US Bill of Rights – DNC-Consulting

LIC and The Department of Veterans Affairs

What is LIC?

Low-Intensity Conflict (LIC) is the official name for when individuals or governments hire intermediaries to conduct violent operations from a secure position. LIC is a misnomer; those who have become victims of the barbaric cruelty of those practicing LIC find nothing “Low” about the experience. The conflict is intense, the actions brutal, and the practitioners remain cunning adversaries using and employing willing dupes to hide the true depths of moral decay inherent in the societal destructions and depravations the practitioners are enacting. Many confuse LIC in describing the actions of unbridled violence committed by ideologues under the banner of terrorism. The US Military Joint Chiefs of Staff define LIC as:

“A limited political-military struggle to achieve political, social, economic, or psychological objectives. It is often protracted and ranges from diplomatic, economic, and psychological pressures through terrorism and insurgency. Low-intensity conflict is generally confined to a geographic area and is often characterized by constraints on the weaponry, tactics, and levels of violence (Tinder 1990) [emphasis mine].”

Green (1997) adds a key ingredient to the description of LIC from Tinder (1990).

“… Non-international conflict is a refined term for what [was] formerly known as revolutions or civil wars, particularly when these have developed into major operations with the likelihood or reality of atrocities being committed against non-combatants. Whether civilians or those [rendered] hors de combat, a fact that is often more common in non-international … conflicts, especially when ideological, ethnic, or religious differences are in issue. It is for this reason that it must be borne in mind that the term low-intensity [conflict] has no relation to the severity or violence of the conflict” [emphasis mine].

Lt. Colonel Alan J. Tinder wrote a paper for the Air War College in 1990 titled: “Low-Intensity Conflict.” I have learned much from the Colonel and benchmarked this principle to more thoroughly understand LIC, recognize LIC, and detail LIC for others. The other compelling source is L. C. Green’s paper on “Low-Intensity Conflict and the Law.” I aim to synthesize this information into a manageable topic and aid understanding. Let me state emphatically that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) leadership’s actions are nothing short of LIC where employees and veterans/customers are concerned.

Regularly, the Department of Veterans Affairs – Office of Inspector General (VA-OIG) reports on a comprehensive healthcare inspection of a VHA facility, reports on employee morale in the VBA, or sum analysis of an employee or customer surveys, and include in the report a fairly descriptive, yet starkly utilitarian phrase, “reduce staff feelings of moral distress at work.” Generally, the efforts to reduce “moral distress” is left to an underling, an assistant, or a person for whom this is a secondary or collateral duty and is not considered important or relevant.

Do the actions of a leader represent complicity in creating moral distress fit the general definition of LIC? Absolutely. Consider that the leader sets the culture through actions, words, and behaviors, which originate in the thoughts and feelings of the leader. Correcting moral distress is pawned off on a junior staff member as a collateral duty, another method for displaying disrespect and communicating principles of abuse to employees. But there is no physical violence; how does this apply to LIC? Aren’t dead veterans’ examples enough of violent tendencies to justify the definition of LIC? The VA leader operates from a place of security, exemplifies the culture they deem acceptable, and then works through minions to achieve a “to achieve the political, social, economic, or psychological objective.”

Never forget these two critical points in the description of LIC:

“Often protracted and ranges from diplomatic, economic, and psychological pressures.”

“LIC has no relation to the severity or violence of the conflict.”

At the VA, the leadership calls their example politics; keeping your position or advancing is economical, and the psychological pressure to conform is palpable. All fundamental keys to conducting LIC against veterans, taxpayers, dependents, and non-conforming employees. Multiple times Congress has held hearings and listened to how the VA Leadership exacted revenge and retaliation upon those who reported problems to the VA-OIG, their elected congressional leaders, and other investigative parties. Feel free to peruse some of these hearings; you will hear victims relating physical, economic, and mental abuse, and the VA leadership never takes action. Elected officials never scrutinize and hold accountable those executing LIC, and the victims are victimized a second time.

