Nice Men with Guns

I have a friend on Facebook who said this to me this morning; "I would like to support a constitutional government but at some point you are going to have to deal with mean people that do crappy things to other people through threat of violence and intimidation."

While that statement is true it got me thinking. Look at this; the threat of violence and intimidation is the only thing the government has to use to accomplish anything. No matter what it is that the Big Government wants to do, no matter what benefit they say it would be to everybody involved, the threat of violence and intimidation is the only tool they have to get it done. And how often is it that the mean people who are doing the crappy things to other people, are in the Big Government? That's what despotism is. You want to limit mean people that do crappy things to other people using such tactics? Then the first thing you have to do is limit the power of the government. Tyranny IS the threat of violence and intimidation.

Now I am not saying that there should be NO government. Brett's rule of debate #1 is; just because I don't agree with something does not mean I endorse what you conceive to be its most radical opposite. Just because I don't support absolute government does not mean I support no government. No anarchy for me please. As a the grandson of a nice man with a gun I have to say right here and now that I have the greatest unqualified respect for the police and the government within their proper function. There is a time and place for police as well as other government functions.  It's just that we are becoming far too accustomed with the idea that the government is supposed to provide us with everything, without understanding the nature of the consequences. If they provide everything, they control everything, even when they don't make sense.

There is a rather famous quote attributed to George Washington, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." I believe based on any research I've done, that Washington was not the original author of this quote. But really, whoever said it, no matter who it was, it is still the truth.

As a nation We the People have lost sight of something valuable. We have become dependent on Big Government to give us things without seeing the inevitable consequence that everything we allow the government to do to our supposed benefit, authorizes them to use the threat of violence and intimidation against us in that area.

Do you want roads? It's kind of nice to be able to get on I90 in Toledo, Ohio and drive all of the way to Seattle, Washington isn't it? Well where did the funding for that come from?

Somebody, somewhere, made that money. At some point the people who made that money had to fill out some tax forms and report their financial information to the federal government, along with a check for some number of dollars. Now some people would say, "Yea! Tax dollars for roads so we can drive across the country!" But the fact is undeniable to those who pay the taxes that failure to do so would result in a visit from Guido and Vinnie, the IRS agents. If you think for a moment that a visit from Guido and Vinnie is not intimidating you have never received a letter from the IRS. That is all there is in one of those letters. Unveiled, obvious threats of the things that will happen to you if you don't cough up the cash. Should the taxpayer decide he does not want those roads, or to give up his hard earned cash, Guido and Vinnie will fill out a warrant and nice men with guns will kindly show up at his door, incarcerate him and take his stuff.

So what about the land that the highway is built on? The federal government wants their road. Most of the time they would pay for the land for this kind of cause. What happens when the owner decides not to sell? Well, there is precedent for this. President Grant had a unique solution. He ordered General Sherman to kill all of the Indians along the route of the Transcontinental Railroad.

Genocide is a pretty crappy thing; usually done by mean people to other people. But it did give us the Transcontinental Railroad. Who did it? Well, the federal government of the United States.

Now, because of that sort of precedent, the owner of the property where I90 is supposed to go, knows he stands no chance. The best he can do is make as much noise as possible on the way out. One side will label him as a radical. The other side will label him as a hero or a victim.

Either way, that is the use of threat of violence and intimidation against us. Either way the right of property is being denied to the person who worked and owned that land. This is the naked truth of the situation before us in this country today.

The formula for passing something of this nature has to include some supposed benefit to "everybody." That they make it sound like something good, that everybody needs, and that they are the only beings on the planet who can get it done, is a con game. Sugar coated crap is still crap. Sugar coated force is still force. Anybody who disagrees, because the act of passing things of this sort has some supposed benefit to and unspecified generality known as "everybody," is labeled an anti-social radical. Swept under the rug is the fact that those people who owned the land and made the money have individual rights to their property too.

Here's the operating principle. Write it down so you'll remember it later. Every single time you grant the government the authority to do something on your behalf, you are also granting them the power to use the threat of violence and intimidation against you so that you will be forced to comply.

You want welfare? Nice men with guns will take your money and give it to someone else. You want government healthcare? The IRS—nice men with guns—has the authority to use the threat of violence and intimidation to insure your compliance. You want government Social Security? If your employer doesn't pay it nice men with guns will arrest him and thrown him in prison. The threat of violence and intimidation is all they have to use on anybody who does not comply with their wishes. And if you think that these things are not threatening, just fail to pay your taxes, once, and wait and see how threatening and intimidating the federal government verses YOU, can really be.

All you need after that is mean people who do crappy things to other people in the government and voilà!, tyranny and oppression. Something of a note on human nature is that mean people who do crappy things to other people have a tendency to be drawn to power like a moth to flames.

