politician says something like, "the General Welfare Clause gives us the authority to take money from some rich guy and give it to some poor guy," you should know full well that he's talking about an incorrect application of the Constitution. Look at what the General Welfare Clause actually says please, and do whatever you can to oppose this person. When a judge or justice says, "according to  Muckenfutch vs Duschebag the Commerce Clause means that a chicken farmer in Ohio can't grow his own chickenfeed because it affects prices across state lines," know that that justice or judge is a domestic enemy and oppose him. There are thousands of these kinds of things. At least we won't be bored.

9. We should close the door on any possibility of unconstitutional laws. "How do I do that?" you might be inclined to ask. Well I've got an answer for you. Don't vote for anybody for Congress, or the presidency, who suggests, proposes or has done anything not within constitutional power. And if someone gets in who does propose something unconstitutional, kindly, or not, inform them of their overt act and let them know that you will never vote for them again. No compromises. You cannot compromise with treason. Ever. Again you must inform them wherever possible that that's what you are doing.

This one only differs from number five above, in that in number five it is you who is following the Constitution. Whereas here in number nine, you are demanding that they follow the Constitution.

10. We should close the door on incorrect applications of the Constitution. This answer on this one is just about the same as the last one. It would apply more specifically to the appointing judges and justices who support the Constitution, and eliminating any who don't, as much as electing members of Congress or the presidency.

That's it. That's what I think we should do to keep the Constitution working.

You can reasonably expect that at first our take on this will be looked upon as "stubborn" and "unpopular." If this kind of thing scares you I invite you to take a good long look at what being "flexible" and "accepted" has gotten us, and tell me that that isn't even more terrifying. It is only our freedom and the existence of the United States at stake. There can be no reasonable compromise with treason against the Constitution, and it should be well understood that that is exactly what we are talking about here.

In the IWFTCP there is no such thing as, "in name only." You either do it or you don't.

I hope you decide to do it.

Brett as President: The Other Two Branches

One of the most important aspects of the job of being president is how the other two branches of the government would be dealt with. I think it's time I wrote an article about how I would work with the other two branches to "get things done," since everybody seems to believe that's what we want. It is a three part government at the top, so all three of these parts need to understand one another if they are to operate effectively.

First I've got a chain of logic that I want anybody who would ever consider me as a presidential candidate to understand. I would follow the Constitution under all circumstances; that's the main point, but it is necessary to cover the basics of what is expected of a president, so I ask the forgiveness of those who already understand the line of logic I'm about to cover. It becomes necessary to cover the basic ground rules because if the basics of anything aren't correct there's no chance of accomplishing anything beyond that.

The Constitution is written to give the federal government only specific and limited powers. There are two basic parts of it that deal with what powers they are supposed to have. The first of these is Article One, Section Eight, which lists the specific things the federal government—specifically Congress—is allowed to deal with. In short there are only the following nineteen powers: taxes, borrow, regulate commerce, naturalization, bankruptcies, money and weights and measures, punishment of counterfeiting, post offices and roads, copyright laws, establishing tribunals, punishment of piracies, declaration and regulation of wars, raise armies, provide a Navy, make rules for the military, call forth the Militia, regulate the Militia, maintain federal property, and make laws with regards to the foregoing powers.

That's it. That's all the powers they have. There is nothing more than that. Notice some of the "issues" being discussed today seem somewhat beyond that scope. Notice there is no federal power over health care, social security, funding for cowboy poetry, providing child care for workers, redistribution of wealth, labor laws, funding for shrimp on treadmills, marriage regulation, light bulb regulation, energy regulation, environmental regulation, or any other kind of silly thing the federal government is currently involved in. If the States wish to involve themselves in that sort of activity there is no federal power to stop it, so that is their business.

The next link in my chain of logic is the 10th Amendment, which is part of the United States' Bill of Rights. "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." This amendment limits the powers of Congress and the federal government to only the powers above, forever and for all time. Period. Only this far and no further, under any circumstances. Otherwise, even by amendment, to give the federal government new powers, this right would be a totally purposeless waste of words and ink. It is a right of the People of the United States that this amendment never be violated. Thus, any power the federal government has taken beyond the nineteen listed above is a violation of your rights as a citizen of this country.

Moving on to the next link in the chain I give you an excerpt from Article Six. "This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land." There is no higher law. There is no higher organization. There is no opinion above it that holds any legal force or binding. Most importantly, anything that does not comply with the Constitution is by definition, patently illegal.

