Main Protecting Liberty: A Radical Prescription for a Restored Republic

Protecting Liberty: A Radical Prescription for a Restored Republic

5.0 / 0
How much do you like this book?
What’s the quality of the file?
Download the book for quality assessment
What’s the quality of the downloaded files?

Hi Thomas Blow - 

Firstly, Your book is at once refreshing, interesting and thought provoking. In my opinion, you hit the nail square on the head.

Certainly it is one of the best books I have read in so many years.

Secondly, there is a need to point out a matter for your consideration.

In the chapter - "Disinterested and "The" Telephone Call," you wrote, nearly half way through the chapter, about Thomas Jefferson's views regarding a liberal education, genius and virtue.  In the final sentence of this thought, you implied that this was a commonly held opinion of the Federalists and that Thomas Jefferson was a Federalist. In actuality, Thomas Jefferson was not a Federalist, he was an anti-Federalist, and often said so in many of his writings. Furthermore, not all anti-Federalists agreed with Jefferson on this matter.

Kindest regards,

Wally Branham

ISBN 10:
ISBN 13:
PDF, 432 KB
Conversion to is in progress
Conversion to is failed

Most frequently terms

1 comment
Thomas Blow
(Book Summary) This short book on post-Disclosure reforms contends that there are root causes that need to be addressed before the US military return control of the United States to civilians. It further contends that it is essential for the citizenry to discuss reforms as the military would hesitate to implement the needed reforms without public support, as their nature is radically different than expectations. The book identifies root causes and suggests specific cures, but it does not claim to describe a fully-encompassing set of solutions. Readers of this book will glean an understanding of reforms for a restored republic and some may write about or discuss the topic in social media -- the book claims that in the absence of this, the nations ills will recur with new bad actors.
07 May 2022 (16:51) 

To post a review, please sign in or sign up
You can write a book review and share your experiences. Other readers will always be interested in your opinion of the books you've read. Whether you've loved the book or not, if you give your honest and detailed thoughts then people will find new books that are right for them.

Mirtingumo šauksmas

EPUB, 500 KB
5.0 / 0

Neurología de Merritt

PDF, 57.41 MB
0 / 0
Protecting Liberty
Reforms to Protect
the Restored Republic

by Thomas Blow

This book is not intended to thoroughly document the ills being
suffered by America and the World to convince skeptics. Those
ills have been described in alternative news, and at the time this
is written, it is anticipated that there will be progress toward
Disclosure. The best, most authoritative Disclosure developing
appears to be Nuremberg 2.0, as characterized by its Opening
Statement on 5 February 2022. Those who believe that America's
ills need to be cured by reparations, redistribution, intense
censorship, the favoring of one race or color, rule by an elite
class, the discontinuation of ownership, and the elimination of the
enumerated rights in the US Constitution need to look elsewhere.
Those who are still unaware of the intense amount of corruption,
propaganda, misinformation, destruction of rights, infiltration of
schools and universities, human trafficking, destructive cultreligion, bribery, blackmail, treason, economic manipulation,
promotion of hatred of America, weaponized weather, and efforts
to reduce world populations, need to do their own research and
practice discernment in revealing likely truth. In this quest,
persons need to avoid trusting "experts" more than their own
eyes and common sense, and unfortunately need to dedicate a
great deal of time to gathering reports and distilling likely Truth.
This book certainly is not designed to be "expert" in any sense
other than applying logic to discerned truth and presenting this
logic to the reader. And the purpose of this book is not to present
a mature prescription for curing America's ills. Instead, it is being
offered as a potential starting point for discussion among the
populace. That discussion does not seem at this writing to have
begun to any serious degree in alternative news. Instead, it is by
scant rumor that such discussions have occurred behind closed
doors, and without any degree of consensus. Bringing this
discussion out ; into the open is an important step that needs to
occur. The author cares less as to whether the specific reforms
outlined in this work are adopted, but more about whether the
objectives those reforms are aligned toward are achieved. And it
is no wonder that behind those closed doors there is a lack of
agreement. As this book will assert and contend, the measures
necessary to reform the system are radical, there is no support
for them among the populace, because they are antithetical to

currently ingrained culture. Therefore, behind their closed doors,
those arguing for prescriptive measures strong enough to be
effective are opposed by others who understand that without
public support those measures would appear tyrannical, and
would either be thwarted, or the degree of force necessary to
implement them would be anti-thematic. This disagreement
represents a classic dilemma so long as thinking goes on inside a
defined box of acceptable and unacceptable solutions. Such
disagreement also demonstrates a lack of awareness of how
public opinion and support can be rallied and molded when faced
with a challenge, the classic example being the citizenry of
Britain during World War II. When it is clearly understood that
moral courage, privation, and dedication are necessary to
survival, very ordinary citizens become extraordinary sources of
will and perseverance.
One of the themes of this book is that there are root causes of
the ills suffered by America, and that if these are not well
understood and addressed, there is no amount of truth, arrests,
prosecutions, presentment of confessions, or anything else that
will prevent a return of the same ills, perpetrated by a new
generation of bad actors, because the ills are caused by systemic
flaws. Further, the methods by which these ills are addressed
need to be strong enough that the problems never return. A
return of the same types of problems by bad actors would most
likely be accompanied by an understanding of how and why this
attack on America failed, and a determination to avoid those
mistakes. As it appears the destruction of the bad actors of the
current generation was at many points in doubt, the return of the
same problems, with the final proof against these being a
dedicated military sworn to defend the Constitution, which in this
case was itself corrupted to a degree found insufficient, relying
upon this same safety margin is in the opinion of the author a
poor plan. A better plan is to institute reforms that will achieve
the intent of the Constitution by means of checks and balances in
the civilian governmental system. Of course, it is not a certainty
that this can be achieved. The author certainly makes no claim to
having the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, and yet the system
they set up was captured and turned against The People. the
author simply feels that this a quest worth taking up, to try to
restore the Republic, to make one's best effort in trying to make
the dream of French philosophers of establishing a government

that protects natural and inalienable rights, a dream that
arguably was the thing that countless American patriots died for,
a dream that is hallowed by their sacrifice, a dream that in fact
provided the glow and aura of the New World, to try to make this
dream live.
Another important idea of this book is, this attack on Society
exists in many arenas, among them, government, economy,
money, education, and media. To deal with the threat one must
understand every one of these, despite misinformation. In every
case, one is running counter to the existing culture in pursuing
truth, because the institutions of society are (or, more hopefully,
were, until recently) captured. There are relatively few individuals
with the capability and patience and time and resources to
investigate so many corners of Society and to feel confident
enough in their observations that they may Act.
Popularity may be over-rated, but it is natural for a person to
enjoy acceptance, and when not accepted to feel a degree of
pain. When one examines and questions popular ideas, humans
take issue because they view it as criticism of themselves, and,
with those persons they feel they should have close relationships
with, they view radical differences of perception as a barrier to
relationships. Thus, the members of Society who have engaged in
distilling Truth, often referred to as "Digital Warriors", have
suffered isolation and rejection, but enduring a degree of pain is
necessary to any great human endeavor. It is said that the Great
Awakening is a proliferation of a daunting amount of concealed
Truth that, when disclosed, will change the perceived norms of
Society, and transform it. But for now, Digital Warriors are
Radicals. In the future, as in the First American Revolution (and
all Digital Warriors hope that future is imminent), Digital Warriors
will be transformed from being known as Radicals to being known
as Patriots.

Table of Contents

1. Radical Reform 7
2. Disinterestedness and "The" Telephone Call 12
3. Welfare 16
4. Government as the Arbiter of Wealth 18
5. Socialism is Criminal 20
6. Mandates, Rights, Privileges, and Patient Rights 23
7. Courage 27
8. Liberty 34
9. The Appeal Of [Social/Commun/Progressive] ism 37
10. Legislated (Positive) Versus Natural Law 40
11. Charity 42
12. Freedom of Speech 53
13. Sequestration and The Social Contract 55
14. Voting Requirements 58
15. Truth 62
16. Secrecy 67
17. Oligarchy and Wealth Limits 70
18. Media and Education 74
19. Money 79

