The title of this article is not just a slogan; those are words amateur radio operators live by.  Whenever there is a major disaster, such as an earthquake or a hurricane, amateur radio proves to be the only form of communication into and out of the disaster area.  This was especially true during Hurricane Katrina.  The winds and storm surge devastated the regular telephone service, cellular communications networks, police communications, fire communications, and the internet, along with the electric power grid.  Over a thousand amateur radio operators converged on the disaster area and very quickly re-established communications with the affected agencies and over 200 evacuation centers.

Amateur radio operators work very closely with the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Homeland Security, local police and fire, along with many other agencies to provide emergency communications.  Emergency communication is what amateur radio operators do best.  Immediately after a disaster we can get on the air because our equipment is portable and can be powered by a car battery or a small generator.  A slingshot and some rope are all it takes to get a wire antenna up into a tree.   A mast of PVC or metal pipe will also work as an antenna support.  With that simple setup an amateur radio operator can talk to just about any part of the globe.

The knowledge and expertise that is essential for successfully handling communications during an emergency is far more important than the specialized equipment.  Throughout the year amateur radio operators practice for emergencies by providing communications for events such as parades, road races, and other similar events.  In October amateur radio operators take part in a simulated emergency test.  There are two organizations within the amateur radio community that specialize in training and organizing emergency communications.  They are the Amateur Radio Emergency Service and the Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service.

The fourth weekend in June is set aside for the single largest emergency communications exercise in the United States.  This exercise is called field day.  That weekend 30,000 amateur radio operators converge at thousands of locations, such as parks, across this country.  They set up complete stations, housed in tents or trailers, where no facilities exist.  All of the equipment is powered emergency power and all antennas are set up using temporary supports or trees.  The setup takes only a few hours and the stations are kept on the air for 24 straight hours.  This year field day begins at 2 pm on Saturday June 24th and ends at 2 pm on Sunday June 25th.  Many groups will begin the setup process on Friday the 23rd at 2 pm.

The club I belong to, the Eastern Connecticut Amateur Radio Association will be holding field day at the Pomfret Recreation Park in Pomfret Connecticut.  We will set up six complete stations.  All are welcome to visit us this weekend.  Here is a map of field day sites in the North America.  All will welcome visitors.

For many years I’ve been attempting to raise the alarm about the loss of our rights and our freedoms.  You would expect that my posts would be met with outrage by my Facebook friends or Twitter followers, who should have notice the same erosion of our rights. You would expect most of my friends would share my concerns.  Unfortunately that is not the case at all.  Most often my post is met with silence and apathy.  Occasionally I get into arguments with friends who side with those who are robbing us of our freedoms.  At times I do get discouraged but I refuse to give up.  For inspiration I reflect on a quote by that great philosopher Tim Allen from the movie Galaxy Quest: “Never give up, never surrender.”

Most people are not aware of what they’ve lost.  Very few schools teach civics any more.  Instead they teach the politically correct, liberal revisionist interpretation of the Constitution.  Our founding principles have been completely dismissed by our education establishment in the name of the tired liberal cliché: they were originated by a bunch of white supremacist, slave holders.

Instead of the virtues of our founding principles and our remarkable Constitution, educators now praise that deeply flawed and deadly political philosophy known as socialism.  Instead of championing free speech, students are now taught that their feelings are far more important than everyone else’s rights.  Individual, God given natural rights have now been replaced by collective rights granted to us exclusively by the government.

It is not just teachers that are brainwashing entire generations.   Hollywood and the rest of the entertainment industry are also guilty. Whenever a conservative or a libertarian comes out of the political closet they are ostracized and denied future roles.  Liberals enjoy a virtual monopoly over the entertainment industry and they use that monopoly to spread their liberal ideals. .

Liberals also enjoy a virtual monopoly over the news industry.  With this last election the American news media lost the vast majority of its remaining credibility.  They are now poling about the same as leprosy.  Despite these miserable poll numbers it is nearly impossible for one person to compete with the avalanche of biased news.  That’s the biggest problem I face.   I’m just one person trying to spread a message that a sizable percentage of my right of center Facebook friends agree with.  Unfortunately they remain silent.  They do not share my posts or share similar posts even though they are just as unhappy as I am with the state of things.  I get into epic debates with my liberal friends but never receive any backup from my conservative and libertarian friends.  If you have friends like me that try to spread the word please help them by sharing their posts and helping in the debates.  That could make a huge difference.