The next thing to be dealt with is the oath of office. For the Senate, House of Representatives and Supreme Court the oath is as follows; "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." Notice that this oath is not to the country, "the United States," it is to, "the Constitution of the United States."

So the bottom line is that Congress and the Supreme Court are by oath of allegiance and law, bound to only follow the powers specifically listed in the Constitution. Any circumstance where they take on powers not granted to them by the Constitution are violations of the highest law in the land.

Title 18 U.S. Code § 2381 provides us with the legal definition and penalty for treason. "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

Please notice the use of the word allegiance in the oath and U.S. Code.

Now I ask you; what would be a domestic enemy of the United States or its Constitution, if it is not a person who violates his oath of office, and the supreme law of the land, by not following it? An enemy, by definition (Encarta Dictionary), is something that harms or opposes something else. Thus, any person holding office in the Supreme Court or Congress who votes for or rules in favor of any law beyond the constitutional limits granted in Article One, Section Eight and the 10th Amendment is guilty of treason against the Constitution and People of the United States.

The basic job description of the president is dealt with in Article Two of the Constitution. Briefly described the most important part of it is in the last paragraph of Section One, as the presidential oath. "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." That, simply put, is the president's primary job. It is his responsibility in all circumstances to hold the line against violations of the Constitution in any part of the federal government.

That is precisely what I, if elected to be president of this nation, intend to do. This also implies that if I sign a bill that is unconstitutional, I, by not taking action against it would be guilty of Misprision of Treason per Title 18 U.S. Code § 2382. This basically means guilt by association.

So if Congress sends me a bill they expect me to sign, my legal team will go through every line of it to make sure that there is a corresponding power from Article One, Section Eight, that applies to it. If there is even so much as one single sentence of it in violation of Article One, Section Eight, I would be forced to veto the entire bill.

From here on out it would be best to use an example.

Let's say I receive a bill for military spending. If everything in it is constitutional and it doesn't have anything unreasonable like, "four hundred trillion dollars for the next aircraft carrier," I would sign it and there would be no problem. However, if there is a clause that provides funding for Harry Reid's Cowboy Poetry Festival I would be forced to veto the entire bill. There is no line item veto for a president and there is no power of Congress to provide funding for cowboy poetry. My message to Congress and the media would be, "There is no power in Article One, Section Eight for the funding of 'Cowboy Poetry Festivals.' Such spending would also violate the 10th Amendment and thus the rights of American citizens under the Bill of Rights. Please remove the offending unconstitutional clause and promptly return the bill to me or face the consequences of having an unfunded military."

Now it might happen that Congress would override my veto, if by two-thirds they could pass the law in spite of my objections to the unconstitutional clause. So military spending would continue. However, I, as president, would do two things. First, I would issue an executive order to the Treasury Department to stop payment on all checks to the support of Cowboy Poetry Festivals as they are based on an unconstitutional law. Second, I would issue an order to the Justice Department to have everybody involved in the passage of this bill charged for contempt, perjury or treason against the Constitution. Oh yes I would!

In the meantime it is very likely that someone will file charges against me for not following the law (unconstitutional, therefore not a valid law in this country) regarding the funding of Cowboy Poetry Festivals. Let them. Sooner or later there would be a ruling, maybe even from the Supreme Court, that I'm not following the law. My statement to the press and the Supreme Court would be, "While I thank the Court for their opinion, if the Court thinks that's what the law is under the Constitution, let them try to enforce it. In the meantime the Justice Department will be investigating any justice who supported this ruling for treasonous activities against the Constitution and violation of their oaths."

I will, in other words, always and in all cases take the text of the Constitution as if it were the highest law in the land. I don't care what the Supreme Court, Congress, lawyers or scholars say, because they are not the highest law in the land.

Neither am I. However I would be the guy whose job it is to make certain the Constitution is followed.

Brett for President: Part One

"That's all I can stands. I can't stands no more." — Popeye the Sailor

One of my all time favorite quotes; and very likely the most unique opening quote to formally announce any candidate for the presidency in this great nation's entire history. But that just about sums up the reasons why I've decided to run for the presidency of these United States. I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore—speaking of great quotes.

