On Revolution and The War on Drugs

As an introduction, I’ll just say that this stuff runs heavily in the family. And it’s a family time of year. Regardless of all things “legal”, when a family is close, it takes more than a cold hearted prosecuting attorney to break the ties that bind.

So, I want to share a couple things that were written by my favorite daughter-by-marriage, Stephanie, who lives on the family farm in New York State and is also currently working on her bachelors degree….

And so without further ado:


“All men recognize the right of revolution,” says Henry David Thoreau (1794). The term “revolution” refers to a radical change, whether in the principles of the individual, or those of society at large. Modern Americans tend to cringe at the phrase, as it has irrevocably become linked with war, and yet its home lies within the American mind, the microcosm from which the macrocosm of government exists. In a perfect democracy, “the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived” (1807). This is the democratic ideal, the application of which is the intentions of the American government. There is an abyss between the capacity for true democracy, and the actualization of true democracy. Democracy, therefore, is a work in progress, and the labor an American calling. This process of democratization has embedded itself in American culture, and it involves constant changes in the mind and character of the American individual, American society, and even the American government. American identity is defined by the struggle between individualism and civil responsibility, creating a sense of duty toward revolution.
Who is the American? John Hector suggests the emergence of individualistic culture in his “Letters from an American Farmer: What is an American”. “They are a mixture of English, Scotch, Irish, French, Dutch, Germans, and Swedes. From this promiscuous breed, that race now called Americans have arisen” (659). “In this great American asylum, the poor of Europe have by some means met together, and in consequence of various causes; to what purpose should they ask one another what countrymen they are? Alas, two thirds of them had no country. Can a wretch who wanders about, who works and starves, whose life is a continual scene of sore affliction or pinching penury, can that man call England or any other kingdom his country?”(659). Americans were born from the cracks of colonial societies; they are the people who found in their country nothing of themselves, and were seen as only a means for the privileged. “Urged by a variety of motives, here they came. Everything has tended to regenerate them; new laws, a new mode of living, a new social system; here they are become men: in Europe they were as so many useless plants, wanting vegetative mold and refreshing showers; they withered, and were mowed down by want, hunger, and war; but now by the power of transplantation, like all other plants they have taken root and flourished!” (659). Many emigrating American’s simply wanted to pursue their lives free of the yoke of other men, to pursue their individual contentment. “Here the rewards of his industry follow with equal steps the progress of his labor; his labor is founded on the basis of nature, self-interest,” (660). In order to pursue individualistic happiness, one must operate under a government that allows for that kind of freedom.

Emigration from Europe to the Americas due to the dissatisfaction with colonial governments represents a kind of revolution in itself, and has formed an entirely new society. “He is an American, who, leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds…Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labors and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world” (660). American colonial culture desired to get away the this notion of men being used as means for other men to obtain more pleasurable lifestyles; Americans wanted man to be seen as an end, in and of himself. Hence the American government should accommodate this sense of the individual rights of a man, although at the time of Hector, and even Thoreau, this pertained to white men who owned land and were eighteen, neglecting the rights of other human beings, a point which Thoreau found anti-American. America needed a mode of government that could give the individual a voice, and that government was democracy.

In order to have an effective democracy, individuals must participate in the government, meaning they must vote. Americans post-Revolution had a strong sense of civic duty, for they understood that their voice could be heard in a democratic government, in the form of a representative which they could elect to serve their interests. Henry David Thoreau was one for using his civic responsibility to pressure the American government to address this issue of the individual rights of man.

The issue, for Thoreau, was that these rights of man in American government neglected many Americans, including African- Americans, much like colonial governments neglected those born to underprivilege. “It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume, is to do at any time what I think right” (1793). This drove him to reiterate that very purpose of government, “which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will,” (1792). John Hector also addresses American government in the same manner. “[The government] is derived from the original genius and strong desire of the people ratified and confirmed by the crown” (659). To support this definition, “It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way” (1793). Thoreau makes an important insight into the nature of representative government, that it may act to represent the voice of its people, but that the voice heard is of the majority. This is where he calls upon Americans to exercise their right, their duty, of civic responsibility. “Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight. If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the State will not hesitate which to choose” (1799).

