Friday, December 23, 2011


Merry Christmas

Yesterday I finished my Christmas shopping. It was almost impossible to find much with made in America labels. For that matter, it was almost impossible to find anything made in any of the countries euphemistically called the “free world.” Almost everything had a made in China label. The closest I could come to finding something not made with slave labor was a couple of items that said “Assembled in the USA from parts made in China.”

Years ago, when Chinese goods started flooding our markets, I conducted a one man boycott, but too few joined me. Once, when I'd accidently bought something made in China, I was extremely upset. [See:  or]

I realize now that there is no longer much choice. It's no longer a case of sacrificing principles to save a buck. The federal policy that nobody and nothing should work in America is pretty much in place.

Still, there is one thing I just can't understand. How can people who call themselves “Christians” buy Nativity Scenes and other religious symbols made in a country whose regime has traditionally suppressed all religions.  They don't belong in our Christmas celebrations.

We should all think of the sacrifice of Jesus to bring us this Holy Day. We should think of the sacrifices of the Chinese people laboring in sweat shops for very low wages to bring us our Christmas presents and decorations. We should think of the unemployed Americans scrimping to save enough money for a package of Turkey Dogs for Christmas dinner. Then we should just forget it all and have a 

Merry Christmas
Because of spy redirects from picture and map clicks, this picture has been moved to

Monday, December 5, 2011

Myths, Misconceptions, and Misdirections

These are just a few thoughts and concepts I've developed or adopted over the years. I've used them often in various political discussion groups, usually having to rewrite them each time because I couldn't find them in my files. I decided to put them up here in case someone might be interested. Hopefully, they'll stimulate some thought on the subjects.

My original intent was to classify each item under one of the above categories. I found it difficult to apply those labels. What starts as a misconception by some, can be picked up and used by those wanting to misdirect the people. As the misconception or misdirection grows in acceptance and expands through repetition and expansion by large numbers of people, it can assume almost mythical proportions. Because of the trouble I was having in classifying them, I decided instead to let readers, if there are any, decide for themselves which is applicable.

Democracy or Republic?

When I first got involved in politics, maybe I should say, “counter-politics”, I got caught up in the discussion of Democracy vs. Republic. Those who favored limited government liked to say, “We're a Republic not a Democracy.” Their argument was that in a Democracy 50%+1 of the population could “democratically” vote away the rights and property of those who lacked that extra 1. Supposedly, this couldn't happen in a Republic. It made sense to me in my political infancy, so I dutifully parroted the mantra.

Fortunately, or maybe unfortunately for my peace of mind, I tend to analyze ideas even after initially accepting them. As I gave it more thought, something seemed to be missing in the Democracy vs. Republic argument. To see if a Republic, a Representative Democracy, could protect against minority rule, I developed a spreadsheet taking the voting age population at the time divided into its legislative districts.

I found that a minority much smaller than the 50%+1 needed to control a Democracy could control a Republic. I've long since lost that spreadsheet and I haven't the time, desire, nor ambition to try to duplicate it, but I will use a hypothetical Republic. Its concept is sound and it is much easier to illustrate. It works the same even in a country the size of the U.S.

My Republic is small. There are 1.1 million and 11 eligible voters equally divided among 11 states with one legislative district in each, so state and legislative district are interchangeable terms and its legislative body consists of 11 representatives. My hypothetical voter count is chosen to allow for a 50%+1 majority in a district.

About 65% of the population of the republic has blue eyes and 35% brown. If in six of its districts the voters elect, on a vote count of 50,001 to 50,000, a representative who promises to confiscate the wealth of all with blue eyes and give it to those with brown then the “redistributionists” would have a 6 to 5 majority in their “Congress” and could make such a program law. It doesn't matter if the other five representatives were elected by the approximately 7 to 1 majority remaining in their districts or states. The will of the 35% would have carried.

A Senate doesn't even have to be considered because, for example, in the U.S., an even smaller minority can control if they have majorities in the smaller States. If you want to prove that to yourself, just sum the populations of the 26 smallest States who could elect a majority in the Senate. Divide 51% of that number by the total population of the U.S. to see what percentage could control the Senate.

My conclusion is that a republic, far from protecting anyone's rights from a majority of 50%+1, actually creates the opportunity for a minority to rule over the majority.