A limited federal government does not mean anarchy. It just means less threat of violence and intimidation from the federal government. The idea of a well regulated government is to assign only the appropriate level of the threat of violence and intimidation to the level where it belongs, and use that power only where it is absolutely necessary to preserve the peace and freedom of the people in the area where that power applies.

Let's say that a country called "Dumbcrapistan" decides to bomb Toledo, Ohio. National threat, right? Then the national government, under the direction of the Commander in Chief, gets involved and uses the threat of violence and intimidation against Dumbcrapistan to protect the People of the great state of Ohio. That's the appropriate level of government using the appropriate level of threat and force to protect the people of Ohio and the country. Under this protection the people of Ohio, and the United States, can get on with their lives.

Let's say that Brett catches the flu. Now we have a national government, capable of bombing Dumbcrapistan, wielding an incredible amount of threat and intimidation, through Vinnie and Guido who are nice men with guns who work for the IRS, being used against you, toward the effect of paying Brett's doctor bill. This makes the president of the United States of America directly and personally responsible for my health, and you being personally responsible for paying it. I ask you, is this the kind of force, and purpose, you want to have used against you for my benefit? Setting aside completely that there is no way to make any organizational sense out of it, is this the appropriate power to apply to the problem of my personal health?

Philosophically speaking, the definition of a useful tool would be one that provides or conducts the right amount of force, to the right places, to the accomplishment of a desired task.

Would you expect Michelangelo to carve David with a jack hammer? Well, with the federal government of these days it would be more like trying to carve David with dynamite. Just as dynamite is a great tool for certain jobs, it is just as much the wrong tool to carve David as it would be to use the power of the federal government to cure Brett's case of the flu—at least as far as Brett is concerned.

Just as you would use the right tools to employ the appropriate force to carve a statue, so should you choose the right force of government to resolve problems; never letting that force exceed the necessity of the task.

With regards to the principles of the Constitution, it all comes down a question of which things you want the government to be able to employ the use of force against you. In other words; which things do you want nice men with guns to force you to do?

Rights and Responsibilities

I would like to stake a claim towards being a dedicated supporter of human rights but I'm a little (okay, a LOT!!!) apprehensive about it. Being misunderstood bothers me sometimes and I want to be very careful about being taken in the same light as the Generation Snowflakes that are currently falling throughout the country.

Where the current crop of Snowflakes have it wrong is they have no understanding of what rights really are and their relationship to our responsibilities. From my own point of view I can’t see how it would ever be possible to have rights as a human being here in our world without the corresponding responsibilities. There seems to be a lot of muddled thinking on these lines, some of which comes from both sides of the isle and all points in between.

By analogy you could say that it is yellow snow which I refuse to eat.

Don't Fight the Power, Question It

I had a curious—and very short—conversation on Twitter last week. You know, sometimes it's just the little things that bother me, and sometimes those little things that bother me stick to me for a really long time, particularly when the little thing is connected to a gigantic principle.

The question I asked was; "Under what clause in the #Constitution is the authority for the president to do anything about jobs?"

The reply was; "There is none Brett. However, the Constitution does not restrict the president from doing things to help either. Are you anti-Trump?"

You see what I mean here? Every president and smarmy politician in my fifty-four years of life has been talking about jobs, jobs, jobs. Every. Single. Effing. One. Of. Them. They have failed so dismally that it is a wonder more people don't tell them to mind their own job instead of all of ours...but I digress.

Okay, I get it. Donald Trump won. He's in the limelight, and honestly, I'm very relieved that Clinton lost. I know the guy who responded to my tweet doesn't know me personally, but for all the noise about the federal government trying to create jobs, I still find it alarming to have someone jump immediately to the possibility of my being "anti-Trump," especially when I didn't even mention him.

The simple Twitter answer for me was; "I'm pro Constitution. If Trump follows it, cool. Although the 10th amendment means POTUS doesn't have that authority."

But I think a more in-depth answer to that question of possibly being anti-Trump is called for, so I will just go ahead and write one.

The premise of the question of my being for or against Trump is completely wrong. I just don't think in terms of support for or against any politician. Ever. And I would encourage you to do the same.

There are two problems in my Twitter follower's question to me.

The first is that anything not listed specifically in the Constitution as a federal power, is unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment for the federal government to engage in. That's what it's there for. The Tenth Amendment is specifically designed to protect the American People from special interest group's influence on them. Big Labor and Big Business, for example, are special interest groups. Having a president, any president, getting involved in creating jobs makes him susceptible to the influences of Big Labor and Big Business. It is thus that the job of a president, under the Constitution, is not to create jobs. The president's duty is to follow the Constitution. Under the Constitution it is his job to keep the federal government out of the way of the People so the People can create their own jobs without the corrupting influence of Big Labor or Big Business. That's the constitutional system.