Henry David Thoreau champions the American to use his civic power to end slavery, which he sees as incongruent with the foundation of American ideals. “I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave’s government also” (1794). He is sickened by the fear Americans have to stand against slavery, even if they feel it is wrong. “Those who, while they disapprove of the character and measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support, are undoubtedly its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform” (1797). This is because Thoreau feels that the individual is ultimately the one who holds the power of change, the power of revolution in democratic government, and that using this power is an American duty, the way in which the government can be kept in check, can be assessed in terms of its justice. “Some are petitioning the State to dissolve the Union, to disreguard the requisitions of the President. Why do they not dissolve it themselves—the union between themselves and the State,–and refuse to pay their quota into its treasury? Do they not stand in the same relation to the State, that the State does to the Union? And have not the same reasons prevented that State from resisting the Union, which have prevented them from resisting the State?” (1797). “Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why does it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to be on the alert to point out its faults, and do better than it would have them?” (1797).

A powerful image of Thoreau’s beliefs about what an ideal democratic government has begun to emerge. The individual would be the central axis of authority from which the government would operate. “Is democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State, until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at last which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor” (1807).


The War on Drugs

The phrase “the War on Drugs” is amusing; drugs are commonly used by people in everyday life, both legally and illegally, and have been throughout human history. It is not really amusing, however, because due to our drug laws, the United States, the country with some of the strictest drug laws in the world, has the highest incarceration rate in the world as well. To anyone who really cares to think about this issue, it would seem that there is a clear violation of civil liberties going on within this country pertaining to drug use, and a hypocritical one, in my opinion, at that.
Over thirty-five years ago the drug laws went into effect, and as a result, the incarceration rate has steadily increased, and so has government spending on “the War on Drugs,” reaching $11.4 billion in 2003, and that is not counting how much gets spent at a state level (Rachels 248). The Prohibition argument goes as follows:

Drug use may cause harm to users [and others].

The government has a right or duty to prohibit that which is [potentially] harmful.

The government has a right or duty to prohibit drugs.

Before we begin discussing this argument in free form we will apply it to the Two Principles of Rationality, a methodology used in ethics to show an argument’s soundness, by judging both its truth and validity. The first principle states that “every proposition which is implied by a true proposition is true.” The second principle says that “every proposition which implies a false proposition is false.” Premise one of the Argument for Prohibition says that “drug use may cause harm to users, and others,” and we can judge this as a true statement—drug use “may” cause us harm, or they “may-not”. The problem comes with the second premise which states that “the government has a right or duty to prohibit that which is [potentially] harmful,” and the conclusion that follows, “the government has a right or duty to prohibit drugs.” First of all, it does not seem that the government, especially given a Constitution based upon the individual right to autonomy of man, has a right to prohibit things that are potentially harmful, because if it did there would be all sorts of consequences that would not apply to the way things actually are; this would mean that anything potentially harmful would be under government jurisdiction. Say for example I eat too much, and because I eat too much, I am obese, and this puts my life in danger; eating has become potentially harmful, and should be prohibited by the government! Or, for example, I have too much sex, and having so much sex increases the chances of my partner and me becoming pregnant, which would be potentially harmful to our lives; we would have to quit school, raise children, or maybe I could die in childbirth, therefore, the government should prohibit sex.

As we can see, there are all sorts of weird consequences to this logic. The government cannot tell me how much I can eat, or how much sex I can have. It would make sense, therefore, that the government cannot prohibit things based upon some “potential” harm. According to the second principle of rationality, “every proposition which implies a false proposition is false,” this Argument for Prohibition is false. The second proposition, which implies the conclusion, is false; therefore, the conclusion itself is false.

There is another argument, the Anti-Prohibition Argument, to counter the Prohibition Argument. It contains logic that is much more reminiscent of the rights granted to the individual by the Constitution of the United States, and goes as follows:

The government has an obligation to avoid restricting the autonomy of its citizens, unless there is an overriding reason.

Drug use [for the most part] is a harmless expression of autonomy.

The government has an obligation to avoid restricting drug use.