20. Steeling Society to Curatives 83
21. The Military 86

1. Radical Reform
All reforms are thought of as radical when they are first
suggested. Those who suggested independence from England in
1763 were largely labeled with this term and shunned. By 1775,
the radicals were now called patriots, and were seen as leaders.
It took that much time for challenges to the rights of people who
thought of themselves as "free" to assert that freedom and to
push back against incursions upon it. It took that much time for
citizens to become aware of the need for a strong curative and to
act, despite the risk of some very negative consequences. But all
the reforms and curative actions were at first shunned and had
no following.
In The Glorious Cause, Robert Middlekauff writes:
"What seemed to be only common sense to Thomas Paine,
and to most Americans in 1776, would have struck them as
uncommon madness a dozen years before. Paine's Common
Sense, a sermon disguised as a political tract, informed
Americans that their long-standing connection to England
was preposterous, that it violated the laws of nature and of
human reason, indeed that it aroused a repugnancy in 'the
universal order of things.' And as for the institution to which
they had always given their loyalty--the monarchy--it was
ridiculous, and as unnatural as the traditional tie to the
mother country. Monarchy, according to Paine, had a
heathenish origin; it had been instituted by the devil for the
promotion of idolatry. The word according to Thomas Paine
was accepted easily enough by most Americans; they were
a church of the converted, and he gave them exactly what
they wanted to hear. They declared their independence six
months after his essay appeared, citing the laws of nature
and nature's God as justification." (pp. 3-4)
In the 60s the term "radical" was co-opted to represent
communists and lawbreakers. Rules For Radicals (1) was a
blueprint for admirers of communism, progressivism, and
socialism to act as "community organizers" to use politics to
overcome government by unworthy means, with a focus on lying
and deceit. Other books by "radicals" encouraged breaking any

law that was inconvenient. However, the term "radical" should
not be permitted to be hijacked. In this case, it is "radical" to
suggest strong punishments, sequestrations, or other means of
effectively dealing with the threat America has faced, because all
punishments or other measures that might work as a societal
curative are tagged, perhaps by deliberate propaganda, as cruel
or as a governmental ("Fascist") overreach.
One example of the attack on punishments as being cruel is the
attitude toward spanking children. The idea that spanking
children who misbehave is cruel and unnecessary has been
spread throughout the society, perhaps disguised as a natural
phenomenon of societal evolution. It provides a profound
example of what it means when we say someone is a radical. A
person who claims that children should be punished at an early
age when they do wrong, using pain (which in fact is a strong
teacher, if one recalls the saying, "once burned, twice shy"),
instead of being counseled and told to stand in a corner or go to
one's room, this is now thought of very negatively. Never mind
the facts, which are, there once was a society in which people did
not think they had to lock their doors, or in which children simply
did not talk back to their parents, and in which children believed
they had a Conscience. The facts are also, after one or two
generations in which children did not appear to learn early about
what happens when one does the wrong things, that as adults,
they now seem to be wanting in morals and ethics and are much
more likely to think they will get away with doing wrong, and
need not feel guilt or remorse, even if something terrible happens
to another person. If they get the slightest bit of amusement from
some action like throwing large rocks at automobiles from an
overpass to these, their actions were worth it, so long as they are
not caught and punished. Another problem worth mentioning is
that since schools do not have any type of physical punishment
as a means of maintaining order, they now drug the miscreants,
under the assertion that all misbehavior represents some type of
chemical imbalance or condition (such as autism), which teaches
these individuals little except to acclimate them to a life of drug
Yes, the relationship between spanking children and a corrupt,
lawless, conscious-less adult society is dubious, but so is the
notion that the removal of this practice has been replaced by

something effective in producing moral, ethical, law-abiding
Further, it is worth noting that Society perhaps thinks that it
perceives Progress as eliminating Pain. Perhaps it is seen as
idyllic to try to eliminate Pain from our existence. A blanket
observation like this is impossible to prove. But perhaps what we
may come to believe about this is, pain is impossible to eliminate
from life; that if we do not experience pain in measured amounts,
used as a device in learning ethics and morality, that in fact, we
will experience pain later, and, in fact, that pain will be much.
much greater, inflicted on an unfathomable scale (as was visited
upon the residents of Hamelin). The endurance of Pain is also
necessary to developing Courage, and without Courage there is
little hope of overcoming Evil. Without the Courage of a Lion, we
instead must have the Meekness of Sheep.
During the same period in which there is a transition from
Honesty and Conscience, one can see there is an attitude of the
populace building up against capital punishment. This flies in the
face of the facts, which are, of those who receive incarceration
instead of capital punishment for capital crimes, a percentage of
these get out of prison one way or another, and a percentage of
these do their bad deeds again, and even again and again, such
that more bad things happen to people in general than if the
capital-felons were executed in the first place. In this respect,
what we are seeing is the result of the overcoming of logic by
emotion, backed up by, usually, a media focus on the
perpetrators rather than the victims, and an inability to visualize
the consequences of what is thought of as "mercy". The media
focus might be a clue that the direction of society has resulted
from manipulation of thought.
The idea in mentioning these two examples is simply this: if one
really wants to solve a problem of society, the solution is not
going to be derived and succeed by applying the same tired
attitudes and feelings and approaches that constrained the set of
acceptable solutions. If a problem is so large that unless it has
solved one simply won't have a society that one wants to live in,
or even a society that is safe to live in, or one in which one isn't
liable to be poisoned or enslaved or stolen from or worse, then
one is going to have to reassess prior ideas and subordinate

them to solving the problem. (Yes, we thought our society was
safe enough, and at the time of this writing there has not yet
been Disclosure, but based on reports, Disclosure will come soon
enough with plenty of detail that no civilized and even slightly
empathic person wants to hear.) A solution should not be simply
discarded by making a blanket statement such as "that is cruel",
"that is unusual", or "that doesn't fit". Persons should realize
when such a problem exists, learn why they have not been able
to deal with it, and try to understand whether the first step is to
harden themselves to implement a disagreeable but necessary
remedy strong enough to be a cure.
Looking at reform in this way, as radical, it should be
understandable why we do not see alternative news sites
dedicated to discussing reform. Reform is unpopular, even in the
face of a threat. Reform starts in the minds of The Few.
Alternative news is a new media format born of necessity, but
still responds to economic influence, still has bills to pay. By
discussing reform, it is a logical consequence that a site would
lose following. Alternative news sites have a mission in revealing
Truth and they cannot hope to perform this without viewership.
A failure by the populace to discuss reform, however, would be a
major mistake. A major problem is the rule of Elites. By live test it
is patently observable that elites who rule devise rules that favor
elites. Further, when living life in a favored class, these persons
for the most part lose any empathy or even sympathy they might
have had for commoners and treat any hardship or worse that
comes to those deemed beneath their station as inconsequential.
In that sort of isolated favoritism, it should be no surprise if
elitism jumps to slavery or eugenics or even holocaust. For this
reason, the general populace must discuss reforms, and there
must be forums devised for this purpose.
But even though this is enough reason to have public discussion
of reforms, there is still another of equal significance. Even
among a good elite, such as the one christened by alternative
news as the "White Hats", who are ascribed as dedicated to the
removal of society's bad actors and the implementation of good
government, there can never be consensus on strong actions the
public is wont to reject. Good government does not flourish in an
atmosphere in which it is largely thought of as overreaching its

authority. Among a wise and moral elite there will be those who
remind others of this when a strong curative, strong enough to be
effective, is suggested in closed-door meetings. If the strong
curative had the following needed, it would already have been
suggested and implemented. Therefore, relying on an elite to find
consensus to effectively reform society may result in a wait until
either Hell freezes over or the Bad returns and perhaps this time
is victorious. A good elite cannot reform Society without a
politically strong following. The citizenry must discuss reforms, or
anything offered as reform will be a compromise that suffers from
weakness and inability to perform its task.

2. Disinterestedness and "The" Telephone Call
Up to now, American government has employed the idea of
empowering representatives who honored the idea of public
service and making America work above their private interests. In
The Idea Of America, Gordon S. Wood devotes his fourth chapter
to the topic of "interests and disinterestedness":
"Despite their disillusionment with political leadership in the
states, the Federalists in 1787 had not yet lost hope that at
least some individuals in the society might be worthy and
virtuous enough to transcend their immediate material
interests and devote themselves to the public good. They
remained committed to the classical idea that political
leadership was essentially one of character: “The whole art
of government,” said Jefferson, “consists of being honest.”
Central to this ideal of leadership was the quality of
disinterestedness —the term the Federalists most used as a
synonym for the classic conception of civic virtue: it better
conveyed the increasing threats from interests that virtue
now faced. Dr. Johnson defined “disinterested” as being
“superior to regard of private advantage; not influenced by
private profit”; and that was what the Founding Fathers
meant by the term.30 We today have lost most of this older
meaning. Even educated people now use “disinterested” as
a synonym for “uninterested,” meaning indifferent or
unconcerned. It is almost as if we cannot quite conceive of
the characteristic that disinterestedness describes: we
cannot quite imagine someone who is capable of rising
above a pecuniary interest and being unselfish and
unbiased where an interest might be present. This is simply
another measure of how far we have traveled from the
eighteenth century.
This eighteenth-century concept of disinterestedness was
not confined either to Commonwealthmen or to the country
tradition (which makes our current preoccupation with these
strains of thought misleading). Nor did one have to be an
American or a republican to believe in disinterestedness
and the other classical values that accompanied it. Virtue or

