It used to be said that American liberty rested on four boxes:
- The soap box;
-The ballot box;
-The jury box;
-The cartridge box.
It was also said that they ought to be employed in that order.

What is the status of the 4 boxes that support our freedom?

For those too young to know such things, soap used to be shipped in a sturdy wooden box about 18" in each dimension, used when somebody wanted to stand up and sound off about a complaint or an issue.  Soap boxes were inexpensive, relatively lightweight containers that could carry a man's weight.  They were akin to the plastic milk crate of the latter half of the twentieth century.  A soap box was the average American's podium,  and "getting up on a soap box" was a metaphor for the ability of every American to use the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to speak his mind on issues of importance to him.

So, what would happen if you or I were to set up a soap box or a small stool or a plastic milk crate and stood on top of it and started explaining to passers-by how badly corrupted our judicial system is, or how the Federal government is engaging in gross violation of the Constitution, or even questioned the eligibility of the present occupant of the White House to be there?

Well, I haven't done it lately, but I expect that I would get arrested.  For protesting without a permit, or for possessing a non-CPSC approved ladder, or for use of a product outside the government-approved instructions, or for obstruction of a public way, or for that perennial favorite of police officers searching for a charge, 'disorderly conduct.'  Not for exercising my right to free speech, oh no!  That is protected, but I should have gone to the approved free speech zone 12 blocks away.  Where I could get all the video coverage I wanted courtesy of the cameras piped to the nearest federal terrorism fusion center, and where my audience would be the rats feasting on the filth left by the OWS protesters.

Those presently exercising authority do not want to be bothered with free speech from the general public, and more to the point they do not want the taxpayers or their voters bothered with free speech either. Letters to elected representatives serve mainly to get you onto one or another lists of potential troublemakers, (which has not deterred me,) but such letters cannot inculcate morality and ethics into those who demonstrably have none.  Just as few people today have ever seen a soap box, fewer still know or care about the meaning behind it and almost nobody is willing to stand on top of one, either literally or figuratively.  Still, a table can stand on three legs;  what about the ballot box?

A number of factors, historically, have borne on the attempt to secure free and fair elections.  Equal access by candidates, an informed electorate, open debates and discussion of the ideas of each candidate, and an impartial ballot counting process were all part of the mix.  At least in theory.  The practice of elective politics, however, has been tarnished to some extent since the founding of the Republic, and especially so in the big cities.    Probably one of the most notorious examples is Boss Tweed of Tammany Hall (New York City, Democratic-Republican party, mid 19th century) who is supposed to have said, "I don't care who the public votes for as long as I do the nominating!"  Another relevant quote is "It isn't who votes that counts, it is who counts the votes!" 

Those in power dislike giving it up, especially those who have overtly corrupted the system and are benefiting from that corruption.  (It is interesting to note that today there are many times more millionaires per capita in politics than in private employment, even including the financial services area.  One reason is that politicians are exempt from insider trading laws. If one excludes the banks and trading exchanges from the definition of 'private', it gets far worse.  Politicians today are thousands of times more likely to be rich than a businessman.)  These electoral manipulations included exclusion of candidates, gerrymandering of voting blocks, vote counting irregularities, and warping of popular perception, but for the most part, everyone involved saw the need for at least the perception of fair elections, and the more significant outrages were generally checked by the press, the people and the court system.  At least up until the latter half of the 20th century.

Constraints, both lawful and not, on candidacy  have been in play since before the Revolution, but the latter half of the twentieth century saw the fruition of the American Empire, and with superpower status came enormous financial incentive to maintain the status quo.  As the economy became more and more deformed by the various legislative manipulations inflicted upon it, and as businesses became increasingly dependent upon political rather than economic forces, the incentive to ensure the status quo also became increasingly great.  The present political system is designed and operated to ensure that no candidate who threatens the status quo is ever allowed to speak freely, witness the outrageous treatment of Ron Paul in the last presidential primary contest. 

Candidates who espouse the philosophy of limited government, sound money, and personal liberty are demonized and hounded from the field by any means, fraudulent, facile or felonious.  It is incredibly rare to hear any candidate for any office talk about principle;  most candidates from either 'mainstream' party argue about how much they are going to loot from the productive, and who ought to receive the swag.  Vanishingly few candidates talk about whether looting ought to be done in the first place; principles are never debated amongst the 'acceptable' 'mainstream' candidates, only minor variations on the status quo.

Parenthetically, restrictions on the franchise have become fewer over time, to the point that illegal immigrants are being encouraged to vote to support the present entitlement system, and the status quo.  Ballots used to be paper records that could be checked, recounted and verified, but increasingly elections are resolved by means of electronic devices which are supposed to be 'tamper-proof.'  The manufacturers all stoutly maintain that nothing could be more secure than the present electronic voting machines, but there are numerous confirmed reports of persons having voted for one candidate and seeing another come on the screen as having been that voter's selection.  During the 2012 elections, some precincts reported 104% registered voter turnout, with 100.0% voting in favor of one candidate.  These results were certified as correct. Free and fair?

Then there are the recent overt attempts to block participation, such as the stationing of gang members and Black Panthers outside polling places who blocked white voters from entering the polls.  In a similar vein, many absentee ballots were sent too late to be used to the soldiers, sailors and Marines serving overseas, and of those that were sent out in time, many were 'lost.' Free and fair, or fee and fear?

Some folks vaguely comprehend that something has gone dreadfully wrong with our representative Republic and it's electoral process, but few can quantify their concerns, and those few are assiduously ignored by politicians and media alike.    As any number of commentators have put it- "We are not voting our way out of this!"  Bottom line: the ballot box has rotted out from the inside, and cannot support Liberty.  We must change that, but rebuilding the ballot box is a task which will take years, and must be built upon an educated populace.  This is an essential task, but Liberty is being assaulted right now, and she needs help.

What about the jury box?  Surely the right to a fair trial, being judged by a jury of your peers, can help restore Lady Liberty?

Well, the short answer is that it might, if we actually had the same jury and court system that existed in 1800.  Back then, juries were randomly selected from the registered voters of the area.  They were not screened or examined apart from being voters, but back then being a registered voter meant that you were either a landowner, a journeyman in a trade, or a businessman, meaning that you were a respectable pillar of the community, and almost certainly fully literate and well read. (literacy among the general population was well over 90% and among voters it was virtually 100%.)  There was no "one man, one vote" universal suffrage;  to be a voter you had to have a stake in the community.

In those days, literacy meant that you had studied Locke and Blackstone, had read the Declaration of American Independence and understood it, knew the Articles of Confederation and the new Constitution, and were familiar with the principles of individual rights.  You kept up with the issues of the day, whether you were a Whig or a Federalist, and you had a lively interest in maintaining the rule of law.  Such a man understood that an American jury had the right and the duty to not only judge the facts of a case, but also to judge whether a law was just under the Constitution, or being justly applied in a particular case.

