Some Of You Still Don’t Get It

Posted on February 24, 2013 by neal

http://www.zombie-slayer.com/neal/?p=932

Just fair warning, this one is a tad bit long, even for me.

My last article garnered a comment from someone I know that proves that I was right when I said that most

people couldn’t name even five of the rights protected by the Bill of Rights. This person, who I won’t mention,

but who knows who they are, said that I was nuts because we can still exercise all our rights. So I asked them

to name five of the rights, just as the article said. The first thing they said was freedom of speech, followed by a

long pause. So I prodded, what else? Then they blurted out I plead the fifth. To which I replied, you ought to

before you make a bigger fool of yourself than you already have. Of course that didn’t go over too well, but it

proved my point that most people CAN’T name the rights which our Founders felt were so important that they

listed them individually in the Bill of Rights.

If people aren’t capable of telling you which rights the Founders specifically listed in the first ten amendments to

the Constitution, how in the hell are they capable of telling you if they have been infringed upon? On top of that,

I don’t think they understand, no matter how many times I have tried to explain it, what the word infringed really

means. So let me try and make this as simple as I can.

Okay, say you have a television in your home. You can watch whatever you want, for as many hours a day as

you want to, that is your right. Now say someone passes a law which says that you can no longer watch certain

channels, or that you can only watch your TV for a certain number of hours every day. Your ability to exercise

your right to watch whatever, and for how long, has been limited. That is infringement.

Although watching TV is not a right protected by the Bill of Rights, I think that SHOULD help explain what

infringement means. Therefore, as that applies to those rights protected by the Bill of Rights, any law,

ordinance, or code which LIMITS a person’s ability to exercise a specific right is an infringement, and has

violated the Constitution.

It does not matter if 99.9% of the people support a law which limits, [infringes upon], a person’s ability do

exercise one of the unalienable rights protected in the first ten amendments to the Constitution, such a law

cannot legally be passed.

I know I have used this quote probably hundreds of times before, but I will keep doing so until you get it. In

1943 the Supreme Court, specifically Justice Robert Jackson, ruled, making it a legal precedent, “The very

purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to

place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied

by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and

assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote’ they depend on the outcome of no

elections.”

In his Second Treatise on Civil Government, John Locke argued that our fundamental, or natural rights,

predates government, that is they have existed since man first walked the earth and that no form of

government may interfere with them. In fact, Locke also argued that any government which does limit a

person’s ability to freely exercise their rights loses all legitimacy. Locke wrote his treatise in 1690, long before

the thought of independence ever crossed our Founders minds.

It was almost 100 years later that James Madison would write his Memorial and Remonstrance, in which he

said, “The preservation of a free government requires not merely that the metes and bounds which separate

each department of power be universally maintained but more especially that neither of them be suffered to

overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of the people. The rulers who are guilty of such an

encroachment exceed the commission from which they derive their authority and are tyrants. The people who

submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them and are

slaves.”

This principle applies to government in general, be it federal, state, or local. Any governmental body which

therefore passes any law which limits, in the slightest, a person’s ability to exercise ANY of their rights is

therefore tyrannical.

Our liberty depends upon how freely we are able to exercise our rights without some law which limits our ability

to do so. As Thomas Jefferson said in a letter to Francis Gilmer, in 1816, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action

according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of

the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

So, as it seems that many people in this country do not even know what their rights are, and are therefore

unaware that they are being infringed upon, Therefore it seems to have fallen upon my shoulders to enlighten

these people as to how far their rights have been infringed upon.

Our rights are not granted us by the Bill of Rights, they are insured by it. That document merely states that

these rights exist and that NOBODY can pass a law, or ordinance, which limits our ability to exercise them.

Therefore, to explain how our rights have been in infringed, I felt it was best to go through the Bill of Rights,

amendment, by amendment, and explain what they meant, and then, how that particular right has been limited.

The First Amendment lists 5 rights which it was intended to protect; the freedom of religion, freedom of speech,

of the press, of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of

grievances.