Why is this? Many people are convinced that our status as a Republic gives us greater protection than a Democracy would. Why isn't that true?

Monarchy, Democracy, Republic, Oligarchy, and myriad other types of government are nothing but forms. What determines the rights and freedom of the individual is not the form but the substance of government. By substance I mean how much power the sovereign has over the people. It doesn’t matter if the sovereign is a king, a handful of people, a congress or parliament, or the people as a whole. Unless there is a bedrock law, a constitution that limits the power of the sovereign, the individual is not free to go his own way, but must run with the herd or be trampled. It was the substance, the limitations on the power of government set by our Constitution that made the individual citizen of the U.S. relatively free in that age long gone. Now that our Constitution has been swept aside, it matters little whether you call it a Democracy or a Republic. Our government is totalitarian. Today's collective “freedom,” even if a majority supports it, is a lie. Without individual freedom guaranteed by a written constitution, there is no freedom!

Fraudulent Political Spectrum

The media frequently carries stories of “Right-Wing Dictatorships” in various countries, usually those on our hit list. We also hear of “Right-Wing” extremist groups here that would like to set up a “Right-Wing Dictatorship” in this country. More often than not, these are groups who oppose the totalitarianism imposed by Washington and, like the “Right-Wing Dictators,” have made it to the government's hit list.

When we give it a little thought and analysis, the fraud becomes obvious. To speak of a "Right-Wing Dictatorship" is shear nonsense. The concept of the political spectrum presently being foisted on the public consists of Communism on the left, German National Socialism or Fascism on the right, and British/American Fabian Socialism in the center. All are slightly variant forms of socialism. All are rooted in the Hegelian philosophy that holds the individual worthless except when he functions as a cog in the gears of the machinery of the state. All of these socialisms are totalitarian. In effect, this spectrum gives us a choice of totalitarian government on the left, on the right, and in the center. Nowhere are we offered limited government based on libertarian principles as created by the “Bill of Rights” of our Constitution, nor the complete absence of government, which is anarchy.

When we speak of a "spectrum," we usually refer to a complete sequence or range of something, from one extreme to the other. So, if we place communism on the left, then we must also place socialism, fascism, unlimited monarchy, and all other forms of totalitarianism on the left. The opposite of total government must logically be no government at all, or, anarchy. Therefore, the extreme right of the political spectrum is anarchy. Obviously, to speak of a dictatorship of no government is ludicrous. There are as many "Right-Wing Dictatorships" in this world as there are unicorns.

However, if we desired, we could speak of a spectrum of totalitarianism. In this case, if we place communism (total ownership by government) on the left, socialism (ownership of key industries by government and control of everything else) in the middle, then we might place fascism (total control but no ownership by government) on the right. Thus, we could speak of a "Right-Wing Dictatorship," but only in the limited sense of a totalitarian spectrum.

The American people today are being given a choice of totalitarianisms by our “leaders” and the news media. We are being deceived into believing that the only opposition to communism is fascism, and to avoid either "extreme", we must accept "middle-of-the-road" Fabian Socialism. Nowhere are we given an option of any form of limited government. Nowhere are we given an option that restricts the power of the sovereign.  Nowhere are we given an option that reserves to the people the right to live their own lives and pursue their own interests free of constant interference from government.  Apparently,  freedom is not one of our options.

Our Constitution is Outmoded

This suggests another category – outright lies. The criminals who have usurped powers not granted by the Constitution frequently use this argument to justify those usurpations, even to argue for a Constitutional Convention to allow them to legalize their crimes after the fact.

They tell us that “times have changed” and we can no longer be bound by a Constitution written 200 years ago under different circumstances. The argument sounds plausible and many, if not most, will repeat it and think themselves wise. From this the lie has grown to almost mythological proportion, but is it true?

It is certainly true that “times have changed,” but the Constitution was not written to govern times. The Constitution was written to govern men, and men have not changed in 200 years, we have not changed in 2000 years. We still have among us those who would enslave their fellow man, who would use them to kill and maim and to be killed and maimed in wars fought solely for the aggrandizement of the wealth and power of those who rule us.

Yes, times have changed, but the need to put limitation on the greed and power lusts of men have not. We need to restore the Constitution to its proper place as the Supreme Law of the Land. If we do this, freedom will thrive and America will once again prosper and be a light of liberty for the world.

