Our Founders Gave Us a Republic Not a Democracy

The most profound realization of our Forefathers was the need to subordinate society’s rights to one's God-Given Individual Rights.  All historical Democracies that regarded individuals as sacrificial lambs (to the ends of others) and society as an end in itself, had self-destructed at some point.  At best, democracies are very expensive, very inefficient and extremely corrupt.  Consequently, our Founding Fathers gave us a new form of Republic (not a democracy) that regarded the individual as the end in itself and society as a means to a nonviolent and voluntary coexistence of individuals. 

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a true democracy is rule by the omnipotent majority.  In a democracy, the individual and any group of individuals composing any minority have no protection against the unlimited power of the majority.  It is a case of majority over man.  The majority's power, implemented throughout government, has the ability to become absolute, unlimited and tyrannical.  Our Founders knew this form of government had always opened the door to eventual unrestrained tyranny by the majority. 

Our Founders were not opposing a popular type of government for our country.  Their aim was to protect one's God-Given Individual Rights and, therefore, the rights of all minorities and the liberties of people in general—a system where one's Individual Rights would be protected against all possible violators, including The Majority that is in control of government at that time.  Consequently, they gave us a Republic form of government with an entirely different purpose than a democracy.  Its purpose was to control The Majority and factions (special interest groups).  They wanted to give us a system of government designed to bar equally the "snob-rule" of a governing elite and the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority.  The Constitution and Bill of Rights were drafted not only to accomplish this but to severely limit the power of the federal government. 

The concept of Individual Rights was so new in human history that most citizens even today have not yet fully grasped it, including the majority of current politicians.  The concept of having a right relates to the freedom of one’s actions.  It can be defined as the freedom to act on one’s own judgment without physical force, coercion, intrusion, fraud, extortion, etc. as long as one is not interfering with someone else’s Individual Rights, keeping in mind a right to property is an Unalienable Right.  It is not a guarantee that every man will earn property.  It is a guarantee that a man will own property if he earns it.  It is the right to gain and retain material possessions—including one's own income—and to use and dispose of those possessions at one’s discretion, not at the discretion of government.

[James Madison] “When government interferes with the freedom to derive the fruits of one’s talents and labors, it violates the principle of human equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens and others to particular exemptions.  When government dictates arbitrary taxation or the taking of property from one class of citizens to benefit another, freedom is assailed.  This is because the right of property is simply the natural and necessary extension of the free use of one’s faculties.  A just government will protect the citizens in both their rights of property and their property in rights.  A person’s opinions and the free communication of them is a no less sacred form of property, from which freedom of speech, assembly and press are derived.  Government is instituted to protect property of every sort, as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses.  This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.”

The Declaration of Independence stated that we “are endowed by our Creator with certain Unalienable Rights.”  Violating these rights means to coerce one to act against his or her judgment or to confiscate one’s property against his or her will.  Essentially, there are two ways to achieve this--by the use of fraud or physical force.  There are two potential violators of one’s Unalienable Individual Rights:  a criminal and government.  Our Founders knew that a Democratic government left unrestricted would become the most serious threat to our Individual Rights. Remember, the basic reason our Founding Fathers created government was to protect individuals from criminals.  They created the Constitution and Bill of Rights to protect citizens from the government.  Unfortunately, the federal government over time has claimed sole authority to interpret the Constitution and thus broaden its own powers by diluting and destroying our Individual Rights.

A right, according to our Founding Fathers, is something that exists concurrently among all citizens, but imposes no obligation or intrusion upon another.  With that in mind, ask yourself this question:  was it our Forefathers’ intentions for all citizens to have the right to jobs, food, housing and medical care whether they worked for it or not?  The right to own property (if you earn it) and bear arms, and the right to freedom of speech and religion are rights granted to us in the Constitution.  

The rights to jobs, medical care, food and decent housing are not granted in our Constitution. They do not equate with rights such as the freedom of speech and religion.  It is easy to buy into the utopian dream of “abundance for all” through the redistribution of wealth, but unfortunately, these ideals are not compatible with the survival of a Free Society. 

If fellow citizens feel they have a right to these things without any means to pay for them, they should not expect government to provide for them.  The only way government can give one citizen something is to first take it from another citizen through the use of intimidation and force if necessary.  When government grants a right to a citizen for something he or she did not earn, it must first take away the Constitutional right of another citizen for something he or she did earn.  Unfortunately, history has proven that governments can never stop themselves.  If they guarantee everyone security and abundance ask yourself:  WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR THIS AND WHAT IS THE END RESULT?  