Fast forward to today.  Today, the surest way to avoid jury duty is to wear a "FIJA"  T-shirt (FIJA = Fully Informed Jury Association, an organization which promotes the rights of juries to employ all of their traditional power to judge both the law and the facts.)  The second fastest way is to let slip that you are active in 'alternative' politics, such as the Tea Party, or the Constitution party, or especially the Libertarian Party.  Both judges and prosecutors jealously covet their arrogated power and if they even suspect that you do not share their warped vision of 'justice' they will get you out of the courtroom posthaste before you 'contaminate' the other jurors.  As Neil Smith has put it, "voire dire" is French for 'jury tampering;' the examination process ensures an ignorant pliable jury.

It is likely that not one in a thousand members of an average jury today know who John Adams was, or what he had to say about the powers of an American jury.  "It is not only his right, but his [the juror's] duty – to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."  This ignorance of history and the law is one reason that Federal case conviction rates are over 98%, and most state courts are not far behind.  These presently united States have the highest per capita conviction and incarceration rates of any western culture, and one of the highest in the entire world.

Today, sadly, a fair trial is nowhere to be found, and the process of getting to court itself is a harrowing ordeal which can destroy families and strip the innocent of all resources just by accusation.  Books have been written about the degeneration of the court system, but suffice it to say that what has happened to the jury is but a small part of the deterioration of the once-admirable American 'justice' system.
No, the jury box cannot save Liberty, although you, gentle reader, can change that eventually.  Educate all those you know of the traditional power of the jury; the liberty you save may someday be your own. 

So, we appear to be left with the 'cartridge box.'

In Revolutionary days, the cartridge box was a weather resistant leather pouch in which musket cartridges were kept for ready use;  it had to be regularly oiled or greased to ensure that it could keep the powder in your cartridges dry.   Cartridges were typically loaded into the cartridge box only when action was contemplated.  When taken into context, references to "the cartridge box" meant not only possessing adequate ammunition, but also the weapon and the skill needed to fire those cartridges.

What is to be said of the "cartridge box" in this day and age?  Today, the modern equivalent is fully charged normal capacity magazines for one's self-loading rifle, and the web gear that holds such magazines and the various other accessories, along with the rifle itself.  On the one hand, we have would-be tyrants and their syncophants trying to further limit our Constitutionally recognized right to own and carry weapons of all sorts, especially those of military utility.  On the other, we have the encouraging fact that in the last five years Americans have bought enough arms to equip the US, Chinese and Indian armies, and purchased enough ammunition to fight a war for many months. 

Clearly, Americans increasingly understand their right and duty to defend themselves and their rights, and are preparing to do so.  Regardless of the extensive efforts being made to pull their own wool over their eyes, Americans are becoming aware of how badly they have been sheared, and they are preparing to defend themselves.

Some would have us believe that the cartridge box is an anachronism, that a rifle-armed populace is incapable of defending itself from a modern army.  I am sure that the Afghanis and the Iraq irregulars would be interested to hear that, and so would over a hundred thousand dedicated soldiers, sailors and marines who are fighting less than a thousand Al-queda in the 'stans. You could also ask the SAS about fighting less than two hundred IRA in Great Britain, or the 10th Cavalry about chasing the Apache.

The cartridge box is more than simply owning arms and ammunition;  in order to possess the power of the cartridge box, and defend liberty, you must be skilled and trained with your arms and their accessories. More than that, you must know why your resistance is moral, and have the will to resist. 

Have you, gentle reader, oiled your cartridge box lately?  Jeff Cooper famously remarked that one is no more armed because he owns a gun, than he is a musician because he owns a guitar.  Will you be able to play when the dance starts?  Time passes, tyranny progresses, and the day may come when, as the schoolmaster in 1775 said, "Deponite libros!"  or "Put your schoolbooks down!"


With regard to all who serve the Light,

Historian

History is replete with examples of government creating a problem by intervening in people's business and then proposing a government solution to the problem that government itself has created.  Usually this sort of con is used not only to loot the public, but also to expand the power of government.  The Progressive Movement here in these presently united States, which started toward the tail end of the 19th century and which is still active today, is a perfect example.  Progressivism was sold to the public based on the idea that mankind could be 'perfected' by just the right legislation and regulation.  Rather than adhere to the Enlightenment idea of leaving people alone, letting them trade independently, and minimalizing government intrusion into the market, Progressives preferred to attempt to use the power of government to correct what they stated were "Flaws" in the free market.

One set of instructive examples are the various anti-trust laws, touted by Progressives as "Protecting the small businessman from the large corporations!"  The first of these laws I believe was passed in Missouri, to prevent the 'beef trust' (which was largely a figment of the imagination of the politicians of the day) from driving the free-range ranchers out of business.  The idea was to keep the ranchers from having to compete against the more efficient Swift Company. 

The beef anti-trust laws were passed to prevent anyone from charging less than their competition.  Seriously.  One would think that the glaring flaws of this idea would be immediately obvious to even an idiot, or a State legislator, (but I repeat myself.) but one would be wrong, for the law passed.  It is noteworthy that it did so under tremendous pressure from various lobbying organizations representing small ranchers who were desperately seeking relief from reality.  All that they managed to do was to change a large efficient meatpacking company into a gargantuan force that became largely unstoppable.

Having been forced to swallow a huge increase in their profit margin, a profit provided unwillingly by their customers, the Swift company proceeded to become a dominant force in the meat packing business and ultimately drove many of the small ranchers out of business anyway, further consolidating their vertical integration.  The exorbitant profits guaranteed by government regulation created a colossus with which nobody could compete, and which could afford to buy legislative favors as hors-d'ouvres. 

The Swift Company was subsequently held up as an example of a company which had grown too big under 'Free Market' capitalism, and was used as motivation to pass Federal anti-trust laws.  See what I mean about government being a disease masquerading as it's own cure?

This use of government to extort profits from otherwise free markets was not lost on other large companies, which proceeded to lobby various state and federal legislators for similar 'anti-trust' legislation.  Presently, it is unlawful in these united States to charge less than the competition, the same price as the competition, or more than the competition.  If this sounds insane, welcome to the world of anti-trust law. 

Far from being the defender of the small businessman, Progressive anti-trust rules and other more recent regulation have made it very difficult for a small business to enter the marketplace and succeed; the legal costs of defending against anti-trust prosecutions can, and have, bankrupted many start-up businesses.  Antitrust laws are used by large established firms to restrain entry into the marketplace, and by government to coerce targeted corporations into cooperation with various and sundry infringements on their legitimate rights.  I've never heard exactly what Bill Gates had or had not done to annoy the Federal government, but he had a run-in with the Sherman Anti-trust laws a few years ago.  The threat of an anti-trust action is a powerful incentive to cooperate with the regime.  Is this a failure, or is it success?

Antitrust laws are only one example of Progressive tyranny;  Prohibition, which made criminals rich and established a permanent criminal organization, is another example.  Fortunately, the insanity of trying to legislate beverage choices eventually became so obvious that it was repealed.  A rare blow struck for freedom;  one wishes that the present Mayor of New York City had studied history.  However, the repeal of Federal prohibition kicked off the next attempts at Progressive 'improvement.'