As it is written, it says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the

free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably

to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

I guess the best way to do this is to take each right in the order they are mentioned in the Bill of Rights. So the

first of these rights is the freedom of religion. It was NEVER intended that the First Amendment limit a person’s

ability to worship as they please. This wall of separation between church and state comes from a letter written

by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. This wall of separation that Jefferson mentions was to keep government

from interfering in the affairs of the church, and the church from interfering in the affairs of government. It was

in no way intended to limit the right of the people to worship as they please.

In the Supreme Court case of IAM v. Street (1961), the Court held that, “The very reason for the First

Amendment is to make the people of this country free to think, speak, write and worship as they wish, not as

the Government commands.”

A quarter century later, in the Supreme Court case of Texas vs. Johnson, the Court held, “If there is a bedrock

principle of the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply

because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

To limit a person from expressing themselves, be it through their speech, their ability to create what they

consider to be art, or through their ability to read Scripture or pray, is censorship, and it was never intended that

our government was to be allowed to censor the people in these areas. This does not simply apply to the

government enacting laws, it also applies to how the courts ruled on these laws. As I have used before, in the

case of West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, Justice Robert Jackson ruled, “The very purpose of a

Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them

beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.

One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and

other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

In two landmark cases, Engel v. Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp, the Supreme Court basically

banned prayer in public schools. There are certain people, among them renowned atheist Michael Newdow,

who have made it their personal crusade to see religion completely banned from outside the home and

churches. For the most part the courts have ruled in the favor of these groups who say that for students to pray

in a public school, funded by taxpayer dollars, violates that wall of church and state.

If a group of students, of their own volition, decide to pray before a ceremony or sporting event, it is their

choice, not the schools. To deny them the right to do so is to censor them, and a violation of the First

Amendment. It does not matter if by them praying you are offended, as upheld by Texas v. Johnson. The First

Amendment does not protect your right to not be offended, if we take one step upon that slippery slope, where

are we to end, when all speech is restricted because it offends?

Which leads us to the next right protected by the First Amendment, the freedom of speech. Do the phrases

hate speech and thought crimes ring a bell? If freedom of speech, a byproduct of thought, be banned by

legislation, how can they say that we have full freedom of speech? Listen, there will always be people who

hate, you can’t legislate it away. By making certain words, phrases, or even thoughts, a crime, you have,

however, infringed upon a person’s right to freely speak, which IS protected by the First Amendment. For a

person to speak openly of their hatred for something should NOT be a crime. However, if they take action

based upon their beliefs, that is a different story, as then they would be guilty of violating another’s rights.

I will not spend much time on freedom of the press because that is another subject which I have previously

written on. Let it be enough to say that our press has been bought up and is controlled by the same people who

control our government. So while we do not have too many clear cut violations of the freedom of the press by

government, we do have a biased and controlled press which only tells us what certain people want us to hear.

Next up is freedom to assemble. Look at the word freedom, what are the first four letters? Free, that is freedom,

when you have freedom to do something, it is FREE. Now tell me, when you need to obtain a permit to hold an

assembly, and that permit costs you, or is granted at the discretion of some bureaucrat, can you honestly say

you are free to assemble? What about laws which make it illegal to protest within so many feet of the president,

as did HR 347. Under HR 347 it becomes illegal to protest on any grounds which are ‘restricted in conjunction

with an event designated as a special event of national significance.’

So, all the government, or Secret Service for that matter, has to do is declare a rally, and this could be a

campaign rally, or any other speech given by any government official, as an event of national significance, and

the people would be banned from assembling in protest.

And finally, what about the freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances? Have you tried

petitioning them? How about writing them to voice your concerns over an issue? What have you gotten in

response? Most of the times I get form letters, probably sent out by some intern or low level staffer whose job it

is to answer the mail of the representative they work for. Do you honestly think the person you write ever sees

your letters? If anything, all that is happening is a file is being created for you and your name is being added to

some sort of watch list as a potential trouble maker, or terrorist threat. Does this sound like a government who

listens to, and cares about what the people they represent has to say? Not unless of course it is pleas for help

or more governmental micromanagement of our lives. Then they are more than willing to oblige. But if you

protest ANY of their actions, you are ignored, even if you provide irrefutable evidence that those actions have

violated the Constitution.