I try to experiment with different ways of getting my message out on Facebook.  Another quote I draw inspiration from comes from Clint Eastwood in the movie Heartbreak Ridge: “improvise, adapt, overcome.”  I try to not only inform, but also entertain my friends.

Facebook and Twitter are not my outlets for spreading my Constitution message.  I created a very successful website Constitution Mythbuster.   Please check it out.  WordPress make it easy to start your own website, please do so, the more conservative and libertarian websites that exist, the better.  I would very like to thank Da Tech Guy for the opportunity to spread my message of freedom and constitutional principles on this website.

Before answering that question, it is essential to define exactly what rights are.  The only truly valid rights are God-given Natural Rights.  Thomas Jefferson articulated  the most accurate definition of a God-given Natural Right when he stated so eloquently in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

These rights are granted to every single individual directly by God.  George Mason echoed these sentiments when he wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights in  1776

SECTION I. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Liberty is second only to life when it comes to importance.  Here is how Thomas Jefferson described liberty in a letter to Isaac Tiffany

…rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the 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 right of an individual

I have always defined liberty as the freedom to do as you wish as long as you do not hurt others or interfere with the rights of others.  It is freedom with the responsibility to not harm others or infringe on the rights of others.  If someone harms another individual or interferes with the rights of another individual then government has the duty and moral obligation to step in, restrain, and punish the individual that caused the harm.   Governments at all levels must leave individuals alone if they do not hurt others.  A large percentage of the founding fathers of this nation believed the only legitimate functions of government are protecting the safety, property, and rights of individuals living in this country.  Forcing individuals to purchase health insurance and interfering in the healthcare marketplace through onerous regulations violates the liberty of individuals and businesses.

The freedom to acquire property, hold on to property, and use property as you wish, are also essential God-given Natural rights.  Income and wealth are both forms of property. The pursuit of happiness mentioned in the Declaration of Independence refers to acquiring,  holding, and using property.  If a government body seizes an individual’s property, or income, and redistributes it to another person, that is a violation of a God-given natural right.

Here is what John Locke, the primary influence for all of the framers of the Constitution, had to say on this subject in his Second Treatise on Government:

the supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent. For the preservation of property being the end of government, and that for which men enter into society, it necessarily supposes and requires that the people should have property, without which they must be supposed to lose that by entering into society which was the end for which they entered into it; too gross an absurdity for any man to own. Men, therefore, in society having property, they have such a right to the goods, which by the law of the community are theirs, that nobody hath a right to take them, or any part of them, from them without their own consent; without this they have no property at all.

John Adams agreed.  Here is what he had to say on this subject in “Defense of the Constitutions of of the Government of the United States:

The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence

Redistribution of wealth for charity and entitlements violates the United States Constitution.  Here are three quotes that proves this:

James Madison Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress, 1st Session, page 170

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.

James Madison Speech before Congress 1794

The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.

Thomas Jefferson 1st Inaugural Address

A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government,

The debate whether healthcare is a right or not first took center stage in this country back in 1912 when Theodore Roosevelt first proposed national health care during his run as president for the progressive party.  It was revived by President Truman in 1945 when he proposed national health insurance.  President Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, establishing healthcare as an entitlement that is provided by the Federal Government.  Ben Shapiro discusses this deeply flawed notion that healthcare is a right in this National Review Article.  Here are the most important passages from this article:

Morally, you have no right to demand medical care of me. I may recognize your necessity and offer charity; my friends and I may choose to band together and fund your medical care. But your necessity does not change the basic math: Medical care is a service and a good provided by a third party. No matter how much I need bread, I do not have a right to steal your wallet or hold up the local bakery to obtain it.

Because medical care is a commodity, and treating it otherwise is foolhardy. To make a commodity cheaper and better, two elements are necessary: profit incentive and freedom of labor. The government destroys both of these elements in the health-care industry. It decides medical reimbursement rates for millions of Americans, particularly poor Americans; this, in turn, creates an incentive for doctors not to take government-sponsored health insurance. It regulates how doctors deal with patients, the sorts of training doctors must undergo, and the sorts of insurance they must maintain; all of this convinces fewer Americans to become doctors. Undersupply of doctors generally and of doctors who will accept insurance specifically, along with overdemand stimulated by government-driven health-insurance coverage, leads to mass shortages.

