Monday, December 31, 2007


During the course of my writing I have had both positive and negative comments on my articles. I am willing to listen to both as long as the criticism is tactful. One of the people with whom I have had numerous disagreements is a fellow who goes by the name Doc. He runs a webpage that can be found at

I received an e mail from him this evening. It was sent from the following e mail address, The e mail is attached to this post below. I wish to state clearly and emphatically that I DID NOT WRITE THIS ARTICLE!. Someone, for some reason is trying to either put words into my mouth or set me up for plagiarism.

I sent Doc an e mail explaining this, but I am posting the entire e mail here on my blog in case others may have received the same from me and think that I did in fact write that article. There are ways that I write my articles that do not fit this particular article, besides, it just doesn't sound like the way I write.

So here is the e mail, and I repeat, I did not write this and I DO NOT CLAIM CREDIT FOR IT!


I know you and I had some disagreements over some points, although I can't recall what they were, but I'm willing to forget about them since it's clear you are a Ron Paul supporter.
The only comment I have on the below is that "hispanic" is not a race.
I was born in the late 50's in Miami Florida and have had my fill of hispanics.
They insist on being thought of as "white" (except for the Negros among their ranks.)
It would be difficult to "racially profile" white people since, as you are I'm sure, quite aware, "white" is not a race.


Comments: On Ron Paul's
Interrogation by T. Russert
Sunday on Meet The Press

By Neal Ross

23 December 2007

How anyone listening wasn't instantly converted
into being a Ron Paul fan, had to be a MORON.

When Arizona passed a law stating that anyone hiring an illegal would lose their business license, the protests took it all the way up through two courts, including a federal appeals court. Both courts upheld the law! In other words, the Tenth Amendment still stands, and Arizona, including Sheriff Joe, want no parts of the illegals. Scottsdale, after having one of their cops shot and killed by an illegal, is checking credentials of all police stops, and insist it is not racial profiling, which it isn't. After all, if someone is stopped for a violation, can't speak English, has no insurance or driver's license, and is Hispanic, is it racial profiling to assume they're illegal? On NPR this morning (Monday) a news blurb said that illegals by the thousands were packing up and leaving Arizona, for other states or back to Mexico. Well isn't that grand! Maybe they won't take back America after all, if other states decided to put them to the test, and especially CALIFORNIA.

In Arizona, businessmen, and naturally the ACLU protested the law because they couldn't get cheap labor to compete with whites and blacks who have benefits, insurance, and taxes deducted. Well isn't that too bad now! Since the ACLU stands for the AMERICAN Civil Liberties union, why do they make it the MEXICAN or ILLEGAL Civil Liberties Union? Did anyone ever ask them that poignant question? It seems to me that Americans' civil liberties are being threatened by illegals violating laws, and getting free schools, citizenship for their lids, medical care, and Social Security.

Did you see Ron Paul on "Meet The Press" Sunday? What a triumph! Tim Russert brought up all the quotes from 20 years ago when Ron was running as a Libertarian, and he answered them all explicitly and logically. Anyone watching that show who wasn't instantly converted into a Ron Paul fan is a moron. Russert tried every trick in the book to trap Ron, and it failed miserably. Ron Paul stood his ground perfectly. I wonder if the polls showing him to be 6% are fixed like every other statistic?

Iowa and Colorado both have the "caucus" type of primary, which is so utterly stupid as to defy description. So silly, that I seriously doubt that any results of a caucus state can mean a hill of beans. I quit the Republican inner sanctum when I was considered a traitor by urging the abolition of the caucus system and going to a logical primary system. I'm still a registered Republican, but I honestly don't know why. At any rate, open half day today, and I am out of here at noon. Have a wonderful Christmas!

Neal Ross

Comments on my writing?

Contact me at:

My other articles may be found at:

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Why Constructive Criticism Does Not Bother Me

My last article, Why I Harp On The Constitution, drew both positive and negative comments. Most of the negative comments I received were in regards to the quote from Abraham Lincoln that I used to support my defense of the Constitution. I was told that Lincoln was not a good example to use when defending the Constitution.

Some people react negatively to criticism, even constructive criticism. Seeing as how I am relatively new in this fight to preserve our Constitution and our liberties, I am willing to take all the help I can get in the search for facts and information.