Because we have allowed our politicians to violate the most fundamental principle upon which our country was founded, that of Individual Rights, our society is now broken into an ever-growing number of enemy camps fighting one another for self-preservation.  It has allowed our elected officials to use politics to pit liberals against conservatives, the poor against the rich, big business against labor unions, and the blacks, Hispanics and Caucasians against one other.  Rather than promote the indisputable principle of Individual Rights granted to us by our Founding Fathers, which would create a Just and United America for all, they create an economic war of special interest groups and lobbyists all fighting to seize some monetary control of government and extort some special privilege at the expense of others.  It is rapidly becoming a civil conflict between the Liberty Loving Americans and Taxpayers on one end, and the tax-takers and self-serving special interest groups on the other.   

Do the overwhelming majority of elected officials who continue to dilute our Individual Rights (by advocating policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler's National Socialism and Mussolini's Fascism) consider themselves socialist or fascist?  Probably not.  To do so would at least mean they voted based on principles they believed in and understood.  To the contrary, these elected officials are no more than politicians whose visions do not extend beyond the next election.  Their leadership has resulted in a scramble for power among factions (special interest groups) without any real political principles or purposeful long-term direction toward the survival of our Republic.  Their socialist and fascist programs by any other name (Corporate Favoritism, Corporate Welfare, International Welfare, The Welfare State, The New Deal, The New Frontier and The Great Society) have no regard for the principle of Individual Rights and will eventually bankrupt our Republic and destroy the American Way of Life for us all.  Keep in mind our Constitution and Bill of Rights were written to restrict these actions taken by our elected officials. 

What happens when the amount of money taken by the tax-takers becomes greater than the amount confiscated from the tax providers and the government has borrowed so much money that it can no longer repay even the interest on the federal debt?  The end result will be civil chaos along with the eventual bankruptcy and death of our free society and way of life.  If we continue in the direction we are now headed, it is predicted this could happen by the year 2040.  It is these predictable results our Founders warned us about.

There is only one true free society with Liberty and Justice for all and that is one based on the principle of Individual Rights.  It is not the job of government to confiscate our property, impose taxes on our incomes and redistribute the profit to whomever they please in an attempt to accomplish a  utopian dream under the pretext of “promoting the general welfare.”  Those political systems that subordinate Individual Rights to the rights of society through some higher authority are only variants of the same tyrannical system, different only in scale.  Our Founding Fathers gave us a Republic.  Let's take it back!

 Principle Two

Limited Government

as

Intended by Our Founding Fathers

Government is necessary and must play a role in any peaceful and productive society.  Yet the question is, what is that role?  The Declaration of Independence, which underlies the Constitution, holds that the rights of the people come from God and that the powers given to a government must come from the people.  Nobody can read our Constitution and not conclude that it was our Founders’ intent to severely limit the powers of the federal government.

Bear in mind, if we are to realize the maximum benefits and common good that results from dealing with one another in a society, then we must all first be committed to the concept of Individual Rights.  Remember, a person’s Individual Rights can be violated only by the use of physical force, fraud, extortion, etc.  Therefore, the precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force, fraud, extortion, etc. from social and business relationships thus establishing the rule that, if citizens wish to deal with one another, they may do so only by means of reason, discussion, persuasion and voluntary, uncoerced agreements.  If society provided no organized protection against force, we would degenerate into a chaos of gang rule not unlike what we see in many third world countries.  Consequently, the protection of our Individual Rights through the administration and enforcement of an objective code of rules (laws) is the most important role of government.  For all advocates of a true free society, this, along with the need for a strong national defense and an entity to represent all the states on foreign commerce, is the only true and objective basis for having a federal government.

 [James Madison] "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.  Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.  The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce.  The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State." 

[Thomas Jefferson] “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others either through brute force or fraud to the people.”

Accordingly, other than the matter of foreign commerce, our Founders saw the proper functions of the federal government falling into three broad categories, all of them involving the issues of physical force, fraud, extortions, etc. and the protection of our Individual Rights.  We need the police to protect us from criminals.  We need the armed services to protect us from foreign invaders.  We need the law courts to settle disputes among individuals and entities according to Constitutionally-Sound and Objective Laws.  Issues may arise within these categories, but essential is the principle that the primary purpose of law and government is the protection of individuals and their property and Individual Rights.

[James Madison] “It is sufficiently obvious that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted.  These rights cannot well be separated.”