I would ask, politely and respectfully, that you turn off the, "third party candidates have no chance and a vote for this candidate is a vote for Hillary!" machine and think about this for a minute. Ignore your gut feeling, which I know is there because I share it too, and actually think things through.

The purpose of the Constitution is to protect the freedoms of the People of the United States from an out of control federal government. This is the thing the Founding Fathers uniformly feared. This is why they made the president's oath of office what they did; to 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."

This oath is not to the United States themselves. It is not to the People of the States. It is not to the lobbyists or special interest groups. It is not to socialist ideologies or big government programs designed to gain support for political candidates and transform our country into a communist tyranny where the federal government dictates every aspect of life to the People according to their vision. It is not to big business for the purpose of increasing or decreasing their wealth by regulating them past their endurance or creating big government programs to influence their behavior according to the whims of the occupant of the White House. It is not to the Capitalists of Wall Street, Main Street or any other place in the world. It is to the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers, in spite of all of their personal flaws, knew that big governments tend to run out of control and oppress, and sometimes kill, a lot of people. Their solution was to make the federal government as small and limited as possible and still be able to hold the nation together; assuming the States actually wanted to continue to be part of the country. They designed the Constitution to keep the federal government operating with only specific powers, and then added the 10th Amendment—the most important and most ignored law of the land—to be absolutely certain the federal government would not grow beyond those specific powers which are listed in Article One, Section Eight.

Our freedom as a People depends totally on this principle. It is only through ignorance or neglect of this fact that we can have presidential candidates debating and proposing things as outrageously unconstitutional as what Democrats and Republicans have been promoting.

Let's take a look at two of these for example.

Hillary wants to use federal funding to invest in child care. This would make the care of our children a federal issue. In other words, the federal government of the United States, through regulation and funding, with all of its guns, planes, weapons, aircraft carriers, tax collectors, etc., would be in charge of babysitting your children. Now I invite you to look at the history of the federal government and ask yourself, "what could possibly go wrong with that?"

Trump supporters, I admire your passion and love of country—I really, sincerely do—but I honestly have to wonder if your enthusiasm is misplaced. Your guy actually suggested in debate that he wants to use the federal police forces of the United States to stop and frisk people. What could possibly go wrong with that? Now I have to very respectfully ask you; how could someone who proposes anything so flagrantly unconstitutional as that, keep his promise to, "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution"?

I know a lot of people who are only supporting Donald Trump because they figure he might, might, pick a constitutionally conservative justice for the Supreme Court. How is a candidate who suggests, in a national debate, turning our entire nation into an airport terminal, where the TSA, or similar federal agency, can stop and search citizens at random, without due process, probable cause or warrant, in clear violation of the 4th Amendment, ever, ever, ever going to nominate a good Supreme Court justice? My friends—and again I mean this with all of the respect in my heart—this is the very definition of a blind squirrel looking for a nut. If such a candidate were to nominate someone who would uphold the Constitution it would not be through his understanding of the principles of freedom. It would be, quite frankly, a cosmic accident.

(This post was originally published in 2016. In reviewing it in 2022 I have to admit, especially given the recent decisions coming from the court, that I am most pleasantly surprised about Trump's SCOTUS nominees. But my God! He sure did spend a lot of our money!)

Sure, outside of the constitutional discussion, Trump's policy would be better for many people in the country. But that's my point. It's outside the Constitution.

So again, to quote Popeye, "That's all I can stands. I can't stands no more."

For those Trump supporters who are as worried about Hillary becoming president as I am, I very kindly suggest to you that you are being presented with a false choice. The choice between Hillary and Trump is the apparent choice. Between the two the most apparently conservative is Trump. I get that. But I very kindly suggest to you that you're going to get a big unconstitutional government either way. The real choice you are making is Hillary or Trump vs. George Washington.

I used to be a straight ticket Republican. The damn began to break on that on March 27th, 2002, when George W. Bush signed the Campaign Finance Reform Act. I watched the signing ceremony live on C-SPAN as it happened, because I couldn't believe he was actually going to sign it. Here is a link to the full text of what President Bush had to say about it as he signed it into law. But the part that completely destroyed my faith was when President Bush said, "Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns," and, "I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election. I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law."

WHAT?! EXCUSE ME?! You're job, Mister President was to, "to the best of my [your] ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," not to sign into "law" a bill that would overturn the 1st Amendment. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the president should sign any pile of crap act of Congress and leave it to the court system to sort out. You, Mister President, are supposed to be the person who stops that sort of thing from ever happening! That was your job. That was the oath that you swore in front of God and country.