Therefore I began searching for some data on Lincoln on the internet. One of the things I learned was that during the Civil War he suspended habeas corpus. I came across the following web page ( and while reading it I looked up Ex Parte Milligan. What I found was quite interesting as it applies to certain legislation that has been passed recently in the War On Terror. I will try to comprise into a short version of what I found in reading the Court ruling.

First off though a little refresher history, if you go back and read the Constitution, Article 3, Section 1 only states that,

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."

There is no mention of how the court is to be established. That changed with the Judiciary Act of 1799, which laid out the entire judiciary system. You can read the entire legislation at, if you wish, but there is one section, section 14 that is of importance to this article. Section 14 states,

" And be it further enacted, That all the before-mentioned courts of the United States, shall have power to issue writs of scire facias, habeas corpus, and all other writs not specially provided for by statute, which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the principles and usages of law. And that either of the justices of the supreme court, as well as judges of the district courts, shall have power to grant writs of habeas corpus for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of commitment.——Provided, That writs of habeas corpus shall in no case extend to prisoners in gaol, unless where they are in custody, under or by colour of the authority of the United States, or are committed for trial before some court of the same, or are necessary to be brought into court to testify."

Before I go any further I want to make it clear that I am not a legal scholar. I am just a guy who so far in life has gotten by with just a high school education. So when I read things I have to take them at their literal meaning. I am not familiar with legal innuendos or the specific terminology used by those who practice law for a living.

I would love for someone to correct me if I am wrong on this, but the way I understand the following, "Provided, That writs of habeas corpus shall in no case extend to prisoners in gaol unless where they are in custody, under or by colour of the authority of the United States, or are committed for trial before some court of the same, or are necessary to be brought into court to testify." is that if you are in custody under the authority of the United States, or if you are committed to stand trial, or if you are to be brought into court to testify, a writ of habeas corpus will be extended to you. Again, if my understanding of this is wrong, I would love to have the actual meaning of it explained to me.

Getting back to Ex Parte Milligan, in October of 1864, a U.S. citizen, Lamdin P. Milligan, was arrested at his home in Indiana and confined to a military prison and placed on trial before a military commission. Military Commission, doesn't that term sound familiar? That really piqued my interest so I continued to read.

Mr. Milligan was charged with 1) Conspiracy against the Government of the United States, 2) Affording aid and comfort to rebels against the authority of the United States 3) Inciting insurrection 4) Disloyal practices and 5)Violation of the laws of war.'

According to the list of charges there were various specifications, but again one of them sounded strikingly familiar, " a period of war and armed rebellion against the authority of the United States, at or near Indianapolis, [and various other places specified] in Indiana, a State within the military lines of the army of the United States, and the theatre of military operations, and which had been and was constantly threatened to be invaded by the enemy."

Milligan appealed, questioning the authority of the military commission. In the presentment of his appeal, it was stated that, "The prayer of the petition was that under the already mentioned act of Congress of March 3d, 1863, the petitioner might be brought before the court, and either turned over to the proper civil tribunal to be proceeded with according to the law of the land, or discharged from custody altogether."

During the course of the appeal there was disagreement between the judges of the Circuit Court and therefore, I had to read this four times to understand it, "And these questions were certified to this court under the provisions of the act of Congress of April 29th, 1802,4 an act [71 U.S. 2, 9] which provides 'that whenever any question shall occur before a Circuit Court, upon which the opinions of the judges shall be opposed, the point upon which the disagreement shall happen, shall, during the same term, upon the request of either party or their counsel, be stated under the direction of the judges, and certified under the seal of the court to the Supreme Court, at their next session to be held thereafter; and shall by the said court be finally decided: and the decision of the Supreme Court and their order in the premises shall be remitted to the Circuit Court, and be there entered of record, and shall have effect according to the nature of the said judgment and order: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall prevent the cause from proceeding, if, in the opinion of the court, further proceedings can be had without prejudice to the merits."

What it means is that whenever the Circuit Court is unable to come to a decision upon a case, the points of disagreement of that case shall be submitted to the Supreme Court for a final decision.

At the heart of the appeal there was the question as to whether the military commission had the jurisdiction to hear the case, or should the case have been heard by a civil court?

According to the petition, "A military commission derives its powers and authority wholly from martial law; and by that law and by military authority only are its proceedings to be judged or reviewed." Dynes v. Hoover, 20 Howard, and that, "Martial law is the will of the commanding officer of an armed force, or of a geographical military department, expressed in time of war within the limits of his military jurisdiction, as necessity demands and prudence dictates, restrained or enlarged by the orders of his military chief, or supreme executive ruler." Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 3d series, vol. 95, p. 80.

