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.

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.