As I said above, that's when the damn began to break for me. By the election of 2004, Kerry vs. Bush, I was in the same position as many of Trump's supporters; committed to vote for the lesser of two evils, because I care about the country that I swore to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic. And I too thought that he would pick Supreme Court justices who would only follow the Constitution. Now I know that this statement is ex post facto and as such is a little bit unfair, but how is Chief Justice Roberts working out for us now? Hmmm?

On one hand I have to say that for "W" to sign that bill was spitting in the face of everybody who swore to defend the Constitution with their life. On the other hand, at least he mentioned the Constitution and his concerns while he did it. Most of them wouldn't have even brought it up. In the bigger picture, however, it just shows the lack of concern in the part of the American People's constitutional protections, of almost every president who has ever served.

Well, here's the deal for me and why I've decided to run for president. There are all of the unconstitutional options, whether they be Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or otherwise. There needs to be a constitutional option; one who is already sworn by his life to defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic. I am already to the best of my ability, preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States.

 The only additional thing for me is to say that I, if elected, will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States. I promise that to you now, and additionally swear to you that I will do so or die in the attempt.

Even with all of the power of Congress gathered in the Oval Office, insisting with a gun to my head that I sign the bill to fund Obamacare, I swear to you now that I would VETO it and take the bullet. To do otherwise would be to slap the faces of everybody who ever served to defend this country's Constitution. To do otherwise would be to accept my place in hell as an oath breaker.

Of course there are some major obstacles for me to overcome in my bid for the presidency.

First of all is that I have absolutely no personal, individual, desire to be the president. It just needs to be done and there is nobody else—apparently—that is going to do it. Sure, the salary and pension of the office is more money than I would currently hope to make in the rest of my lifetime. The benefits are really kind of sweet if that's what's important to you, but if you look at it from the standpoint of my almost total lack of concern for my own personal wealth, it works out to be a positive. I can't be bought. I have no desire to make even that much money—sure I'll take it but only because that's the pay for the job—but no special interest would ever hold any sway with me. As for reelection, I would be honored to serve two terms but since I've got no personal interest in being in the office—other than support of the Constitution—itself, why would I accept money from special interests for reelection campaigns? So there it is. I am as much of an outsider as anybody who ever lived; with no political or special interest connections whatsoever, so I cannot be bribed. The pay and benefits of the office itself far exceed my desire to spend money.

The next problem would be that I belong to no political party. So I have to form one for myself.

I've thought long and hard about this, (almost six minutes, in fact) and what I've decided to do is form my own political party. Rather than taking some ambiguous term for a form of government, like "republic," and alter it to make it sound like an organization that would actually be attempting to bring about that form of government, I've decided to be more straight forward and use the actual words for what the party is supposed to do. So I'm going to call my party the, "I WILL FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION PARTY."

The platform is pretty simple. Let me explain this for those who still might not get it. I will follow the Constitution. If you support people who follow the Constitution you are supporting the platform of the I Will Follow the Constitution Party. If you vote for any candidate or law, which is unconstitutional, at any time or for any reason, this party is not for you. That's all there is to it. If you can honestly say it for yourself—I will follow the Constitution—and mean it, and back your intentions with actions consistent with that objective, then the I Will Follow the Constitution Party is for you.

As a thought that naturally follows the above paragraph, I'm not going to set up any kind of committee or organization to run my campaign. Don't send me money! I don't want it! If you want to support me, because you support the Constitution, what you need to do is take it on yourself to spread the word about me.

The next thing is that I will not be on any ballot anywhere. I can guarantee that. So you have to write me in. And you have to do so knowing full well that as far as 2016 goes, there is an exactly zero percent chance of me winning. In fact my odds of winning are exactly the same odds that we would get a candidate that would be interested, even vaguely, in actually following the oath that they are sworn to. So, when you are there in the booth, just write in "Brett Ashton" and think for yourself that, "I will follow the Constitution." It is not the victory that we are after here. It is the principles on which the country was founded, and without which the United States of America would certainly meet her untimely demise.