There was much argument over the jurisdiction of the military commission and it was brought to the courts attention that President Lincoln had issued the following statement,
'That during the existing insurrection, and as a necessary [71 U.S. 2, 16] means for suppressing the same, all rebels and insurgents, their aiders and abettors, within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, affording aid and comfort to rebels, against the authority of the United States, shall be subject to martial law, and liable to trial and punishment by courts martial or military commission. 'Second. That the writ of habeas corpus is suspended in respect to all persons arrested, or who now, or hereafter during the Rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal, military prison, or other place of confinement, by any military authority, or by the sentence of any court martial or military commission.'

The petitioners summed it all up with this one simple statement, "It is a question of the rights of the citizen in time of war. Is it true, that the moment a declaration of war is made, the executive department of this government, without an act of Congress, becomes absolute master of our liberties and our lives? Are we, then, subject to martial rule, administered by the President upon his own sense of the exigency, with nobody to control him, and with every magistrate and every authority in the land subject to his will alone? These are the considerations which give to the case its greatest significance."

In rendering their decisions the Supreme Court had many issues upon which to decide, but one of the most interesting statements they made was,

"Subsequently, military commissions are mentioned in four acts of Congress, but in none of them is any provision made for their organization, regulation, or jurisdiction, further than that it is declared that in time of war or rebellion, spies may be tried by a general court-martial or military commission; and that 'persons who are in the military service of [71 U.S. 2, 30] the United States, and subject to the Articles of War,' may also be tried by the same, for murder, and certain other infamous crimes.

These acts do not confer upon military commissions jurisdiction over any persons other than those in the military service and spies.

There being, then, no act of Congress for the establishment of the commission, it depended entirely upon the executive will for its creation and support. This brings up the true question now before the court: Has the President, in time of war, upon his own mere will and judgment, the power to bring before his military officers any person in the land, and subject him to trial and punishment, even to death? The proposition is stated in this form, because it really amounts to this.

If the President has this awful power, whence does he derive it? He can exercise no authority whatever but that which the Constitution of the country gives him. Our system knows no authority beyond or above the law. We may, therefore, dismiss from our minds every thought of the President's having any prerogative, as representative of the people, or as interpreter of the popular will. He is elected by the people to perform those functions, and those only, which the Constitution of his country, and the laws made pursuant to that Constitution, confer."

In continuing, the Court stated that,

"The plan of argument which I propose is, first to examine the text of the Constitution. That instrument, framed with the greatest deliberation, after thirteen years' experience of war and peace, should be accepted as the authentic and final expression of the public judgment, regarding that form and scope of government, and those guarantees of private rights, which legal science, political philosophy, and the experience of previous times had taught as the safest and most perfect. All attempts to explain it away, or to evade or pervert it, should be discountenanced and resisted. Beyond the line of such an argument, everything else ought, in strictness, to be superfluous. But, I shall endeavor to show, further, that the theory of our government, for which I am contending, [71 U.S. 2, 31] is the only one compatible with civil liberty; and, by what I may call an historical argument, that this theory is as old as the nation, and that even in the constitutional monarchies of England and France that notion of executive power, which would uphold military commissions, like the one against which I am speaking, has never been admitted.

What are the powers and attributes of the presidential office? They are written in the second article of the Constitution, and, so far as they relate to the present question, they are these: He is vested with the 'executive power;' he is 'commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States;' he is to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed;' and he takes this oath: 'I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.' The 'executive power' mentioned in the Constitution is the executive power of the United States. The President is not clothed with the executive power of the States. He is not clothed with any executive power, except as he is specifically directed by some other part of the Constitution, or by an act of Congress.

He is to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed.' He is to execute the laws by the means and in the manner which the laws themselves prescribe."

The Court went on to say,

"Much confusion of ideas has been produced by mistaking executive power for kingly power. Because in monarchial countries the kingly office includes the executive, it seems to have been sometimes inferred that, conversely, the executive carries with it the kingly prerogative. Our executive is in no sense a king, even for four years." .

Finally the Court states that,

"I submit, therefore, that upon the text of the original Constitution, as it stood when it was ratified, there is no color for the assumption that the President, without act of Congress, could create military commissions for the trial of persons not military, for any cause or under any circumstances whatever."