Although the first premise of this argument is awesome, and constitutionally correct, one can see that those arguing for prohibition would attack the phrase “harmless” in the second premise. Is drug use harmless? Prohibitionists would say it is not harmless—that drug use is harmful. In my opinion this comes down to the integrity of the individual. Drugs get used legally every day, all day long; I know at least a handful of people walking around with prescriptions for oxycotin, which might be the most heroine-like drug legally on the market. This has caused a whole underground drug economy with this drug alone; more and more people are becoming aware of its use, or are using, or have used it. Whose fault is that? I blame doctors who put it on the market; I blame capitalism and poverty, and drug laws, for its value; I do not blame people, and I do not think that people deserve to sit in prisons with rapists and murderers for getting caught using or having the drug, or any drug for that matter. The only way that drug use should be prohibited is based upon that fact that is may be harmful to others, and this is only under certain conditions, such as driving, or drug-trafficking. Drug-trafficking would not occur if drugs were legal; they would lose their value, therefore it is the prohibition of drugs that cause the harm drug-trafficking causes.

Drug-trafficking is a result of the value of drugs.

The value of drugs is a result of their prohibition [risk].

Drug-trafficking is a result of drug prohibition.

There are so many examples of people being punished, unjustly, in this “War on Drugs” that it touches almost everyone’s life here in the United States. I know a woman who is a moderate marijuana smoker, meaning she smokes at the end of her day, when all her responsibilities are taken care of, because she has documented back pain, and it helps her sleep. This woman forgot that she had a metal bat-a device for smoking marijuana, in her purse, and unfortunately walked into a federal building with metal detectors, and got caught, not know what the issue was until she was reminded of the bat, which contained an amount of marijuana about the size of the tip of my pinky. She was humiliated by the staff, taken off for questioning where she was scolded for being a “user”, especially given that her twenty-year old son was with her. In turn, her twenty-year old son was questioned as to whether or not he was a “user” too, and he is not. When asked if he smoked pot he replied, “No. Do you?” Needless to say they let the woman and her son go with a ticket, which was dropped because of the recent decriminalization of marijuana in N.Y. State—a fact which the officers who issued the ticket seemed to be unaware of; the judge was literally appalled that the case even got to him. How is this justifiable?

Perhaps these issues should be more important to people; people seem to just roll over and let the government do as it wills, when the opposite action would be more inherent to the founding characteristics of our nation. Henry David Thoreau believed that a good government would respect the right of the authority of the individual, even look to the individual to judge its own actions. He also believed that when the government did something an individual considered unjust, the individual should reserve the right to dissolve the union, namely the union between the individual and the State. These are some of the ideologies present in the American Constitution, which is based upon democratic government; the right to autonomy. Maybe we could just stop paying taxes, and funding the “War on Drugs,” in fact, maybe we should have the right to do so, first, without the consequences, such as losing your property, involved. For a country that claims to be a pillar of human rights, a center for the right to autonomy through its very foundation, our government seems to like to concern itself more and more with issues that it should not have any say in; it seems to strive to violate our right to autonomy. I guess my final question to this would be, how much money does the government, or the people making money off the actions of the government—those who exert control, make by incarcerating individuals? How much money could it lose by allowing the individual to refuse to support actions they view as inherently wrong and unconstitutional? The measure of American society’s morality seems to be capital.


Published in: on December 27, 2007 at 5:59 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: ,