Another example of this principle in operation would be Big Oil and Big Environment. How does the president become susceptible to the influences of Big Oil and Big Environment? Simple. Ignore the Tenth Amendment, which says it's none of his business anyhow, and start getting involved with the country's energy policy. There is no constitutional power for the federal government to do anything about energy and its uses by the People, or the environment.

There are hundreds of things this could apply to but the principle is exactly the same in every single one of them. Ignoring the Tenth Amendment not only makes Washington DC susceptible to lobbyists and special interest groups, it creates them through giving power to the federal government, over our lives, that they are not supposed to have in a free society.

It is not the point of the American federal government to have a president, acting as king, fixing everything the way he and his supporters want it. The point of the president of the United States is to keep the federal government running under constitutional limits, so that everybody can fix everything for themselves the way they want it.

Okay. Back to Joe Biden's three letter word, "jobs." Neither Donald Trump, nor any other president, past, present, or future, should be creating jobs. To do so is a violation of the Tenth Amendment. To that degree and on that subject I oppose them.

That's the first problem with the premise of this particular Twitter follower; that the federal government can stick its nose in anything they want, for any reason, without restriction, for the supposed good of us all.

The second problem is a bit bigger and ventures into the very nature of tyranny itself. Tyranny depends, surprisingly enough, on the support of the people of the country. It is not intuitively obvious that it is so, so I shall give an historical example.

There once, not too long ago, was a leader of a country who became a tyrant. (This tyrant shall remain nameless for the purpose of this article because I don't want people screaming, "He's comparing Trump to ____________!!!!" The point is to explain the nature of the people who follow a tyrant, not the tyrants themselves.) In order for those people to support him, they had to make one assumption above all other considerations. They assumed that the unnamed tyrant was GREAT!!! Following immediately under that consideration was the firm conviction that anybody who did not see or understand his greatness was somehow inferior, insane, or mistaken. See? He's GREAT!!!. Therefore everything he does is great. It "proves itself."

The unnamed leader that I speak of—and really, you should know who it is—through the unquestioned thought of his GREATNESS in the minds of everybody who should have known better, gained total control of everything in the country. Nothing he did was ever questioned, because it was so obvious he was GREAT the idea of questioning him on things that didn't really seem to make sense never crossed anybody's mind.

This extended to the degree that on making military decisions, when he issued orders to his generals, and they didn't understand the point of them, they just assumed he knew better than all of them combined, and they were just "too stupid" to understand his brilliance in military strategy and tactics. That's how far above them he really was—they thought—so they couldn't question him out of fear of looking stupid. When the orders turned out to be wrong and the battles, and eventually the war, was lost, the generals, true military experts who should have instantly spotted the supreme leader's incompetence, took the blame upon themselves. Why? Because they thought he was so unerringly GREAT that normal rules did not apply to him.

In other words, his cult of personality was so very strong that the people of his country were willing to follow him without question. And follow him they did. Straight to their deaths. Tens of millions of people who never questioned him, who may have lived full and prosperous lives had they bothered to simply understand and ask, wiped out simply for the fact of taking for granted that their leader was GREAT. Towards the end anybody who did question his judgment was summarily executed.

It is for this reason that I never, ever, EVER!!!, think in terms of supporting or opposing any politician on a personal basis. The Constitution is my only standard at the federal level. I only approve or disapprove of any politician relative to their exact job descriptions provided under it.

There is no other standard. I don't even bother to like them or dislike them because to do so is to risk our country and its people. And really, I don't know them personally so how could I rationally like or dislike them personally? The instant you begin to travel down the road of liking them or disliking them on any personal basis, you begin to make yourself vulnerable to the cult of personality at the risk of the constitutional system.

I don't care if the president is King Solomon and his decisions are directly from the wisdom of God Himself. I don't care if he is King Midas and everything he touches turns to gold which he promptly credits to my own bank account. Conversely, and to a certain sarcastic, joking degree, I wouldn't care if the president was filming porn, in the Oval Office, on the Resolute Desk, as long as he was following the Constitution while he was doing it.

None of those kinds of things are my standard. I don't care, on a personal basis, about any of them because we can never afford to just take for granted the decisions of any politician, or president, without looking at them and questioning them relative to the supreme law of the land; the United States Constitution.

This is how my support is determined. The same principle of evaluation would have applied to Clinton had she won. Because of this I am very glad she lost. But just because Clinton would have been a terrible president, especially under my exacting standards, does not—emphatically—mean that everything Donald Trump is proposing to do is automatically and unquestioningly great, beyond any reasonable need of logical and constitutional evaluation. That he is a competent businessman is completely beside the point. Because some people like him and think him to be a wonderful guy doesn't even register in my mind. That his support is growing to gigantic proportions is so far outside my scope of acceptance or caring that it was difficult for me to even type this sentence. The same principle applied to Obama. The same for Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, etc., all of the way back to Washington. And every single one of them without exception, did something as president, that was not, strictly speaking, any of their freaking business.