Enter the current war on drugs.  Started in 1914 with the Pure Food and Drug Act, in the aftermath of the repeal of alcohol prohibition the authorities began to expand and aggressively enforce the prohibition of "dangerous drugs" (what are those, exactly?  Aspirin?  Tylenol?  Antibiotics?  By what principle are such things defined?) This aggressive enforcement hasn't done much to decrease drug use,  but we have succeeded in enriching murderous thugs by creating legal barriers to entry for recreational substances and provided an endless source of employment for tens of thousands of 'law enforcement' officers. 

We have created a system which provides massive financial incentives for the drug cartels to create, import and sell the most addictive substances that they can to whomever they can attract.  Usually the young.  Then there are the infringements upon our Constitutionally guaranteed rights, which have largely eviscerated that protection against arbitrary police power.  I'm told by law enforcement acquaintances involved in the drug war that the inflation adjusted price of most recreational substances has been steady or decreased over the last couple of decades, so if your goal is reduction of drug use and the protection of the young from the predatory efforts of the local illegal drug dealer (and you DO have a local illegal drug dealer, regardless of where you live,) then the 'War on Drugs' has been lost. 

If however your goal is the expansion of governmental power and destruction of the rights of the individual, then the 'drug war' has been a stunning success.  The fact that the "War on Drugs" has succeeded only in enriching thugs and policemen, destroying Constitutional protection of our rights as Americans, and impoverishing the American middle class is never discussed.  Is the War on Drugs a failure or a success?

Another outgrowth of Prohibition was the assault on the individual right to own and carry weapons, guaranteed here in these presently united States by the Second Amendment to the Constitution.  This commenced under Roosevelt the Second by passage of the National FIrearms Act of 1934, which outlawed unregulated purchase of machine guns, a Rooseveltian imitation of the legislation from the home of one of FDR's most admired leaders, Joseph Stalin, and which originally banned handguns, as well.  The handgun ban was stripped out of NFA 34 by widespread protests from women's rights organizations, who correctly saw that such a ban would seriously undercut women's self-reliance, but the remainder of this odious act was sold as a "law and order" solution, which did nothing except provide employment for Federal agents thrown out of work by the end of Prohibition. 

This first attack was followed 30 years later by the Gun Control Act of 1968, which copied and implemented German weapons control laws enacted during the 1920s and 1930s, and which laws the 'Progressive' National Socialist Worker's Party used to ensure that German Jews did not have the means to defend themselves against the Holocaust.  Yes, GCA68 is an almost word for word translation of Nazi law.

GCA 68 has been followed by a plethora of infringements and restrictions, most passed in the wake of criminal atrocities enabled by earlier and less stringent restrictions on the individual right to carry weapons.  When presented with the horrible fruits of their efforts, the Progressive response has always been "Well, we need MORE constraints to make the policy work!"  There are somewhere in excess of 20,000 laws restricting firearms ownership here in the USA.  What is interesting is to note the strong correlation between individual helplessness and violent crime;  in those areas where people do not possess arms or the right to carry them, violent crime soars.  Is this failure, or success?

The recent tragedy in Boston illustrates the failure of the "War on Terror."  Frederick Forsyth, in his 1960's novel "the Day of the Jackal"  pointed out the inability of the surveillance state to stop a murderous assault.  Leaderless cells can carry out, and have carried out, attacks in countries around the world, even the most totalitarian.  The government knows this, so why this push for more controls, more infringement on our rights when there is no possibility of such measures being successful in their stated purpose?  The answer may be seen in the aftermath of the Boston bombing, when the Boston Metro area was shut down by illegal diktat. The residents of Watertown were subjected to the grossest sort of unConstitutional military invasion, an invasion which, unlike the last such, did not result in thousands of minutemen rushing to the area to decimate the invaders with fire from their personally owned assault weapons.  John Parker must be weeping in rage from Heaven, but the point here is that the Boston attack was used as an excuse to justify the rape of our personal freedoms.  What will be the excuse next time?  We can expect the violation of the Constitution to be even worse, next time.  Is the 'War on Terror' a failure or a success?  Again, this depends on your goals.

(The best defense against any sort of criminal activity is an armed, informed, self-reliant populace, but that does not serve the Progressive goal of government growth.  If everyone minded their own business and took care of themselves and their neighbors, what would a busybody do?  It is instructive to note that the alleged terrorist being sought was found hiding in a boat by a private citizen AFTER the criminal lockdown had ended.  How much sooner would this alleged perpetrator been found if people had been free to pursue their normal activities? How far would these alleged perpetrators have gotten in flyover country?  It is not coincidence that this attack was carried out in a State where people are largely disarmed and docile.  Sheep get sheared, and sometimes butchered.)

The fact is that about 1 to 3 percent of the population is willing to initiate criminal violence, and there is no possibility of a government police power strong enough to prevent that, under any circumstance.  The fact also is that the police have no legal, ethical or moral obligation to protect any specific individual.    Here, again, we see the Progressive movement, like an anaconda, using the failures of their previous policies to throw another coil around American liberty, and squeeze a little more freedom out of us.

There are literally hundreds, if not thousands of examples I could cite and I could go on in this vein for thousands of pages, but the point is that the ultimate result of 'Progressive' legislation is a totalitarian police state.  Is that your goal?  Is that what you want the future to look like? 

What is the only legitimate function of government?  To protect the rights of the individual.  If the government not only fails to act to protect our rights, but acts to destroy them, is that government legitimate?  Do you want to continue the progress of these presently united States towards totalitarian tyranny?

What is to be done?  This, gentle reader, is up to you.  I can show you the path back to liberty, but only you can walk it.

With regard to all who serve the Light, 

Historian



 

I discovered Rudyard Kipling at an early age.  My grandfather, who died before I was conceived, evidently loved his work, as he had a number of Kipling's books, which I encountered while prowling the shelves in my grandmother's house.  His prose is great, but where Kipling truly outshines all others is with his verse.  I have spent many happy hours reading and pondering his poetry, for Kipling was a man who not only grasped the human condition in an extraordinary way, but who could bring that understanding home to the readers of his verse.There are many other great English language poets;  Robert Service is another favorite,  and among prose authors I love the words of Joseph Conrad, Jack London, and Ayn Rand, but when it comes to pithy summaries of humanity, Kipling's verse stands alone, for much of it is still relevant to-day.

Some of his works take a bit of work to understand, for the cultural referents are lacking here in the 21st century, but all his work is worth taking the time to understand it.  Many of his poems are to be found here-  http://www.kipling.org.uk/.  His work is so good that I have a hard time choosing especial favorites, but given the news of late I am minded of several to-day.  The first came to mind with respect to the situation in Korea, where, at least according to North Korea, we are once again at war.  With that in mind, I give you Kipling's Dane-Geld (pronounced Da-neh geld {hard g})-

'Dane-Geld A.D. 980-1016
By Rudyard Kipling

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say: –
“We invaded you last night–we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away.”

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you’ve only to pay ‘em the Dane-geld
And then you’ll be rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: –
“Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: –

“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost!” '
____________________________________________________________________________

With regard to our domestic policy and present insane spending spree, I am minded of another Kipling masterwork, "The Gods of the Copybook Headings" written in 1919, after the death of his son. 