On Nature and Balance

One would think that the editors and contributors to Calhoun Underground were far too caught up in politics. In our defense, I can say that having been raised in a highly political environment in which people were not afraid to speak out in the face of adversity, it comes very naturally. But there is a myriad of other sides to any story and there are many things that come “naturally”.
There must be balance in all things, in fact balance is inescapable in nature, and as humans in a natural world, without balance one would drive themselves completely insane. Balance is in the natural order of things. Everything in nature achieves it’s own balance of a sort eventually, no matter how hard it is pushed upon by humans OR natural forces for that matter. Natural Earth upheaval in all it’s intensity still eventually heals and becomes whole again. Even a lowly beer bottle, tossed by the road carelessly, will ultimately become a terrarium of plant and insect life or shelter for a field mouse to raise her brood. And in the horrendous devastation of mountaintop removal, eventually if left alone long enough, Mother Nature will do her utmost to work with whatever she has and cover the ugly scars left by greedy man.
We who live with nature, in rural areas, on farms, or in our yards and gardens are faced with one fact. We spend our lives fighting back mother nature as best we can with everything from hoes and rakes and lawnmowers, to chain-saws and brush hogs. And no matter how hard we work at our particular job or hobby, if we step back and say “I quit!” for just a couple years, the “mother” simply begins the process of taking back what is rightfully hers to begin with. And in this respect, the strength of nature, West Virginians are particularly wealthy.
In our minds, we find all the trash along the roads to be extremely ugly. At least those who have great reverence for natural beauty. But Mother Nature herself could care less if there are beer cans and MacDonalds cups and old tires tossed here and there. She’ll make use of them eventually.
Mother nature is not your average lady. We think that we humans are ALL THAT. We think we are so smart and so important and that if it were not for our giant Jethro brains, the world would simply go straight to hell. We’ve all got ourselves up on little invisible pedestals, we all think things should be just so, and if they’re not we will complain and cry bitterly until they are. But not so Mother Nature. She’s patient. She’ll just do what she does until finally something will get HER balance a little out of whack and then WATCH OUT! Us humans are nothing more than little ants upon the surface of the Earth and if Mother Nature gets angry, there is not one damn thing we can do about it. We think we are so powerful, but try sitting on the beach at high tide one night with the moon hanging full, or watch the devastation of an earthquake or hurricane or flood and realize WHO WE REALLY ARE in the greater scheme of things.
Our priorities are all messed up. And our balance is gone. We are so busy racing rats, chasing money and comfort for ourselves, we are forgetting how small we really are. We are not gods or kings or masters of any kind. We are just GUESTS here, tolerated nuisances like fleas, and every day that we are ALLOWED to live here and breathe the air and drink the water and eat what Mother Nature has supplied is a day we have been given a GIFT. And until we SEE and UNDERSTAND this, our lives will continue to be plagued by war and hatred and separation. And if we stand separated, we stand alone. But if we stand together as a family, we can’t be defeated.




Published in: on November 18, 2007 at 1:45 am  Comments (2)  
Tags: , ,

West Virginia For Sale

Governor Manchin says that West Virginia is “Open For Business.” I guess the majority of the citizens of this lovely state must have disagreed, and we are now going back to the motto “Wild and Wonderful”. It only makes sense, after all. All one needs to do is open their eyes to see the astounding beauty and uniqueness of this state. However, the governor’s chosen saying is a bit closer to the truth of the matter.

Some said they felt the saying “open for business” made them feel as if a brothel were being discussed instead of a state motto. And perhaps this is the closest to the reality of the situation, as West Virginia is being systematically RAPED. To the detriment of this fine state and the people who live here, West Virginia has been put on the block to the highest bidder. It is similar to the situation in which a wayward parent “pimps out” their child as a sex slave for money and expects them to simply comply, as the alternatives are presented as being far worse. Everything from landfills designed for out-of-state garbage, to mountaintop removal, to huge power lines built for the purpose of transporting electricity from one out-of-state place to another. Our tourist industry is slowly being taken over by investors from out-of-state/out-of-country.

The heart and soul of the “Mountain State”, namely the mountains, are being hauled away, out-of-state and to foreign lands at an alarming rate, with the Governor’s blessing. Jobs are being sold down the river to places where even cheaper labor can be found to manufacture even shoddier merchandise to sell to people already too poor to buy much of anything, because all the riches of their state are being handed away. And “Mountaineers”, famous for their free spirit, are NOT always free in a society where those who try to stick it out here despite the lack of any real jobs are taxed and regulated to death, and victimized by a completely out of control legal system from the top down, which, more than anything, resembles a game of Russian Roulette. Our fine Governor supports a bill to make it easier for the police to do warrant-less searches of peoples homes. He supports selling out to big business, ruining for all time our mountains. Heck, he even supports bombing Iraq…

And, altho Mr. Manchin puts on the show of being interested in our affairs, for all intents and purposes, he is a “pass the buck” governor. His main purpose seems to be to look good for the media, talk a good line about “helping” West Virginia, and making “deals” with the other authority figures in Charleston and away, for the purpose of “controlling” the citizens and making more EASY MONEY. Try contacting his office with a complaint. You will be promptly forwarded to the very agency you are complaining about.