When government exceeds its proper role, law and justice become distorted and misused.  Two primary sources of distortion of the law are greed and false philanthropy.  Greed leads individuals and groups to seek material enrichment through "legal plunder" of our tax dollars.  False philanthropy is employed to justify the tyrannical use of power by political and intellectual elites who also seek, through the "legal plunder" of our tax dollars, to improve the lives of supposedly lesser people.  If the government were confined to its proper functions, everyone's interests in the law would be just and equal.  If we all then, to the best of our abilities, utilized our mental faculties and the free disposition of labor, then our individual and collective progress would be virtually unfailing, and necessary charity would be provided by individuals and entities other than government.

With the exception of protecting Individual Rights and maintaining a strong national defense, our Founding Fathers took a narrow and restrictive view of a highly debatable section of the Constitution, which outlines the government’s need to further promote the “general welfare” (Preamble and Article I – Section 8).

[James Madison] "With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them.  To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs not contemplated by its creators."

[Thomas Jefferson] "Aided by a little sophistry on the words 'general welfare,' they (politicians) claim a right to do not only the acts to effect that which are specifically enumerated and permitted (in the Constitution), but whatsoever they shall think or pretend will be for the general welfare."

[Thomas Jefferson] “On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

In drafting the Constitution (1787), our Founding Fathers were endeavoring only to address issues and concerns not sufficiently covered in The Articles of Confederation (approved by congress in 1777 and ratified by 1781) under which the delegates from the 13 original states had been governing as a “league of friendship.”  We do not argue that the 13 states needed a stronger union, but there was a need for an improved set of regulations and laws that would enhance and promote free trade and markets among these states.  The 13 states also needed a stronger, single voice to enhance their individual and mutual dealings with foreign countries in matters of commerce and national defense.  The federal government also needed the right and means to raise money in order to accomplish those limited privileges that would be granted to it in the new Constitution.  

[Thomas Jefferson] “They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.  To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.  It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.  Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them.  It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.”

We strongly argue that it was the original 13 states and our Founding Fathers’ intent that any laws passed or tax dollars spent by the federal government under the pretext of “general welfare” had to be for the good of all members of society rather than specific members, groups or states within the society.  To take money from some members of society and redistribute it to specific members, groups or states within the society, not to mention other countries, would have been a very liberal interpretation of promoting “general welfare” and one our Founders would have been adamantly against.  The Constitution says “promote the ‘general welfare,’” not “provide the ‘general welfare.’”  “Promote” means to develop a favorable environment within which others are likely to step up.

Probably the most progressive thinker of the time was Alexander Hamilton who saw the promotion of education, agriculture, manufacturing and commerce as within the confines of promoting the “general welfare” of the country.  This could include internal improvements such as roads, canals, ports, postal services, etc.  He felt the nation should possess within itself the ability to produce all of the essentials necessary for the safety and welfare of the country, especially after the extreme embarrassments of not being able to do so during the Revolutionary War.  We are convinced even Alexander Hamilton would be enraged by today’s liberal interpretation of promoting the “general welfare” and consider it no less than tyranny.  Keep in mind that even though he was a progressive thinker for his time, he would be a radical conservative compared to the thinking of today’s politicians.

Most politicians are friends to everyone, but loyal only to themselves.  Fortunately, the Constitution was written not to depend on the motives, ethical character or intentions of any given party or politician.  Not only did our Founding Fathers devise the elements and principles necessary for a free society, but they created a means of checks and balances to translate it into practice.  It was a system methodically planned to leave no opportunity for the development of tyranny, that is unless We The People did not do our job.  Unless We The People were not diligently watching, our Forefathers knew the Constitution, through liberal interpretation, would be manipulated and changed by power hungry, self-serving factions and/or utopian thinking politicians and judges.  For more than 150 years, We The People have virtually forgotten, ignored and evaded our responsibility. (For More Information See Our Educational Exposé Below titled,  “How We Lost Our Republic.”)

[George Washington] “Few men have the virtue to withstand the highest bidder.”

[James Madison] “Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.  Some representatives will be weak of mind or lacking in backbone.  Some may possess the ambition and political skills of a demagogue and be able to work their wiles on less clever and weaker colleagues.  Even the most philosophic and patriotic representatives should not be given a blind trust, for the political scenes in which they must operate often distract their reasoning and expose it to the influence of the passions.  Be wary of the heat generated by politics and the allurements of political power.  The accumulation of all powers [of government]...in the same hands...[is] the very definition of tyranny.”  