Return to TOC

Sunday, November 6, 2011

Jury Nullification

The little known power of the jury.

In London in 1670, Quakers Penn and Meade were tried on charges of unlawful assembly. The evidence was against the Quakers, so the jury was instructed to find them guilty. Apparently the jury believed the Quakers had the right to assemble and acquitted them. For ignoring the instructions of the judge, the jury members were fined. A juror, Bushell, refused to pay and was imprisoned. He sued his writ of habeas corpus from the court of common pleas. Chief-justice Vaughn found that a jury could not be fined for acquitting a defendant against both the weight of evidence and instructions of the judge. In effect, this decision acknowledged the right of the jury members to vote their conscience and acquit those accused of violating an unjust law. It was clear that the jury could judge not only the facts, but the law itself.

This is how the jury trial entered America through the British Common Law. It was, at the founding of this nation, a recognized power of the jury to nullify unjust laws by refusing to convict. This was affirmed by several Supreme Court justices.

"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."
John Jay, 1st Chief Justice of the United States supreme Court, 1789

"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."
Samuel Chase, U.S. supreme Court Justice, 1796, Signer of the unanimous Declaration

"the jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact."
Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. supreme Court Justice, 1902

"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."
Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice U.S. supreme Court, 1941

The opinion of these Justices makes it clear that the intent of the Jury Trial went beyond mere unbiased determination of the facts. The Jury was one of the checks and balances against tyrannical laws, whether emanating from the Federal or the State and local governments. We, the people, were empowered to nullify unjust laws by making them unenforceable.

The rulings of Holmes and Stone, as recently as the last century, might suggest that the concept of Jury Nullification is still strong. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Since the victory of the forces favoring a strong central government in the Civil War, the federal government has been chipping away at that right and duty of the jury. At one point, the courts, while admitting we had the right as jurors to effectively nullify unjust laws, said a judge does not have to inform the jury of that right. That happened in the late 1800's. Since then it has gotten worse. Today, if a judge thinks a juror is finding for a not guilty verdict on the basis of injustice or unconstitutionality of the law, he/she will likely remove the juror. So a word to the wise. If your “not guilty” vote is based on your right to nullify a law, don't let it be known that that is the case. Try to find a subtle way to clue your fellow jurors. No matter what, be an American. Stick to your guns regardless of what the other jurors might think.

A growing number of people are beginning to realize that the majority of laws now enacted by the federal government are unconstitutional, that they act in areas reserved to the States and/or infringe on the rights of the people. The Supreme Court of the United States has given its blessings to these crimes against the Constitution and the people. Jury Nullification can override this sanctioning of crime by the SCOTUS and make the people the Ultimate Supreme Court. That is how it should be. For my part, I would never find anyone guilty in a federal court. The federal government has violated virtually every significant clause of the Constitution. That alone makes it the biggest crime syndicate in the United States – possibly in the world. In addition to aiding its banker masters in the theft of the wealth of the American people, it has become a global Murder, Inc. through the waging of unconstitutional wars and political assassinations. I will be damned to Hell before I will help big crooks put little crooks, if, in fact, they are crooks, in jail.

For an example of how the Department of (in)Justice, the federal agency in charge of administering justice in this country, has not only proven itself an enemy of America, constitutional government, and the American people, but has also shown itself to be an uncommon criminal, see:

A flicker of the Light of Truth at the end of the tunnel from the Fully Informed Jury Association:

The Constitutional History of England, Hallam, 3 volumes, 1865

For additional information and sources, search “Jury Nullification”

Return to TOC

Friday, April 22, 2011

Earth Day - A Failed Conservation Attempt

A little while back I came across a copy of a speech I'd given many years ago when I ran for County Treasurer on the old Constitutional Party of PA ticket. I think it fits in well for Earth Day.

“I was walking through the woods the other day enjoying the brisk Autumn air when I saw something that almost broke my heart. The branches of the most beautiful tree in Creation, the Liberty Tree, were sagging almost to the ground under the weight of thousands upon thousands of Dofermee Birds. Their strident cry broke the Autumn stillness, 'Waddayagonnadofermee-dofermee-dofermee.' From the upper branches of the Tree, Silver-Tongued Lie-Hatchers answered, 'Iflected-iflected-imgonna-doferya-doferya-doferya.'