disinterestedness, like the concept of honor, lay at the heart
of all prescriptions for political leadership in the eighteenthcentury Anglo-American world. Throughout the century
Englishmen of all political persuasions—Whigs and Tories
both—struggled to find the ideal disinterested political
leader amid the rising and swirling currents of financial and
commercial interests that threatened to engulf their
.... This classical ideal of disinterestedness was based on
independence and liberty. Only autonomous individuals,
free of interested ties and paid by no masters, were capable
of such virtue.
.... Perhaps it was as Adam Smith warned: as society
became more commercialized and civilized and labor more
divided, ordinary people gradually lost their ability to make
any just judgments about the varied interests and
occupations of their country; and only “those few, who,
being attached to no particular occupation themselves,
have leisure and inclination to examine the occupations of
other people.” Perhaps then in America, as well as in
Britain, only a few were free and independent enough to
stand above the scramblings of the marketplace. As “Cato”
had written, only “a very small Part of Mankind have
Capacities large enough to judge of the Whole of Things.”
Only a few were liberally educated and cosmopolitan
enough to have the breadth of perspective to comprehend
all the different interests, and only a few were dispassionate
and unbiased enough to adjudicate among these different
interests and promote the public rather than a private good.
Virtue, it was said as early as 1778, “can only dwell in
superior minds, elevated above private interest and selfish
views.” Even Jefferson at one point admitted that only those
few “whom nature has endowed with genius and virtue”
could “be rendered by liberal education worthy to receive,
and able to guard the sacred rights and liberties of their
fellow citizens.” In other words, the Federalists were saying
that perhaps only from among the tiny proportion of the
society the eighteenth century designated as “gentlemen”
could be found men capable of disinterested political

This age-old distinction between gentlemen and others in
the society had a vital meaning for the Revolutionary
generation that we have totally lost. It was a horizontal
cleavage that divided the social hierarchy into two unequal
parts almost as sharply as the distinction between officers
and soldiers divided the army; indeed, the military division
was related to the larger social one. Ideally the liberality for
which gentlemen were known connoted freedom—freedom
from material want, freedom from the caprice of others,
freedom from ignorance, and freedom from manual labor.
The gentleman’s distinctiveness came from being
independent in a world of dependencies, learned in a world
only partially literate, and leisured in a world of workers.
Just as gentlemen were expected to staff the officer corps of
the Continental army (and expected also to provide for their
own rations, clothing, and equipment on salaries that were
less than half those of their British counterparts), so were
independent gentlemen of leisure and education expected
to supply the necessary disinterested leadership for
While it is plain that interests on the part of representatives are
problematic, it seems as though technology offers America the
opportunity to control this by using a financial system that
monitors activities. Privacy of interest for those in representative
government must be subjugated to the public interest of having a
disinterested government For The People.
But a new phenomenon is systematic coercion by foreign or
corporate entities. In this model, a person with representative or
regulative or judicial or communicative power receives a private
communication, such as a telephone call, giving him or her a
choice. The choice is either receiving some form of overwhelming
remuneration, which can be cloaked as necessary, for example,
as campaign contributions, or given to one's family; or, instead,
to have secrets exposed, or to be done away with, or to have
loved one's done away with. It is a strong-minded person who can
resist such threats. Technology has made the leaders of society
more vulnerable in many ways. The security to resist these
threats seems impossible to provide when extended to the circle
of loved ones. For this reason, it may be more practical to 1)
disperse power further to avoid concentrating it with targetable

individuals, or 2) to absolutely monitor and forbid the types of
corrupt legislation that foreign or corporate entities would
attempt to emplace, and/or 3) to isolate those with political
power (for whatever tolerable term of service) from coercive,
private communications.
The important point to draw here is, this is not simply a problem
of replacing bad actors with virtuous people. By live experiment,
America has determined that systematic coercion is a viable
threat and a critical weakness. A sane response to this timeline of
proof is not to leave the system as-is, repeat the same events,
and hope for a different outcome.

3. Welfare
Welfare is a term that ostensibly represents the adoption of the
role of Charity by government. On its face, the assumption of
charity as a valid mission of government seems benign to many,
probably to most, while in fact it is dangerous.
Samuel Adams stated the idea that government welfare is wrong
in principle (1) in 1768:
" The utopian schemes of leveling, and a community of
goods, are as visionary and impracticable as those which
invest all property in the Crown are arbitrary, despotic, and
in our government, unconstitutional."
When William F. Buckley argued that welfare programs should
not be federalized (2), his statements were ignored and America
proceeded down a path leading to what is seen today, as,
instead, the notion of a "Great Society" flourished. Avowed moral
outrage (now known for its deceptive quality as "virtue
signaling") was employed with the idea that the charity of
Americans was tested and found wanting, and therefore the only
"right" thing to do was to extract enforced charity. For this,
government congratulated itself over its virtue, while portraying
those whose funds were employed as "selfish" and "MeanSpirited".
As Dinesh D'Souza has pointed out in several his speeches,
welfare is not charity. Welfare is money taken from some and
given to others. It can be either taxed and redistributed, or it can
be money that is created (generally "loaned" into existence by a
banking system allowed to create money with no physical
collateral), which gains its value by devaluing all other existing
currency; or it can simply be a legislated requirement of an
industry that forces higher prices and thus funded by consumers.
There are no good wishes associated with either the person the
money was taken from nor from the government and the
associated progenitors of the legislation. The legislators act not
from any notion of Charity but from first, it is sad to say, the
knowledge that Welfare goes through many sticky fingers (and
from there roundabout to re-election funds) before some portion
of it (enough to portray it as valid) reaches its goal. It is only

second that they then tout Welfare as an accomplishment and a
demonstration of their sympathy for the downtrodden, signaling
their virtue. Yes, there are those who believe otherwise; it may
be some time before the last of these lose their trust in
Government; or, before those in Government lose the ability to
find any traction from avowed trust in government, which in fact
they privately disbelieve in, themselves.
The founding Fathers never trusted government, and the
Constitution was devised to protect The People from their own
government. Tyranny is often spoken of as being the worst form
of oppression, but, in any case, those who had left for the New
World did so at considerable risk with the notion that they would
escape the confining aspects of the governments of the Old
World. There was a lot of emotional capital invested in that
migration, and they were attuned to rejecting the recurrence of
the same ills after all their effort to find freedom from them.

4. Government as the Arbiter of Wealth
To the degree government decides who gets wealth, it becomes
progressively more powerful and its ability to dictate to,
dominate, harm, steal from, and enslave the public becomes
greater. Beyond an estimable and measurable point of wealth,
even an individual follows this course, as it is impossible beyond
some wealth-point to improve the quality of one's own life, and so
instead wealth is transformed to power. Control of wealth is
power. The more of a nation's wealth a government controls, the
more power it has over its citizens, and the more tyrannical it
becomes. The ability to shut down the livelihoods of the People
and to turn off their ability to purchase necessities results in and
is absolute power.
If a government can arbitrarily decide to take money from some
and give it to others, it has control of an exceptionally dangerous
power. One might believe, this is tolerable to some degree.
However, by experience one finds the progenitors of
redistribution of wealth never will agree to define any point
beyond which wealth cannot be taxed. Control of some wealth
creates a hunger for more. An excuse of some kind, especially
accompanied by a deception, can always be devised to attempt
to justify greater seizure of wealth and power. Moreover, if there
is the power to simply create currency, there a bottomless well
upon which to draw, and the extraction of wealth is conducted in
secret, without knowledge and certainly not the consent of the
public. Under these conditions there is no such thing as a
Republic, at least not as defined in or intended by the
Constitution. The Constitution identifies gold and silver as money
and states their expenditure must be authorized by Congress
with spending bills originating in the House and thus public
knowledge. The intent clearly is that all spending is done with the
knowledge and consent of The People. Thus, if asking whether a
Republic and such secret spending can exist at the same time,
the answer is no. A bucket with a leak that inevitably grows is not
a bucket that anyone wants. No one wants a house with a
foundation that is on shifting sand, no matter whether the rate at
which this occurs will undermine it in 5, 10, or 20 years, if it will
inevitably fall into the ocean. It should become clear that a
Republic cannot become a little Socialistic any more than a