The Gods of the Copybook Headings

AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

I also recall one of his epitaphs from the Great War (world War 1)-

A DEAD STATESMAN

"I could not dig: I dared not rob:
Therefore I lied to please the mob.
Now all my lies are proved untrue
And I must face the men I slew.
What tale shall serve me here among
Mine angry and defrauded young? "

Third and last, I give you MacDonough's song-

"MacDonough's Song
"As Easy as A.B.C" in A Diversity of Creatures

WHETHER the State can loose and bind
In Heaven as well as on Earth:
If it be wiser to kill mankind
Before or after the birth--

These are matters of high concern
Where State-kept schoolmen are;
But Holy State (we have lived to learn)
Endeth in Holy War.

Whether The People be led by The Lord,
Or lured by the loudest throat:
If it be quicker to die by the sword
Or cheaper to die by the vote--

These are things we have dealt with once,
(And they will not rise from their grave)
For Holy People, however it runs,
Endeth in wholly Slave.

Whatsoever, for any cause,
Seeketh to take or give,
Power above or beyond the Laws,
Suffer it not to live!

Holy State or Holy King--
Or Holy People’s Will--
Have no truck with the senseless thing.
Order the guns and kill!

Saying—after—me:--
Once there was The People—Terror gave it birth;
Once there was The People and it made a Hell of Earth.
Earth arose and crushed it. Listen, O ye slain!
Once there was The People—it shall never be again!"


If ever there were prescient verse, here it be written!
I fear what dreadful harvest those presently in authority shall reap.....and us along with them, will-ye, nil-ye. "Power above and beyond the Laws..." indeed.

____________________________________________________________________________

Kipling has some advice for the next generation, to help keep them from repeating our folly:
"I Keep Six Honest Serving Men ...

I KEEP six honest serving-men
(They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who.
I send them over land and sea,
I send them east and west;
But after they have worked for me,
I give them all a rest.

I let them rest from nine till five,
For I am busy then,
As well as breakfast, lunch, and tea,
For they are hungry men.
But different folk have different views;
I know a person small--
She keeps ten million serving-men,
Who get no rest at all!

She sends'em abroad on her own affairs,
From the second she opens her eyes--
One million Hows, two million Wheres,
And seven million Whys!"

Or as Robert Heinlein put it, less eloquently, but more forcefully-

"What are the facts? Again and again and again—what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what "the stars foretell," avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable "verdict of history"; what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!"

So.  I commend Kipling to your especial attention, in the expectation that your reading will bring you satisfaction, wisdom, and enlightenment. Perhaps even a bit of joy.  I could maunder on for hours, but as it is Passover, I will close by asking each of you, gentle readers, to remember that to be human is to be free. 

Yours in Liberty,

Historian

I read an article by 'American Mercenary' -Link  in which he talked about the difficulty of restoring the American Republic, and the Constitution.  No doubt, there are hard times coming, hard lessons to be relearned in a brutal manner.  Freedom is not free, and the only way to pay for it is in sweat and blood. Like all unpaid obligations, such debts grow bigger over time, and just as with our national credit, Liberty in these presently united States has been dreadfully abused.  I agree with A M, too, on the low probability of restoring these presently united States to being a carbon copy of the original federation of independent states under the Constitution.  Even if such were possible,the Constitution like any other document created by humans, has flaws; witness the mess we are in today.

But although this attempt at applying Enlightenment philosophy to the government of a free people (meaning the Constitution) has problems, the ideals of the Enlightenment on which it was founded are still valid.  Just as the Articles of Confederation were superseded by the Constitution, so will the Constitution and the republic which grew under it be superseded by something else.  What will follow it, however, is not written yet.  Who will do the writing?  What will be said?  Which ideas will be it's foundation? 

How was all this done two and a quarter centuries ago?  Understanding the motivations of the Federalists who wrote it allows a better understanding of how and why we got the Constitution we ended up with.  It also shows how we can improve upon it.

Take some time, and study the history of the writing of the Constitution of the United States.  A good start is Max Farrand's book, "The Framing of the Constitution of the United States."  Written a hundred years ago, and still in print today, it is an excellent starting place to understand how and why the Constitution was created, and to understand the men who wrote it.  Many of them were no smarter or wiser than many of us, although some were better read, and that it the point of this:  each of us should aspire to building something better. And by this, I mean you.  Yes, YOU!  The individual reading this. YOU can make a difference.

Not long ago, in my wanderings about the blogosphere (I read many dozens every week, and I cannot recall at the moment which one it was...) I read an article which pointed out the importance of individual action.  Talking about German reunification and the actions of Kohl, it made the point that the right person at the right time can make a huge difference in outcome. Nobody in 1989 would have given a nickel's worth of credence to the idea that Germany would reunify, yet here we are with the deed done, due in large part to an unremarkable politician named Helmut Kohl who saw the opportunity and took advantage of it.

In 1774, very few Americans were even discussing the possibility of an independent America. Yet two years later each of the thirteen colonies had revolted against the most powerful empire in the world, and ultimately beat the largest, most powerful military in the world.  How?  Ideas.  Ideas inculcated in the body of the population, ideas expressed in pamphlets and leaflets, ideas which set the minds of individual people alight. We won the American Revolution because of ideas, embodied and defended by individuals who fought for them. (2 million pounds of French gunpowder combined with one of the only French defeats of the Royal Navy helped a lot, I must admit, but these events are further proof of the power of the individual.  Would the French have intervened without Franklin?)

The philosophy of freedom, the ideals of the Enlightenment are so powerful that I believe it is a mistake to underestimate what can happen when they are employed.  When those are combined with the power of the individual, they can shake the world.  If each reader of this blog were to spread the ideas of the Enlightenment locally, and cultivate liberty in their neighborhood, the results would be out of all proportion to the effort involved.  Philosophy, or the lack of it, is the reason that we are in the mess in which we find ourselves.  Philosophy, and attention to the ideals of the Enlightenment, is the path out of the swamp of collectivism in which we are mired.

We have a demonstrably better set of ideas than our opponents, but we have done a terrible job of promoting these ideas.  The collectivists and statists have entered the war of ideas and won by default, because the FreeFor wasn't on the field. That must change if we are to win, and each of you can be a part of it.

If Americans are to once again demonstrate to the world American exceptionalism we must win the war of ideas.  Education is the key.  We must teach people what freedom is, why liberty is important, what individual rights are and are not, and we must explain why these ideas are so vitally important.  Each of us ought to dedicate ourselves to planting the seeds of Liberty.

It is true that history does not exactly repeat itself, and it is unlikely that we can recreate the united States of 1781,  but an historical rhyme of liberty would be most pleasing, and is certain eventually.  I am intent on hearing it in my lifetime.  How about you?  Plant the seeds of Liberty,  the ideas of freedom,  and you can enjoy the harvest of freedom.

When I took my engineering degree a number of years ago the school required that every engineer attend a 4 semester series of classes in the Engineering Humanities program.  Occasionally, those few students with outstanding English SATs  could be exempted from the first semester of the four, but nobody would be further exempted from this requirement;  you had to take at least three of the four semesters.  I was allowed to skip the first semester, but not the second.  I argued my best, and exerted a considerable amount of effort, taking my case all the way to the Dean, but to no avail.