So, in my opinion, the First Amendment is dead, no longer protected by government. So, let’s now move on to

the Second Amendment, which states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

When asked, most people will tell you that we still have the militia as described in the Constitution, in the form

of the National Guard. But, is that what the Founders meant, and is that what the law says? Title 10, Section

311 of the United States Code says the following about the militia:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as

provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention

to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the

National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are-

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval militia

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National

Guard or Naval militia.

So, there we have it, there are TWO categories of militia, and one of them is composed of members of society

who ARE NOT members of the National Guard. As Founding Father Tenche Coxe once said in an article in the

Pennsylvania Gazette in 1788, “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall

turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords,

and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the

sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain,

in the hands of the people.”

In the time of our nation’s war for independence, who was it that first rallied to halt the British confiscation of

arms at Lexington and Concord? It was the militia, organized of simple men responding to threats posed, not

by external forces, but threats against their rights by their government. Although it may sound treasonous now,

that is the purpose of the militia, to protect the people in the enjoyment of their liberty from threats posed by

government. If you don’t believe me, just read what Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist 29, “…that standing

army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens,

little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms.”

To once again quote Tenche Coxe, “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may

attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might

pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to

keep and bear their private arms.”

Yet I don’t need mention how many laws have been written which prohibit us from owning and carrying arms

publicly. As I have said, if a right is limited in any way, it has been infringed, and it matters not if the courts

uphold the law, it is a violation of our rights. You can argue otherwise, but the facts state that it is our right to

own weapons, with no mention of any limits as to the type, number of rounds fired, or whether they be single

shot, semi-automatic, or fully automatic weapons as such carried by a standing army. So yes, our Second

Amendment is well under way to being completely annihilated by government.

The Third Amendment remains pretty much intact, as it states, “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered

in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

Now the Fourth Amendment, that is a different story altogether, as it has come under unrelenting attack,

especially after the events of 9/11. The Fourth Amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their

persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and

no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing

the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The Fourth Amendment was written, in part, to guarantee the right of privacy to the people when it comes to

searches of their persons, their property, and their homes. In 1780 Massachusetts enacted its own Declaration

of Rights. Article XIV of that document states, “Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable

searches, and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions.”

In 1914, the Supreme Court, in the case of Weeks v. United States, ruled, “In Adams v. New York, this court

said that the 4th Amendment was intended to secure the citizen in person and property against unlawful

invasion of the sanctity of his home by officers of the law, acting under legislative or judicial sanction. This

protection is equally extended to the action of the government and officers of the law acting under it. To

sanction such proceedings would be to affirm by judicial decision a manifest neglect, if not an open defiance, of

the prohibitions of the Constitution, intended for the protection of the people against such unauthorized action.”

Ever since George W. Bush declared his war on terror, the Fourth Amendment has come under vicious attack.

Beginning with the passage of the Patriot Act, the growth of Homeland Security and the expansion of powers

granted the TSA, our rights, as protected by the Fourth Amendment have basically been erased.

You don’t believe me, try boarding a plane without passing through some sort of scan or body search, then ask

them to see the warrant stating probable cause for them searching you. Under the war on terror every

American is a suspect and that is reasonable cause enough for the agencies of the government to invade the

privacy of your person, your home, and your belongings.

On top of this, the ATF has been known to provide falsified data to obtain a warrant, and then invade the home

of persons suspected of violating gun laws, confiscate all their records and firearms, and only later is it

discovered that the warrant was issued under false pretenses.

So you tell me, do we still enjoy the protection of our right to privacy as outlined by the Fourth Amendment, or

has it also fallen by the wayside?