woman can become a little pregnant. Once government starts
deciding who gets whose money, once proceeding down that
path, once it is deemed reasonable for government to do this,
this path takes a good government that performs the reasonable
tasks of government and turns it into something else. The
government becomes a tool of those who wish to take from
others. It becomes a criminal for hire.
Government has certain tasks it reasonably may perform. If it
chooses to be the arbiter of who gets Money when the receivers are
not providing similar value to the Public, then there is a rush to take
sides and be on the receiving end, and the entire notion of
government becomes a struggle between groups for money. Any
group that is getting money is asking for More. Those who get paid
for no work or service are in fact providing a service which is
political support. There is never a point at which those who get
Other People's Money via government are satisfied, the government
is measured by the Dow, by how well it delivers wealth, and not how
well it protects Freedom and Human Rights. Money is supposed to
be a means by which people exchange value and an enabler of
specialization and mass production (the great creator of Wealth)
and a reward to persons for helping others. Distributing money or
currency for no value or labor degrades the work ethic and general
ethics, in that those who receive money or currency flourish, thus it
inculcates a society that approves any behavior that is financially
rewarded, because people are by nature attracted to others who
flourish. By live experiment we have proved that when permitting
socialism, this degradation of society occurs, and while one cannot
prove it occurs every time, there is no example of socialism which is
not dysfunctional.
When government is the arbiter of who gets whose wealth, it may
claim to be doing this in a moral way by portraying its ethic as
moral, such as stating it redistributes wealth "from everyone
according to their ability, to everyone according to their need". In
practice this happens only so far as is theatrically necessary to
support this narrative; the rest is absorbed by corrupt officials
and their puppet masters. Any nonprofit activity has no need for
an honest and accurate audit because it has no constraining
profit margin. No matter what it is called, when government is
the arbiter of wealth, it is Socialism and Communism, and the
word progressivism only describes a society that is progressing

toward complete control of wealth by its government. It is
important to note that a nation need never reach the point of
total control of wealth, that long before this point is reached,
government has so much power that it may oppress The People
as much as it wishes -- inevitably does.

5. Socialism is Criminal
The brand of Socialism attacking the US (1) is Cultural Marxism (2).
This variant uses, instead of workers, groups within society that
this "ism" touts as exploited and worthy of reparations or
favoritism or is somehow authorized to mistreat non-members. It
also manipulates language and accuses language of the existing
culture as being injurious.
Much has been written about Socialism and Communism as if
they were a reasonable and thoughtful means of government,
and that it is honorable and acceptable to espouse them as a
political option. This is untrue. Socialism criminalizes government.
Those who espouse Socialism are calling for, and are aiding and
abetting, a crime.
By the Philosophy of Liberty (3) you own your own labor, and it is
slavery for someone else to own it or the fruits of it. Dr. Ken
Schoolland (4) authorized including this in full, as follows:
"The Philosophy of Liberty is based upon the principle of
self-ownership. You own your life. To deny this is to claim
that another person has a higher claim on your life than you
do. No other person or group of persons owns your life, nor
do you own the lives of others. You exist in time: past,
present, and future. This is manifest in Life, Liberty, and the
product of your Life and Liberty. To lose your Life is to lose
your Future. To lose your Liberty is to lose your Present. And
to lose the product of your Life and Liberty is to lose your
Past that produced it. A product of your Life and your
Liberty is your property. Property is the fruit of your Time,
Energy, and Talents. Property is that part of Nature which
you turn to valuable use. Property is the property of others
that is given to you by voluntary exchange and mutual
consent. Two people who exchange property are better off
or they wouldn't do it. Only they may rightfully make that
decision for themselves. At times some people use Force or
Fraud to take from others without voluntary consent. The
initiation of Force or Fraud to take a life is murder; to take
liberty is slavery, and to take property is theft. It is the
same whether one person is acting alone, or the many are

acting against the few, or even by officials with fine hats.
You have the right to protect your own Life, Liberty, and
justly acquired Property from the forceful aggression of
others. And you may ask others to help defend you, but you
do not have the right to initiate force against the life,
liberty, and property of others. Thus, you have no right to
designate some other person to initiate force against others
on your behalf. You have the right to seek leaders for
yourself, but you have no right to impose rulers upon
others. No matter how officials are selected, they are only
human beings, and they have no rights or claims that are
higher than those of any other human beings. Regardless of
the imaginative labels for their behavior, or the numbers of
people encouraging them, officials have no right to murder,
to enslave, or to steal. You cannot give them any rights you
do not have yourself. Since you own your life, you are
responsible for your life. You do not rent your life from
others who demand your obedience. Nor are you a slave to
others who demand your sacrifice. You choose your own
goals based on your own values. Success and failure are
both the necessary incentives to learn and grow. Your
action on behalf of others or their action on behalf of you is
virtuous only when it is derived from voluntary mutual
consent. For virtue can only exist when there is free choice.
This is the basis of a truly free society. It is not only the
most practical and humanitarian foundation for human
action, but also the most ethical. Problems in the world that
arise from the initiation of force by government have a
solution. The solution is for the people of the earth to STOP
asking government officials to initiate force on their behalf.
Evil does not arise only from evil people, but from good
people who tolerate the initiation of force to their own ends.
In this manner, good people have empowered evil people
throughout history. Having confidence in a free society is to
focus on the process of discovery in the marketplace of
values, rather than to focus on some imposed vision or goal.
Using governmental force to impose a vision on others is
intellectual sloth and typically results in unintended,
perverse consequences. Achieving a free society requires
courage to think, to talk, and to act, especially when it is
easier to do nothing."




6. Mandates, Rights, Privileges, and Patient Rights
Wikipedia defines a political mandate (1) as "the authority granted
by a constituency to act as its representative. Elections,
especially ones with a large margin of victory, and are often said
to give the newly elected government or elected official an
implicit mandate to put into effect certain policies." Also shown
there is a definition for an individual mandate (2), "a requirement
by law for certain persons (3) to purchase or otherwise obtain a
good or service." In this second case, the obvious derivation is
the requirement to have medical insurance, as specified in the
Affordable Care Act mentioned as a subheading in this article,
including its Individual Shared Responsibility Provision (4). This
mandate was preceded by the 1927 implementation of a
mandate to purchase automobile insurance (5). It is
unquestionable, however, that driving on public roads is a
privilege, while the ability to visit a physician and be treated
without interference is at the very least a natural right.
There is a difference between a privilege and a right (6), the
difference being a privilege (7) is revocable while a right (8) is
inalienable, as it is a basic withholding of power the State is not
being granted by The People. As recent events have made clear,
there is a deliberate blurring of this difference in order to use
mandates as an adjunct to power. Even in Wikipedia we find this
passage in its "Rights" article under the subheading of
"Definitional issues": "There is considerable disagreement about
what is meant precisely by the term rights. It has been used by
different groups and thinkers for different purposes, with different
and sometimes opposing definitions, and the precise definition of
this principle, beyond having something to do with normative
rules of some sort or another, is controversial." In the considered
opinion of the author, passages like this support narratives with
undisclosed agendas, and likely find their way into public

discourse as a direct result of corruption, in order to overcome
the societal constraints emplaced by the Constitution.
It is illegal to suppress human rights by using Color of Law (9).
Why, then, should it be acceptable for governments to issue
mandates that accomplish the same end, when they do not even
have legislated law as a basis? The purported justification for
mandates is "emergency powers". In our public discourse we at
least find those who will now state "We need a Constitutional
Amendment to severely restrict emergency powers." (10) The
author, while noting there is nothing in the Constitution that
authorizes such powers (there is no "unless" included after
"inalienable"), would go a step farther and state unequivocally
that emergency powers must be specifically forbidden, because
whether an event is an emergency or not is a matter of opinion. It
is alright to designate a storm as an emergency if that is required
to comply with funding provisions, but only in this regard. The
only basis for emergency powers is martial law (11), in which case
the Constitution is suspended and the Military is in charge.
The designation of emergency is perhaps a reasonable exception
to the idea discussed earlier that the government should not
have the right to be the arbiter of who gets whose money. It is
based upon the idea that a nation faces challenges and there
should be a shared burden, particularly in time of war. There is
much evidentiary information that weather warfare (12) has been
an ongoing problem, including the obvious trails in the skies of
undisclosed content called "chemtrails" (while now in use is the
term "GeoEngineering"). As a result, and considering the
capabilities available, it is reasonable to consider major weather
disasters as likely acts of war, since the capabilities exist to
ameliorate or avoid disastrous weather and therefore there is the
corollary that "Natural" Disasters Are Not Likely Natural. The
principle of shared burden in war (as the State is the implementer
of war) is described by Winston Churchill:
"...An air raid came upon us (in a visit to Margate) and I was
conducted into their big tunnel, where quite large numbers
of people lived permanently. When we came out, after a
quarter of an hour, we looked at the still-smoking damage.