Facing what I thought to be a waste of my time, and now being required to comply, I could not decide which course to pick.  If I recall correctly, there were at least half a dozen classes on all sorts of topics.  With human history (one of my main interests,) being largely a matter of preparation for conflict, conflict, and the aftermath of conflict, in the event I could not resist the second semester elective entitled "Technology, Aggression, and Peace."  The class examined the history of engineering as it related to warfare, and the moral implications of participating in engineering work related to making war.  In hindsight, I was never so glad to have lost an argument with the Dean, for that class fascinated me and sparked an interest which continues to this day.

Given only 41 class sessions, the coverage was necessarily brief, but one era we studied for about a month was the Holocaust.  We studied how the death camps were conceived, designed, and constructed.  Some of the reading assignments gave me memorable nightmares, but although the mundane mechanisms of genocide were laid bare, dry paperwork documenting the systematic eradication of a group of human beings, there were several questions left unanswered.  One was "How did the German government know who the Jews were?" 

The answer may horrify you, but I found out years later in a book by Edwin Black that the Germans contracted with a US company to create records using German census data.  This company, which also carried out secret data management work for the United States government, was IBM.  They methodically sorted and compiled mountains of data gleaned from past German census takers to compile detailed files on every identifiable Jew in Europe.  It was IBM punchcard sorting technology which made the horrific efficiency of the Holocaust possible. 

One example to which I have already referred is that of Warsaw, Poland.  A 1939 census showed that there were hundreds of thousands of Jews in Warsaw, and it recorded their names, addresses, occupations, incomes and a variety of other information, including their family member's names.  The punchcard databases helped the Germans be most thorough.  Today, some 68 years later, only a few hundred Jews live in Warsaw. Philosophy made it possible, people made it happen, but the databases made it efficient.

Today, I hear a haunting echo from the past, as if the ghosts of millions of slaughtered Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and intellectuals were whispering in my ears.  I hear that echo whenever I hear the words "Real ID."  Free countries do not require ID cards, or identification papers, or any other means of tracking and locating their people; totalitarian police states do.  Free countries do not set up databases, whether of punchcards or solid-state memory chips, to record information about their people.  But totalitarian police states do.  What sort of country are we really living in?

One of many things I have learned in my study of history is that governments murdered over 170 million of their own people during the last century.  First, they disarmed them, then they killed them.  As previously discussed, that is the calculus of genocide.  But more important is what made atrocity after atrocity possible; information, detailed files on each person, information that could be, and was, used by governments to slaughter tens of millions of people.  It is not simply firearms registration that one ought to fear, it is databases recording personal information collected on every person alive.  Separate databases are bad enough, but a single unified government database which has detailed records on your medical condition, your purchase history, your friends, emails, and every other personal detail about you is a terrifying abomination.

And THAT is what Real ID is, an effort to create a single integrated database that government can use... to do what, exactly?  And where did they get this power?  That is the first question that one ought to ask-  "Does the Federal Government have the specific enumerated power to collect data on each citizen?  Where does it say that in the Constitution?" Anybody?  *I* have not seen it.

What we ought to call Real ID is "the Genocide Enabling Act" f or that is exactly how it will be used.  Don't forget to remind your representatives that there is no good purpose for government databases.  We need to repeal Real ID, but in the meantime I urge every patriotic American to do everything possible to corrupt ALL of the data being collected on you every day.  Misspell names, transpose digits, provide frivolous responses.  Create fictitious on-line personas. Add a dozen fictional people to your household.  John may buy vitamins while George chats about hockey, and Agnes blogs about knitting.   You may not be able to prevent data from being collected, and you may be too old to fight physically should that sad day ever come, but if you make a point of corrupting the databases being built, you may save hundreds or even thousands of lives.
Including yours.

 

One of the unstated assumptions being promoted by those presently in authority and their fellow travelers in the mainstream media is that violence is bad.  Many people  flinch from the idea of doing violence in any way, but is violence, in and of itself, a bad thing? 

Here are some choice quotes-

"The price of freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle, anywhere, at any time, and with utter recklessness. " From "the Puppet Masters," by Robert Anson Heinlein.

"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks ... It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men. "
-Samuel Adams

"Those who abjure violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf" -George Orwell

"My nonviolence does not admit of running away from danger and leaving dear ones unprotected. Between violence and cowardly flight, I can only prefer violence to cowardice." -Mahatma Ghandi

"Anyone who clings to the historically untrue and thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never solves anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler would referee. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor; and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms.”   from "Starship Troopers" by Robert Anson Heinlein.

I find Samuel Adam's words especially haunting, for we are indeed being cheated of our freedoms by the artifices of false and designing men, and there are many who are trying to persuade us to surrender our liberties without a fight.  This is wrong, and those who attempt it are evil people.  If America is to restore its historical character as a nation of free individuals, we must reject the idea that violence, in and of itself, is bad. 

Violent self defense is not only our right as human beings, it is our civic duty as free Americans.  We each have an obligation to stand up to evil, and to defend what is right.  Violently, if needs be.  This is not one of the functions of government, this is OUR responsibility.  The government has no obligation to protect us; the law leaves our self-preservation entirely up to us.  (Those interested in further reading see "Dial 911 and Die")  The function of the police department (a relatively recent innovation) is supposed to be to clean up the mess afterwards and haul the bad guys off to the hoosegow, or the morgue, as needed.  We may not initiate force against innocents, but when an attack is initiated against us, we are not only allowed but obliged to respond.  As violently as we deem reasonably necessary. 

Those presently in authority are trying hard to brainwash us into believing that violence in any form is wrong, for the same reasons that they wish us to believe that possession of the means to readily do violence is wrong.  These vile inhuman concepts are attempts to make humans believe that they are something that they are not, and to manipulate us into a more governable and moldable mass.  Anyone who promotes the idea that 'violence never solves anything,' or the idea that violence is bad, is trying to steal your freedom.  Failing to fight evil, failing to use violence in defense of yourself is immoral. Do not be conned!

I do not promote violence for the sake of violence, I do not glory in violence, nor will I initiate violence against an innocent.  That is the essence of the "Zero Aggression Principle," the cornerstone of Libertarian philosophy, and a key concept for FreeFor. I oppose unprovoked aggression, for unprovoked aggression *is* evil, but violence, like all tools, can be used for good or evil.

Lack of aggression ought not be mistaken for lack of resolve, or for unwillingness to do violence if needs be.  Free Americans may not strike the first blow but are ready to strike as many blows as required to defend ourselves and our rights.   Americans do not desire a civil war, but the cause of liberty will prevail should one be started, through widespread, intelligent, cunning application of violence.  Let those presently exercising authority keep that well in mind.

It is also well for all of us to keep in mind that the evil that occurred in Newtown Connecticut,  Aurora Colorado, Columbine, and all the other mass shootings, as well as the genocides carried out by government, was enabled by the insane attempt to outlaw violence. Violence and the means to do violence are a part of our American heritage, will remain in our heritage, and it is altogether right and fitting that this should be so.  Let us hope that those presently in authority recognize this eternal truth and do not require remedial history lessons.  Those rhymes are not pleasant for anyone.