It has been frequently said that America cannot fail from enemies outside of the country. That if we were to fail it would be from within. This is exactly what was being spoken of. When we abandon the Constitution our freedoms, along with everything America is, will simply cease to be. We, as individuals, have to swear to follow the Constitution, exactly as we would expect the president to do. The responsibility is ours if the government sucks. We elected them.

So that's basically it. I'm hoping, assuming that you have no desire to support any of the other candidates, and assuming that you would like to support the Constitution, that you would be willing to give me your support as a write in. Certainly it would be a protest vote for the 2016 election. And that's the only benefit I can offer you as a candidate at this time. It is up to your own integrity what to do. I will likely run again in 2020, depending on if someone who actually wants to fulfill the oath is running who actually has a chance to win.

If you can't find someone who you think would be 100% behind the Constitution please consider writing in my name, Brett Ashton, for president. Because I will follow the Constitution.

A vote for me is a vote for the Constitution.

Theft, Taxation and Charity

A number of weeks ago I began to circulate a simple black and white meme. The idea behind it is obvious to someone who understands the underlying principles of freedom and tyranny; and with a high degree of certainty knows the difference between the two. I posted this meme on Facebook, after which one of my friends shared it, daring his liberal friends to debunk it. In turn, a firestorm of posts lit up his link from his liberal friends claiming that I obviously don't understand socialism. What followed was a highly successful debate for me, which is fine, but more important it helped me to understand that there are some simple words that are commonly misunderstood in our socialist "friends" minds.

Libertarians, such as I usually tend to be, have been circulating a sort of bumper-sticker slogan which seems to be gaining a lot of popularity lately. It is very encouraging to me to see this happening, and the more the idea catches on the more freedom will be returned to our society. The slogan I'm speaking of is, "taxation is theft." While I understand the reasoning behind their argument, as taxation is commonly being used today, and agree to that degree, I have to also say that they are mostly correct, but also partly wrong. Wrong enough that should they get their way the country could be, at some theoretical point in the future, in some serious trouble.

It is said in some small circles that sanity is the ability to distinguish differences and similarities. Just a brief description of this concept, by example, would be a person who couldn't tell the difference between a car and a tomato. You would say that he's insane because he's trying to eat his car and drive a tomato to work. See? So a person who could tell the difference between a car and tomato, using the car to drive to work and the tomato to make a BLT would be sane, at least on the subject of cars and tomatoes. By comparison a go-kart is a similar thing to a car but it would still be pretty insane to take it on the freeway for your morning drive to work.

Do you ever wonder why the government and other large, liberal, sections of our society seem so insane? Well a big chunk of that is because they are; at least in terms of how insanity is defined above. Look at what I've said there, "sanity is the ability to distinguish differences and similarities." Your run of the mill, rank and file liberal, has no idea what the difference between taxation and charity is, so they treat them as if they are the same thing.

A slightly different class of the same kind of thing, should the Libertarians get their way, (oh please God, let this happen!!!) is that there are some cases where taxation is not exactly the same thing as theft; although taxation should always be kept at the very lowest minimum in a free society.

Words mean different and specific things, and because of that it's important to understand exactly what they are attempting to convey. The many different dictionaries have many different definitions for words; some of them correct and some of them, well, otherwise. Their overall goal is to define the words by how they are commonly used in a given society but what happens when they are commonly misused? Then the obvious result is that nobody knows what anybody is talking about. It's obvious to them what they are saying but why doesn't that other person get it?

Thus, when I define a word, I like to do it while including a few practical, easy to understand, examples. It's kind of like the difference between tomatoes, cars and go karts. See? It's hard to misunderstand. In the same way that Forrest Gump, while not too bright, was always the most sane character in the movie—it was because his mother always had a way of explaining things so he could understand them—it is important to define words in terms that can be explained so they are understood. In this simple way much of the societal insanities, particularly socialism, can be prevented.

My hope in these simple explanations is that the next time you see it you will recognize it for what it is and be able to come up with the correct action to combat it. So I would encourage you to look at this very closely and please bear with my indulgence in Mrs. Gump's foray into explanations—because they need to be so simple even a liberal can understand them. It's a low bar, I know, but it needs to be done if our freedom is to survive.

True principles are always simple.

Now—after my rather lengthy introduction—to the definitions of the words in the title of this article, and ultimately the point of it all.