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise

infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or

naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be

subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal

case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor

shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

This amendment covers way too much to be covered in one article alone, so I will confine my talks to the very

last part, “… nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be

taken for public use, without just compensation.”

As I mentioned in the discussion of the Fourth Amendment, how many times have agencies such as the ATF

raided a person’s home and confiscated their records, their computers, their guns, without due process of law

and without compensation? Too many times for me to count. And does GITMO mean anything to you, or the

NDAA, the fact that your government may now declare YOU to be a terrorist, or a threat, and indefinitely detain

you without trial and without your right of habeas corpus?

You think mass detentions wont’ happen really need to look back no further to World War II when American

citizens of Japanese descent where incarcerated because our government feared they were loyal to Japan and

not America. History can, and does have a habit of repeating itself and that is why we have the Fifth

Amendment.

So, just from what I’ve seen, the Fifth Amendment has also come under attack and the rights it protects are not

as secure as they were supposed to be. We’re not doing too good are we? Halfway through the Bill of Rights

and only one Amendment seems to be intact.

The Sixth Amendment states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and

public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which

district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the

accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining

witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

In his Commentaries on the Laws of England, Sir William Blackstone writes, “Upon these accounts the trial by

jury even has been, and I trust ever will be, looked upon as the glory of the English law. And, if it has so great

an advantage over others in regulating civil property, how much must that advantage be heightened, when it is

applied to criminal cases! But this we must reafer to the ensuing book of these commentaries: only observing

for the present, that it is the most transcendent privilege which any subject can enjoy, or with for, that he cannot

be affected either in his property, his liberty, or his person, but by the unanimous consent of twelve of his

neighbours and equals.”

Furthermore, John Jay, who was to become our first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, once wrote, “The

cause of America is now the object of universal attention: it has at length become very serious. This unhappy

country has not only been oppressed, but abused and misrepresented; and the duty we owe to ourselves and

posterity, to your interest, and the general welfare of the British empire, leads us to address you on this very

important subject.

Know then. That we consider ourselves, and do insist that we are and ought to be, as free as our fellow-

subjects in Britain, and that no power on earth has a right to take our property from us without our consent.

That we claim all the benefits secured to the subject by the English constitution, and particularly that

inestimable one of trial by jury.

That we hold it essential to English liberty, that no man be condemned unheard, or punished for supposed

offences without having an opportunity of making his defence.”

This, then, is the nature of the Sixth Amendment, that we cannot be held without a trial and our property cannot

be seized without just compensation. But, ever since 9/11 we have had bills passed, such as the Military

Commissions Act which would place us at the mercy of a military tribunal if we be accused of being a terrorist,

and now the NDAA which Obama has said may apply to American citizens.

So, from my perspective, if the government wants you out of the way, the Sixth Amendment is not going to get

in its way.

Well, well, we have found another amendment which for the most part, seems intact, the Seventh, which

states, “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by

jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United

States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

However, the Eighth Amendment is a different story. The Eighth Amendment states, ” Excessive bail shall not

be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

Before I continue, let me tell you something Thomas Jefferson once said. Jefferson once wrote, “It behooves

every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their

case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.”

Therefore, just let me say two things; Abu Ghraib and water boarding. I’m sure that inside the many

penitentiaries that dot our nation there are other instances of cruel and unusual punishment, but those two

should be enough to prove that in regards to the right of a person to be free from it, the Eighth Amendment has

also been violated.

Fret not, where almost done. The Ninth Amendment simply states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of

certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

This simply means that just because the Bill of Rights does not specifically say that you may eat cabbage, that

you do not have the right to do so, or to own a 4-wheel drive vehicle, a flat screen TV, or a whole slew of other

rights. In fact, in Federalist 84 Alexander Hamilton clearly explains the very reason for which the Ninth

Amendment was written, “I go further, and affirm, that Bills of Rights, in the sense and to the extent in which

they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.

They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and on this very account, would afford a

colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.”