There are many things a president can do that would make the country prosperous which he would have no business doing under the Constitution. Every one of them that I can think of would involve some special interest benefiting some people and harming other people. Therefore and for this reason it is essential for the president to keep the federal government out of the way so we can get on the business of living our own lives for ourselves.

Don't fight the power. Question it. If you do, honestly, there would never be any reason to fight it.

The Worst President Ever (It's not who you think it is.)

It is said in some circles of philosophy that any person really only begins to decline when he abandons his principles.

It is also said that there are certain underlying principles which have to be maintained or freedom can't exist. You have the right to associate, which means for it to be a right, you also have to have the right to disassociate. What freedom could you possibly have if once you decided to join up with somebody for any noble purpose, when that purpose is abandoned, you can't sever the ties to them?

The fundamental principles of slavery are that you can't leave when you wish and the fruits of your labors are taken from you, against your will, for the benefit of someone else.

The United States was founded on the principle that the people's of the States could join or not, of their own free will. The Constitution did not have to be ratified because there were the guns and bayonets of General George Washington's army pointed at the people. The Framers of the Constitution debated exhaustively and formed a government which was voluntarily consented to and contributed to, by the People. It is the only time in human history that I'm currently aware of where this has happened.

In the 1860's several States decided to declare their own independence. Whether we agree with this decision or not is moot. They have the same right to leave or not leave the Union, based on their own integrity, as any wife has to leave any man whose marriage is no longer suitable to her. They have the same rights as any person who has ever left the partnership of a company. They have the same rights to leave as any individual or anybody who has ever left any friendship or employment. They have the same rights as anybody has ever had to leave any political movement with which they no longer agree.

Without that basic right, to sever the ties that bind you to any other person or group of people, freedom cannot exist. From the moment military force becomes involved you are chained by force to whatever they decide, no matter how disadvantageous it may be to your own existence.

I submit to you this basic principle: You cannot free slaves by enslaving the masters.  This is not to be understood as my saying that I agree with the Confederate States having slaves. It was wrong for them too. It is also not to be taken as my support for any of the reasons for their succession.

Since the first shots were fired over Fort Sumter on April 12th, 1861, the United States has been held together by military force, thus violating its basic principle, freedom, which is the natural birthright of not only every American, but every living being on the planet. Right there, without another word, we have violated the first rule of the fundamental principle of slavery. Rightly or wrongly we, as States, cannot leave, under the potential threat of our own destruction.

Now what of the second principle of slavery? The fruits of our labors taken from us against our will for the benefit of someone else? The current (as of this writing) government of the United States sucks 3.8 trillion dollars out of the American economy per year and nobody seems able or willing to stop it. If you doubt for a second that that money is not taken by threat of force, try not paying sometime and see how quickly the nice men with guns show up at your door. I cannot pretend to be arrogant enough to decide for you if that is money you wish to give for causes which you support. In the recesses of your own mind I also hope you will consider that to the same degree that you disagree with the taking of your money, or the spending of it, you are in every meaningful respect, a slave to the federal government of the United States of America, not as it was founded but as it currently is.

We are held to comply, as citizens of States, to every unconstitutional edict proclaimed by the federal government by military force, whether we agree or not, whether it benefits us or hurts us. We are held to comply to every crappy and smarmy federal politician who can bribe or threaten, through the potential loss of our individual sustenance owed to the federal government of the United States, the votes of enough people to win their office in Washington DC. We are held by military force, used to deny us the right to decide that enough is enough, having our basic rights as human beings destroyed. We can no longer choose not to participate against our will. We exist as the People of States bound to a federal government run out of control because the best means of correcting the actions of the federal government and bringing it back within constitutional limits has been taken from us.

Here is the man we have to thank for it and we have only to do so because he abandoned his principles or never really believed them in the first place.

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." —ABRAHAM LINCOLN, JANUARY 12, 1848

I think that it was the ultimate spit in the face to the men who risked their lives by signing the Declaration of Independence for Lincoln to "preserve the Union" in the manner which he did. The men who wrote this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..." would most certainly have disapproved. They would have done so because the manner in which the "preservation of the Union" was accomplished was at the expense of its primary fundamental concept.

It was not the action of a wise statesman but that of a brutal barbarian to use force to hold a voluntary association of States together. In doing so Abraham Lincoln cast himself as the same sort of character as King George III. Everything that Lincoln did to preserve the Union or free the slaves could have been accomplished by a wise statesman without the dreadful cost of war. Without that use of force in United States history any president or federal congressman would not have nearly as much power to annoy us as they currently have.