Therefore, according to the Supreme Court, at the time of Ex Parte Milligan, the President was not authorized to establish military commissions to try citizens who were not combatants because it was not authorized by Congress.

All that took place in 1866. It is now 2007 and the President of the United States now has that authority, having signed into law, Senate Bill 3930, or the Military Commissions Act. Section 2 of the Military Commissions Act states that "The authority to establish military commissions under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code, as added by section 3(a), may not be construed to alter or limit the authority of the President under the Constitution of the United States and laws of the United States to establish military commissions for areas declared to be under martial law or in occupied territories should circumstances so require."

It would appear that our president, and all those who follow, now have the power to establish military tribunals to try those who they deem as enemy combatants, or a threat to them. I would like for you to read one last quote from the Courts ruling in Ex Parte Milligan.

"This nation, as experience has proved, cannot always remain at peace, and has no right to expect that it will always have wise and humane rulers, sincerely attached to the principles of the Constitution. Wicked men, ambitious of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of law, may fill the place once occupied by Washington and Lincoln; and if this right is conceded, and the calamities of war again befall us, the dangers to human liberty are frightful to contemplate. If our fathers had failed to provide for just such a contingency, they would have been false to the trust reposed in them. They knew-the history of the world told them-the nation they were founding, be its existence short or long, would be involved in war; how often or how long continued, human foresight could not tell; and that unlimited power, wherever lodged at such a time, was especially hazardous to freemen. For this, and other equally weighty reasons, they secured the inheritance they had fought to maintain, by incorporating in a written constitution the safeguards which time had proved were essential to its preservation. Not one of these safeguards can the President, or Congress, or the Judiciary disturb, except the one concerning the writ of habeas corpus.

It is essential to the safety of every government that, in a great crisis, like the one we have just passed through, there should be a power somewhere of suspending the writ of habeas corpus. In every war, there are men of previously good character, wicked enough to counsel their fellow- citizens to resist the measures deemed necessary by a good government to sustain its just authority and overthrow its enemies; and their influence may lead to dangerous combinations. In the emergency of the times, an immediate public investigation according to law may not be possible; and yet, the period to the country may be too imminent to suffer such persons to go at large. Unquestionably, there is then an exigency which demands that the government, if it should see fit in the exercise of a proper discretion to make arrests, should not be required to produce the persons arrested [71 U.S. 2, 126] in answer to a writ of habeas corpus. The Constitution goes no further. It does not say after a writ of habeas corpus is denied a citizen, that he shall be tried otherwise than by the course of the common law; if it had intended this result, it was easy by the use of direct words to have accomplished it. The illustrious men who framed that instrument were guarding the foundations of civil liberty against the abuses of unlimited power; they were full of wisdom, and the lessons of history informed them that a trial by an established court, assisted by an impartial jury, was the only sure way of protecting the citizen against oppression and wrong. Knowing this, they limited the suspension to one great right, and left the rest to remain forever inviolable. But, it is insisted that the safety of the country in time of war demands that this broad claim for martial law shall be sustained. If this were true, it could be well said that a country, preserved at the sacrifice of all the cardinal principles of liberty, is not worth the cost of preservation. Happily, it is not so."

While it appears that the Supreme Court, as far back as 1866, ruled that the writ of habeas corpus could be suspended, it also ruled that "It does not say after a writ of habeas corpus is denied a citizen, that he shall be tried otherwise than by the course of the common law."

Again, as I previously stated, I am not a legal scholar, but I can read English. I understand that our current legal system has the principle of precedence. That if a higher court has established a ruling, that it is to be held as binding unless overturned by a higher court. Since the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, and they have ruled that even though habeas corpus can be denied, a citizen still has the right for a trial under common law, my question is this. Why has not the legality of the Military Commissions Act been contested as it obviously violates the spirit and intent of the Courts ruling in Ex Parte Milligan?

As I said earlier, I do not take constructive criticism negatively. If I did I would not have bothered to research Lincoln, and therefore would not have come across this fascinating case. Anyone who wishes to read it in its entirety can do so at

It is a fascination, although rather long and complicated, read.