To paraphrase Barry Goldwater-"Violence in the defense of Liberty is no vice, and cowardice in the face of tyranny is no virtue!" One last Heinlein quote-  "You can have peace, or you can have freedom. Don’t ever count on having both at once." 

                               I choose freedom.  How about you?

With regards to all who serve the Light,

Historian

If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight? Link to original post here

Originally Posted on January 3, 2013 by Dean Garrison

I feel a tremendous responsibility to write this article though I am a little apprehensive. Thinking about the possibility of rising up against our own government is a frightening thing for many of us. I am not Johnny Rambo and I will be the first to admit that I do not want to die. The reason I feel compelled to write this, however, is simply because I don’t think the average American is equipped with the facts. I feel that a lot of American citizens feel like they have no choice but to surrender their guns if the government comes for them. I blame traditional media sources for this mass brainwash and I carry the responsibility of all small independent bloggers to tell the truth. So my focus today is to lay out your constitutional rights as an American, and let you decide what to do with those rights.

About a month ago I let the “democracy” word slip in a discussion with a fellow blogger. I know better. Americans have been conditioned to use this term. It’s not an accurate term and it never has been a correct term to describe our form of government. The truth is that the United States of America is a constitutional republic. This is similar to a democracy because our representatives are selected by democratic elections, but ultimately our representatives are required to work within the framework of our constitution. In other words, even if 90% of Americans want something that goes against our founding principles, they have no right to call for a violation of constitutional rights.

If you are religious you might choose to think of it this way… Say that members of your congregation decide that mass fornication is a good thing. Do they have the right to change the teachings of your God? The truth is the truth. It doesn’t matter how many people try to stray from it. Did I just compare our founders to God? In a way I did, but please note that I am not trying to insult anyone. For the purpose of the American Government our constitution and founders who wrote it are much like God is to believers. It is the law. It is indisputable.

Our founders did not want a “democracy” for they feared a true democracy was just as dangerous as a monarchy. The founders were highly educated people who were experienced in defending themselves against tyranny. They understood that the constitution could protect the people by limiting the power of anyone to work outside of it much better than a pure system of popularity. A system of checks and balances was set up to help limit corruption of government and also the potential for an “immoral majority” developing within the American People. We have forgotten in this country that we are ultimately ruled by a constitution.

Why is a democracy potentially just as dangerous as a monarchy? Let’s look at something that Benjamin Franklin said because it answers that question more fully and succinctly than I can.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin

Even 230+ years ago our founders were perceptive enough to realize that democracy was a dangerous form of government. How so? Because the citizens of a country can become just as corrupt as any government. We have seen evidence of this throughout history. Ask Native Americans and African-Americans if this population can become corrupt.

I think in 2012 we are seeing evidence of what Franklin was trying to tell us. Just because a majority of people may support certain ideas it does not mean that those ideas are just. In simple terms, just because most Americans love our president and voted for him, it does not mean that he has the power to go against our constitutional rights.

Next I’d like to review the text of the second amendment. It is very clear. This is the law of this land. So when Senator Feinstein or President Obama talk about taking your guns, you need to think about something. Are they honoring their sworn oath to uphold the constitution?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is a pretty clear statement. The fact is that it took 232 years for the Supreme Court to even rule on this amendment because it has never been successfully challenged. In 2008 a case of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a handgun ban in Washington D.C. was unconstitutional. One also has to take this into consideration. The Supreme Court supports your right to own guns. If you want to research this decision further you can start here.

For those who try to debate the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they are truly no different from people who will try to take Biblical quotes out of context to try to support their immoral decisions. The founders were very clear on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Let me share a few quick quotes here:

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. -Thomas Jefferson

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. -George Washington

The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams

I could find hundreds of quotes like these. This country was built on the right to bear arms. It was built on the rights of an individual to bear arms, regardless of what his government or neighbor happened to think. This is crystal clear. Ironically the people who voice their opinions against this right have their free speech protected by your guns. Without guns in this country, all other amendments become null and void, simply because “We the People” will lose our power of enforcement.

We need to keep this in mind as our “representatives” try to push gun bans. I don’t care if 99% of people are in support of gun bans (which is far from the case), it is a violation of our constitutional rights, plain and simple.

A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much  in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.

Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.

It is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.

If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.

Congress could pass gun ban legislation by a 90%+ margin and it just would not matter. I think some people are very unclear on this. This is the reason we have a Supreme Court, and though I do not doubt that the Supreme Court can also become corrupt, in 2008 they got it right. They supported the constitution. It does not matter what the majority supports because America is not a democracy. A constitutional republic protects the rights of every single citizen, no matter what their “elected servants” say. A majority in America only matters when the constitution is not in play.

I just wrote what every believer in the constitution wants to say, and what every constitutional blogger needs to write. The truth of the matter is that this type of speech is viewed as dangerous and radical or subversive, and it could gain me a world of trouble that I do not want. It is also the truth. To make myself clear I will tell you again. If they come for your guns it is your right to use those guns against them and to kill them. You are protected by our constitution.

Most of the articles I am reading on the subject are trying to give you clues without just coming out and saying it. I understand that because certain things in this country will get you on a list that you don’t want to be on. I may well be on that list. This blog is small and growing so I may not be there yet, but I have dreams. I also have my own list of subversives and anyone who attempts to deny my constitutional rights is on that list.

I am not the “subversive” here, it is the political representatives who are threatening to take away my inalienable rights. If they come to take my guns and I leave a few of them wounded or dead, and I somehow survive, I have zero doubt that I will spend a long time in prison and may face an execution. But I would much rather be a political prisoner than a slave.

If I go down fighting then I was not fighting to harm these human beings. I was simply defending my liberty and yours. It is self-defense and it is what our country was built on. We won our freedom in self-defense. We would not be ruled by a tyrannical government in the 1770′s and we will not be ruled in 2012 by a tyrannical government. There is no difference.

This is a case of right and wrong. As of now the 2nd amendment stands. It has never been repealed. If Feinstein or Barack have a problem with the constitution then they should be removed from office. They are not defending the constitution which they have sworn an oath to protect. It is treasonous to say the least. They would likely say the same about me, but I have the constitution, the founders, and the supreme court on my side. They only have their inflated egos.

I am not writing this to incite people. I am writing this in hopes that somehow I can make a tiny difference. I have no idea how many of my neighbors have the will to defend their constitutional rights. 2%? 20%? I am afraid that 20% is a high number, unfortunately. When push comes to shove many people may give up and submit to being ruled. I believe that our government is banking on this.

What I do know is that this country was founded by people who had balls the size of Texas and Patriotic Americans take shit off of no one, especially our own government. For evidence of that, you might research the Revolutionary War. My question is how many Patriots are left?

I would hope that our officials come to realize that, regardless of our numbers, we still exist because they are calling Patriotic Americans to action. They are making us decide if we want to die free or submit to their rule. I can not tell you where you should stand on that. I do know that it may make the difference between living a life of freedom or slavery.

You must start thinking about this because I believe that the day is coming soon and I personally believe it has already been planned. Not all conspiracy theories are hogwash. They may throw down the gauntlet soon and my suggestion is that you prepare yourself to react.