Yes, the citizens voted to change the “open for business motto” and they did it for a REASON. This would be the same reason they should now go a little farther and say enough is enough, and begin the process of TAKING BACK OUR STATE, our HERITAGE, our HONOR and our WEALTH of natural resources from the all too powerful big-whig bureaucrats who think nothing more of us than obstacles to a goal…


Exerpt from Hurherald news article about bringing a high voltage power line thru West Virginia:

“”Press secretary Matt Turner said “The governor believes there are benefits for our state” in the construction of this line, he wrote.

Beyond increased stability, “There would be more use of West Virginia coal, jobs created in the construction of new transmission lines, as well as the related power company jobs necessarily located in West Virginia.””


Facts and figures, already outdated, from 2005 on “Coal Mining” in WV:

“”Few would fess up to greed being part of eliminating 40,000 mining jobs for quick and dirty extraction.

Few would fess up to corrupt government officials perpetuating the greatest ecological crime in history of West Virginia – the destruction of life-giving and water producing mountains.

Few would fess up to the long and tragic history of corporate coal in this state, loss of life, loss of employment, destruction of homes, and elimination of communities throughout the coalfields.

Few would fess up that three million pounds of explosives are detonated every day in the “mountain state,” leveling 500 square miles to barren wasteland.

Few would fess up that valley fills have buried over 1,200 miles of Appalachian streams forever.

Few would fess up that billions of gallons of chemical-laden sludge, restrained by leaky, failure-prone earthen dams, loom above our communities and schools.

Few would fess up that the Buffalo Creek disaster was the fault of an unstable Pittson Coal dam, leaving 118 dead, seven missing, 1,100 injured and 4,000 homeless. Pittson said it was an act of God.


Article reprinted from Charleston Daily Mail:

New York firm a big player in West Virginia tourism
by George Hohmann
Daily Mail business editor

“”Fortress Investment Group of New York City is quietly becoming the biggest player in West Virginia’s tourism sector.

In October 2006, Fortress bought Intrawest Corp., including Snowshoe Mountain Resort, for $2.8 billion.

Snowshoe is the largest employer in Pocahontas County. The core staff of almost 400 full-time, year-round employees swells to about 1,200 when the ski season peaks in early January. The resort’s annual payroll is more than $20 million.

In June, funds managed by affiliates of Fortress Investment Group and Centerbridge Partners agreed to buy Penn National Gaming Inc., the corporate parent of Charles Town Races & Slots, in an all-cash transaction valued at $6.1 billion.

Charles Town Races is the second-largest employer in Jefferson County, surpassed only by the board of education. Charles Town Races directly employs 1,300 people, said John Cavacini, president of the West Virginia Racing Association. Although the company does not directly employ them, another 1,500 people work at the track for horse trainers and horse owners, Cavacini said.


Rio Tinto’s $37.6 billion purchase of Alcan, which was announced in July, was finalized one week ago today. Rio Tinto Alcan is one of five product groups operated by Rio Tinto, a mining company based in the United Kingdom.

Rio Tinto Alcan has 73,000 employees, including joint ventures, in 61 countries and regions. The company has an aluminum rolling mill in Ravenswood that employs about 1,200 workers, making it Jackson County’s largest private employer.


Gov. Joe Manchin isn’t the only West Virginian leading a trade mission abroad.

Don Blankenship, Massey Energy Co.’s chairman, chief executive officer and president, mentioned during a groundbreaking ceremony in Boone County on Monday that he is going to Europe and India.

On Tuesday Massey spokesman Jeff Gillenwater said Blankenship and Massey’s sales team will be traveling to Europe, India and Egypt “to sell coal and improve our market share.”

Massey exports metallurgical coal, which is used to make coke, a fuel. “We currently sell coal in Europe (Finland, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain & Sweden), India and Egypt,” Gillenwater said. “The hope is to improve our market share in these locations.”

Manchin left for China on Tuesday. Gillenwater would not disclose the specific dates that Blankenship will be traveling but said the trip is soon.


The fact that Blankenship manages Massey from the central Appalachian coalfields and the company broke ground Tuesday for a regional headquarters on Wash Branch in Boone County has led to speculation that Massey might shut down its Richmond headquarters and move to Wash Branch.