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Why I Harp On The Constitution

I am often asked why I harp so much on the Constitution in all of my writings. That question leaves me at a loss for words, and most of you by now realize that I am not normally at a loss for things to say. I am left speechless not because I cannot explain why I constantly refer to the Constitution, but that someone could actually not understand why for themselves. It seems to me that people these days consider the Constitution as some sort of historical relic, whose sole purpose is to be viewed in some museum. That is what leaves me speechless. It seems that far too many people just do not understand the importance of the words contained within that document.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines Constitution as:
1: an established law or custom : ordinance
2 a: the physical makeup of the individual especially with respect to the health, strength, and appearance of the body a [hearty constitution] b: the structure, composition, physical makeup, or nature of something the constitution of society
3: the act of establishing, making, or setting up
4: the mode in which a state or society is organized; especially : the manner in which sovereign power is distributed
5 a: the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it b: a written instrument embodying the rules of a political or social organization

The 'Lectric Law Library', an online reference for all things legal, we find the following definition for the Constitution:
"The fundamental law of the state, containing the principles upon which the government is founded and regulating the divisions of the sovereign powers, directing to what persons each of these powers is to be confided and the manner it is to be exercised. E.g., the Constitution of the United States."

Not only is the Constitution the supreme law of the land, Article 6, but it is the document that establishes our government and clearly defines what it can and cannot do. If it were not for the Constitution we would have no legal form of government, unless of course you wish to live under dictatorial rule.

The Constitution, although it might have been written by just a few men, was written to establish a form of government that was as minimally intrusive upon our personal liberties as possible, yet strong enough to take care of our nations needs. If you read Article 1 of the Constitution you will find that there are only about 17 clearly defined powers that our government has. Nowhere in that document does it say that the government has the right or authorization to run or give us ‘universal health care’, or to establish a department of education which determines a national curriculum, or to tax your earnings and give it to other people, or nations, in the form of subsidies or federal aid. Yet far too many Americans have come to believe that those are all within the powers and that they are the responsibilities of our federal government. Those of us who speak out against these usurpations of federal power are labeled as extremists by people who obviously are not aware that we are in fact fully aware of what the Constitution says our government can and cannot do. People have been brainwashed into believing that they are right and we are nutcases. All because they have not taken the time to read that document for themselves.

I cannot, and I will not, sit idly by while our government continues to assume powers it does not have, and while it tramples upon our rights and liberties that the Constitution was designed to protect. That is why I continue to hammer away at people with references to the Constitution.

George Washington once said, “But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.” If Washington said that it was sacredly obligatory to all unless changed by an act of the people, (as per the amendment process contained in Article 5), that means that until we say so, the government ONLY has the powers that are clearly defined in Article 1.

Martin Van Buren, a president who is not often quoted, once said, “For myself, therefore, I desire to declare that the principle that will govern me in the high duty to which my country calls me is a strict adherence to the letter and spirit of the Constitution as it was designed by those who framed it.”

Abraham Lincoln, a president whose name most people should recognize, said, “Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. “

That is why I continually refer to the Constitution in my writings, as Lincoln said, ‘Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution...’. Until people realize the importance of understanding our Constitution, and requiring that our government function strictly within it, I can only pray, as Millard Fillmore did, “May God save the country, for it is evident that the people will not.”

Sunday, December 09, 2007

Who Is To Blame

As often is the case during a time of political campaigns we are currently inundated with news concerning candidates from both political parties seeking to become our next president. As voters, we are given the opportunity to watch the debates between the candidates and make a choice as to who we think is best qualified to be the next president. My question is this, what makes the people of this country qualified to make an intelligent decision concerning an issue of such great importance?

It is widely accepted that all Americans over the age of 18 have the right to vote. However, if you look back through our nations history that wasn’t always the case.

At the time the Constitution was written and ratified, only white male property owners held the right to vote. That meant that only about 10-15 percent of the population of the United States could vote for their elected representatives. Over the course of our nations history the right of suffrage has undergone many changes. In 1870 the 15th amendment granted former slaves the right to vote. In 1920, the 19th amendment granted women the right to vote. In 1924 the Indian Citizenship Act granted Native Americans the right to vote. In 1964, the 24th amendment banned the poll tax as a requirement for voting. In 1971, the 26th amendment lowered the voting age to 18.

It is now widely accepted that voting is a right that all citizens of this country enjoy. The thing about rights is that along with them come responsibilities. The right to drive a car also comes with the responsibility of knowing the traffic laws and obeying them as to not endanger yourself or others while on the road. The right to own a firearm also comes with the responsibility of safe handing practices, such as knowing your target and what lies beyond it, always treat your firearm as if it is loaded, always keep the firearm pointed in a safe direction, and never point it at something unless you intend to shoot. All rights have some sort of responsibility that goes along with them, and voting should be the same way.