The Lie-Hatchers had promised to pick the fruits of the Liberty Tree and pass them down to the Dofermees below. But they had glutted themselves on the fruits and the only thing left to pass down to the Dofermees was that which Pigeons pass down to pedestrians on city streets.

I'm here tonight to ask you to join the conservation efforts of the Constitutional Party. Help us to drive the Lie-Hatchers from the Tree so that the Dofermees can molt their yellow feathers and don once more their brown, white, and golden plumage and soar again, as they were meant to soar, as American Eagles. If we can do this, the Liberty Tree will thrive once more and bear fruit for all of us.”

Unfortunately, we got little support. Many sympathized with us but could not overcome the “Lesser-of- Two” Syndrome.

A couple of weeks ago I returned to that spot in the woods looking for the tree. All I could find was a rotted, termite-infested stump.

Return To TOC

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Dream? or A Nightmare of Reality?

The other night I had a dream. Maybe it would better be described as a nightmare.

I was walking over snow covered hills near Valley Forge when I spotted a red trail in the snow. On inspection it appeared to be blood. Thinking it might be a wounded animal and that I might be able to help it, I followed the trail. It seemed to go on for miles, but ended abruptly in a ditch.

There lay a young man, maybe in his early twenties. His body was emaciated, still his hands suggested the power of a farmer or tradesman. He had a hole in his chest, but the blood had not come from the hole. It had come from his feet. They were bloody and wrapped in rags. He had marched for miles in the snow and bitter cold without shoes.

Then I realized he was still alive. He was crying. I knew there was nothing I could do for him, but I knelt down, hoping to comfort him in some way. I told him not to be frightened. He was going to a better place. He told me he had seen a better place. A place that he had helped create.

For a moment, he said, when the ball struck his chest, he was filled with despair. He thought of the incredible odds against which he was fighting and he thought his death was in vain. Liberty was unattainable. Slavery was the fate of man.

Then an angel came to him and showed him a great land populated by a courageous, high sprited, idealistic people, driven by their love of liberty. The angel told him that land was born of his sacrifice. I guessed that the tears were tears of joy, tears of happiness. For a moment a weight was lifted from my heart. But he continued to speak.

A second angel came--a dark angel. It showed him the great land, now withered and dying. It was ruled by evil men and filled with cowardly, souless people, a people without spirit, a people who gave lip service to freedom, but it wasn’t in their hearts. They were pragmatists and not idealists. They were willing to support evil if they thought good could not win, and so the land and liberty died.

Yes, the boy had been crying as much for us as for himself. But then he closed his eyes and the crying stopped. I closed mine. I didn't cry, but my heart screamed inside my chest. I felt the pain of the ball striking that boy.

You see, I live in the land of the dark angel.

Return to TOC

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Unique Terrorists

The publication, “Investigating Terrorism and Criminal Extremism—Terms and Concepts is a publication of the Bureau of Justice Assistance U.S. Department of Justice Version 1.0 dated September 2005-2009” was sent to law enforcement agencies in State and local governments.  It has earned the Department of (in)Justice dishonorable mention in my americasenemies blog.

In it, the DOJ names as “terrorists” and “criminal extremists” those groups that are loyal to America and defend our national sovereignty calling them “patriot” groups (always in quotation marks). Those who believe in limited constitutional government (Constitutionalists) are also named, as are those who believe in majority rule and oppose government use of minorities to oppress and control that majority.

I didn't think the gangsterment could top that, but top it they did. They've come up with a whole new class of criminal extremists called “unique terrorists.”

Jon Roland brought this to light in his blog:

The heart of his post is a letter from Bernard von NotHaus, convicted of “counterfeiting.” What he did was mint pure silver coins that were not replicas of any US coins, but only resembled some. A major difference is that his coins contained more silver than any U.S. mint dollar.

In his letter, Mr. von NotHaus makes this incredible revelation concerning a DOJ press release: “The alarming statement in the Department of Justice press release by U.S. Attorney Anna Tompkins should concern every American. Tompkins said: 'Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism. While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country. We are determined to meet these threats through infiltration, disruption, and dismantling of organizations which seek to challenge the legitimacy of our democratic form of government.' ”

I have to wonder what might be included under “attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country?” Would spreading the truth that exposes it as a massive fraud designed to transfer all of the wealth of the American people to international bankers be considered such an attempt? I believe suppression of this truth is exactly what this DOJ action intends.