Therefore I very firmly believe that Abraham Lincoln was the worst president of the United States because the fundamental principle of the country was destroyed the instant he allowed combat to begin at Fort Sumter.

The United States, Ver 3.0: One Nation—Under Force

Do you realize that the United States, as it exists today, is the third country to be called the United States of America?

In the beginning we were British. It is one of those little inconvenient truths of American history that we have to live with and sometimes forget. It was just one really big unhappy empire. Their government was ours. Their people were ours. It, because of our remote nature, was never a really happy arrangement. This does not obviate the fact that we were the same people of the same country.

Then, for reasons I won't explain here, came the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War against the British, followed shortly by the first United States constitution—The Articles of Confederation.

That country, as it existed in the beginning, was the United States, Version 1.0. It's constitution was only enough to keep the several States together and participating in the war effort.

Incidentally, when the Colonies were finally granted their freedom by the British, they did it by granting independence to them, individually, naming all thirteen colonies as independent countries. More than that, under the Articles of Confederation, the States were regarded as different and separate countries. They even had different money from State to State. The only drawback was that the system under the Articles of Confederation wasn't working very well and they were in imminent danger of falling apart and being conquered on all sides.

So a convention was held and the Constitution was written, and thus was conceived the second United States of America, Version 2.0.

Part of that Constitution, Article Seven, contains the following text; "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States ratifying the same." This means; if States number ten through thirteen had never ratified the Constitution, they would have always been a different country. The United States, Version 1.0 and the United States, Version 2.0. This also means that another State could have joined the Articles of Confederation without joining the United States under the Constitution. Maybe they would have grown independently and indefinitely. We will never know.

This is, of course, hypothetical, because the States all eventually all seceded from the United States, Version 1.0 and ratified the Constitution, thus joining the United States, Version 2.0.

Even when the Constitution was ratified, it was done one State at a time, with two States, North Carolina and Rhode Island finally joining the United States more than a year later. It is interesting to note that during the time between when the Constitution was ratified by the 9th State, making the Constitution official, and when the 13th State joined, the two United States of America, Versions 1.0 and 2.0, existed side by side, in peace and cooperation, while being completely separate and different countries. One was operating under the Constitution (2.0) and the other under the Articles of Confederation (1.0). Both of these countries had separate congresses and presidents.

After that, every single State that joined this country did so, again, one state at a time, voluntarily, and of their own free will. And at least one of those States, The Republic of Texas, was its own independently operating country prior to joining the United States. The whole concept, that this country is a unified whole, is based on the fallacious assumption, taught by very poor history professors, that we have always been one country; as if the United States had just sprung fully grown from the head of Zeus.

Be that as it may, there is nothing in the Constitution that says this country is perpetual or that any State can't leave once they have joined. There is no Clause in the Constitution that gives the federal government the use of lethal force against any State deciding to leave the Union. Secession was broadly considered a right prior to the "Civil War." In fact and effect, the first State to secede from the United States, Version 2.0, was Massachusetts when they refused to participate in the War of 1812.

Freedom, by its own definition, has to include the right to leave. That's what freedom is. What was the problem with slavery? Simple. The slaves weren't allowed to leave! And if they did try to leave the threat of lethal force was used against them until they decided not to leave. If any man or woman were to walk of their own volition into a cage and by the same volition back out of it again, they would be said to be free.

I would tend to think that anybody with an education would understand that simple principle. It's the one the Declaration of Independence is based on when it said; "it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness."

An interesting and incidental fact which proves this argument is that Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States of America, was never tried for treason because there was no law against what he did in promoting and participating in the secession of the South. The idea that a State can't leave this country was written absolutely nowhere in law prior to the "Civil War," and is based on the worst kind of forceful tyranny which is the admiration of despots from Lincoln to Stalin. Yes. I did just compare Lincoln to Stalin and called him a despot. And I meant every single word of it.

From April 12th, 1860, when the Confederate States were forced to fire on Fort Sumter to prevent invasion from the Union States in the North, forward, the United States changed from one nation under God, to one nation under the threat of lethal force if you do not comply. As it was for the slaves so it is with us. The only thing lacking being the physical chains. Where with slavery the force was executed against the individuals the force is now executed against entire groups of States. Where whips and chains were used entire armies are employed.

Holding a large group of people, on a large piece of land, in compliance to your will, by threat of military force, is no different in principle than holding an individual on the same basis.

Thus the United States of America, Version 2.0, was violently destroyed and replaced by the United States of America, Version 3.0.