This article by the Mises institute chronicles the disastrous effects making healthcare a right has had on the cost of healthcare in the United States and the problems caused by this deeply flawed thinking.

Benjamin Weingarten proposes a solution to our healthcare crisis in this Conservative Review Article

If government extricated itself from the system, we would see innovation and falling prices. One can imagine any number of solutions that the market would provide, including one in which people are able to purchase cheap catastrophic insurance and only pay for the medical care they need. They could shop for procedures from menus with transparent pricing. Health care would look more like The Cheesecake Factory than the Soviet supermarket.

For those who could still not afford sufficient medical care in a system of greater options and cheaper pricing, the private sector, faith and community-based institutions, and, if need be, a small and stringently managed government safety net would pick up the slack.

If a government safety net is used it would have to be administered by the States because the US Constitution prohibits the federal government from engaging in any entitlements.

My solution to the healthcare crises is to get the federal government out of healthcare completely and let each state come up with their own unique solution.

On Monday, March 6th a thud so loud it registered on the Richter Scale was heard all across the United States.  That thud was the sound of Speaker Paul Ryan’s ObamaCare replacement plan being released.  Very quickly his replacement plan was greeted by a chorus of angry criticism from the Freedom Caucus, Freedom Works, the Tea Party Patriots, and so many other conservative/libertarian organizations.  All of those organizations saw Speaker Ryan’s proposal as a betrayal of their principles.  Labels such as ObamaCare 2.0, ObamaCare Lite, RyanCare, and RinoCare were immediately thrown at the proposal .

Here is an excerpt from a Senator Rand Paul interview, which was published in this Breitbart Article, where he criticizes Speaker Ryan’s legislation.

I think the reason why the House leadership bill is Obamacare Lite is because it retains subsidies. Obamacare had subsidies for people to buy insurance. In the Paul Ryan bill, they keep the subsidies—they just call them refundable tax credits. Some people are predicting that it’s actually going to be more expensive than the subsidies we have under Obamacare. This isn’t you getting your own money back, this is you getting somebody else’s money

The second thing that Paul Ryan’s Obamacare Lite bill does is they keep the Obamacare taxes—all of them—for a year. And then after a year, they keep the Cadillac Tax forever. That’s the tax on if you have really good insurance, Obamacare taxes that. So will Paul Ryan’s plan.

The third thing they do that is Obamacare-like is they keep the individual mandate. It seems like every Republican says they were against the individual mandate. That’s if you didn’t buy insurance you had to pay a penalty to the government, a tax. Obamacare Lite, Paul Ryan’s plan, just changes it so you have to pay a penalty to the insurance companies.

Then the fourth thing they do is they actually subsidize the insurance companies. Right now, insurance companies are losing money and Obamacare has this rescue thing called ‘risk corridors’ to bail out the insurance companies. Paul Ryan has got the same thing, he just calls it reinsurance and it’s $100 million worth. I predict that might not even be enough.

Speaker Ryan claims that his proposal is the best that can be done, because the repeal and replace needs to be done under Budget Reconciliation, to avoid a Democrat filibuster in the Senate.  According to Speaker Ryan his legislative proposal is just step one in a 3 step process.  Here is how he describes this process on his official website

As Speaker Ryan explained at his press conference, this approach has three overarching phases:

The American Health Care Act, which takes full advantage of the budget reconciliation process to avoid a Democratic filibuster;

Administration actions, notably by HHS Secretary Price, to stabilize the health insurance market, increase choices, and lower costs; and

Additional legislative policies, such as allowing individuals to purchase coverage across state lines, that by Senate rules cannot be included in a reconciliation bill.

Unfortunately, Speaker Ryan’s original proposal is such a miserable starting point for this Herculean effort it makes achieving anything worthwhile nearly impossible.

Many Republicans have stated that Speaker Ryan’s proposal is open to amendments.  This is what Representative Mark Sanford had to say about amendments in this Breitbart Article:

With regard to a healthcare bill moving forward, I see leadership’s healthcare plan as an opening proposal,

The debate that is forming will allow conservatives to enhance and improve what has been proposed, and I think this could represent a win for patients, healthcare providers, and the taxpayer alike.

Hopefully major amendments to Speaker Ryan’s proposal will be allowed,  but I’m not at all optimistic about that.