Voters should be aware of the Constitutional role of government, what it can and cannot do. They should be fully aware of the various branches of government and the restrictions placed upon them.

At one time this was the case. In the 60's there were literacy tests required by prospective voters. However the intent was not to ensure the voters were informed as to their responsibilities as citizens. Instead they were used as tools to block the illiterate poor, mainly African-Americans, from voting. However, and example of the 1965 Literacy Test from the State of Alabama is worth a read. I would be hard pressed to find a high percentage of the people I come into contact with who could pass it.

Take it yourself and see if you can get at least a 75% score. You might be surprised at how poorly you do.

And that my friends is the topic of this paper, the American people's total lack of understanding of what the role of government is. I hate to say it but I find the majority of people I come in contact with to be totally ignorant, bordering on absolutely stupid, in regards to government and the powers our Constitution grants it.

I hear people at work making asinine comments like, "It is about time for a woman president, that is why I am voting for Hillary." Or "Oprah is supporting Obama, and if Oprah says he is okay I am voting for him too."

When I hear people talk like that it becomes apparent that our country is in such sad shape not because of our elected representatives. It is because we as a nation have elected these buffoons to represent us and we have allowed them to stay in office once they have proven themselves to be buffoons.

Just because a candidate has breasts and female reproductive organs does not mean she is qualified to be our president. Just because some talk show host says a candidate is the best one to be president does not mean that you have to agree with her.

People these days just do not think when it comes to politics. They listen to these people make promises and the one who makes the most promises concerning issues that benefit them personally are the ones who get the votes. It does not matter if the candidate has no constitutional authority to enact legislation based upon their promises. It does not matter if those promises will cost us billions in wasted tax dollars. What mattered is that their promises appealed to the largest majority of voters.And that is why we are in such sad shape, because the voters themselves have not the foggiest idea of how our government is supposed to function.

I don't see things getting any better in the future as long as the people of this country believe that our elected officials are Constitutionally authorized to keep the promises they make on the campaign trail. As long as we, as people, continue to vote for candidates who make us promises that are not authorized by our Constitution, or we re-elect officials who have violated their oaths of office while serving, this country will continue to get what it deserves, rotten scumbags picked from the cesspool of a society that is illiterate in regards to the role of government.

Maybe it is time to reinstate the Literacy Test for voting. Maybe until we can prove that we are educated enough concerning the role of government we ought to lose that right as well. Then again maybe things will never change, because maybe, just maybe, things are just the way those in power want them to be. A mass of uneducated ignorant voters who are willing to buy into their lies and b.s. without the slightest clue that they are being lied to and deceived.

Just for your own enlightenment, take the Alabama Literacy test. Maybe, just maybe you will change your mind about who you had planned on voting for. But then maybe I am just dreaming.

Can America Survive?

The future of this country has been on my mind quite a bit lately. I see far too much happening that leads me to believe that our government no longer cares one iota about the concerns of the average American citizen. We are merely worker drones to keep the corporate machine running and to provide our government with a steady stream of tax dollars.

Our country faces a multitude of problems. Many Americans place the blame for these problems upon the Democrats, while others blame the Republicans. For those of you who feel that we are better off when your party holds control of our government, I would like to ask the following question. If our country has steadily gotten worse no matter who is in charge, how can you say that your party is any better than the other? If your political party were better, then wouldn't it make sense that things would improve under their control, not steadily get worse. Nothing has gotten better under either Republican or Democrat administrations.

Both parties are equally as culpable for the situation this country finds itself in. The democrats tend to be more socialist in that they want to take from those who have and give to those who don't, while the republicans tend to favor big business and corporate interests over the welfare of the working people. Under the George W. Bush administration, the republicans have taken a decided turn towards fascism with some of the legislation they have enacted. Whatever the case may be, the largest group, the working class American, gets the shaft.

You tell me, which would be worst, living in Nazi Germany or living in Communist Russia? Myself, I think both would be intolerable. So, the way I see it, with the upcoming 2008 Presidential election upon us we are once again offered a choice of either business as usual republicans or business as usual democrats. Not much of a choice at all if we truly want to turn this country around for the better.

However, there is one distinct difference this time around, that being Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air amidst the usual stench of political rhetoric and propaganda. His platform is the only one, if one were to put emotions aside and think about the facts, that follows the precepts of government as laid out in our Constitution.