From the very instant force was used to hold this country together, against the will of the States of which it was freely composed, it became something the founding fathers never intended it to be, and never would have supported. From that time on, one part of the country has been forced at the muzzle of really big guns, to be ruled by the dictates of the other parts of the country. This is true no matter who is in the White House. This is true no matter who holds the majority of the Supreme Court or Congress.

The difference between the United States, Version 2.0 and Version 3.0 was forcefully and illegally ratified by the 14th Amendment. And while I agree whole heartedly with Section One of the 13th Amendment, Section Two represents the first time the federal government expanded beyond the Constitutional limits of the 10th Amendment. For all intents and purposes, the government of the United States was changed at that point, from a limited federal government, to an unlimited federal government. Thus the country, while it looked the same and sounded the same, is fundamentally different.

Niccolò Machiavelli would have been proud.

I was surprised this week by the owner of the company I work for at my day job when he told me he thought the best solution for the lethargic economy would be to dissolve the Union and let each State go at it on their own. His point is simply that as a company owner the number of federal regulations he is having to spend money on, to be in compliance with, is making it difficult for him to be in business. I understand his frustration because there is no doubt that if he were to not comply, nice men backed by the force of guns would shut his business down and incarcerate him.

Since the election of Donald Trump I've seen petitions circulating in the liberal States to secede from the Union. This is nothing new. When Obama was elected, then reelected, I saw the same thing from more conservative States.

We are still fighting the problems that created the "Civil War" because the real issues, that of the rural areas verses the urban areas of the country, were never resolved. Rather than handling the real issues that created the "Civil War" the conversation keeps getting sidetracked into racism and slavery. The only difference between now and the 1860s is that instead of North verses South, it has become the coasts verses fly over country, as the 2016 election map, by country, below clearly illustrates.

The propaganda is the same as it was then. The issues, slavery notwithstanding, are the same as they were. Prior to the South's threats of secession several States in the North threatened secession. It goes this way all the way back to the beginning of our history.

As it was prior to the "Civil War" the most densely populated areas of the country want different things based on different standards than the least densely populated areas. And while we are chained together, by the threat of force, neither can ever be truly happy.

When Obama was elected Texas wanted to secede and they were called crazy. When Trump and Bush were elected California wanted to secede and they were called crazy.

You want to know what crazy is?

Crazy is when two or more dissimilar kinds of people are held together by the force of really big guns, threatened by complying with the views of the other side, locked in a prolonged struggle, with each side vying for forceful domination over the other.

When the nation recovers from that insanity it will become the United States of America, Version 4.0.

I do not wish to advocate the breaking up of the United States. I'm just saying that the threat of impending force is the worst possible way to hold a country together. When the States are free to leave the country—in the same peace and freedom in which they entered it—the federal government would tend to practice a bit more restraint in their overreaching policies, then maybe the rest of us will have a chance.

Trump's First Hundred Day Plans: IWFTCP Constitutional Score, 51.5%

In my last article, How to Destroy the Two Party System: IWFTCP Principles, I mentioned a method of highlighting the text of a political speech or article to point out the parts that do or don't follow the Constitution. This is an example of the method I have been working on for a while; although I haven't published any of them except this one yet. There may be a lot more of these in the future because it seems like it might be a good way to make my point.

If you are sympathetic to the IWFTCP and its goals, and you want to score a couple of speeches or statements of politicians to see how they rate, go ahead! If you do one that seems particularly enlightening and of high public interest, contact me, and if it seems consistent I'll publish your work here with full credit to you.

The idea here is that the red text is where the use of government powers are mentioned or assumed that objectively follow the Constitution according to my current understanding. It is important to understand that, per the Tenth Amendment, in order for a mentioned power to be colored red, that power has to be specifically mentioned within the Constitution. Blue texts are mentions of the use of federal power that have nothing to do with anything named within the constitution.

The Tenth Amendment [10A] comes up a lot. Sometimes red, sometimes blue. Where it is red it indicates a power being given up that has nothing to do any power the feds are supposed to have. Where it is blue is a mention of federal power that should be left to the States and/or the People being taken by the federal government in spite of the Tenth Amendment.

How to Destroy the Two Party System: IWFTCP Principles

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution." — John Adams

Are you tired of the two party political system? I sure as hell am!

It's interesting that the idea behind forming the political parties was so people who have common sets of political values and interests could group together, work together, and influence the government to pass law in accordance with those values. Republicans are supposed to be conservative, such and such, while Democrats are supposed to be liberal, so and so, and Libertarians, well, they are supposed to be as little government as possible.

While I tend to be closer in my political philosophy to the Libertarians, or the Republicans when they are doing what they promise to do—which never seems to last very long—I have recently discovered something about them all that shook my world. They don't exist to help you influence the government to pass laws according to your values. They exist to get you to compromise your values until whatever is left is in accordance with their goals for themselves.