A small restaurant had been hit. Nobody had been hurt, but
the place had been reduced into a litter of crockery,
utensils, and splintered furniture. The proprietor, his wife,
and the cooks and waitresses were in tears. Where was
their home? Where was their livelihood? Here is a privilege
of power. I formed an immediate resolve. On the way back
in my train I dictated a letter to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer laying down the principle that all damage from
the fire of the enemy must be a charge upon the State and
compensation be paid in full at once. Thus the burden would
not fall alone on those whose businesses or premises were
hit, but would be borne evenly on the shoulders of the
nation. Kingsley Wood was naturally a little worried by the
indefinite character of this obligation. But I pressed hard,
and an insurance scheme was divides in a fortnight which
afterwards played a substantial part in our
spread the burden so that we all stand in together."
(Churchill, Winston S. Their Finest Hour: Houghton Mifflin,

Boston, 1949, pp. 349-50)
The impact of mandates has been most widely experienced in
the recent medical "emergency" in which mandates are
"enforced" in part by financial coercion (13). There are a growing
number of doctors (14) who take exception to the claims of the
"mainstream" medical community; this is discussed in Dr. Simone
Gold's book I Do Not Consent. (15) Also there is growing concern
that the intent of this coercion is, beyond just a culling of the
population, actually a control of humanity (16). The defense against
this effort, assuming we as a society prevail and get the chance
to implement it, is a detailed extension of rights such that these
incursions are expressly forbidden, and further ventures into
them will find adequately deterrent justice. This extension should
most likely consecrate into US constitutional law the Nuremberg
Code (17), which, considering the emergency use authorization (18)
legal status of the "vaccine" offered, identifying it as
experimental, appears to have been ignored. The specific reforms
necessary are essential, may require highly detailed analysis. To
facilitate this, the author has included in the Appendix a work on
Patient Rights and Ethics (19), and the Nuremberg Code (18), and a
link to a significant lawsuit claiming violations.


7. Courage
Rather than reiterate and summarize, it may be best to use Dr.
Schoolland's reference to courage as a transition to discussing it.
Much has been made of the meekness of a sector of the US
population, who are willing to be led by Government into
whatever (even destructive) circumstance, to the degree of
labeling them with the term "sheeple." This seems to rather
contrast with rugged individualism (1) which characterizes
Americans as more reliant upon themselves, stemming from their
frontier experience. To the degree these attitudes cannot be
reconciled, and are sequestered to a degree by State boundaries,
some observers feel the only solution is Balkanization (2). A
distinct problem with this approach would be the maintenance of
security against attack by modern weapons, as the dissolution of
the Union into two or more entities would block access to the sea
by "Flyover Country"(3) and also revisit the problems of alliances
with nuclear powers and the stationing of nuclear weapons on
nearby borders that was roundly rejected in the Cuban Missile
Crisis (4). Consequently, survival, which overweens other societal
impetus, demands that America "pull together" as a nation. Since
A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand (5), Americans shall
have to be more and more a melting pot (6) rather than be
diverse. If as reported there has been an influx of persons
smuggled across borders and in the country illegally, who have
brought their ideas of government, generally tribalistic, with
them, there shall have to be either a huge effort at teaching and
demanding citizenship based upon the Idea of America, or
enforced repatriation, or both.
Courage means enduring pain whether directly or indirectly (by
means of sympathy and empathy) to accomplish Good, whether
for the good of Humanity or for one's country. Those with little
Courage will resist forceful solutions even when there is a
dilemma in which pain is to be endured in either direction,
because they cannot withstand the responsibility of imposing
Pain, and Force always means that there will be persons who do
not get what they want.

One might say, Americans of today have had it too soft, that
"Progress" has built a society of convenience and minimized pain
and sacrifice. By some reports this pain was never really avoided
as it was concentrated upon relatively few, such as persons who
were trafficked and destroyed. The book The Time Machine (7)
may have been more prescient than one would care to think,
visualizing a passive surface population in a dull, leisurely, mildly
pleasant, and purposeless existence, who serve as food for an
underground population. Nevertheless, there remain type "A"
persons who are goal driven, there remain persons who are
vigilant there remain believers in Liberty and Freedom, and the
transition to this type of split society has been perceived and by
reports interrupted and turned back.
Pain and pleasure are opposites and are perceived as contrasts. If
one were to construct a measurement for pain and pleasure such
that pain ranged from zero to minus ten and pleasure from zero
to plus ten, and then eliminated all the activities that resulted in
the negative measurements, human nature would then simply reorient. In effect, it would move zero to plus 5. All the lesspleasant items would be perceived as pain. This condition exists
in many humans, witnessed in adults as griping about stupid and
inane things, due to not having experienced real pain. In children,
what we witness, when there is no real pain such as from
punishment, the child cries anyway, because its perception of
pain shifts to lack of pleasure; it cannot have something it wants,
which could be something material, but could also be simply
attention or controlling other people. If children are not
disciplined using pain, does it not seem logical that as these
children age, rather than grow into adults, they continue to feel
the same way, they must have things others have that they
don't, they must get attention, they must control others.
Learning to tolerate pain is part of maturing because it goes hand
in hand with deferred gratification, which is necessary to
organized, cooperative, civilized, moral behavior. Deferred
gratification is a characteristic of a responsible adult; responsible
and adult should be synonyms. Adulthood should not really be
conferred by age; and citizenship should not be conferred by
birthplace. Either of these should depend upon knowledge,
wisdom, and behavior.

Courage means doing what must be done despite the obstacles.
Thomas Jefferson wrote, " The tree of liberty (8) must be refreshed
from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Those
who are adult must be willing to accept the responsibility to act,
to defend themselves, but more than that, to defend a society
that gives them something irreplaceable, Liberty. They shall have
to push aside those who have led sheltered lives and have no
taste for strength. For decades the problems of America have lain
dormant while multitudes of persons who were never spanked,
never put through strong discipline, never learned the pain
necessary to prevail at the highest levels of competition, while
these persons had their say, and where are we now? Those who
advocate following along with inertia at this point, we now see
where that leads, we see the Sea ahead and, if not sheep,
lemmings running to the Brink. Common Sense dictates, it is time
for the Adults to Take Charge.
Samuel Adams wrote " It does not take a majority to prevail... but
rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting Brushfires of
Freedom in the minds of men." Rather than push aside those who
have followed Socialism to the brink, there is this idea that
enough of them can be dissuaded. At the same time a degree of
doubt exists that this is possible, based on understanding the
power of propaganda over time in creating an enduring narrative,
a cultish ethos, such that the patriots are fighting cognitive
dissonance (9), as described in the Allegory Of The Cave (10). The
hold over persons in believing false narratives is so strong that
humans are in some cases willing to go so far in trust and belief
as to immolate themselves, to "Drink The Kool-Aid"(11). It seems
impossible to estimate how strong the clinging to a cult-belief in
false narratives might be, and how possible or impossible it is to
"wake up" Americans simply by supplanting propaganda with
Disclosure. If this were an easy task it would seem the US military
would not be so disinclined to go ahead, disclose truth, and to
proceed with cleaning up society in view of the public. There is a
group of believers in Mainstream Media narratives who will cling
to MSM if it is still there and might or might never be satisfied by
a replacement. This group might parallel those who called those
who called for independence from England "radicals" right up
until when at Lexington and Concord the word came that the
British were killing Americans and they had to choose sides as
Tories or Patriots.

There is a difference between the population today and that of
Revolutionary times. In Creation of the American Republic (12), in
the first chapter, Gordon S. Wood states:
"Where the people of other countries had invoked principles
only after they had endured 'an actual grievance’ the
Americans, said Burke, were anticipating their grievances
and resorting to principles even before they actually
suffered. “They augur misgovernment at a distance and
snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze.” The
crucial question in the colonists’ minds, wrote John
Dickinson in 1768, was “not, what evil has actually attended
particular measures—but, what evil, in the nature of things,
is likely to attend them.” Because “nations, in general, are
not apt to think until they feel, therefore nations in general
have lost their liberty.” But not the Americans, as the Abbé
Raynal observed. They were an “enlightened people” who
knew their rights and the limits of power and who, unlike
any people before them, aimed to think before they felt." (p.
Americans had seen Tyranny in the Old World, and now dearly
hoped to avoid having it revisited upon them in the New. Wood
states the Patriots prevailed in winning the battle for public
opinion by clinging to the avowed principles of the rights of
British subjects:
"It was an amazing transformation and even after the
Declaration of Independence Americans continued to
express their astonishment at what had happened. As they
themselves keenly realized, their interpretation of the
English constitution was the point on which their
understanding of the Revolution hinged. For it was the
principles of the English constitution that the colonists clung
to throughout the dozen years of controversy with the
mother country. They said repeatedly that it was “both the
letter and the spirit of the British constitution” which
justified their resistance. Even as late as 1776 they assured
themselves there was “no room at all to doubt, but we have
justice and the British constitution on our side.” This