I'm also puzzled as to what “legitimate currency” Ms. Tompkins is talking about. Surely she can't mean the totally unconstitutional Federal Reserve Notes nor the incredible sum of Etherbacks existing only on the books of the banking sydicate. Mr. von NotHaus's Liberty Dollars are a much better fit to that mandated by the Constitution.

The audacity of these Justapo agents openly admitting their intent to infiltrate, disrupt, and dismantle citizen organizations trying to restore legitimate constitutional government to this country is mind boggling. Of course, in typical Orwellian Double-Think, Ms. Tompkins says these groups are challenging “the legitimacy of our democratic form of government.” The question of constitutionality is studiously ignore by the DOJ, and with good reason. The federal government totally ignores the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, thereby making it an illegitimate form of government that certainly should be challenged.

In an article in Coin World announcing that von NotHaus had been found guilty of all four counts against him, Mary Jane Skala said NotHaus will appeal, but an appeal cannot be filed until after the sentencing, and U.S. District Judge Richard L. Voorhees said that a date for that would not be set for several months.

Skala reports, “von NotHaus, of Honolulu, was found guilty on all four counts — “of making coins resembling and similar to United States coins; of issuing, passing, selling, and possessing Liberty Dollar coins; of issuing and passing Liberty Dollar coins intended for use as current money; and of conspiracy against the United States,” according to the Department of Justice.

Two things are worth highlighting. First, what is essentially one act by NotHaus is broken down in a way to make it four counts. Clearly this is done to stack the deck against the accused. It gives the government four chances to have the accused found guilty, a clever avoidance of our constitutional protection against double-jeopardy. The other is the charge of conspiracy against the United States. I think the latter is absolutely incredible. Hasn't anyone told the Department of (in)Justice that there is no such thing as a conspiracy. Unless, of course, we're talking about the conspiracy of the gangsters in Washington against the American Constitution, the American people, and our national sovereignty. But then, those crimes are not nearly as serious as issuing bullion coins far more valuable than worthless Fed Notes and bank Etherbacks.

Further evidence that our government is a criminal organization more guilty than von NotHaus is shown by the fact that the man was forced to use government provided attorneys because, even though he had not yet been convicted of any crime, his assets were stolen by the government – maybe for a future bank bailout?

Did Bernard von NotHaus Counterfeit Coins?

In the Lew Rockwell blog, Michael S. Rozeff presents an excellent analysis of the words used by Tompkins, calling them fantastical and hyperbole. He points out, “There is no threat of economic instability when private citizens agree on a non-governmental means of payment. It’s just the opposite! Such an activity adds value for the users and, by moving away from U.S. currency, increases stability, if anything.” Furthermore, he reminds us that nothing in the Constitution prohibits private citizens from using whatever they chose as a medium of exchange. However, it does authorize Congress to “coin,” [not print], money.

I would add to Mr. Rozeff's remarks that nothing in the Constitution authorizes Congress to delegate its power to “coin money” and to “regulate the value thereof” to any other branch of government or organization, certainly not to a private banking consortium. The Federal Reserve Note is the real counterfeit that has destabilized our economy and the economies of much of the world.

A ‘Unique’ Form of ‘Terrorism’ by Sun editor Seth Lipsky

Speaking of the Federal Reserve Note, Seth Lipsky, editor of the New York Sun makes an interesting observation. He notes that two men issued “money,” one coins of gold and silver and the other notes of paper. The gold and silver coins are worth more today than when issued. The paper has dropped from a value of a 265th of an ounce of gold at the start of the Bush administration to less than a 1400th of an ounce today. One faces a possibility of years in prison for what he did, and the other holds a prestigious office of extreme power. The man who issued the coins that have gained in value is Bernard von NotHaus. The DOJ says his coins will destabilize our economy. The man whose organization issued the worthless paper and is apparently responsible for our current economic “stability” is Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke. You may recall that it was one of his predecessors, Paul Volcker, who said, “The standard of living of the average American must come down.” They made damned sure of that.

Department of (in)Justice sees no threat to stability here.

Press Release by the FBI of Charlotte...