[George Washington] “Government tends to encroach on freedom and consolidate power:  a just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position.  In the long run, disregard for the rule of law allows cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men to subvert the people and take power illegitimately by force or fraud.  This is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

[Alexander Hamilton] "There is in the nature of government an impatience of control that disposes those invested with power to look with an evil eye upon all external attempts to restrain or direct its operations.  This has its origin in the love of power.  Representatives of the people are not superior to the people themselves."

Liberal politicians and, unfortunately, most conservative politicians today feel morally entitled to force us, if necessary, in the service of what they consider a higher good.  Instead of guarding our freedoms and protecting our Individual Rights, the government has turned all Hardworking Taxpayers into virtual sacrificial lambs working half the year just to pay taxes, the majority of which are being redistributed under the pretext of common good.  From this point forth when you hear politicians make statements such as, “We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good,” never forget that in the peak of the cold war communist Soviet Russia was also dedicated to the “common good” of its citizens.  This was also the foundation of the German Nazi Party's National Socialist Workers Party of Germany, or as they stated, "the common good before the individual good".  This is the exact opposite belief as espoused by our Founders.  It sounds good, but in final analysis, it does not work in a Free Society. 

Instead of being Guardians of our Rights and Property, we have allowed our government to become the most dangerous violator of our Individual Rights under the guise of promoting the “general welfare.”  Instead of concentrating on its primary function to protect its citizens from the initiators of physical force, our government has instead become an oppressive and intimidating power against its own citizens.  Instead of concentrating on serving as an instrument to enforce objective laws among members of society, it has created uncertainty and fear by means of nonobjective laws that are often interpreted by means of arbitrary and random decisions made by condescending bureaucrats.  Thomas Jefferson would probably say there are different degrees of tyranny, but tyranny is tyranny. 

[George Washington] “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.  Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”

We must ask ourselves why we allow our elected officials to continue to lead us down this path of quasi-socialism and corporate fascism that will eventually tear apart our society.  Do you think those special interest groups, both foreign and domestic, taking our tax dollars for their own good care about our families or country’s good?  Not only do tax-takers not care, they feel entitled to our money and are getting it because we have not been organized and motivated with a plan that can make our elected officials responsive to our demands.

We are fast approaching the final stage of our Forefathers’ worst nightmares.  If the erosion of our Individual Rights and tide of socialism and fascism continues into the 21^st century as it did in the 20^th century, the end result will be civil chaos and bankruptcy of our Republic.  Do not make the mistake of thinking this can’t happen.  (For More Information See Our Educational Exposé Below titled, “There Will Be Blood in the Streets.”) 

Principle Three

Laissez-Faire Capitalism

as

Intended by Our Founding Fathers

Laissez-Faire Capitalism is the doctrine that economic markets function to the greatest good for all when government does not impede the act of free enterprise through intervention.  The more you keep government from regulating, repressing, influencing and manipulating a free economy, the more every individual in America will benefit from the resulting capitalistic system.

[James Madison] “I own myself the friend to a very free system of commerce, and hold it as a truth, that commercial shackles are generally unjust, oppressive and impolitic--it is also a truth that if industry and labor are left to take their own course, they will generally be directed to those objects which are the most productive, and this in a more certain and direct manner than the wisdom of the most enlightened legislature could point out.”

Our Forefathers knew that unhindered Free Enterprise was the only economic system compatible with a true free society and one’s Individual Rights.  No political-economic system in history has ever proven its merit or benefited so many people as Capitalism.  Yet, no system has been so distorted or criticized via deception and a lack of knowledge.  The public has been so misinformed about the truth that they have now reached a point where they believe more governmental intervention is the cure for the country’s problems.

Unfortunately, we have not known true Free Enterprise or Lassez-Faire Capitalism in our lifetimes, or for that matter, for most of the last two centuries.  What we have witnessed is how government’s interference has resulted in creating various mixed economic systems such that it has become difficult to separate one’s thinking between government and our economy.

If a detailed study were made of all instances in the history of American commerce that have been used as an indictment of Free Enterprise by those who believe economic controls and planning should be in the hands of a highly centralized government,  it would be found that the overwhelming majority of actions blamed on Free Enterprise were in reality caused, necessitated and made possible only by government intervention in business.  The villain was not free enterprise!

There is a strong argument that all nationwide economic crises, recessions and depressions have been caused by government interference.  How could anyone blame these issues on free enterprise when in fact a pure, unrestricted capitalist system did not exist when they occurred?  It does not take much research to see that the economic crash of 1929 and the resulting decade of economic depression were caused, exacerbated and prolonged by government’s intervention in the economy.  Yes, temporary recessions in rotating industries are normal in a free economy based on supply and demand.  These short-term recessions are not harmful, but beneficial, and will correct themselves when a demand remains for the product.