I mean no disrespect to our elected officials but they need to understand that “We the People” will not be disarmed. If they proceed then it is they that are provoking us and we will act accordingly. We are within our rights to do so.

For those who are in support of taking the guns, you need to ask yourself a very important question, and I am not just talking about the politicians, because if you support them, you have chosen your side.

Are you willing to die to take my guns?

Click Here to Follow The D.C. Clothesline on Facebook

IMPORTANT UPDATE From Dean Garrison!!! When this post originally went viral I was trying to answer every single comment and that lasted for almost 48 hours. Then I came to grips with the fact that I am human and I can’t do it. If for no other reason I value my family and I can’t steal time from them to constantly be on the site. I want you all to know that I appreciate your support and good debate whether you agree or disagree. I also want to thank each and every American Patriot who has made the honorable choice to serve their country. Anyone who wants to repost this on their blog or website is also given permission to do so, so long as nothing is changed in the text of the article, and a link is provided back to this site. Again, thank you so much. I am humbled. It’s now 16 days later and this is still the most popular post on our blog. Keep fighting for what is right. We must stand united. -Dean Garrison 1-20-13

Important as the present debate on civil rights undoubtedly is, and it is extremely important, there is another issue that is inexorably bearing down on America.  This is the terrifying growth of our Federal debt, and the consequences of incurring that debt. (My cynical side thinks that one of the reasons for the present hysterical putsch for disarming the people of these presently united States is the worsening economic situation; those presently exercising authority are justifiably concerned about the reaction of those that they govern when they realize how badly they've been screwed.)  So, how did we get into this economic mess in which we find ourselves, anyway? And why does it matter to *me*?  Well, it turns out that our historic debt problems go a long way back in American history, and some of the lessons may be enlightening to you, gentle reader.  I have attached two links which will be helpful for you to open.  The first is a link to US Treasury's historical debt data:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
The other is a list of the Presidents of these united States under the Constitution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

The Articles of Confederation, which allied the 13 colonies, were not finally ratified until almost 5 years after the Declaration of Independence was signed, about 6 years after the start of the American Revolution in 1775 with "the Shot Heard Round the World."  Under the Articles, and even before, the Continental Congress had no power to tax directly and no power to compel the States to support the Continental Army.  The Congress fell back upon the traditional answer found by all governments who have a budget shortfall;  they issued paper banknotes denominated as the Continental Dollar, supposedly backed by Spanish dollars, but which rapidly reverted to their true value, i.e. nothing.  The Continental dollar's most lasting legacy was a phrase some today still recognize "Not worth a Continental damn,"  referring to both the paper currency and some of the language used by those forced to accept it!  Issued in 1776, by 1779 the Continental was not accepted in trade for anything, as those people presented with them (correctly, as it turned out) thought that these pieces of paper would never be redeemed.  Those people who held this paper, many of them patriotic Americans, traded real goods and services for a worthless piece of paper.  The United States never did redeem that debt.

After the ratification of the present Constitution, the US under the control of the Federalist party issued a substantial amount of debt;  when Jefferson became President the debt was about $83 million or a bit over over 4 million troy ounces of gold. (The cynic in me notes that much of this debt went to redeem promissory notes issued after the Continental dollar notes went sour, that were purchased by Federalist supporters who bought them at small fractions of the face value from the original note holders.)  Under Jefferson the debt was reduced by about $30 million, and continued to drop until the start of the war of 1812, which added about $80 million back to the debt, which gradually was paid down thereafter.  During the 1830s Andrew Jackson, who is one of the more under-rated presidents, actually oversaw two pivotal events which have bearing on this;  he was the only president to ever preside over an effective elimination of the national debt, and he was the first president to get rid of the central bank of the United States.  These two feats are not unrelated. 

(By the way, those interested in a history of central banking in these united States will find "the Creature of Jeckyl Island" well worth the time to read.  It's primary focus is on the Federal Reserve Bank, about which more anon, but it does cover the early history of central banking in some detail.  I thought I was familiar with the overall history of the Fed, but I learned a lot from it. Amazon sells it- http://www.amazon.com/The-Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal/dp/0912986212  )

But back to the debt.  After Jackson, the debt rose during and after the Mexican War, and oscillated thereafter but never grew much past the levels seen during Jefferson's term, right up to the Civil War.  It is worth noting, by the way, that during this time period between 75% and 95% of the Federal revenue was generated by taxes on imported manufactured goods and exported agricultural products.  These taxes had a disproportionate effect on the Southern states, whose agricultural economies were crippled by an inability to purchase manufactured goods.  Northern politicians insisted on protection of domestic manufacturers, who then charged rates for finished goods just under the cost of British imposts with shipping and import tariffs, and who purchased raw materials from the depressed market of the South. 

Finally, after decades of attempts to find a way to reduce taxation and the attendant corporatist looting, many southern states elected to secede from the Union as is their right under the Constitution.  (BTW, James Buchanan, Abraham Lincoln's predecessor in the White House, correctly stated that secession was lawful.)  Lincoln responded by raising an enormous military force, for which he paid by issuing paper currency (greenbacks), and spending money far in excess of Federal revenue, financed by Treasury debt. 

By 1866, after the bills for Lincoln's war were paid, the formerly and now forcibly re-united States were in debt to the tune of $2,773,236,173.69 or about two thousand seven hundred seventy three millions of dollars, or 23 times the previous debt incurred for the War of 1812.  This was about 139 million ounces of gold or more than the entire production of gold in the US to that time, which explains the rampant inflation evident in the economy of the North, about which more shortly.  Lincoln, in addition to the huge debt incurred, also financed his war by imposition of a completely unConstitutional and hugely unpopular income tax.  (His other unconstitutional actions apart from starting a war without Congressional consent included suspension of habeus corpus, arresting the Maryland state legislature to prevent their voting for secession, imposition of involuntary servitude on the general population [military draft] and other tyrannical acts, but that is a subject for another time.)  At one point during the war, greenback prices were 4 times the prices for goods in honest gold coins. 

After the conclusion of Lincoln's war, the debt was gradually paid off until just before the Spanish American war;  the debt increased by about 700 millions of dollars for that war.  1913 saw the ratification of both the 16th amendment, which allowed taxation of income, and the establishment of a central bank.  Spending, and debt, exploded.  Rather than allowing the payment of the Civil War debt, which was one of the reasons given for the 1% tax on income, the debt doubled in just 4 years; from $2.9 billions to $5.7 billions in 1917, and then QUINTUPLED over the course of the First World War, rising to $27.4 billions under Woodrow Wilson.  After Mr. Wilson's war, which was marked by Constitutional violations similar to those of the Civil War, debt gradually decreased until the start of the great depression.  Under Hoover and then under Roosevelt, the debt for the first "War on Poverty" grew apace, more than doubling from $16 billions to $43 billions before the start of World War 2.  This huge jump in the debt was due to both the massive increase in expenditure and the devaluation of the dollar;  in 1933 Roosevelt unConstitutionally confiscated domestic gold reserves and then, having looted the citizens of these united States of their gold, devalued the dollar by lowering the value of the dollar to 1/35 of a troy ounce.