There are no such plans, Massey spokesman Jeff Gillenwater said.””

Forced Equality-Are “All Men Created Equal”?

Lets get down to basics. Here is the single biggest mistake in our history which is helping to cause our downfall as a human race. But first, I assume we are in agreement that every single person on earth SHOULD have the same basic human rights. Even tho that is a very simple concept and the basis for any successful civilization, we cannot seem to figure out how to go about it. We ALL have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. These are not just some fancy words, so THINK about what they mean. We should ALL have the right to be free to live as we wish and do that which makes us happy, without interference, as long as we harm no one else who also is trying to live freely and happily without interference. Intelligence or lack thereof shouldn’t matter, neither should color of skin or handicaps or sex or wealth or culture or any of the other differences we all have. But it is a mistake to say that “all men (and women) are created equal”, because they are not. This statement of “fact” has caused more misunderstanding and more trouble than any other, and trying to live up to this noble ideal has played havoc with an otherwise perfectly good existence.

Each of us is born with a mind. Every mind is as individual as the slant of your eyes or the turn of your nose, or the shape of your big toe. And each persons mind is ultimately responsible for how we perceive our world and live our lives. There are a myriad of personalities and opinions, experiences and intelligence levels. We are equal in so far as we are all differing individuals. We are as equal as the rocks are in a stream. All made of the same stuff, but every one different. But those differences we all share are not the inequality I am referring to.

What I am speaking of is this. There seem to be TWO basic and completely different types of humans on earth, and no matter how many fancy and high sounding things we are told, no matter how many laws and rules and medications we are fed, no matter how “smart” or educated we are, this is not going to change any time soon, equality be damned. There is one kind of person who is what I will call the “live and let live” type. This is the guy who gets along with most everybody as long as they don’t cause him too much trouble. They tend to live with a minimal interference in others lives. I believe that these people are actually in the majority. On the road where I live I can safely say that almost all the neighbors are pretty easy to get along with, about 90% or so, peacefully coexisting with minimal problems. And this is a road, by the way, which is claimed to have a “bad reputation” by the OTHER type of human I’ll call…

…the “Controller”. This is the guy who can not be satisfied unless he has control of things, people, events, whatever. This person either feels the need to be “in charge” himself, or, he feels totally incapable of being “in charge”, and so needs to have someone else be “in charge” in order to feel safe. He probably sees the world as a big scary place full of stupid and ugly humans who surely can’t be allowed to think for themselves… Altho these controlling people appear to be in the minority, by their nature of needing “control”, they end up inflicting their opinions, force, and fear upon others relentlessly, and so their smaller numbers are ultimately felt in a very big way.

Ever since the false statement was made that “all men are created equal”, these controllers have worked particularly long and hard to discover how to force everyone to live up to their idea of what “equal” is. We are legislated to death in a effort to force “equality”. We are jailed, manipulated, lied to, and medicated with all manner of “legal” psychoactive substances designed to make us more “normal” in the eyes of this minority. And these methods of controlling us and forcing us to be “equal” continue to spiral OUT of control into infinity, because no matter how hard the controllers try, they CAN NOT FORCE US ALL TO BE EQUAL. It is against human nature. It is against ANY nature.

I think that the moment it was declared that “all men are created equal” was the moment when the “American Dream” first started falling apart. Force-feeding “equality” between men and women has helped to destroy alot of good old fashioned family values that may be old fashioned, but they worked WELL. Forced integration in the 60’s became a violent nightmare at that time, and looking back, has been more or less a failure in the long run as well. Changing people’s cultures by force has always had less than desirable results, inevitably causing hostility, war, and rebelliousness. It is quite possible that in a less manipulated environment, we would celebrate our differences and learn how to get along just fine without outside interference. We would not EXPECT everyone to be equal, therefore we could RESPECT and ENJOY the many different cultures and lifestyles that exist. We would be more accepting of our differences if we were not forced to believe that we needed to all be the same. For the “live and let live” person this comes quite naturally. But the “controllers” cannot allow that to happen. They must manipulate and legislate, they must force someone to comply with their rules. They can not allow room for alternatives. Why? Because the controllers are actually pretty fearful people. And people who are afraid have a way of doing and saying some pretty dumb things.