Ron Paul's message of freedom is finding a willing audience who have become tired of the lies, deceit, and corruption we are offered by our current slate of candidates. Although I personally feel that Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate honorable enough to hold the office of President, I feel that even if he were to be elected it might not be enough to turn the tide and restore our country to the principles that made it great.

Let me explain. I don’t want to talk about what some consider conspiracy theories, let it suffice to say that it has taken years for our country to reach the sad state of affairs we currently find ourselves in. Whether you believe that this is due to corporate influences, the influence of special interest groups, or by influences of some larger group, the fact of the matter is that we have sat idly by while our government has stopped representing we the people. If Ron Paul were to be elected, those who hold the reins of power would not relinquish them willingly. I have serious concerns for the safety of Congressman Paul if he makes into the oval office.

Secondly, if Ron Paul does make it into office, and if he does succeed in making the changes needed to turn this country around, what then? It is questionable as to whether the majority of the people of this country could keep this country on the path to recovery that would be made by a Ron Paul administration. After all, we did little to stop the damage that has already been done by special, corporate and global interests. What makes you think we would be any less apathetic about the affairs of government after a Ron Paul left office?

Finally, I do not think the American people are willing, or even capable of making the sacrifices needed to save our country. We have become far too accustomed to government involvement in every aspect of our lives, and while it may sound silly I think the people of this country would go into withdrawal symptoms if they were forced to rely upon their own wits and skills to survive without some form of government subsidy.

So, what is the answer? I don’t know that there is one. I have been reading a number of articles by authors who are of the opinion that we are past the point where political activism will make a change for the better in this country.

A quote from one of these writers will give you an idea of the drastic measures some think are required to restore our republic to the way our founders envisioned,

“Your one and only chance for freedom or survival will be to claim the right and the duty to throw out those in government who would reduce your status from “sovereign citizen” (the 14th amendment eliminated that) to prisoner. You will not reclaim America by reason, argument, Fox News debates or petitions to your congressional representative. (They don’t listen anyway). It won’t come because you voted, went to the candidate meetings or attended your local city or county council sessions. It will not happen because you volunteered to help with Bible school or gave blood to the Red Cross. It still will not happen when you pay your taxes and use your zip code. It will only happen when you are left no choice but to exercise your second amendment right, (a natural right that cannot be taken away by anyone, ever, unless of course, you turned in your weapons for a $50 keep our schools safe reward) and that day is virtually upon us.”

I am of the opinion that this course of action may be futile as well. The methods hinted at in that quote might very well remove the cancerous growth that calls itself our government, but it will do little to nothing to change the attitude of the majority of Americans that allowed this cancer to take over our system of government in the first place.

The American people are far too uneducated in regards to the way our system of government is supposed to operate. We have become morally corrupt, lazy, and apathetic. It is us to whom the blame firmly falls for the state of affairs of this country. If we had been paying attention and really wanted to, we could have kept our elected officials in check and made sure they continued to represent us, instead of special interests. Instead we watched television and trusted the news to keep us informed.

Allow me to put forth a scenario. Let's just say for the sake of argument that magically we were able to replace the entire Congress with new members. Say we were to install a new president who had no previous experience inside Washington D.C. Say we give them a copy of the Constitution and say, 'Here, this is the manual for how you are to run this country', how long do you think it would take before special interests got their tentacles into the halls of power and corrupted our elected representatives once again? How many election cycles would pass before people lost interest in keeping a watchful eye upon their elected representatives and allowed them to become corrupted by the power they held? I do not think it would be very long at all before things were back to the point where we are right now.

I am not saying that those of us who care, those who understand the threat to our liberties that government poses should just roll over and give up. I just feel that the outcome of this battle is inevitable. Whether we choose to fight to save our nation, or if we are imprisoned under some provision of some legislation designed to silence dissent, the end result will be the same. Our system of government, and with it our personal freedoms and liberties, as originally established by our Constitution is gone, never to be known again. The great experiment in self governance has failed, and it is because we the people have failed to understand the principles upon which it was founded and to keep a watchful eye on our government. Unless America turns itself around on an individual basis first, our country has no chance of survival. So you have a choice this election cycle, vote for business as usual and then go back to your apathetic lives, or vote for change with the understanding that you have a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of your elected officials. Option A leads to the death of our nation. Option B provides our only chance at survival.