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.