Theft is when someone uses force, or threats of force, to take something from someone else against their will, for the use of someone other than who it's being taken from. Joe holds a gun to Bill, threatening to shoot him if he doesn't give him money. It doesn't matter if Joe is going to take the money for his own use or to buy his mother's expensive prescriptions, it is still theft. It also doesn't matter if Joe has a lot of friends who think his mother deserves to have expensive medical care, "and besides, Bill has too much money anyway." The point is that Bill has had something taken from him against his will under threat, it's still the same exact underlying principle as theft.

Taxation is when money is taken by a government for the express purpose of serving some common, broad based, necessity across a locality, state or country. It is important to distinguish a difference here that makes it very different in principle than theft. The money taken has to be spent on something that anybody in the area it is taken from, can benefit from, mostly at any time they choose. A county decides they need a road. They decide to use tax money to pay for it. Anybody in the county can use the road at any time they choose, to their own benefit. Assuming your wish to live in that county, that road is partly still yours, and the money is being taken of your own will by your choice to live there and drive on that road.

We've all heard the socialist argument that taxes are a good thing because of roads, police, fire departments and other such things. Here's what they are trying to argue. And here is also where they fail to distinguish the difference between taxation and theft. Money taken from Bill, to pay for Joe's mother's medication, is not taxation because the medication paid for by that money can't be used by everybody in the area where it is taken. Bill can never benefit directly by the money taken from him because he can't take Joe's mother's expensive medication. Only Joe's mother can take her medication. The roads can be driven on by us all. The military protects us all. The police and fire departments are supposed to do the same in theory if not entirely in practice.

Now we come to charity. Charity is when some individual gives money of his own free will, to the benefit of another organization or individual, whether or not he receives any direct benefit from it. Maybe you like Joe's mother. I certainly think that assuming Joe's mother is a nice person and has always treated other people well—raising her son to be a thief notwithstanding—someone should be willing to contribute to her medication. At least I would hope that there would be enough people with a positive attitude towards her that they would be willing to cough up enough money to pay for her expensive illness, lacking the ability to pay for her own insurance. And given a government that is willing to stop taking excessive amounts of money from us by force, it could become likely for people to have enough money to give to charities of their choice. But I digress.

The underlying principle that distinguishes charity from theft is the willingness of the person the money is being taken from. The underlying principle that distinguishes taxation from theft is whether the people the money is being taken from is being used to benefit them directly and their willingness to pay it.

It should be very emphatically stressed that it is impossible to use taxation as charity. If you do not pay your taxes, which will end up paying for Joe's mother's expensive medication, and persist with that attitude for any length of time, nice men with guns will sooner or later show up at your door, incarcerate you, confiscate your property, seize and liquidate your assets, then use it to pay for Joe's mother's medication anyway. You might as well just let Joe hold you up at gunpoint and be done with it for all the difference it would make. I could make the argument that it might be better this way, because it would give the government less chance to take and waste their share through graft, but again I digress.

Charity, by its own definition, implies the freedom of choice to give it. Otherwise the definition is violated and it becomes theft.

So thus, I come to the point of my meme. "Socialism is the consideration that large groups of people have the right to take what they want from small groups of people." In other words, by theft and threatened use of force, they take what they want from people who are forced to pay through no individual choice of their own, for benefits they will never experience directly, to other people who have no connection to them. And very often the people in the government, who drive the idea of socialism into a society, do so with the end goal of lining their own pockets through graft, rather than using the money to benefit the entire society they are taking it from. However that is a whole different can of worms and not exactly the point of this article.

The bottom line is that socialism cannot exist without institutionalized theft.

Goals, Strategy, Tactics: Why the Right Keeps Losing

This election cycle (2016) has to be the most disgusting election that I have witnessed in my lifetime. I’m pretty certain I’m not alone in that feeling. Be that as it may it has given me a chance to learn something from the observation of it.

If we were to just set ourselves apart from the fray for awhile and survey the reasons why people vote for other people we would find that there are a lot of combinations of smaller reasons to choose a candidate or oppose one. A lot of them are ridiculous. For example; he’s black, he has funny hair, he is a woman, he put his dog on his car, he fixed an ice skating rink, he said something stupid or rude, etc. There is an endless supply of those. Some are kind of nice in people, in general, and some aren’t, but none show any kind of qualification or disqualification to be president. Even if the candidate is a very successful businessman it isn’t a qualification for high office in my way of thinking. Congressman, possibly, but president? No.