repeated insistence that they were the true guardians of the
British constitution, even enjoying it “in greater purity and
perfection” than Englishmen themselves, lent a curious
conservative color to the American Revolution. By recurring
constantly to “the fundamental maxims of the British
constitution; upon which, as upon a rock, our wise ancestors
erected that stable fabric,” by repeatedly invoking those
“explaining and controlling principles, which framed the
constitution of Britain in its first stages, . . . and which have
been her constant companions through all the mutilations
and distortions she has suffered in her progress to the
present rank she holds in the world”—by language such as
this—the Americans could easily conceive of themselves as
simply preserving what Englishmen had valued from time
immemorial. They sincerely believed they were not creating
new rights or new principles prescribed only by what ought
to be but saw themselves claiming “only to keep their old
privileges,” the traditional rights and principles of all
Englishmen, sanctioned by what they thought had always
been." (pp. 12-13)
(Note: “In the United Kingdom (13), the Bill of Rights (14) is further
accompanied by Magna Carta (15), the Petition of Right (16),
the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 (17) and the Parliament Acts 1911
and 1949 (18) as some of the basic documents of the
uncodified British constitution.(19)” Wikipedia)
Wood states that in Revolutionary times there were also persons
who were just willing to go along with whatever societal impetus
" Those Whig spokesmen who bothered to go beyond a
simple articulation of Whig maxims offered an especially
impressive conception of the patterns of culture and history.
They knew it would be no simple task to awaken the people
to the dangers confronting their liberties. “The experience
of all ages” showed that the people were “inattentive to the
calamities of others, careless of admonition, and with
difficulty roused to repel the most injurious invasions.” The
Whigs were struck with “the easiness with which the many
are governed by the few, . . . the implicit submission with
which men resign their own sentiments and passions to

those of their rulers.” Many could therefore conclude with
David Hume that it was on custom or “opinion only that
government is founded, and this maxim extends to the
most despotic and most military governments, as well as to
the freest and most popular.” The people through history,
Americans noted repeatedly, were generally docile and
obedient, disposed “to be as submissive and passive and
tame under government as they ought to be.” In fact, the
people were naturally “so gentle that there never was a
government yet in which thousands of mistakes were not
overlooked.” Men were born to be deluded, “to believe
whatever is taught, and bear all that is imposed.
This customary deference of the people was really what
explained the overweening dominance of the ruling few
through so many centuries of history, for it “gradually
reconciles us to objects even of dread and detestation.”
Because of the Whigs’ particular conception of politics, their
otherwise sophisticated understanding of the historical
process took on a primitive cast, and history became the
product of self-conscious acts by rulers seeking to extend
their power over an unsuspecting populace. In significant,
piecemeal changes, none of which seemed decisive or
unbearable at the time, “spread over the multitude in such
a manner, as to touch individuals but slightly.” In a variety
of metaphors, the colonists sought to express their
understanding of how the rulers, possessing their own
“particular purposes,” slyly used the historical process.
Every one of their acts of usurpation was “like a small spark
[which] if not extinguished in the beginning will soon gain
ground and at last blaze out into an irresistible Flame”; or it
was “like the rolling of mighty waters over the breach of
ancient mounds,—slow and unalarming at the beginning;
rapid and terrible in the current; a deluge and devastation
at the end”; or it was like “a spot, a speck of decay,
however small the limb on which it appears, and however
remote it may seem from the vitals,” that would grow and
corrupt “till at length the inattentive people are compelled
to perceive the heaviness of their burthens,” usually,
however, too late for the people to resist. “They find their
oppressors so strengthened by success, and themselves so
entangled in examples of express authority on the pan of

the rulers, and tacit recognition on their own part, that they
are quite confounded.” All history was therefore an object
lesson in the power of the seemingly insignificant."(p. 37)
For the radical Americans who were later recognized as patriot
leaders, Wood wrote in The Idea Of America (20) that:
"The Americans were fortunate in being born at a time
when the principles of government and freedom were better
known than at any time in history. The Americans had
learned 'how to define the rights of nature--how to search
into, to distinguish, and to comprehend, the principles of
moral, religious, and civil liberty,' how, in short, to discover
and resist the forces of tyranny before they could be
applied. Never before in history had a people achieved 'a
revolution by reasoning' alone." (p. 51, large-print edition)

8. Liberty
In searching the Internet for reports, to compare and evaluate
according to logic and detail and character, one does not see the
word "Liberty" very frequently. One may go to US Debt Clock (1)
and see all manner of measures; one may scour the US Stock
market; one may listen to broadcasts on mainstream media and
on alternative media; but there is no measure of Liberty. Instead,
every other type of measure is touted as important.
Is the notion of Liberty treated as "passé", that is, outdated and
obsolete? Or does this term have some emotional content that
patriots are reluctant to express, as the dearest things are held
To capture the emotions surrounding the Idea Of Liberty is
worthwhile to make a complete statement about the
requirements for a Restored Republic built around The Idea of
America. A complete statement should not be avoided because
one fears being viewed as passé. Let us for a moment imagine a
brief statement by Joseph Pulitzer, who, when seeing the demise
of the establishment of the Statue of Liberty, due to the failure of
fund-raising for its base, took it to heart, and made an appeal to
his readers to help:
My Readers:
I write to you know about Liberty and about the Statue you
have heard so much about. You know me as a Crusader.
To fight against corruption and neglect, I have required a
command of the facts that is superior to those who might
attack and try to embarrass and destroy this paper. In the
case of Liberty, here are the facts I have learned:
It takes three things for citizens to enjoy Liberty, which,
more than the absence of slavery, is a state in which The
People may live their lives as proudly, independently, and
fearlessly as possible. These three things are:
First, Liberty needs a system of government that distributes
power among the people, so that none has too much over
the other. You all know the pain-staking effort our founding
Fathers made developing this Engine of Freedom for us, and
how they shed their blood to secure it.

Second, Liberty requires a People who understand and
believe in her. There has been no greater example in our
country of this understanding and belief – no, I will call it
Love – than when hundreds of thousands of our brothers
arose and, “as He died to make men holy, they died to
make men free.” Ending slavery was Mankind’s greatest
single step toward Liberty.
But third, Liberty needs a Lamp of Light by which to
enlighten the Darkness. The People need a tool to help
them see Truth, so they may effectively and justly direct the
Engine of Freedom toward the common good. I have tried
to make this paper, the World, serve that cause; and it is
my dream that the explosion of our circulation, powering us
into the heights, is a signal that this type of revolutionary
journalism has justly found its place in your hearts.
Now, you might ask, well, Mr. Pulitzer, it seems as though
we have all the blessings a nation shall ever need, shall we
not now relax and enjoy them? A reasonable thought. But
an Engine of Freedom needs Energy and Constant Vigilance
– and these are needed, not only from those in government,
but most importantly, from us all, every Citizen. The power
of the Public Sway must be focused and adept! Only in this
way will the System not decay, the Lamp not run dim, and
the Love not become Empty.
It is in maintaining our cause for Liberty that we need the
Statue. The fuel of Abolitionism has run its course! Now, we
must embrace The Idea, carry it into our hearts, nurture it,
treasure it. But an idea, by itself, is something one may
neither see nor touch, to guide it to our Soul. Yet here,
before us now, we may embrace as our own, a great Statue,
beaming with the Spirit of Liberty – a great, indomitable
Lady, a Defender of Freedom, brimming with Resolve and
Passion. Here is a vision, an embodiment of an idea as
Great as the Greatness of The Idea she represents.
But to embrace her, this great gift from all the People of
France to all the People of America, we need, for our part, to
complete the Pedestal. To do this, I call upon you all now to
help. Let us not wait for the Rich any longer! I ask you
all to give something, however little, and to write to us. I
will print your letters and the name of every contributor in
our paper. Let us do this, together. For in this unity, there
is Strength, Honor, and a Legacy for our great nation.