It seems simple enough, but are those many unlisted rights still protected? What about if you want to purchase

a toilet that uses 25 gallons per flush, can you do so? What about if you want to buy a 125 watt incandescent

light bulb, can you do so? Our government has passed so many laws limiting what we can and cannot do that it

has taken upon itself the role of micromanaging our lives. I would say that although you can choose between

McDonalds and Burger King does not prove that your Ninth Amendment rights are intact. But that’s just me.

Finally, the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment states, “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.”

To understand this amendment you MUST understand what powers the Constitution grants the government.

But, let it suffice to say that the federal government HAS overstepped the boundaries of its powers and

infringed upon the rights of the states.

The Civil War is a perfect example of this. The states agreed to the Constitution, creating the federal

government. If, at any time, the states decided that the Union was no longer something they wished to be a

part of they had the right to declare it, and secede. That is the very principle our nation was founded upon, as

written in the Declaration of Independence. Yet the federal government not only denied that principle, it went to

war to prevent it.

I could go on and on with examples of the federal government overstepping the boundaries that separate its

powers from those of the states, but I will just mention one. What about when a state passes a law legalizing

marijuana, and the feds intervene? Where in the Constitution does it grant the federal government the authority

to criminalize the usage of marijuana. Go ahead, I’ll wait while you go look. But be forewarned, you won’t find it.

With that said, the federal government has become lord of master of all, subverting the states from co-

sovereigns to mere members of a union who are beholden to the federal plantation master.

So, yeah, the Tenth Amendment is dead.

So, how did we do? Two out of ten still standing. Not too good America. I’m sure your ancestors would be

proud. In fact, were our Founders alive today they would probably say, as did Sam Adams, “If ye love wealth

greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us

in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your

chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” In fact I know that’s what

he’d be saying, because it is the same thing I say all the damn time.

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.

← You Tell Me-Where’s The Justice?

33 Responses to Some Of You Still Don’t Get It

1. Rob Harris says:

February 24, 2013 at 21:45

Not in the least surprised by this article because I wrote something similar (not published) a couple of months ago. With the

exception to the prelude to the Declaration of Independence, this makes a good beginning for a list of grievances. Too bad

most Americans know more about who is screwing whom than they do bout their own rights being trampled upon.

Reply

Sergio of the Jungle says:

February 27, 2013 at 06:50

They see everyone else getting screwed but themselves. The bigger picture is; they don’t want to know about it.

Reply

2. neal says:

February 25, 2013 at 04:34

I can’t believe that people are more concerned with celebrity trivia, sporting statistics, or anything for that matter, at the

expense of not knowing their rights, the function of their government, and what their government is doing. The brainwashing

of the people, and the dumbing down of them has been complete.

Reply

3. Rebecca says:

February 25, 2013 at 08:11

I wish the sheeple would realize the impending collapse is coming. Thanks for fighting the good fight. You are not alone.

Reply

4. mikrat says:

February 26, 2013 at 14:19

Excellent.

This should be sent to every Sheriff in the country. You know – those Sheriffs who say they wont Violate any of our

Constitutional Rights, Yet do so on a daily basis because they have no real understanding of said Constitution and so that

they can keep sucking on the Federal tit.

The very same Sheriffs that say they won’t enFORCE any UN Constitutional gun laws – Yet are all for enFORCEing gun

permits – and will gleefully take your home after the Banker Boss’s tell them to do so.

Reply

ARIZONA says:

February 26, 2013 at 17:21

READ ,THE DICK ACT OF 1902, forbids all gun laws,it can’t be repealed,it can’t be changed, and anyone violating it is

considered guilty of treason…………KnowThe Lies.com

Reply

Puschka says:

February 26, 2013 at 21:17

Damn straight about these sheriffs!

Reply

5. Don Ruane says:

February 26, 2013 at 15:23

The reason is our school system.

No one under 40 has read the Founder Documents.

These are not taught in our Public Schools.

Just do a quick survey of your friend, bet none have read the Founding document in their lives..