Why is Speaker Ryan’s proposal such a miserable first attempt?  Conservative Review has a very insightful theory  which they shared in this Article

In order to benefit individuals, a plan would have to focus on choice, competition, flexibility – the things that allow people to purchase what best suits their needs. Enter the next act in the health care reform drama – Paul Ryan’s “American Health Care Act” (AHCA for short). Republicans believe in free markets, right? So clearly the fundamental underpinnings of a Republican-designed health care plan will focus on freedom and individual choice, right? Uh … right?

A close look at the AHCA reveals a different operating philosophy, one more tied to preserving the status quo and appeasing industry interests than to improving cost of care, and choice for individuals. Put more simply, Paul Ryan’s Obamacare substitute is fundamentally geared toward keeping a stable customer base for insurers and encouraging universal insurance coverage rather than toward enabling a free market for health care.

According to this article, The Federalist has a theory about why Speaker Ryan’s proposal fails to repeal ObamaCare:

If you want to know why Republicans have bogged down, notice one peculiar thing about the Obamacare debate so far. It’s not really a debate over Obamacare, it’s a debate over Medicaid. That’s because Obamacare mostly turned out to be a big expansion of Medicaid. The health insurance exchanges that were supposed to provide affordable private health insurance (under a government aegis) never really delivered.

Ever since the passage of ObamaCare, Republican were united under the banner of full repeal and then replace.  Unfortunately, Speaker Ryan’s proposal is only a partial repeal. After the release of RyanCare, the Republicans are now seriously, if not hopelessly,  divided.  I believe only a return to full repeal will unite the Republican Party.  After the full repeal then the Republicans can pass a free market, patient centered replacement such as the one Senator Rand Paul authored.  Here is a link to his plan: Rand Paul Plan.

I was shocked and revolted as I watched the rioting unfold on the UC Berkeley campus back on February 1st.  Here is a link which consists of a collection of videos and tweets: Twitchy craziest protest.  The sole purpose of this senseless violence was to prevent one individual, Milo Yiannopoulos,  from speaking.   This should not happen anywhere in this country, let alone at Berkeley, which was the birthplace of the free speech movement.  It is true that only about 150 individuals, most likely outsiders, committed the violence and destruction, however a very large number of student protesters cheered on and gave the anarchists cover.  What did Milo do to deserve such an unfriendly welcome?  He is an outspoken, charismatic, and popular libertarian-conservative.  Yes, he is outrageous and provocative, but that is no reason to silence him.  There is no legitimate reason to silence anyone.  Most disturbing of all is the reaction of the university. They did nothing to stop the rioting, they did nothing to protect Milo’s right to speak freely, and they did nothing to protect the rights of those who wanted to listen to him.

Freedom of speech is one of our most important God given natural rights.  This right must include speech that others might find offensive.   We are all unique individuals.  What offends one person, others might enjoy.  Some of the most fundamental truths may offend a very large portion of the population.  Being offended is a purely emotional response.  We are all supposed to be rational and intelligent beings, ruled by intellect rather than emotion.  Only the most emotionally fragile of us need to shelter ourselves from everything that might possibly be offensive.  Free exercise of speech and free expression are far more important than the emotional well being of fragile individuals.  Unfortunately, political correctness has completely reversed this.  Far too many people believe that their right to never be offended far outweighs everyone else’s right to freely express themselves as they wish.  The right to not be offended does not exist.  It interferes far too much with everyone else’s right of free speech, therefore it is not a valid right.  If we have to refrain from possibly offending anyone we would never be able to speak.

Political correctness has always been a weapon used by the political left to try and silence those on the political right.  Far too often, conservative principles and ideas are labeled offensive or hate speech, and then these labels are used as a justification, by colleges, to ban individuals from speaking .  The latest buzzwords used as justification are white nationalist and alt-right.  Before this last election, I never heard of the alt-right yet, according to the left. it is everywhere.  I believe the white nationalist alt-right exists but it a very small fringe group.  Mainstream conservative publications, such as the Breitbart family of websites, have been unjustly labeled white nationalist alt-right, along with Steve Bannon and Milo.  These accusations, which have been loudly trumpeted by the media, were used as justification by the rioters at UC Berkeley.  Milo discussed the complicity of the media in this interview: Media Legitimizes Violence on Conservatives.  One of the organizers of the Berkeley riots spoke to Tucker Carlson.  Here is a link to the interview.   She used these accusations as justification for the riots.