Joseph Pulitzer

9. The Appeal Of [Social/Commun/Progressive] ism
If we find it germane to describe the emotional appeal of Liberty,
then also it is worthwhile discussing the seductive appeal of the
various flavors of Socialism. This appeal is nothing new, as it is
chronicled to some degree in The Adventures of Pinocchio (1) by
Carlo Lorenzini writing as Carlo Collodi (2) from 1881 to 1883.
Early on as Pinocchio is headed to his first day of school, he hears
the seductive call of the pipes and turns instead toward The
Great Puppet Theatre. Perhaps Lorenzini thought of the pipes
here because he had been translating tales such as The Pied
Piper of Hamelin (3) which is a documented as having some basis
in fact (4) (some report of these facts perhaps were in Lorenzini's
mind since Browning's popular version was published a few years
after Pinocchio). In Lorenzini's allegory, the pipes had a
seductive, deceptive message that turned children into jackass
slaves. So, let us now imagine we have the piper himself before
us who may pipe to us his seductive tune.
I am a piper named ISM
you'd think that I learned hypnotism
for folk listening all day
to what my pipes say
create an obstreperous schism!
The pipes, you see, toodle twiddle dee dee,
and make you believe you'll get everything free!
Why learn, why work when all you need do,
is play and take wealth from those others, who
are evil and bad, though they run all the works,
but list to the pipes, for all those folks are jerks!
So bad they are, while you are so good,
they owe you a living, yes really, they should!
And if there's concern of who's &wrong-tled or right-tled,
just never forget, you are simply entitled!
They stole from all those on your family tree,
so much that your life should be one shopping spree,
and they foot the bill! Yes, that's only just,
Cause you are so good, you're the true upper crust!
And don't list to parents, who claim you must learn

a profession and work, your own keep to earn.
Just laugh at your father, and laugh at your mother,
who don't get we all can just live off each other!
And if someone tells you there are strings attached
to taking free money, that there are plots hatched
to keep you addicted, a public-dole junky,
and turn you in-to a political flunky,
Don't listen to that, just look Over Here,
where the pipes will be piping out virtuous fear!
And if you go to school, don't learn something useful,
but load on your brain-train a bulging caboose full
of fake science, history, and most of all, news,
rife with correct-thinking double-speak views
and lies that, repeated, grow bigger and bigger,
and smokescreen just who is a worthless gold-digger.
And if people tell you that your self-respect
should come from where talent and work intersect,
just laugh in their face, snidely chuck-ling forever,
for beating the system is what makes you clever!
Repeat the pipes song! You'll be Master Magician!
The People will crown you a Great Strategician,
show’s you with Power and Fortune and Fame,
and never catch on to the actual game -(Unless of course one day they learn who to blame,
whence Pestilence, Famine, and War and Death frame,
the acres of homeland they put to the Flame,
and Multitudes who too bad endings came.
The People learn who to assign to the shame
and Justice rebounds and the world's marshals claim
the vile, evil scum by persona and name.)
But don't think of that day, for those who would aim
for Justice are sheep who are docile and tame,
and never rise, their transgressors to maim.
No! All will be, every day, more of the same!
I am a piper named ISM
you'd think that I learned hypnotism
for folk listening all day
to what my pipes say
create an obstreperous schism!"


10. Legislated (Positive) Versus Natural Law
The Philosophy of Liberty was included to demonstrate reasoning
from the most basic of premises to describe how people should
behave toward each other, generally called natural law (1), which
is defined in Wikipedia as follows:
"Natural law is a system of law based on a close
observation of human nature, and based on values intrinsic
to human nature (2) that can be deduced (3) and applied
independent of positive law (4) (the enacted laws of a state
(5) or society (6). According to natural law theory, all people
have inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but
by "God, nature, or reason." Natural law theory can also
refer to "theories of ethics, theories of politics, theories of
civil law, and theories of religious morality."
It should be no surprise that a person who wishes to profit from
actions that harm others, by taking their property, their liberty, or
their lives, would ideally prefer to find a method of doing this that
is not prohibited by Government, or, if so, to alter those
prohibitions, to avoid any negative consequences. Even better
than this is to find a way also to change the thought and culture
of a society such that the transgression they wish to use to their
profit (or perhaps even their perverse enjoyment) is accepted by
the society, that is, normalized. If an action is accepted by
society, this is the pinnacle of minimizing risk, as there will be a
very diminished chance that societal thinking will quickly change,
the laws reversed, and restitution (if not punishment)
To remove the penalties associated with legislated law, the
legislature must be infiltrated, bribed, and blackmailed. When
this is done in earnest, positions in the legislature are attractive
to criminals, and conversely these positions are unattractive to
honest persons, except for the most dedicated and brave. The
legislature is then besieged by people who don't want to work,
whose ethos is to get the most for doing the least; accomplishing
this makes them happy, and they have absolutely no sense of
public service. They enjoy themselves; their ego swells as they
think of themselves beating The System. They are more than

willing just to take orders from their controllers, as to formulate
opinions on what is good and bad legislation based on facts
would be work. They pride themselves that they do not work.
Humanity is here to serve them, not the reverse.
These people who don't want to work are no better than, even
perhaps the same as, the boys in Pinocchio who get on the
wagon for Playland (renamed in film as Pleasure Island). There
are some very strong parallels between Pleasure Island and
another one known as Lolita Island, in that the same entrapment
and harnessing of the participants appears to have occurred,
although in the latter, the subjects of their pleasure suffered
greatly. It is sad to say but even the leaders of this movement,
who are (or were) "more equal than others" and relatively well
off, appear by reports to be meeting unhappy fates, both before
meeting Justice, enslaved and manipulated as puppets, and after
meeting Justice. It is perhaps worthy of being considered that
Pinocchio is discussed as a portrayal of growing up, becoming an
adult, which entails accepting work and responsibilities, instead
of devising means to avoid them ("beating the system"). Thus,
we see there are two diametrically opposed philosophies, Work
Ethic versus the avoidance of same.
The desire to avoid work is present not just in corrupt legislators,
but throughout the infesting Deep State. It works against these
creatures, though: knowing this about them allows ordinary
citizens who are attempting to practice Discernment (deciding
based on conflicting reports what is likely true) an advantage,
because those opposed to work ethic, which we might also call
brigands or pirates, have neither the talent nor the patience to
write detailed narratives. They wish only to repeat repeatedly a
small number of talking points, attend sumptuous dinners, ride in
luxury, consume their drugs of choice, and reside in mansions.
Accordingly, those who wish to discern truth benefit from the
general rule that The More Detail, The More Likely a Report Is

11. Charity
One may speak of Charity as a virtue. Those who are relatively
selfless, who care about others as much as or more than
themselves, are praised for having this characteristic. Sympathy,
and beyond that, empathy, are the binding forces of
What we have witnessed, however, is that man's emotions,
whether for good or not, are exploited. The impetus for Charity
among mankind is manipulated and weaponized.
Organized charity is not something that is well-regulated by
Mankind. Charity may be in the mind of the Giver, but once there
is another person or organization employed to manage it, there is
(by reports) likely Corruption. By contrast, Enterprise has a form
of regulation called a bottom line. Any enterprise will (or should)
eventually fail if it does not control costs and make a profit. To do
this it must undergo some degree of audit. Charity really cares
little overall, about audits, since the goal is simply to spend the
money contributed in some way, while spending enough of it in
whatever cause it has collected on behalf of to appease the
contributors. It is sad to say, charities are largely havens of
corruption, and although not universally corrupt, the degree to
which this is true is probably at least like the degree of corruption
of the other institutions in a nation, and probably worse due to
the relative lack of safeguards.
One might ask whether the problems of organized charity could
be controlled by instituting government-imposed audits, but this
raises the idea that the corruption of a link between government
and charity is simply reconfigured. It is a better solution to direct
charity towards one's own neighborhood or personal circle,
accepting the responsibility to verify along with the act of
contribution. This probably means doing away with corporate
"charity drives" in which they influence their employees to
contribute funds (and then subsequently use the totaled amount
of contribution as "PR"). Charity should be voluntary, or it is not
charity. Another impetus should be charity by means of providing
a job. If work is created that is essentially under-productive or
unproductive, that is, make-work, as a measure to institute relief,

then the associated compensation should be below what
productive jobs pay, enough to encourage persons to seek
productive jobs and to move away from these. There should be
no standard that "expects someone to make a living" from makework, it must be a temporary solution, for otherwise it is a drain
on society that is unsustainable and creates a political influence
that is harmful.
It is worth stating at this point that the problem of involving
Government with Charity is not new. There is a chronicle
surviving in which Davy Crockett, for a time a member of
Congress, described this problem, which is included in full. This
story (1) is excerpted from a book, The Life of Colonel David
Crockett (2), by Edward S. Ellis.
"Crockett was then the lion of Washington. I was a great
admirer of his character, and, having several friends who
were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his
acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to
take a fancy to me.
I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives
when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the
benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several
beautiful speeches had been made in its support – rather,
as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine
opportunity for display than from the necessity of
convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody
favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question
when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that
he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in
support of the bill. He commenced:
“Mr. Speaker – I have as much respect for the memory of
the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of
the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House,
but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our
sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of
injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an
argument to prove that Congress has no power to
appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member
upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to
give away as much of our own money as we please in

charity; but as members of Congress, we have no right so to
appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent
appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a
debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived
long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of
his death, and I have never heard that the government was
in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for
services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt,
how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due
ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it
for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt,
we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the
widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812
precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my
neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever
shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in
every respect as this lady and is as poor. She is earning her
daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a
bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her
benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get
five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in
the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we
never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is
no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased
when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do
not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this
House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the
grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment
of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to
appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have
the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I
am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill,
but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every
member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to
more than the bill asks.”
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its
passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was
generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that
speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
Like many other young men, and old ones, too, for that

matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the
passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I
determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to
move a reconsideration the next day.
Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett
that night, I went early to his room the next morning and
found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a
large pile of which lay upon his table.
I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what
devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat
that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up
from his work, he replied:
“You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool
yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will
tell you all about it.”
He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and
when he had finished, he turned to me and said:
“Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a
tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have
to listen.”
I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:
Several years ago, I was one evening standing on the steps
of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when
our attention was attracted by a great light over in
Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a
hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got
there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life
as I did there for several hours. But, despite all that could
be done, many houses were burned, and many families
made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but
the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and
when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt
that something ought to be done for them, and everybody
else seemed to feel the same way.
The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating
$20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and
rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said
everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though
they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I
did, there were a few of the members who did not think we
had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity

at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the
bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays.
There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but
many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we
considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with
them to sustain it. So, the yeas and nays were recorded,
and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.
The next summer, when it began to be time to think about
the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among
the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as
the election was some time off, I did not know what might
turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I
had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not
made me too proud to go to see them.
So, I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into
my saddlebags and put out. I had been out about a week
and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one
day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger
than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming
toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet
as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the
man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and
was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said
to him: “Don’t be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have
a little talk with you and get better acquainted.”
He replied: “I am very busy, and have but little time to talk,
but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have
to say.”
I began: “Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings
called candidates, and –”
“‘Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you
once before and voted for you the last time you were
elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you
had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for
you again.’
This was a sockdolager… I begged him to tell me what the
matter was.
“Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or
words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you
gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have
not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are
wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either

case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your
pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail
myself of the privilege of the Constitution to speak plainly to
a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I
intend by it only to say that your understanding of the
Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you
what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I
believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the
Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook because
the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred,
and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who
wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the
more honest he is.”
“I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some
mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote
last winter upon any constitutional question.”
“No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the
backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers
from Washington and read very carefully all the
proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you
voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by
a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?”
“Certainly, it is, and I thought that was the last vote which
anybody in the world would have found fault with.”
“Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any
authority to give away the public money in charity?”
Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think
about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution
that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I
“Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me
there. But certainly, nobody will complain that a great and
rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of
$20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children,
particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am
sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I
“It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the
principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in
the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate
purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The
power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the

most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man,
particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a
tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter
how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays
in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon
him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for
there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess
how much he pays to the government. So, you see, that
while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it
from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had
the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter
of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give
$20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to
one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the
Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the
amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything
which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity,
and to any amount you may think proper. You will very
easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud
and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for
robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has
no right to give charity. Individual members may give as
much of their own money as they please, but they have no
right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose.
If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as
in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of
Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for
our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members
of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the
sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would
have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men
in and around Washington who could have given $20,000
without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The
Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if
reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably;
and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you
for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving
what yours was not to give. The people have delegated to
Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain
things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay
moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is
usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.”

I have given you an imperfect account of what he said. Long
before he was through, I was convinced that I had done
wrong. He wound up by saying:
“So, you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in
what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with
danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to
stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there
is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no
doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any
better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and
you see that I cannot vote for you.”
I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition,
and this man should go talking, he would set others to
talking, and in that district, I was a gone fawn-skin. I could
not answer him, and the fact is, I did not want to. But I must
satisfy him, and I said to him:
“Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you
said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution.
I intended to be guided by it and thought I had studied it
full. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the
powers of Congress, but what you have said there at your
plow has got harder, sound sense in it than all the fine
speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that
you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I
would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and
vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional
law, I wish I may be shot.”
He laughingly replied:
“Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will
trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are
convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment
of it will do better than beating you for it. If, as you go
around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and
that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for
you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and,
perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.”
“If I don’t,” said I, “I wish I may be shot; and to convince
you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this
way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering
of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a
barbecue, and I will pay for it.”

“No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we
have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and
some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops
will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for
a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on
Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go
together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see
and hear you.”
“Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say goodbye. I must know your name.”
“My name is Bunce.”
“Not Horatio Bunce?”
“Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say
you have seen me; but I know you very well. I am glad I
have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you
for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I
We shook hands and parted.
It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He
mingled but little with the public but was widely known for
his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and
for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and
benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words
but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around
him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his
immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him
before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it
is very likely I should have had opposition and had been
beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand
up in that district under such a vote.
At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our
conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I
stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an
interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever
seen manifested before.
Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his
house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have
gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking
about the principles and affairs of government, and got
more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life

I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came
nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been
before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you
know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the
truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for
its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt
I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him
– no, that is not the word – I reverence and love him more
than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times
every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes
to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does,
the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
But to return to my story. The next morning, we went to the
barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men
there. I met a good many whom I had not known before,
and they and my friend introduced me around until I had
got well acquainted – at least, they all knew me.
In due time notice was given that I would speak to them.
They gathered around a stand that had been erected. I
opened my speech by saying:
“Fellow citizens – I present myself before you today feeling
like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths
which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore
hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the
ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever
been able to render before. I am here today more for the
purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes.
That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as
well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for
your consideration only.”
I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the
appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them
why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
“And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you
that most of the speech you have listened to with so much
interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which
your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
“It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is
entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied
with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you

He came upon the stand and said:
“Fellow citizens – It affords me great pleasure to comply
with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always
considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied
that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you
He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a
shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth
I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a
choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my
cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those
few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty
shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the
honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever
made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.
“Now, Sir,” concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that
speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it
printed and was directing them to my constituents when
you came in.
“There is one thing now to which I will call your attention.
You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There
are in that House many very wealthy men – men who think
nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them for a
dinner or a wine party when they have something to
accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful
speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the
country owed the deceased – a debt which could not be
paid by money, particularly so insignificant a sum as
$10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet
not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with
them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the
people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them
are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity,
and justice to obtain it.”
The money of The People is not theirs (Congress's or the Banks')
to give to others (whether by direct grant or surreptitiously
expanding the currency and devaluing savings).
Advocating Socialism is advocating using Government to steal
the money of others: "redistribution" is stealing; and the fact that

government does it makes it non-criminal by legislative law but
does NOT make it non-criminal by natural law. Thus, Socialism
depends upon criminalizing government and upon the populace
being either confused or unaware of what the purpose of
government is when advocacy of Socialism is permitted behavior
and is characterized as "politics" rather than crime. (Notice there
has been a consistent narrative that Communist writers in
Hollywood were persecuted for their politics.) Criminalizing
government spreads a moral message throughout the society
that destroys societal ethics and thus penetrates every sector
and activity of that society. Thus, even by enforcing laws that
have been ignored, in removing those engaged in criminal
behavior, if the system is not reformed, it will re-grow the same
behavior but just as with weeds, the re-growth can and (since
there is some degree of accompanying intelligence, likely would)
be a strain that is resistant to the previous cure .

12. Freedom of Speech
Freedom of speech in the US is not absolute despite the relatively
simple language in the Bill of Rights, and Wikipedia discusses it (1)
in this way:
"While freedom of speech is a fundamental right, it is not
absolute, and therefore subject to restrictions. Time, place,
and manner restrictions are relatively self-explanatory.
Time restrictions regulate when expression can take place;
place restrictions regulate where expression can take place;
and manner restrictions regulate how expression can take
place. A restriction may occur if someone is protesting
loudly in front of someone's house in a neighborhood in the
middle of the night, or if someone was sitting in the middle
of a busy intersection during rush hour, for example. These
actions would cause problems for other people, so
restricting speech in terms of time, place, and manner
addresses a legitimate societal concern. Restricting this
speech would be constitutional because the restrictions are
content neutral, meaning they would restrict anyone from
saying anything in these situations, no matter what their
message is; they are narrowly drawn, meaning the
restriction was examined specifically for the case in
question to determine how to serve the governmental
interest at stake; the restrictions serve a significant
governmental interest, meaning other fundamental rights
are important to citizens, such as sleeping peacefully at
night or people getting to work or home from work; and
there are plenty of alternative methods of communicating
their message, such as writing an editorial in the paper or
moving to the sidewalk at a different time in the day."
A popular expression for restrictions on free speech is: Freedom
of speech does not include the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded
theater (2) when there is no fire. If speech may, not offend, but
injure a person, it is not protected speech. (The 1913 Italian Hall
disaster (3) made this famous.) It is well established that
Socialism does injure people by enabling Tyranny that does not
regard human rights of any kind. That tyranny occurs because
government is the arbiter of who gets money. It is moot whether

one wants to argue that there is a difference in this respect
between socialism and communism. That communism has killed
millions (4) is well known. It is simply the power harnessed by this
aspect, suppressing human rights in favor of centralized power,
that socialism and communism (even if there were a difference)
have in common, that makes one just as dangerous as the other.
Socialism is also anathema to Good Government and to The
American Idea. Building a nat