So for now I’m going to brush aside these kinds of arguments without any thought other than to classify them as “Trivial Issues,” just so I have a place to put them in my mind. Most of them fall into the line of thinking that causes a society to enter into a kind of cult of personality; never a very good thing for choosing a leader.

After we’ve thrown out the above Trivial Issues and thus separated the wheat from the chaff, to some degree, we would notice a lot of issues come to the surface. What do we do about: The boarders? Social Security? National security? The budget? Healthcare? Gay marriage? Welfare? The military? Economic policy? Taxes? Energy? Education? Gun rights? Global warming? Terrorism? Immigration? Abortion? Trade policy? International relations? There are more I’m certain but I think you get the idea of what I’m talking about so there is no need to list them all here.

Most of these issues are as old as mankind itself and the permutations and applications of the various issues as they intersect with our society, along with people’s imaginations in applying them could, in political theory, spawn a seemingly infinite number of political parties created to support the various combinations of them. That is to say, each candidate has his own thoughts on what to do about all of the political issues and no two of them match. Even within a single party, the Republicans for example, one wants to do “this” about Social Security, the other wants to do “that” and the rest of the seventeen who ran for the nomination want to do something else. One wants to do “this” about taxes, the other wants to do “that” about them and the rest all want to do something different. Even when you look at the party platform and compare the candidates most of them have some really strong violations of it, both in present time and historically. This is the cause of the disunity of the Republican Party and why many who support it, or formerly supported it, feel so betrayed.

So we have issues, issues, issues, issues, issues and issues, all across the political spectrum. Everybody feels different about them enough to fight over them and as a group the political right can’t unify in support of a single candidate. The party splits itself, starts in with the name calling, enter the Trivial Issues, and the left wins again.

Why?

I’m a big fan of the United States Military and like to study history, especially involving war, so I’m going to use a military/war-time analogy to explain this.

The two most basic and likely most used words in the military are strategy and tactics. They are very important words to understand for people who plan to win a war. If a nation’s wartime policy and planning is deficient in either of them the result is that they lose, unless, of course, the other side’s is worse.

Strategy, according to the Encarta Dictionary in my word processor is: “MILITARY the science or art of planning and conducting a war or a military campaign.” This is a big picture plan to achieve a specifically stated goal. “To free Europe from Hitler’s military forces,” is a specifically stated goal. The strategy to accomplish that would be the broad plans to achieve that goal. “First we invade Africa and chase his forces off that continent. Then we limit his ability to resupply his war efforts by using the Navy to control the Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic Ocean. We do this by operating out of England to defeat German Naval forces. We also take Sicily and Italy to establish force on the continent and further cut off access to the Mediterranean. Then we invade France …” Strategy is all very big picture stuff designed to accomplish the purpose of the war.

Tactics, as defined by the same dictionary, are: “the science of organizing and maneuvering forces in battle to achieve a limited or immediate goal.” An example of an immediate goal would be the taking of the various beaches in the amphibious assault of Normandy. “This kind of troops for Utah beach, that kind for Omaha, Gold, Juno and Sword. The troops for Utah will be equipped with these weapons, the troops for Omaha, Gold, Juno and Sword will have those. They will be landed using this kind of landing craft. They will be supported by this kind of naval force. Each force of invasion troops will have this or that specific objective …” Tactics are all specific, local items required to win a particular battle. They don’t have much consideration as to the overall objectives of the war beyond that specific battle and how to win it. Tactics can be as small as Buck Private Smith in hand to hand combat with German Private Jerry Sauerkraut fighting over three square feet of ground at its smallest. At its largest, in this example, it would never go beyond the Invasion of Normandy. Tactics would never properly include the defining of the overall goals of the war, or the strategy, outside of the fact that this battle is necessary to the accomplishment of the ultimate goal of defeating the enemies of America.

The thing to realize about tactics is that there has to be a specific strategy designed to achieve a specific goal in order for them to be coordinated enough to work at all. Without that strategy and ultimate goal to coordinate the tactics an army could, in theory, win almost every battle and still lose the war. You could have the best troops, with the best equipment and the best training and still put them in all the wrong places at all the wrong times. They would be surrounded, cut off, captured, or killed without the correct strategy to coordinate their movements with each other and keep them supplied.