[William Emmott, editor, The Economist]  "Capitalism will always have dramas.  It is governments that turn them into crisis."

There are many who believe economic controls are the proper function of government and that government is a tool of economic class interests.  Those that prefer government to have a pro-labor interest over a pro-business interest are basically advocating the values of Carl Marx (the father of socialism).  Those that prefer it be pro-business are advocating corporate fascism. Unfortunately, both of these groups are contributing factors to our problems.

Government interference in the economy almost always consists of giving an unearned benefit to some person, organization, business, country or the government itself at the expense of Taxpayers or other organizations and businesses.  It is no secret that an overwhelming number of politicians are virtually owned by special interest groups.  Some special interest groups have so much influence over governmental departments that they are able to suppress and often eliminate their competition (corporate fascism).  Therefore, justice ends up being based on which special interest groups have the most influence over government, either through money or the size of their voting factions.

So long as the government holds this form of power, it will attract corrupt politicians, and the system will work in favor of the dishonest businessman, which will penalize and even destroy the honest businesspeople who want only to participate in the American dream.

We are often asked, "Isn't government intervention necessary to prevent monopolies?"  Again, with little research you will discover that the antitrust laws utilized to protect the American consumer from monopolies are unjustified, unreasonable, misguided and even tyrannical in nature.

As we see it, the genesis of antitrust legislation was not in response to a real problem, but to the widely accepted assumption that an unregulated, free market would inevitably lead to the existence of monopolies.  In the late 1800s, businesses were becoming so big and successful that government, as usual, simply overreacted.

A true coercive monopoly may be attained and realized only by the intervention of the government into economic affairs on behalf of the company or entity obtaining that monopoly by special franchises, licenses, subsidies, legislature, etc.—actions that would not otherwise be obtainable in a free market.  You will find that every true monopoly that existed was created or made possible by an act of government, not by Lassez-Faire Capitalism.

When we think of monopolies we imagine early oil companies, early steel companies, early railroad companies, banks and, most recently, Microsoft.  The only one of these industries that came close to being a monopoly was the railroad industry, which were in fact a product of government intervention in economic matters granted to them through privileges, charters and subsidies.  The government then chose to enact legislation against this very problem it, itself, had created.

We contend that in a free market, one in which the government does not intervene in economic affairs, a true monopoly is virtually impossible.  Yet, the government refuses to yield its power despite the overwhelming historical evidence that a monopoly has not yet existed without its intervention.  

We see no need for antitrust laws, which are used primarily by competitors trying to level the playing field by using our tax dollars (Department of Justice) to fight their battles for them (think Microsoft case).  The threat of a monopoly needs no further deterrent than the self-regulating nature of the free market system, which solves its own problems thanks to the predominant forces of consumer choice and the law of supply and demand.  We would argue that the only monopoly about which We The People need be concerned is that of government.

A true free market is a continuous process that cannot be held down.  It creates an upward progression that demands the best of every individual and rewards them accordingly.   The smarter and harder you work, the more you should be rewarded.  There is no more equitable system on the planet.

Whether you are an hourly worker or Bill Gates, it is in your best interest to get the government off industry’s back.  If you are a worker, you want businesses bidding for your services.  Pure free enterprise promotes growth and new industry.  Growth promotes more jobs.  The more jobs and new industry, the better your chance to obtain an advanced job.  More government controls have the opposite effect by suppressing new job growth in the private sector.

Remember, those that have created their own wealth--the exceptional individuals, the innovators, the risk takers, the intellectual giants--do not hold anyone down.  In fact, it is the members of this extraordinary minority who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their achievements.  These individuals have carried us on their backs and kept our society prosperous.  They have raised the playing field for us all.  For government to put arbitrary restrictions on these individuals only restricts us all.

Free Enterprise is the only true economic system based on justice that serves everyone fairly.  Any government control over the free markets in an attempt to level the playing field only lowers the playing field for everyone.  Conversely, a true free market not only levels the playing field for everyone, but, more importantly, raises the playing field for all participants.  Ask yourself, would you want to live in the former Soviet Union, the Eastern European countries before 1989, North Korea, China, Cuba or most African countries?  It is only when these countries add Capitalism to their economy mix that they can and/or do raise the standard of living for all of their citizens.  If all the underdeveloped and third world nations would institute Capitalism, with full protection of Property and Individual Rights, they too would begin to see their prosperity and standard of living improve.  Can you imagine what total Laissez-Faire Capitalism would do for these countries, or for that matter, for our country again?