It is not about you. Ever. It is about them and their power and how they can twist what you want, so that you support what they want, with little or nothing left of what you wanted for yourself.

Look at the primary process of both of the major parties.

(At the time of this writing in late 2016) Democrats basically had Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton as viable candidates. The party kneecapped Bernie Sanders with "super delegates" who were shills for Clinton, almost from the very start. So by the time the general election came around they were faced with either Hillary or Trump. From the perspective of the Bernie supporters, they are now asked to compromise their values for the "lesser of two evils" in order to prevent the "greater of two evils" from winning. If this sounds familiar to you, it should. Generally speaking I have absolutely no use for liberals so I won't waste any more time on them.

Republicans had a whole truck load of people. Almost all of them who would hue much closer to following the Constitution were eliminated from the beginning. Most of this, I think, is because the Republican Party has become filled with people who don't understand the Constitution or simply don't care about it. In the end it came down to the guy with political experience, who knows the Constitution, and the guy without political experience, substituting business experience instead, who very obviously does not understand the Constitution. Before you assume I'm a dedicated, #NeverTrump, Cruz guy, and am only writing this out of bias towards him, and some sort of harbored animosity because my candidate didn't win, Ted Cruz was fourth from the top on my list of available candidates.

Now the thing about Republicans is that they are supposed to be the party of limited government under the Constitution. At least that's what they say. Yet somehow when they are on the verge of doing something that could really change the way things are going, toward the constitutionally limited government they purport to want, some gang of some number cave in and snatch defeat for us from the jaws of victory by siding with the Democrats. In the mean time your values, that you wanted to be expressed through the government via the Republican Party, have been compromised with values that you opposed.

There are a lot of things, both positive and negative to be said about Donald Trump. I'm going to go with the positive. He's better than Hillary Clinton. He's obviously a superlative businessman. He understands money and the way business works. To even begin to be that successful in business you have to be a very good leader. However, I don't think that experience translates to a positive when it comes to a Constitutionally limited government. The two instincts—the businessman verses a limited government politician—are diametrically opposed. The purpose of business is to grow. The instincts of a businessman, a leader, is to make the business grow. The purpose of the president of the United States, under the constitutionally limited government, is to make the federal government remain small.

When I listen to Donald Trump I hear nothing but his plans to use federal government power to fix everything. It is not the purpose of a president under the Constitution to fix everything for us, according to his wishes. It is to keep the government operating under constitutional limits so that we can be free to fix everything for ourselves, according to our own wishes. That's what freedom is.

So the party of the constitutionally limited government—which is the reason why most conservatives joined it in the first place—nominated a guy who apparently doesn't understand the Constitution and has no government experience, to be president of the United States.

And now, under the threat of something that would be catastrophically worse—Hillary Clinton—you are asked to compromise your values in order to prevent the greater of existing evils.

And you know what? THEY KNOW FULL WELL THAT YOU WILL DO IT. Well then, just ask yourself, what would happen if they knew full well that you WOULDN'T do it?

You have been played and betrayed from the very beginning, just like Bernie supporters. You have been pushed inch by inch away from the Constitution by them and it has now reached the point that most people in the country don't even understand what the Constitution is or what a president is supposed to do for the country under it. Because they know in the end, if they can paint you into a corner and make the situation appear desperate enough, you'll cave in, in order to prevent something worse.

The fact is that the bulk of the Republican Party has abandoned the Constitution. And if you are a constitutionalist, as I am, they have abandoned you as well. I'm so tired of pulling Republican knives from my back, because of their "reaching across the aisle to get things done" that I refuse to play along anymore.

When I joined the Navy I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution; and bear true faith and allegiance to the same. That means that if I compromise the principles of that oath to support any party or person who will not follow the Constitution, I am at the very best case complicit with treasonous behavior to the United States of America. That, if you're not used to hearing it, sounds extreme I'll admit, but I assure you, the definitions of the words I'm using are correct. And the Constitution is not an extreme position, it's the supreme law of the land.

Be that as it may, whatever else any person who votes for the lesser of two evils is doing, they are fully endorsing the two party system by playing along.

Again I ask you; what if they KNEW full well that you WOULD NOT play along?

That, my friends, is the seed crystal thought behind the start of the "I Will Follow the Constitution Party" (IWFTCP).

This party is unique and simple. It is a movement of only individuals whose political dedication is only to the Constitution. The only principles of the IWFTCP start with, "We the People..." and end with the signature of George Washington and his friends—plus the legally passed amendments. There are no debates between us. There is no nominee for you to compromise your principles with or for. There are no conventions or meetings required, although if you want to meet with other IWFTCP members that is up to you. There is no criticism from other members for not picking the "lesser of two evils." There is no pressure to side with any candidate or against any other, for any reason. Whether you assume yourself to be the only member, or one of many, is completely irrelevant. You are a party of one. It's totally up to you.