The FBI's press release contained all of the lies and constitutional perversions used against von NotHaus, but also announced of what they plan to do with the loot from their raid. In addition to the penalties prescribed by law for the “crimes” of which he was convicted, the DOJ gangsters, seeking to give the illusion of legality to their theft of about $7 million of von NotHaus's property, have initiated a “forfeiture trial.” United States District Court Judge Richard Voorhees, the same federal agent who presided over the criminal trial, will preside over Sham II.

The New Face Of Terror by Chris Duane

Chris Duane writing for the Silver Bear Cafe has some good information and some funny tongue-in-cheek observations. I'm not going to get too deeply into it here, but I think it well worth a look. He points an accusing finger at an organization in Florida that has a forty-seven square mile compound which is very hard to get into, especially in the summer. This organization blatantly and brazenly prints its own money which it calls dollars. This is significant because the inclusion of “dollar” on the Liberty-Dollar coins was part of the “evidence” against von NotHaus. Yet another similarity to U.S. notes is the sequential numbering of the bills. The Florida counterfeiters began printing (not coining) their “official currency” in 1987 in $1 and $5 denominations. In 1989 they added a $10 bill. Duane has offered to assist the DOJ should they decide to take action.

Product of Florida Counterfeiters
aka Unique Terrorists

I don't know the full motivation behind this action by the international crime syndicate behind our government, but I strongly suspect that part of it is to prepare a scapegoat.

Almost a century of treasonous meddling with our monetary system has us on the brink of total destruction. It's anybody's guess what form it will take, whether massive inflation or a disastrous deflationary collapse. I believe that will be determined by what the majority of people hedge against. If they hedge against inflation, the manipulators will deflate. If they hedge against deflation, the manipulators will inflate. Whichever will best fill their coffers. When this happens, they will be positioned to blame it on "unique terrorists."

I'll be working on a post listing Tompkins and some of her co-conspirators in the DOJ plot to crush our freedom of speech and of association for my americasenemies blog.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

A Retraction

Last week I published a post here that included emails that passed between the Executive Director of the Canadian Action Party and me. Tim McCormick told me that the Bank of Canada was owned by the Canadian taxpayers and that, initially, Canada was able to function well without massive debt. But as a result of the G8 conference, commitments were made that caused the debt to skyrocket. This told me that the international money powers were still in control.

Still, I had hopes that, if the CAP was successful, Canada could one day be a beacon of liberty to guide us back to freedom. With that thought in mind, I listened to their radio program that I spotlighted in a temporary “Alert” post.

I really didn't like what I heard. The speaker talked of “human capital” and spoke of government financed education. “Human capital” reminds me of the change I witnessed here, starting about 30 to 35 years ago. Personnel departments began changing to departments of “human resources.” People were becoming “resources,” much like a ton of coal, a pig of iron, or a barrel of oil to be used up in the manufacturing process and then disposed of as industrial waste. Here we have human beings as the capital used to build the economy of the State through education.

I have a special loathing for the idea of government “educating” the people. Both Hitler and Mao are sometimes credited with having said, “Give me the child at three and he's mine for life.” The Fabians may or may not have said the same, but they've certainly practiced control through “education.” Still, I don't think it's necessary for the state to control the child's mind as early as three. Many parents here have noted a marked change in their children's thinking after attending a few years of college. An intensive indoctrination campaign, even one begun at a later age, can work wonders.

One advocate of universal education by the state was Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson is one of my heroes. He was one of the wisest men I know of, but his wisdom was born of 20-20 hindsight. He was well read in history and was able to learn from the mistakes of the past such as the threat to liberty of combining the power of the state with the power of the church. But I don't think there were enough examples for him to see the dangers of combining the state with education, so he made the mistake of thinking state sponsored education a means to further liberty. Maybe this would be true if we had saints to run the state, but then, liberty might also be furthered by a bank run nation if we had saints to run the banks.

After reading a few more of CAP's newsletters, I couldn't escape the conclusion that the party is a socialist party. I don't think they try to hide it. While there is an element of nationalism, of patriotism, in the Canadian Action Party that can make them a worthy ally in the fight against NAFTA, CAFTA, and the North American Union, beyond that we cannot look to them as an ally in the fight for freedom. Socialism can never be a path to freedom. The four major socialisms of the past century, Communism, British/American Fabianism, German National Socialism, and Fascism are all rooted in the philosophy of Hegel. Hegel saw the individual as worthless except as a cog in the gears of the State machinery. Socialism, in any of its forms, is a negation of the individual. As such, it can never be a beacon of liberty.