Please understand we believe in Capitalism with integrity and compassion.  We are in no way saying there should be no laws to protect workers and consumers against unscrupulous businesses, but once objective, constitutionally sound laws (preferably state laws) are in place, they should be handled by the courts, not manipulative politicians and power hungry bureaucrats. 

We the Guardians of Free Enterprise and Individual Rights can no longer stand by and allow this to continue.  We believe everyone’s interests would be better served by joining our team and advocating Limited Government and Laissez-Faire Capitalism.  We as Consumers, Hardworking Taxpayers and Liberty Loving Patriots must unite and take the responsibility to stand up and put the “Free” back in Free Enterprise and “Individual” back in Individual Rights.  All we demand is the return of what our Forefathers granted us.

 How We Lost Our Republic

Under the form of government we live today, we are less free, more heavily taxed and worse governed than our ancestors under British rule.  How did We The People allow this happen? 

[Thomas Jefferson] “On every unauthoritative exercise of power by the legislature must the people rise in rebellion or their silence be construed into a surrender of that power to them?”   

Almost immediately after our Republic was formed and our Constitution was ratified, powerful factions at the time were trying to circumvent it.  You will find it interesting that Thomas Jefferson's platform in the presidential election of 1800 called for the reduction of federal power and fiscal austerity, and was aimed at reducing the federal debt with a need for strict interpretation of the original intent of the Constitution.

Although much impairment was done to State Rights and our Constitution during the 1800s, the first truly lethal blow to our Liberties and Individual Rights came with the passing of the 16th Amendment (1913) to our Constitution giving government the right to tax our incomes.  It was our Forefathers’ intention that duties, impost and excise taxes (taxes on articles of consumption) were sufficient to fund the limited functions of the federal government in ordinary times.  As described in our Constitution, direct taxes (property and income taxes) were expected to be used only in emergencies (such as war) and were made very difficult to levy because of proportion requirements based on population within each state.  Our Founders could not have imagined the end result of the income tax amendment passed in 1913 that allows the federal government to confiscate money from one group of people and redistribute it to another.  This Amendment has resulted in tyranny far surpassing anything our Forefathers experienced with the British Empire.  For the first time in our history, every U.S. citizen became directly accountable to the all-powerful federal government. Why our ancestors allowed this to happen is appalling considering we were already one of the most powerful, rich and envied nations in the world.

The 17th Amendment was put into effect the following year (1914).  It required that the two senators from each state be elected by popular vote in their respective states rather than chosen by state legislators as originally required in our Constitution.  Our Founders assumed state legislators would always appoint two senators that would advocate strong State Rights and a strict interpretation of our Constitution, rather than relinquishing power to the federal government.  The 17th Amendment meant that states no longer had this power.  Unfortunately, the factions within society that approve of a strong federal government could now appeal directly to the citizenry (primarily by buying votes with our tax dollars) to elect senators who would advocate a strong federal government.  Because elections of our congressmen (congressperson today) to the House of Representatives were already done by popular vote (per our Constitution), the states lost their remaining control over the legislative branches of the federal government.

Although revered by many for his New Deal programs during the depression and leadership during World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) opened the door to allow undeniable destruction to be done to our Republic and Constitution. 

Our Founding Fathers put the necessary checks and balances in place (the judiciary, the executive and the legislative branches) to protect our Constitution.  However, Alexander Hamilton gave us fair warning about what could happen if the Court (judiciary) were ever corrupted.  He wrote, “Liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other [branches].”  

Since FDR restaffed the Supreme Court with his compliant cronies, the judiciary has, in effect, formed a union with the other two branches to enhance the power of the federal government at the expense of the states and the people.  The integrity of the Court suffered a bloody defeat at Roosevelt’s hands.  This allowed the power of the federal government to grow without restraint.  At the federal level, “checks and balances” had ceased to include judicial review.  Through ingenious interpretation of our Constitution, the federal government was able to invent its own powers as it went along. 

This also allowed FDR to set the unconstitutional precedent of using entitlement programs, such as Social Security, to buy votes with other people’s money.  The class of voting parasites had begun and have seen unrestrained growth ever since.  FDR’s New Deal programs didn’t just increase the power of the federal government; they struck at the very principle of constitutional resistance to federal expansion.  Congress didn’t need any constitutional amendment to increase its powers.  It could now increase its own powers at any time by simple majority vote.  This has allowed the federal government to assume numerous new powers never before mentioned or implied in our Constitution, yet the Court has never seriously impeded this expansion, rather allowed Congress to take more control over public education, communications, transportation, basically every facet of our lives.  Ironically, what it finds unconstitutional are the traditional powers of the states.