Reply

Neal says:

February 26, 2013 at 17:48

Actually, the person who said that is nearing 65.

Reply

David says:

February 26, 2013 at 19:33

Texas schools are teaching that the participants in “The Boston Tea Party” were terrorists. No doubt that the education

system has been hijacked.

Reply

6. TIME says:

February 26, 2013 at 15:52

Dear Neal,

This is bloody Brilliant, Great JOB.

I too have found that most folks I speak with don’t even know what the first 10 Amendments are ~ but will non the less will

lend argument until the sun comes up about what they think.

But ~ When you want to really have some fun, try and explain the “Original 13th Amendment.”

Peace and Love, Shalom, May the Holy Sprit bring the light of The Christ to you.

Reply

7. darthclinton says:

February 26, 2013 at 16:53

In regards to the 7th Amendment, just TRY to fight a civil manner when you have no money and someone like a medical

provider takes you to court because your insurance refused to pay for the treatment. Not only will it never get to a trial by

jury, but it will be ruled in judgement for the medical provider.

The 7th Amendment is also dead or dying a quick and painful death.

Reply

8. Keith R. Starkey says:

February 26, 2013 at 17:09

I’ll just say this. Great article, but it’s too late…way too late. The America of precious dreams and freedoms prescribed in the

Constitution and Bill of Rights ammendations to secure those dreams and freedoms is dead. Period. There is simply no

going back.

However, few want to say this and to say it this way, to say it the way it really is. And why not? It’s not like someone is going

to come along and change it. Avalanches are not stopped, just endured. It’s history, the history of many countries in our own

time.

Personally, I’ve given up. Not in a negative attitude but in the same reality that others (like those in those countries of our

own time) had to watch their beloved nations fall. So if you wish to continue writing articles like this, you might want to do so

in the vein of acceptance of defeat. Because neither you nor anyone on this God-forsaken land is going to change it.

Consider stop chiding those who have been dumbed down by years of horrible non-education. It’s just too late to turn them

or the country around. Sad. Very sad. But true.

Keith R. Starkey

Reply

Ron Frank says:

February 27, 2013 at 10:53

How I wish you were wrong, but sadly you tell the truth. It makes me want to cry for our children and grandchildren.

Reply

Terry says:

February 27, 2013 at 13:42

Teach them what you just read and they will always be free. Never forget!!!!!!!!!!

Reply

9. David says:

February 26, 2013 at 17:18

The constitution of the united States was essentially a coup d’etat by a group of individuals lead by Alexander Hamilton. The

intent was to replace the Articles of Confederation with something that allowed for greater centralized planning and control.

I am a fan of Lysander Spooner, one of the great thinkers of all time. He said this in his watershed essay “The Constitution

Has No Authority” -“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either

authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

The constitution either authorizes the TSA to rape us or is powerless to prevent them from doing so.

The constitution either authorizes law enforcement to perform strip searches on the open road or is powerless to prevent it.

The constitution either authorizes the president and congress to wage war wherever they want or is powerless to prevent it.

The constitution either authorizes the government to steal money from the people by way of direct taxation or is powerless to

prevent it.

The constitution either authorizes the government to partner with multinational banks to steal the nations wealth or is

powerless to prevent it.

The constitution either authorizes the counterfeiting of money and dictating what is legal tender or is powerless to prevent it.

The constitution either authorizes the government to chip away at our natural rights or is powerless to prevent it.

The constitution either authorizes people like Obama, Lincoln, Wilson, LBJ, Bush (I & II), Nixon, et al to be elected or is

powerless to prevent it.

The constitution either authorizes the military industrial complex to kill innocent people in other countries or is powerless to

prevent it.

The constitution either authorizes the government to redistribute the fruits of my labor or is powerless to prevent it.

The constitution either authorizes congress to raise taxes and spend recklessly or is powerless to prevent it.

In my opinion it is time to get over worshiping of this increasingly feckless document.