Thanks to political correctness , conservative speech has become unwelcome on college campuses.  Immediately when a conservative or a libertarian speaker is announced, the cries to ban them begin at once, and then the protests start.  There absolutely nothing wrong with individuals peacefully protesting because they do not approve of the speaker.  People have a right to peacefully protest for any reason.  Blocking entrances, rushing stages, shouting down, and drowning out a speaker with your voice are not valid forms of protest.  These tactics interfere with the rights of the speaker and those in the audience who want to listen to the speaker.  Far too often speakers on the right are uninvited by the college the moment the protests start.  This is a gross violation of free speech.  Liberal speakers far outnumber conservative speakers.   College campuses have become “safe spaces” where conservative ideals are not welcome and often labeled bias incidents.  According to this article, seventy colleges now call authorities for bias incidents.

Thanks to decades of political correctness, more than half of all high school students believe the First Amendment goes too far when protecting free speech.  This is not just a disgrace, it is a national tragedy.   Here is a link to a survey on this subject.

Political correctness is predominantly a phenomenon on the political left, however those of us on the right have, at times, demonstrated our own bad habits when it comes to free speech.  At times we try to force others to be “patriotically correct.”  Everyone has a right to do and say things that are unpatriotic.  No one should ever be punished for being unpatriotic in speech or behavior.  We can criticize individuals for what they say if we do not agree with them because free speech is a two way street.   No one has a right to silence anyone.

 

I firmly believe that abortion is murder.  It is murder of the most helpless and innocent.  I also believe that life begins at conception.  At the time of the writing and ratification of the Constitution every State treated abortion as murder, relying on English Common law, rather than a formal State law.  Abortion is not mentioned in the US Constitution nor is it defined as a crime.  That is of no significance when it comes to allowing the States to criminalize abortion.  Murder is not defined in the Constitution nor is a punishment prescribed, yet murder is illegal in all 50 States.  The only crimes defined by the US Constitution are treason, counterfeiting, piracy and felonies committed on the high seas, offenses against the law of nations, and tax evasion.  These are the only crimes the federal government is authorized to punish by the Constitution.  All other crimes remain the exclusive constitutional domain of the States.  This was done to prevent the federal government from growing large enough to be a threat to the sovereignty of the States.  If there were more federal crimes then the federal government would need a federal police force, federal prisons, and a very large federal court system.  Unfortunately the federal government has ignored the Constitution and seized so much government functions from the States that it now has all of this.  The federal government now dwarfs the States and has become a direct threat to the sovereignty of the States.

It is wrong to say that abortion is a states’ rights issue.  It is more accurate to describe abortion as one of the vast majority of potential crimes that States have the authority to define and prescribe punishment, while the federal government does not.  Here is how James Madison described the relationship between State and federal government when he wrote Federalist paper number 45

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

This principle, which is called federalism, is enshrined in the 10th Amendment.  The federal government is granted only a very limited number of government powers which are clearly spelled out in the Constitution.  The States are denied an even more limited number of powers which are also clearly spelled out.  All remaining powers are retained by the States or the people.  The power to define crimes such as murder is not granted to the federal government nor is it denied to the States; therefore it remains with the States.  The same holds true for the power to outlaw abortion and other similar practices.   Justice Harry Blackmun’s opinion for Roe v Wade violated the principle of federalism and the 10th Amendment.   Here are two excerpts from the opinion which reveal the twisted logic used by Justice Blackmun.

The principal thrust of appellant’s attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal “liberty” embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

According to Justice Blackmun, the Supreme Court can overrule the States on abortion because the due process clause of the 14th Amendment incorporated every single right included in the Bill of Rights down to the States.  This would shock those that wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment.  The Bill of Rights never extended to the States, each State has its own Bill of Rights.  The 14th Amendment due process clause is an exact duplicate of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment.  It extended the protection from only that one clause of the Bill of Rights down to the State level.  Not much was written about the due process clause when the Bill of Rights was written because this concept was universally understood.  It dates back to the Manga Carta and was an integral part of English Common Law.  Here is what William Blackstone had to say when he wrote Commentaries on the Laws of England

The law of England regards, asserts, and preserves the personal liberty of individuals. This personal liberty consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one’s person to whatsoever place one’s own inclination may direct; without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law.