FDR’s socialist ideas in his economic bill of rights were reaffirmed by the Democratic Party’s platform of 1960, which essentially espoused “cradle to grave security for all.”  Then came Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society programs that advocated “abundance for all” and included Medicare and Medicaid, which were signed into law in 1965.

Now add to this the establishment of a privately owned Federal Reserve banking system made possible by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.  This had given government an influence over credit, interest rates and the quantity and value of money.  It now gave it the means to borrow an unlimited amount of money to buy votes and power by promoting these socialistic programs and corporate handouts of every kind. 

Today, each tax payer is paying five to six times more in taxes than our great-grandfathers did while the government still goes into debt to support its utopian programs and handouts—not just domestically, but worldwide.  The federal debt as of November 30, 2007, was $9,133,591,501,627.27.  That means every man, woman and child in our Republic is in debt over $30,000, and it keeps growing.  If you were to include other unfunded obligations such as Social Security and Medicare, it breaks down to an obligation of over $450,000 per American household.  This debt is the obligation of the American Taxpayers.  It does not go away without reneging on our obligations and debt.  Trust us, the day of reckoning is coming and it is not a pretty picture. 

A huge base within the liberal, quasi-socialist camp, if allowed, will continue to gut our Constitutional Rights and put us on a fast track to socialism.  Even the majority of so-called conservative politicians today are evading, distorting, perverting and diluting our Individual Rights granted to us by our Forefathers.  Together, they are on a path to destroy our free society and way of life, and sadly, are either not cognizant of this fact, or worse, do not care.

Maybe today’s politicians are afraid to call their actions by their real names due to their fear of discovering what they really advocate (you may be in the same state of denial with them).  Their decisions are not based on the principle of what is best for the long-term survival of our Republic, but on which factions they should support at any given time.  Any individual or special interest group that advocates these “house of cards” schemes will be just as guilty as the self-serving politicians when they bankrupt our country.  It is time we stood up and took back our Republic.

"There Will Be Blood in the Streets"

The Eventual Death of the American Dream
and
Bankruptcy of Our Republic

What the tax-taking, debt creating, liberal, quasi-socialist people (both Democrats and Republicans) do not understand is that, by continuing to promote the dream of "security and equality for all," they will not only destroy the living standards of all the middle class and many of the rich, but will eventually relegate the poor to a future of devastating poverty with little hope for escape.  By damaging the lifestyles of those above them into which the poor might have evolved through hard work, they will eventually destroy the American Dream for us all.  History has proven that the best thing we can do for the poor is reinstitute Individual Rights, Limited Government and Laissez-Faire Capitalism.

[Harry S. Truman] "The only secret is the history you don't know."

[Albert Einstein] "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.  A type of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."  

Three primary enablers of this false dream were: (1) the passage of the 16th Amendment allowing the federal government to tax our incomes; (2) the elimination of the gold standard (the backing of our currency by a fixed unit of gold) and (3) the establishment of a privately owned banking system (the Federal Reserve system) that allows the federal government to influence credit, interest rates and the quantity and value of money while offering virtually unrestrained borrowing.  These three elements have given the federal government the means and power to confiscate an unlimited amount of money from the Taxpayers (to include billions and billions from the yet unborn) and put it in the hands of the tax-takers.  All three of these enablers were in direct opposition to our Founding Fathers’ instructions.

[Thomas Jefferson] "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

[Alan Greenspan] "In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation.  There is no safe store of value.  The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.  Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes.  The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare states to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit (debt creation)." (The Objectivist newsletter published in 1966, reprinted in Ayn Rand's Capitalism:  The Unknown Ideal)

If the socialist Democracies of today were forced to operate on a cash basis (where they could spend no more than the taxes confiscated yearly from the Taxpayers) without the ability to borrow money from the wages of generations yet unborn, the fraud inherent in their socialist schemes would have been recognized decades ago.

[George Washington] "No generation has a right to contract debts greater than can be paid off during the course of its own existence."

In a vain attempt to keep themselves in power, the liberal, quasi-socialist and pro-corporate fascist politicians continue to sell their financially failing, house of cards programs to whoever provides them donations or buys them a vote.  But, as with all socialist and/or fascist societies, their days are numbered.  As history repeats itself, these politicians will be dishonored, perhaps even despised, by those whom they promised “cradle to grave security” in a world where there is no such thing without stealing more from someone to give to another, while at the same time borrowing money that cannot be repaid (with the end result driving our country into bankruptcy).