Reply

oldBuck says:

February 27, 2013 at 21:55

IT not the constitution that has failed it the people that have Failed and it is We the people that can overcome our failure to

be diligent and take back our country.

Reply

10. dan says:

February 26, 2013 at 17:46

A very informative piece…To many it reminds them of past times ( I am 69 )…and yes I have seen the erosion of liberty and

rights slowly fade…But I also see looking forward to April 15th in NY state..the rebirth of this Republic…for this is the day

that dictator cuomo’s gun grabbing bill becomes enforceable…. I see millions of NY gun owners refusing to obey the

Unconstitutional dictates…and will stand firm with armed resistance to protect their God given Liberty……far to many think

this is not possible …they have listened to a false messiah….reality will hit them at center mass…..May God Bless NY gun

owners and the Republic……the remainder of this nations gun owners will follow the lead of NY patriots…….this is fact…the

politicians are of evil and will be held accountable….they think not…they have erred in their twisted judgement….IMHO

Reply

Puschka says:

February 26, 2013 at 21:28

I agree Dan, evil people who are piling a heap of hell on their own heads. I think there’s an old saying that says something

like, “digging their own graves”….man, they’re really diggin theirs deeper every day.

Reply

Terry says:

February 27, 2013 at 11:04

Amen Even though I now live in the northwest USA .I spent 6 wonderful years in western N.Y. and climbed much of the

beautiful Adirondaks . Myself and a few friends will be returning to upstate April 15 to support our fellow patriots. You won’t

see us, but i assure you “We Got Ya Covered”. Save the Republic

Reply

11. Keith R. Starkey says:

February 26, 2013 at 19:20

David,

It isn’t logical to conclude that the Constitution was created for corrupt purposes merely because it is no longer enforced.

Any document of so-called authority is only as powerful as the people who back it. Further, one can hardly argue that the

Constitution, in the context in which this blogged article has revealed, is the scheme of those who would just had soon see

the demise of our rights. Were there officials in existence at the time who would have liked nothing better? Sure. But the

Constitution clearly does not support their thinking. Otherwise, there would be no sense in stating, as this article has done,

that out government has gone completely against that for which the Constitution stood.

Keith R. Starkey

Reply

12. Keith R. Starkey says:

February 26, 2013 at 19:25

Dan,

Unfortunately, the weapons which the average American has are no match—are not even in the same league—as what the

military or UN has (the UN…that’s sad to think about, isn’t it). Simply, it won’t be a repeat of the Civil War. If it comes to

blows between the Amercan citizen and the military / UN, it will be an all-out slaughter of the American citizen, unless he

submits. Oh, we’ll get in a few punches, but a lot of good that does the boxer who’s getting up off the floor after a knock out!

Reply

David says:

February 26, 2013 at 19:37

Stay out of the way then. If your confidence is shattered, hide.

Reply

Riker William says:

February 27, 2013 at 06:39

No doubt that’s what the Afgans were thinking when they were invaded by Alexander the Great, Britain, Russia, and the

USA. All the super-powers of their day eventually gave up and left. A bunch of backwards tribesmen wore the super-powers

down through a long war of attrition. Same with the Vietcong. A bunch of peasants with nothing taking on the biggest most

powerful army in the world — and winning.

Reply

mikrat says:

February 27, 2013 at 11:57

Typical – It is Futile to Resist Bullshit.

What is the Last War that We really “Won”?

Our Military only has about 150,000 actual fighting troops – the rest are support. And most or many of those would not fight

their own people or families.

The UN is a Media Hyped Joke.

If only 3% of the Americans stood up tomorrow to fight that is 9 million.

If only 3% of the 80 million gun owners stood up that would be 2,400,000.

We out number and out gun them – and they know it. Why do you think they want the guns.

If the average American is to stand toe to toe with the Mil, then yes you will not last to long. But if you fight outside of there

Norm, then they lose. Look at history.

Give-up attitudes like yours are the reason this country is so fucked.