Controllers tend to be afraid of things that are “different” from what they are “used to”. Afraid of “disorder” in their lives. Scared that if there were not a million laws and enforcers to keep people “in control” that somehow something horrible will certainly happen. They sometimes have pretty severe reactions to ideas and opinions that differ from their own, even to the point of complete absurdity. These people doggedly cling to “God and country and mom and apple pie and the law” as if their lives and the lives of all their children, and their children’s children depended on it. Even tho their numbers are less now than in the past, their power to totally disarrange the natural order of things has grown stronger over time. Years ago these people were referred to as the “status quo”. These days they might be referred to as “sheeple” or “ostriches with heads in the sand” or “neo-cons” or “the authorities”… There used to be a popular bumper sticker that said “question authority”. Now days if you “question authority” too much the “controllers” might end up labeling you a “terrorist” and send you off to be tortured…

We need to completely erase the “all men are created equal” concept from our mental storage banks and go back to square one. Certainly ALL people should be treated as equally as possible and all should have the same basic rights, but even these SIMPLE things are so far out of reach for the majority that it will require our full concentration to bring them about at all. In trying so hard to FORCE an unnatural equality that does not exist, we are losing sight of the original concept of basic human rights altogether. Why can we not simply accept the natural differences in people without trying to force them all into lines and boxes, or even worse, force them to be just like “us”? Why can we not simply go back to truth and reality before our minds got so cluttered up with this notion that we all must be “equal” at any cost? What is there, REALLY, to be afraid of?

Published in: on August 21, 2007 at 1:51 am  Leave a Comment  

Why We Celebrate on the 4th of July

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies In Congress, July 4, 1776.

The meaning of this document will not be lost on THINKING individuals. The ideas behind this document are NOT outdated, but rather point to what should have been the ultimate goal of this country. Instead, we have gone farther and farther from its intent.

On July 4th, I celebrate not past, present and future wars and warriors, but rather the courage and clarity of these brave individuals who went against the “status-quo” of the time to attempt to create a better life for all of us. This is what “Independence Day” IS. We are celebrating REVOLUTIONARIES.

The individuals who created and signed this document suffered great hardships and retributions for their acts of courage. But they did it none the less, because they really strongly BELIEVED in the “rightness” of their cause and were not AFRAID to lead the way forward.
Some of these men lost their homes, families, and lives due to their convictions.

I am PERSONALLY insulted that the concepts outlined in this hard earned document have been discounted and swept under the rug by the Government of the United States! I feel that this Declaration of Independence could and should be re-written, simply by changing the concept from removing ourselves from England’s tyranny to removing ourselves from the tyranny of the control of United States Government.

It is simply time for the sleeping masses to be shown the true meaning of this historical document and the REAL reason why there is a 4th of July celebration.

I submit that no one in the current government who has the knowledge and intelligence to understand this will have the power necessary to convince their peers to entertain the notion of a new declaration. They are far too hypnotized by their limited understanding of their positions.

Therefore, I would make a suggestion. This would NEVER hold up in a court of law, never be taken seriously, and not be worth the cost of the paper it would be written on, but I believe it is time to RE-WRITE the Declaration of Independence, substituting the words “King of England” for “Current Government of the United States”, and list every single intolerable law and action wrongly forced on the citizens of this country by it’s own out of control government. This new Declaration of Independence would have to be signed, not by current members of government (the government we seek independence from), but by DIRECT DESCENDANTS of the original signers. Folks just like you and me. We the people. From as many different states as possible.

I believe this is possible. Perhaps it would mean nothing to those in power (nothing that “we the people” want DOES these days), but it WOULD most likely be news worthy and perhaps gain some much needed attention. I believe this is an adventure worth undertaking.

Therefore, I am VERY interested in hearing from ANYONE who is a direct descendant of any of the original signers of the Declaration of Independence who might be willing to undertake a project such as this…

And why am I taking this so personally? I AM a direct descendant of one of the original signers, William Hooper…


The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows:

New Hampshire
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Published in: on July 4, 2007 at 3:26 pm  Leave a Comment