World War 2 cost these united States an additional debt of some $226 billions.  In 50 years, the debt of these united States had grown from some $2 billions to over $269 billions.  (Are you beginning to notice a pattern here?)  Truman's 'police action' in Korea followed 5 years later on, impacting the ability of the post-WW2 economy to repay the debt.  1957 was an historic year;  it was the last time that the US debt decreased.  Since that time, the debt of these united States has NEVER decreased.  It doubled in 1975 (18 years), doubling again in 1982 to $1,142 billions (7 years), then again in 1986, (5 years), and 1992.  We saw something of a respite during the 1990s and early 2000s, for the debt did not double again until 2006, when it stood at $8,507 billions of dollars.  It has doubled again in the last 6 years, and now stands at over 17 trillions, that is 17 million millions.  This is more than the entire GDP of these united States. 

(A side note about GDP;  it includes all government spending, and a number of respected economists argue that this is erroneous, as government does not create wealth.  If you include only private production and spending, the direct debt of these united States is double what we actually produce.)

Here is what a trillion dollars looks like: http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html

A trillion dollars is 10,000 pallets loaded 4' high with $100 bills .  Stacked 2 high it takes over 1 1/2 acres;  the present national debt in $100 bills would take 25 acres of pallets of $100 bills stacked 2 high.  Put another way, at present prices that is 10 billion troy ounces of gold, or 311,000 metric tonnes of gold.  In all of human history only about 4.4 billion ounces of gold have been produced.  Ever.  So our funded debt is about 2 1/2 times as much as the value of all the gold ever mined.  Put it another way, if the 8133 tonnes of gold supposedly held by these united States had to back the dollar-denominated debt, the price of gold would be $65,000 per ounce. 

And please keep in mind that this is only the direct debt of the Federal government;  it does not include the debt of the several States or the other unfunded Federal obligations of these united States.  Total unfunded Federal obligations are somewhere between $100 trillion and $300 trillion, depending on whose accounting you accept.   I've heard lots of different estimates thrown around, but any way you slice it, this is more than the entire GDP of the planet, which presently runs around $70 trillions.  Put another way, we owe more than the entire value of the planet Earth.

DC, we have a problem.  A big, BIG problem.  Regardless of how the present arguments over the Federal infringement of our civil rights are resolved,  we simply cannot keep spending and committing money we do not have.  I have been watching this issue for over 30 years, and I am frankly amazed that this has gone on as long as it has, but will-ye, nil-ye, we are coming to the point at which the Federal government will not be spending more than we take in. 

We will either recognize the problem and cut Federal spending by 60%, overtly default on our debt and declare bankruptcy as a nation and try to work out the terms of the bankruptcy agreement with our creditors, including all of the residents, (legal and illegal) of these united States and our other creditors, or we will covertly default on our debt probably through more currency inflation.  Massive cuts, overt default, or covert default.  We will have to choose one of these three options.  There are no others.  Even a 100% income tax will not solve the problem;  historically, tax revenue maxes out at about 17% of GDP regardless of the tax rate.  We cannot tax our way out of this mess, and advocates of the so-called 'balanced approach' are lying to us about the potential effectiveness of a tax increase, not to mention the impact of yet another new tax on an economy struggling to escape the Greater Depression.

Given the demonstrated lack of political will to even admit we have a problem, as it stands I expect that the Federal government of these united States will not cut the budget as needed, which painful as it would be IMHO is the least bad option.  Nor will we overtly default;  the rulers of this nation will not permit those presently in authority to do that.  So that means that by default we are doomed as a nation to add another stanza to the historical record, and default by inflation, which means ultimately to endure hyperinflation.

If we do, here is what that means to you, gentle reader.  As the value of the Federal reserve 'dollar' drops inexorably towards its real level, i.e. ZERO, the prices of goods in dollars are going to rise.  In 1913, the year that the Federal Reserve was established, you could get a nice suit or a first quality pistol for an ounce of gold.  Today, you still can, but the 20 dollar banknote that you used to trade for that gold piece will not buy even the box of cartridges or the silk tie that used to be thrown in by the seller. (H/t to Jeff Cooper for this comparison)  5 years ago, rifle ammo was about 50 cents a round.  Now, rifle cartridges start at a dollar a round, and go up from there.  5 years ago, .22 rimfire ammo was $12 for a 500 round box;  today, it is double that, when you can find it.  5 years ago, a 16 ounce can of chili cost $1.50;  today it is almost $3.  That is price inflation, and it is the tax that you are paying every day for the Federal government spending money it does not have.  This is inflation, and it is this tax that has eaten away at the American middle class over the last 60 years, and especially over the last 10.

Hyper-inflation is when prices double, not every 5 years, but every month and start doubling faster and faster.  $4 a gallon gas bother you?  Wait till gas prices hit $10, $20 or $50 per gallon.  Do you think your boss can afford to double your pay every month? Every week?  Every day? What will you do when the value of your pay drops by half every month?  Think that credit card companies will keep issuing cards when they are losing 50% per month?  Think that merchants will exchange goods for a plastic promise to pay when they are losing 25% on the deal because of the time it takes for them to get payment from the card companies?  Imagine what will happen when all those folks who get EBT cards cannot buy enough basic staples to keep their families fed, or what will happen when stores no longer take them, or go out of business because they did.  Ugly doesn't begin to cover what will happen to the large cities in these presently united States if we are subject to hyperinflation.  Hyperinflation will utterly destroy us.  That is why the DHS is buying so much ammo, and why Feinstein and the rest of those who would rule us are doing all the things we find so alarming.  They know what is coming.  Matt Bracken wrote about one such scenario:  http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2012/09/03/bracken-when-the-music-stops-how-americas-cities-may-explode-in-violence/

History shows us many, many examples of what debasement of a country's currency does.  It was the destruction of the denarius that destroyed Rome.  It was the destruction of the German mark and the hyperinflation of Weimar Germany that precipitated the rise of the Nazi party.  Deficit spending and discriminatory tax policy was a root cause of the breakup of Yugoslavia.  Deficit spending contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union, and it will inevitably destroy these presently united States.

That is why I want to tell all the patriots who have come and visited my site to spread the word about the danger to the republic from further unchecked spending.  Further deficits will destroy us more surely than a civil war over gun rights, and we need to be just as uncompromising and firm on this issue as we have been on our right to own and carry weapons of military utility.  Those presently in authority must understand that the covert tax of hyperinflation is simply not an option.

We cannot keep spending money we do not have, and one way or another, soon, we will not be able to.  It would be much, much better, if withdrawal from our spending addiction comes on our terms, and not those of the Chinese.  Or the Federal Reserve.

Regards to all who serve the Light-

Historian

I am humbled that so many have come to visit.  Thank you for taking your precious time to come and read what I have to say.  As you will see, I do not post on a regular basis, but as the mood and the moment are right.  A friend of mine asked me today how long it took to get an article out, and I told him that sometimes the articles almost wrote themselves, and I spend just a few hours to write one article.  Other times it takes months to get things where I want them.  I cannot, therefore, promise regular posts, but I strive to make my articles worthy of the subject, and your time.

I expect that anybody who checks this site weekly will have something worth reading, but in any case, I hope that more of you will let me know your thoughts on the material presented here. 

With regards,
Historian