The candidate either follows the Constitution, to the letter as it is written, or he loses your support. Period. The End. No negotiations. No compromise. It's just you and your decision whether you believe him or not.

Now if you want, you can call me the originator of this party. I am most certainly that. But I want nothing else from it; not your money, not your support, not your recognition, not your admiration, nothing except the destruction of the two party system and the re-establishment of the United States Constitution. Neither I, nor any other true member of the IWFTCP, will seek to wield any power over you whatsoever.

There are really only two things I would kindly ask of you, if the singular goal of the IWFTCP—the understanding and full restoration of the Constitution—is one you share. The first is that you learn the Constitution. In this I can be somewhat helpful. The second is that you pass the idea along in any way you can. If you like you can put my name to it but by no means is that a requirement of any sort. It's not about me. It's about you.

Membership to this party is the simplest thing in the world. You look in the mirror and take the following oath, "I will follow the Constitution," and MEAN IT. At that point you are a party member until such time as you knowingly don't follow the Constitution. Then, by your own considerations, you will have ejected yourself from the party. You need not notify anybody either way but you can if you want to. It's up to you.

The one thing that I would very strongly recommend for all IWFTCP members is to KNOW the Constitution as well as you can. To this end I'm going to get a little bit philosophical on you.

It is in the nature of knowledge of any sort, that the immunity for making mistakes through ignorance is gained through direct knowledge of the subject. Now the following is not intended to talk down to anybody, it's just an obvious example of the principle behind the preceding sentence.

This is the color "red"             . Got it? That's knowledge. You perceive the color red and have named it in your mind, henceforth and forevermore, red. Any time you see this color,             , you think "aah! red." You know it is red and that much is fully beyond doubt.

Now suppose the Supreme Court of the United States issues a ruling that this color,             , is red? Unless you are extremely colorblind in a way that nobody in the history of mankind has ever been, you could not possibly be fooled by any argument they would make, following any precedent ever concocted by the most insane of human minds, that this color,              is red. It's kind of obvious isn't it?

You know this is red,             , and this,             , is blue. Don't you? You instantly recognize it. You instantly know that anybody who tells you anything else is full of crap and of that there is no doubt. That simple demonstration is immunity from making mistakes through ignorance. You cannot be fooled.

It's the same thing with the Constitution if you know it. Really.

Article One, Section Eight gives us a list of the only powers the federal government is allowed to have. The Tenth Amendment tells us that the government is not allowed to take any powers other than those. That's red,              if you know the Constitution well enough to establish some certainty on the matter.

You must know the Constitution well enough to instantly recognize any power the federal government takes onto itself, above Article One, Section Eight, immediately looks like this              to you.

When Chief Justice Roberts says, "Obamacare is constitutional because it's a tax," you know immediately and obviously that he is wrong. And yes, the Supreme Court can be just as wrong as any other branch of the federal government. When a candidate for president says, "we need to build a better and stronger Navy," you know immediately and obviously that he is talking about a valid Constitutional power.

Now there are times when it can be a bit confusing, so you have to have some power to discern one thing rapidly from another. When a candidate tells you he wants to, "repeal and replace Obamacare," you have to rapidly know that any replacement would be as unconstitutional as Obamacare because there is no provision in the Constitution that gives the government power to regulate your healthcare in any way, form, or manner. Get it? It sounds good, and it might even be an improvement, but if you look at it, it's not Constitutional.

So here's what I think you should do, and it's completely up to you if you do it or not. Read Article One, Section Eight and identify the powers that Congress is limited to. It's somewhere in the neighborhood of twenty things depending on how you count them. Read the Tenth Amendment and understand that they are not allowed to do anything else. Know them with some certainty. Then go to any candidate's website, copy the text to a word processor, and highlight each part of it red or blue, according to the powers in Article One, Section Eight. Then decide only based on the percentage of it that is red or blue if you want to vote for that candidate or not.

Yes. Throw out any and all other considerations. ALL OTHER ARGUMENTS ARE ONLY THERE TO MANIPULATE YOU INTO GIVING UP YOUR OWN VALUES!!!

After you have done so it would be extremely helpful to the Constitution if you would call or write the candidate and let them know why you made your decision, limiting your conversation only to constitutional issues.

Let them know that you will not compromise the Constitution for the sake or support of any candidate or party politics. Let them know that you WILL NOT play along with two party considerations. When they suggest something unconstitutional, the proper question is, "what article, section, clause or amendment gives them that power?" If it isn't there it isn't there.

In America it is not the Democrats or Republicans who have the real power. It is you, as a party of one, who has that power. All human action is individual. They've known it all along. It's time you knew it too.

Rise up and take it back.