Return to TOC

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Canadian Liberty...Lost...Regained...Lost Again

On February 4, I sent this email to the Canadian Action Party prompted by a newsletter I'd received from them:

Although I'm not a Canadian, I've been on your mailing list for awhile. We definitely have a common enemy in NAFTA and the NAU. I'm sure you're aware that the consolidation of Canada, the U.S., and Mexico is only phase one. The rest of North and Central America will be brought under the thumb later.

I was curious. How does the CAP stand on Canada's relationship to England. It's my personal belief that England, especially the Bank of England, has run America since shortly after the Revolutionary (Secessionary) War. When Hamilton and Washington set up "our" first national bank liberty was doomed. I know your connection to England is more open, at least on the surface. How deep does it run? Is the Bank of Canada a part of the international banking cartel?

I received this response from Tim McCormick, Executive Director, Canadian Action Party:

Agreed, NAFTA has done nothing but harm to decent, honest, hardworking Americans and Canadians, while enriching the top 1%.

Strangely enough Rick, we the taxpayers own the Bank of Canada. It was started by the same money powers behind the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve in 1935, but Prime Minister William Lyon MacKenzie King realized the importance of the government having monetary control. He nationalized it in 1938 and we used it until 1972 experiencing the countries most productive years. However, in 1972, we were persuaded to take a seat at the G8 which required us to outsource for government borrowing. Our deficit went from 15 billion to 588 in about 20 years and remains over half a trillion today. For a country of 35 million, that's a lot of money, but of course I don't have to tell you about debt or the dire consequences it can have on the future of society.

Our number one platform issue is monetary control followed by sovereignty (ending NAFTA). We are a no nonsense truth telling party. We are anti-war and very leary of the corporate assimilation of Canada, North America and the world. Many CAP members are admirers of Ron Paul because of his stance on monetary policy, the corporate agenda and the military.

There it is. Full circle from monetary slavery to liberty and back to monetary slavery.

For a very short time, the United States was a beacon of freedom to guide the world. That beacon was quickly extinguished by Hamilton and the bankers. All Americans should pray for the success of the Canadian Action Party. If it can restore economic freedom to the Canadian people and their country, Canada may one day be a beacon to guide us back to freedom.

Return To TOC

Saturday, January 15, 2011

Go Ahead. Tread On Me.

I was very concerned that the alleged assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords would draw the anti-Gun Nuts out of the woodwork. It looks like this may already be happening.

Bruce Reed has been selected by Joe Biden as his chief of staff. Dennis Hennigan of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said he thinks Reed “has his heart in the right place on guns” and will want to do the “right thing on guns” says a Politico news story on the Reed appointment.

No doubt the “right thing” will be further unconstitutional infringements on our fundamental human right to keep and bear arms to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and our country from criminal elements in our streets and in our governments. As “our” government becomes more and more tyrannical with each passing day, it's a good time to remind ourselves of what happens to disarmed citizens when faced with such tyranny.

The following are the words of Paul Harvey. I regret that my source did not list the date this aired.


Something To Think About
Paul Harvey on Guns

Are you considering backing gun control laws ? Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment doesn't matter?

Consider: In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control.

From 1929 to 1953 approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, Jehovah's Witnesses, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.

It has not been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. The results Australia-wide:

Homicides are up 3.2%, Assaults are up 8%, Armed robberies are up 44% in that country's state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%.

It's time to state it plainly: Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens.


There are a couple of lessons for Americans to learn from our own history. Remember that the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right and is automatic for citizens of any nation. It is, however, not a right of subjects or slaves.

The American colonies experienced an attempt at gun control at Lexington and Concord. The British tried to deprive their American subjects of their arms. That attempt failed and, after a long struggle using the arms retained, a new nation was born, a nation of citizens not subjects.

We see another example of restriction of the right in the old deep South. Slaves were not permitted to keep arms. It makes sense when you think of it. Had they been permitted to bear arms even close to the quality born by their masters, they wouldn't likely have been slaves very long.

If we give up our right to keep and bear arms, we will be saying, “Go ahead. Tread on me.”

Return To TOC