When the government finally has to start cutting payments to the welfare recipients or face bankrupting our country, we can then expect the self-serving leaders of the welfare societies to present their ultimatums: “Pay the financial assistance the socialist politicians have taught us are our entitlements or watch your cities burn.”  The politicians who created the welfare system will then be confronted with this monster they created and demand military action.  We pray We The People can stop this before it goes that far.  If not, chaos and military action will be the unfortunate end result.

[Dr. Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda--National Socialist Workers Party of Germany (Nazi Party)] "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.  The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.  It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

One would like to think the failure of socialism would come about through the comprehension that its doctrine is false and based on lies.  Additionally, since it is based on taking one’s property without his or her permission and giving it to another, it is morally wrong.  What appears to be pro-social ends up being antisocial.  Beware, the negative attitudes, the vindictiveness, the animosity and the ill feelings between the tax-takers and the Taxpayers will grow exponentially in the coming years. 

Why can’t our elected officials simply look at history and the documented fact that socialism’s record is the bloodiest in history, as exemplified by Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-tung, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and countless others too numerous to mention?  Even the socialist planned economies of the Soviet Union and its satellites in Eastern Europe did not collapse due to their inherent immorality, but simply because they did not work.

At some point, we who live under the less extreme quasi-socialist welfare state will need to re-educate ourselves after decades of brainwashing in order to realize the truth--that socialism in any form does not work and makes promises it cannot keep. 

[Lord John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946)—renowned British economist] "There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch (degrade) the currency.  The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose."

It would be difficult today to find an economist, either liberal or Keynesian in his or her views, who could still maintain that the federal debt and other obligations of the United States could ever be paid.  The debt is simply too large.  The interest alone on the national debt is estimated to be over $500 billion this year (2008).  By 2040, it is estimated that it will take all tax dollars collected just to pay the interest on the federal debt.  What happens when we can no longer pay the interest on this debt created by the continued borrowing to pay for socialist welfare programs?  Our country becomes the financial slaves of the international bankers, the IMF, the World Bank, etc. that will insist on stern austerity measures, increased taxes, the devaluing of our currency and the mortgaging of our natural resources.

We will see government forced to develop additional forms of taxes: excise taxes on pensions, IRAs, 401(k)s, etc.--an asset tax on virtually every asset you own, taxed over and over annually.  Unless spending is severely curbed, we can expect taxes to be drastically increased over the next few decades.  Once the government has reached the point where no more taxes can be wrung from the productive citizens; all corporate and international welfare has been eliminated; national defense has been cut to the bone; all that remains is to cut payments in domestic social welfare programs or face federal bankruptcy.

[Thomas Jefferson] "I place economy among the first and most important of Republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared."

[George Washington] “No pecuniary consideration is more urgent than the regular redemption and discharge of the public debt.  On none can delay be more injurious or an economy of time more valuable.”

[Thomas Jefferson]  (1) “The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” (2) “We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.”

If the debt or the annual interest on the debt cannot be repaid, the only option will almost certainly be the refusal of public authorities to pay the debt under the terms it was created (repudiation).  If we do not soon reverse this spending madness, many feel it is not a question of if repudiation will happen, but when and under what form.

[Ludwig von Mises] "There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit (debt) expansion.  The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit (debt) expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.”

Potential repudiation options are: (1) a straight out default; (2) hyperinflation caused by the government simply printing enough central bank notes to discharge the debt; (3) a leverage currency swap or (4) a call on all publicly held treasury obligations in an exchange for certificates of lower value and longer maturities.  These actions will result in a collapse in the government’s ability to raise future money, a collapse of our currency and bond market, the rendering of all treasury obligations probably worthless or of little value and the backing of the federal government of any form of obligation such as CDs, mortgages, student loans, pension funds, etc. as worthless.  Finally, with the failure to continue to fund the welfare programs, there will be blood in the streets.  Economic, social and military turmoil will follow.  

[Paul Kennedy]

"The decline of great powers is caused by simple economic overextension."

 (“The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers”)

If there is any doubt in your mind that civil chaos and bankruptcy are inevitable should we continue to allow our federal politicians to lead us down this socialistic road, you are blind.  We can all ignore reality, but we will not be able to ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.

 The hour may be later than you think.  Remember, even the Comptroller General of the United States, David M. Walker, warns that the nation will go broke within a generation unless it takes radical steps now to rein in out-of-control federal spending.  We must unite now under The Liberty Alliance banner and take back our Republic before it is too late.