Main Protecting Liberty: A Radical Prescription for a Restored Republic
Most frequently terms
(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)
Protecting Liberty Reforms to Protect the Restored Republic by Thomas Blow Foreword 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 "therapy". 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 citizens. 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. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals 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 societies. .... 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 leadership. 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 government." 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. (1) (2) http://jpatton.bellevue.edu/macro/welfareprinciple.html http://spectatorarchive.library.columbia.edu/? a=d&d=cs19770926-01.2.4&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN------- 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." (1) (2) (3) (4) https://www.amazon.com/Cynical-Theories-ScholarshipEverything-Identity-ebook/dp/B08BGCM5QZ/ https://ammo.com/articles/cultural-marxism-gramsci-howdisciples-of-gramscian-marxism-subverted-america https://youtu.be/V1sX1qkngSg http://www.schoolland.net 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 affairs...to 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. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_(politics) 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_mandate 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person 4. https://www.autoinsurance.org/when-did-auto-insurancebecome-mandatory/ 5. https://www.autoinsurance.org/when-did-auto-insurancebecome-mandatory/ 6. https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-rightand-vs-privilege/ 7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_(law) 8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights 9. https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law 10. https://www.bitchute.com/video/zGlXkB9QGFv1/ 11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law 12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_warfare 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. 5-6) 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 existed: " 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) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugged_individualism (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkanization (3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyover_country (4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis (5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln %27s_House_Divided_Speech (6) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melting_pot (7) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_Machine (8) https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/treeliberty-quotation (9) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance (10) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave (11) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid (12) https://www.amazon.com/Creation-American-Republic-17761787/dp/0807847232 (13) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom (14) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 (15) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta (16) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus_Act_1679 (17) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus_Act_1679 (18) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Acts_1911_and_1949 (19) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom (20) https://www.amazon.com/Idea-America-Reflections-UnitedStates/dp/1594202907/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0? _encoding=UTF8&qid=1626810903&sr=8-1 (1) 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 private? 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. Sincerely, Joseph Pulitzer (1) (2) http://www.usdebtclock.org https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty 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. "Oh, 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! So, 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!" (1) https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/500 (2) https://collodi.thefreelibrary.com/ (3) https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/18343 (4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pied_Piper_of_Hamelin 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) implemented. 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 True. (1)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law (2)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature (3)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning (4)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_law (5)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state (6)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society 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 communities. 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 said: “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 did.” “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?” “Yes.” “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 go.” 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 before. 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 before. 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 so.” 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 today.” He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before. 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 . (1)https://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/ davy-crockett-the-constitution-and-charity/ (2)http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1410217663/ lewrockwell/ 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