The due process clause prevents the government from taking away your freedom, in other words, locking you up, without going through a formal legal procedure.  It was meant to ensure everyone has a fair trial, not allow abortions.  The writers of the 14th Amendment never intended that this Amendment would allow the Supreme Court to overturn State laws preventing abortion.  All 36 States outlawed abortion before this amendment was ratified in 1868.  It was not until 1973 that Justice Blackmun used this amendment to overturn a Texas law.

Every State has a moral obligation to criminalize abortion because no one has a right to commit murder.  Every individual is endowed by God with inalienable rights at conception.  The most important of these rights are life and liberty.  Abortion steals the life of the unborn child and robs it of a life time of deciding for itself.  Liberty is the freedom to do what you want as long as you do not hurt others and do not interfere with the rights of others.  Because abortion violates both principles, no one has a right to an abortion.  President Trump needs to nominate a Supreme Court Justice that will overturn Roe v Wade and we need to work to make sure abortion is outlawed in every State.

The progressive war on Christmas has become one of the fundamental constants of the universe.  Here is one of the more egregious examples from this year’s annual battle to make sure all things religious are exiled from any property that may be considered public and the dreaded Merry Christmas is never uttered.

Indiana Town Removes Cross From Christmas Tree After ACLU Lawsuit

The mythical separation of church and state was once again used as a justification for vanquishing this cross, which was used for decades.  All it took was one complaint and the ACLU bullied the small town into submission with a lawsuit they could not possibly afford to fight.  Yes, the separation church and state is mythical.  It is a fairytale created by Justice Hugo Black when he wrote his decision for the 1947 Supreme Court case Everson versus Board of Education.  Justice Black claimed that the establishment clause of First Amendment prevented any government organization, at any level, from participating in any type religious activity because that clause built a wall of separation of church and state.  This ruling was a complete departure from the reality that existed in this country from the very instant of the ratification of the Bill of Rights right up until the instant he delivered this ruling.  It completely contradicts the transcripts from the writing of the Bill of Rights and the transcripts of the ratification debates in the States.  Here is what James Madison had to say during the debates when this clause was written:

Mr. Madison said, he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.

It is quite clear from this quote, the Establishment Clause prevents the federal government from passing laws that would establish an official religion and it prevents the passage of laws that would force individuals to worship in a specific manner.  Rather than use the official transcripts, Justice Black based this sweeping new constitutional doctrine on a personal letter between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Church.  To add insult to injury, he completely distorted the actual text and meaning of that letter.

What makes the Everson ruling even more inaccurate; Justice Black completely disregarded the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment.  This clause specifically prevents the federal government from passing laws that would prevent individuals from freely exercising their religious beliefs.  Free exercise of religion is one of the most important god-given natural rights that every individual is endowed with.  Here is what George Mason had to say about free exercise of religion when he wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776.

That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity, towards each other.

The Virginia Declaration of Rights served as the model for the US Bill of Rights and George Mason played a prominent role in the writing of the US Constitution,

Justice Hugo Black completely massacred one more fundamental constitutional principle when he wrote the Everson ruling = The United States Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government.  It never applied to the States and it most certainly never applied to cities and towns.  That is abundantly clear from the transcripts of the State ratifying conventions for the Constitution when a Bill of Rights was demanded, from the transcripts in the House of Representatives and Senate when the Bill of Rights was written, and from the transcripts when the Bill of Rights was ratified by the States.  How can the establishment clause prevent a town from having a cross on a Christmas tree or any other type of religious display?  It cannot.  There is no constitutional basis or this lawsuit nor any similar lawsuit filed by the ACLU.

Like so many of you, at 2:41 am election night I let out the most tremendous sigh of relief.  As a libertarian, I am greatly relieved that Hillary Clinton lost the election.   Coming after eight years of the radical and fundamental transformation instituted by President Obama there would have been very little left of our Constitutional Republic.   President Hillary would have continued governing by imperial edict, just like President Obama, and the spineless Republicans in both houses of congress would have continued to nothing except whine.  Like everyone else that understands and respects the Constitution, what scared me the most was the fact President Clinton would have had the opportunity to nominate two or three Supreme Court Justices,   I don’t want to freak you out too much but it was rumored that Hillary Clinton was considering appointing President Obama.  It is abundantly clear that whoever she would have appointed it would have been a radical leftist like herself.    Religious freedom, the right to bear arms, and free speech would have been severely curtailed.