There is a parallel to the application of goals, strategy and tactics in politics. Goals are goals in either war or politics. They are still a specific statement of what you wish to achieve in the end. What in wartime would be called strategy converts in politics to principles. The political equivalent to tactics would be the issues which the American People are so often concerned with and their attention is focused upon.

This is why the Republicans are experiencing so much disunity. That they could have seventeen major candidates with no two of them holding similar views on all of the most popular issues is both more and better evidence to support my suppositions than I could ever have concocted in my own mind.

There are no coordinating principles or goals. It’s all issues, issues, issues, issues, issues and issues. Even the platform is just a list of issues that they support and oppose with little reason or explanation as to why each issue is supported or opposed ever being talked about. That everybody feels different about them all, typically without ever exploring why, turns the whole organization into a fractured mass of wishy-washy Jell-O that seems unable to accomplish any long term goal or strategy.

Well to me, at any rate, life is pretty simple. I’ve reduced the entirety of politics down to only two principles. I’ve done this out of the realization that really there are only two possible options. The government can either be a big one out of our control or a little one under our control. That is really all there is to it. There is no other option regardless of all of the combined issues.

The underlying principle of the United States Constitution (at least up to the 12^th Amendment) is based on one idea. That single idea can be technically and philosophically expressed as, “The more dependent you are on other people, the less individual freedom you can have.”

For example if you go to work in the morning and punch the time clock you give your time to the owners of the company and are dependent on them for the compensation by which you seek to support the lives of you and your family. You have thus entered a state of dependency with your employer and so are subject in exchange for that support to his rules. You have sacrificed your freedom over the management of your time because of that dependency. While you are on the company’s time and property you are expected to behave in a certain way and towards a certain end; not all of which you will agree with. However if you own the company yourself your rules and freedoms are at your own determinism and the success or failure of your company depends only on your efforts and decisions.

Throwing out the technical and philosophical terminology this concept, in political terms, can be more easily expressed as, “Less government equals more fun.” These two seemingly dissimilar statements connect at the philosophical level because of the factors involved in dependency. We have become so dependent on the federal government that we can no longer be free.

Believe it or not, that is the fundamental principle of the United States Constitution. Every Article, Section, Clause and Amendment, prior to the 13^th Amendment, supports that simple idea. How do we, as States united in a common support agreement, create just the right amount of government at the federal level to protect us, hold us together and support each other, without at the same time creating a monster so big we can’t control it and thus lose our freedoms? In terms that are more expressive and entertaining; how do we keep the federal government from turning into Frankenstein’s Monster and running out of control?

The Democrats have a specific and universal goal. Nobody can make it within the party unless they instinctively agree to it. That goal is to create a tyranny of big government through which they can exercise total control over every aspect of our lives, from what we do with our money for our retirement to what kind of cars we drive, how we raise our children, even what kind of light bulbs we can buy, who we can marry, etc. Their stance on healthcare alone proves this. If the medical treatment of our own bodies is subject to federal regulation how can there be any control of the People over the government?

We now have the argument against the Republicans that they have no plan for federal government healthcare. That is as it should be. We also have within the Republican party large groups of people who think Obamacare should be repealed and replaced with something better. These are the people who are missing the point in just the same way as if Eisenhower’s commander over Utah Beach had the idea that the war should be won but the commander over Omaha Beach thought the war should be lost. The problem here in other words is really simple. There is no coordinating principle in operation between the two. Just as Ike should have, and did, appoint commanders who both wanted to defeat the Germans the Republicans should appoint only politicians who want to defeat the Democrat’s concept of big government tyranny.

Because the defining goal of limited federal power has been lost or forgotten and the strategy (principles) aren’t defined, the tactics (issues) all turn into a disorganized mess and the party falls apart and fails.

“A limited federal government in accordance with the United States Constitution,” would be a goal for the opposition of the Democrats. The general overall principles (strategy) of a party in opposition to the Democrats should be, “the elimination of all federal power not specified within the Constitution.” Then, and only then, will the issues (tactics) all be in alignment so the correct battles in the war for our freedoms can be properly determined, coordinated and won.

It all comes down to having the goals and principles with which to defeat the out of control federal government and having them well defined, articulated and taught at the grass roots level. Once that happens I think most thinking people would realize that most of the issues being discussed in this election should properly have nothing to do with the federal government.

Less government equals more fun. Until this is realized in the American public the only choice we will have is; which of the two out of control big government parties do we want to rule over us?