Reply

mikrat says:

February 27, 2013 at 12:47

In addition – Just look at what 1 Person did to mess up all those Militant Mossad Trained & Military Trained Cops in

SoCAL…

If 1 person can do that much damage – imagine what 1 million or even just 100,000 could do.

Reply

13. David says:

February 26, 2013 at 19:35

Great article! Lots of wisdom in your words.

Reply

14. Bruce says:

February 27, 2013 at 05:18

Until you expose the LIES of 9/11 WE-ARE- FUCKED everything else is bullshit..Chemtrails, Fluoride, Gun Control,

Aspertame, GMO, Fake President, vaccines………….

Reply

Terry says:

February 27, 2013 at 10:29

We will fail because we are no longer a Honorable or Moral people which our Founders told us the Constitution was written

for. Even the Lib’s can control their tongues better than Mr.Bruce. SAVE the REPUBLIC !!!!!!!!

Reply

15. acp45 says:

February 27, 2013 at 10:50

Neal,

This is a great piece of writing. It’s nice to know that there are other aware observers and like minded individuals. Several of

the responders, including David in his 2-26 post have been very articulate in providing examples of the erosion of our

freedoms.

Reply

16. Pingback: Bill Of Rights - Rest In Peace - Exploring the News

17. Neal says:

February 27, 2013 at 19:51

Bruce-

Sure, 9/11 was a big blow to our liberty as it was the foundation upon which the Patriot Act and all the other garbage that

has been shoved down our throats. It was also, either known of in advance, or a complete false flag. But it is NOT the ONLY

thing that we need to solve to restore our liberty.

9/11 has absolutely nothing to do with the ongoing assault upon our 2nd Amendment rights. Our rights came under attack

with our nation’s second president John Adams when he signed the Alien and Sedition Acts, and the attack upon them has

not let up since.

So, you can’t blame 9/11 for everything, and if you are you are missing the big picture.

Reply

18. Keith R. Starkey says:

February 28, 2013 at 19:05

Riker,

Let’s stick with modern warfare, not Alexander the Great! Remember Iraq? How long did it take to bring them to their knees?

You honestly don’t think, do you, that if we wanted to take out the areas including and surrounding Afghanistan we couldn’t

do so? We’re not there to win; where there to control. Further, remember Vietnam? We didn’t “win” it because we were kept

back from doing so. Had we wanted to go in there and destroy the entire area by both air and ground, we could have done it

in a heart beat. But when you aren’t allowed to even keep the ground you take, you will never win your war.

Mikrat,

First: No, the reason our country is in its position is not because people like me have given up. If that were true, why have

none of your efforts (if you’ve even made any) made the slightest bit of difference? Because it’s too late for that. Period. If

not, post your progressive results here, and let us all rejoice in the hope you give us.

Second: Again, as I said to Riker, let’s stick with modern warfare: bullets vs. drones, ridiculously well-developved, GPS-

cordinated missles of all sorts and sizes, other remarkable high-tech weapons that pretty much say “Game Over.” But if you

want to fight against that, be my guest. No, it won’t be every city in America that takes a pounding, but that’s besides the

point: you don’t have bring to submission every city to win the war.

Third: No, the UN matter of sending troups to this country is not hype; it’s a reality that’s been in the making for a long, long

time. Time will tell who’s right. Even if there are never any UN troups deployed here, it makes no difference. You cant fight

against modern day weapons the military has with just bullets, and that’s about all the American citizen has. A few major city

levelings and that will send the message to the rest of the American people.

Finally: As to the military not turning on us, well, let’s say that the military takes over D.C. because they’ve had enough of all

this like you and I have. So, you’re telling me that under that kind of martial law, we can expect no corruption, no possible

power-hungry moguls, no life-threatening stances against anyone who opposes them, and peace and goodwill for all? Well, I

guess you could just shoot bullets at them if it werent all this, couldn’t you. Rots of ruck!

We will all have enough to fend off just to protect our homes, what with the crime waves that will overtake our cities, much

less concern ourselves with fighting against anyone else.

Keith R. Starkey

Reply