I did not celebrate President Donald Trump’s victory.  I am cautiously optimistic that he might possibly be an OK president.  He is a big government type.  A lot of his positions are more closely aligned with those of Democrats, although not radical socialist Democrats like President Obama and Hillary Clinton.  During the campaign he promised to govern more like a conservative and promised to nominate strict constructionalists to the Supreme Court.  Even if he does not carry through on all of his promises he still will be infinitely better than President Clinton would have been.

Both the Republican and Democrat parties were major losers during this election.  They both nominated such abysmal candidates.  Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson warned about the dangers of a two party system.   We should have listened. We the people need to scrap the two major parties.  They have a complete stranglehold and the entire political process and both are corrupt to the core.  It will be a long difficult process but it is necessary.  Unfortunately the Libertarian Party also produced an abysmal nominee this election.

The mainstream media really out did themselves this election when it comes to liberal media bias.  They actively became an extension of the Clinton campaign.  Unfortunately far too many people rely on them exclusively for their news.  That locker room chat video came way too close to being the deciding factor for this election.  This problem needs solution before the next presidential election.

We also need to break the liberal stranglehold on higher education.  Colleges are training a generation of social justice warriors who believe socialism is superior to free market capitalism.  They also believe that the Constitution and our founding principles are garbage because the founding fathers were nothing but while, slave holding racists.

Defeating Hillary Clinton was an emergency stop gap measure to prevent the destruction of our Constitutional Republic.  Restoring our Constitutional Republic will take decades of hard work.  More on that in future articles.

Federal regulations place an enormous burden on our economy.  They are strangling every individual and business with red tape.  Earlier this year the Competitive Enterprise Institute released this report detailing the exact size of this regulatory nightmare.  Here are some highlights from that report.

  • The total cost of regulatory compliance for 2015 alone was $1.885 trillion
  • The cost per household that year was $15000
  • 80000 pages of federal rules and regulations were added to the federal register that year
  • There are about 60 different federal agencies writing regulations

The vast majority of these regulations violate several fundamental clauses of the United States Constitution.

All of these regulations are written by departments of the Executive Branch or by independent agencies.  This violates Article I Section 1 which states:

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

The legislative branch has been derelict in its constitutional obligations.  For the past several decades both houses of congress have written laws which have delegated legislative power to these regulatory agencies.  Congress does not have the authority to delegate legislative authority to anyone.  They are not granted that power.  John Locke, one of the primary influences of the framers of the Constitution, was quite clear on this when he wrote his Second Treatise on Government:

The Legislative cannot transfer the Power of Making Laws to any other hands. For it being but a delegated Power from the People, they, who have it, cannot pass it over to others. The People alone can appoint the Form of the Commonwealth, which is by Constituting the Legislative, and appointing in whose hands that shall be. And when the People have said, We will submit to rules, and be govern’d by Laws made by such Men, and in such Forms, no Body else can say other Men shall make Laws for them; nor can the people be bound by any Laws but such as are Enacted by those, whom they have Chosen, and Authorised to make Laws for them. The power of the Legislative being derived from the People by a positive voluntary Grant and Institution, can be no other, than what that positive Grant conveyed, which being only to make Laws, and not to make Legislators, the Legislative can have no power to transfer their Authority of making Laws, and place it in other hands.

Regulations written by these regulatory agencies are treated as the law of the land even though they are never passed by both houses and signed by the president.  This is in violation of Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution, which defines the formal legislative process.

The US Constitution created a limited federal government with only clearly defined powers, which are spelled out in Article 1 Section 8.  All other powers are left to the individual States.  This is declared in the Tenth Amendment:

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.

These regulations violate the Tenth Amendment because they grant the federal government the authority to regulate in areas not contained in the powers enumerated in Article 1 Section 8.

The federal government treats these regulations as if they are the law of the land, in violation of the Supremacy Clause, which is Article 6 Section 2:

This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Because these regulations violate several provisions of the Constitution, they are not in pursuance of the Constitution; therefore they are not the law of the land.

Since all of these regulations already violate several articles of the Constitution, a constitutional amendment preventing the federal government from implementing this regulatory nightmare is not the solution to this constitutional crisis.  Thomas Jefferson proposed the solution to this crisis when he wrote the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.  The States must refuse to implement these unconstitutional regulations and the States must refuse to help the federal government implement them.

Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.

Choose a Subscription level
Beanie : $2.00 USD – weekly
Cap : $10.00 USD – monthly
Hat : $20.00 USD – monthly
Fedora : $25.00 USD – monthly
Grand Fedora : $100.00 USD – monthly

Contrary to what is taught in colleges and promoted by the media today; the government created by the US Constitution is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. About a century ago progressives began systematically transforming this country from a constitutional republic into a European style parliamentary democracy. They accomplished this by elevating laws passed by congress, executive orders, federal regulations, and Supreme Court decisions to the status of the supreme law of the land, while completely ignoring the actual text of the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.

In recent decades, progressives have taken this transformation well beyond turning this nation into a parliamentary democracy. They have created a form of government that is more dangerous by greatly increasing the power and scope of the Executive Branch. President Obama now wields almost unlimited legislative power through his unconstitutional use of executive orders.

This fundamental transformation has also included the creation of a fourth branch of the federal government. This branch consists of an army unelected bureaucrats who control virtually every aspect of our lives.

The Constitution created a bottom up government hierarchy, with the federal government as the weakest tier. Local governments were supposed to have the most influence on our daily lives. States were meant to be mostly independent nations tied together by a weak central government. The federal government lacked the power to reach down and affect the lives of those living inside the States. This has now been completely reversed by progressives. Virtually every aspect of our lives is closely regulated by the federal government.

These fundamental transformations, which have been greatly accelerated by President Obama, have produced disastrous results for everyone. To reverse these disastrous transformations, “We the people” must restore our government back to a constitutional republic. Here is my step by step guide to accomplishing this.

We must educate ourselves

I would highly recommend everyone read:

The Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention
The Federalist Papers
The Anti-federalist Papers
The 5000 Year Leap, by W. Cleon Skousen
The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, also by Skousen.
The Kentucky Resolutions by Thomas Jefferson
The Virginia Resolutions by James Madison

The Kentucky Resolutions and the Virginia Resolutions are essential reading because they contain the blueprint for restoring our constitutional republic.

We must educate others

Please share this article with as many people and groups as possible thru Facebook, Twitter, and other social media outlets. Please read the texts I mentioned in the previous section and share that knowledge with as many people as possible.

We must educate our State governments.

Most members of State governments are completely oblivious when it comes to the extent of the restorative powers that the States can wield when dealing with a federal government that has exceeded its constitutional limitations. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Kentucky Resolutions in response to the Alien and Seditions Acts,which were passed in 1798. Here is section one:

Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

James Madison echoed Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the Virginia Resolutions. The constitutional doctrine laid out in these documents, which is called nullification, is the single most important tool for restoring the federal government to its constitutional boundaries. To implement nullification States need only to declare that a certain action by the federal government violates the Constitution, therefore it is null and void, and the State will not enforce it. States can use nullification on all federal laws, regulations, executive orders, and Supreme Court decisions that violate the Constitution. This process is independent from the Supreme Court.

We must make nullification a major campaign issue.

It is vital that we ask every elected member of State government if they support nullification as a means of restoring our constitutional republic. If they do not, we must find alternative candidates that do, and we must make every effort to get them elected.

I do not believe the Article 5 amendment process is the answer.

The federal government has completely ignored or distorted every single clause of the Constitution and every single amendment. I firmly believe the federal government will do the same with any new amendment that is ratified. The federal government will not reform itself. Under the Constitution, the States were always meant to be the ultimate restorative force.

Please check out my previous articles:

Politically Correct equals Newspeak
The Intoxicating History of Beer
Climate Change Has become a religion
Freedom of Religion not Freedom From Religion
Time to bust some Second Amendment Myths

A note from DaTechGuy: This is the last week of Da Magnificent Tryouts. If you like Jon’s Piece(s) and want him to stay now is the time to hit DaTipJar in his support and share his pieces




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. Right now our subscribers consist of 1/50 of 1% of our total unique visitors based on last years numbers.

If we can get another 150 subscribers at $10 a month (another 1/10 of 1% of those who have visited this year) We can meet our annual goals with no trouble, with the same number of subscribers at $20 a month I could afford to cover the presidential campaign outside of New England firsthand.

And of course at that price you get the Da Magnificent Seven plus those we hope to add on and all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



and if you want to fight the MSM company store join the Have Fedora Will Travel pledge drive to send me to cover Donald Trump on the road