Want another indicator that LIC is being practiced, the VA-OIG, after learning there are problems with moral distress at work, makes the following to slide the issues under the proverbial rub:

“The OIG’s review of the medical center … did not identify any substantial organizational risk factors.”

Signifying that even though the VA-OIG found moral distress is affecting and influencing employee behavior, the VA considers employee moral distress not an “organizational risk factor.” What does an employee who feels morally distressed do in performing their duties? Delay patients’ appointments, make mistakes on medication shipped, slow walk any responsibility to make things more complicated and take longer than they should. Does any of these actions sound familiar; they should, for this is the standard operating procedure for VA employees.

As reported previously, while I worked at the VA, I had intimate observations of what morally distressed employees do. When I wrote to the VA-OIG, I was informed that since I had my employment terminated, I could not be a whistleblower and get my job back. Plus, what I reported could not be actioned because it did not apply. How’s that for protecting the guilty? The VA Leadership is writing procedures and policies to target anyone and everyone who would report problems and seek help. An employee physically assaulted me; the camera mysteriously broke when I reported it, so no evidence was available. Who was at fault? Me; the assistant director promoted the attacker, and I got ostracized. The attacking employee took moral distress to new heights after this incident, and anyone who reported their behavior felt the wrath of the attacker and the VA leadership at the Albuquerque VAMC.

What is horrendous, this is not an isolated incident. What happened to me frequently repeats daily across every VA office. LIC is the overarching term, LIC is the behaviors named, and LIC is what the taxpayers are forced to pay for, all at the expense of veterans, dependents, and employees who see, know, and can do nothing. Repetitions of moral distress in employees, reported by the VA-OIG, are more than 20 just in 2022. The problem is cultural, and the elected officials desperately need to begin doing their second job, scrutinizing the executive branch and holding people accountable, including canceling the retirement packages of those practicing LIC.

Before someone tries to make this a Republican vs. Democrat issue, it is NOT political. LIC is never political, just as LIC is never religious, never racist, not sexist, or any other distinction. These distinctions are excuses, and the reasons do not justify the means for being violent. The leadership at the VA, and many other government agencies, have found that abusing the taxpayer pays well, provides protection, and allows them to exercise dominion to their heart’s content, all with the power of government to justify their deeds.

Do you realize that the VA-OIG has a metric for measuring moral distress, and the only time the VA-OIG reports moral distress among employees is when the results are higher than national averages? How scary is that to ponder? The problem is so prevalent that it only warrants reporting when it exceeds the norm. Thus, moral distress is declared less frequently when the average worsens. Official protection for LIC is provided by LIC, increasing, and the taxpayer is footing the bill.

I have read reports where the moral distress has worsened from year to year. The same leaders exacerbating the problem of employee moral distress are promoted and moved instead of reprimanded, punished, or fired. One of the VA-OIG reports is particularly heinous in hiding moral distress in employees.

“Selected employee survey responses demonstrated satisfaction with leadership and maintenance of an environment where staff felt respected and discrimination was not tolerated. Patient experience survey data implied general satisfaction with the outpatient care provided; however, leaders had opportunities to improve inpatient care satisfaction [emphasis mine].”

Mark Twain is oft quoted as stating, “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.” How much more valid are these words when results are “selected,” “cherry-picked,” or allowed to “imply generalities?” Those who engage in LIC are criminals, they are comparable to terrorists, and they have infiltrated the bureaucratic halls of government. Employing government power, they form unholy unions with social media outlets and media companies to further silence and abuse, all while increasing protection.

Where does it end? How do we put paid to the tyranny?

It ends when ordinary people decide they have had enough. Ending the LIC-powered tyranny requires nothing more than elected officials scrutinizing the government and doing the jobs they swore to commit. No violence, problematic or arduous tasks, merely following established law and doing the jobs we elected them to accomplish. LIC is always destroyed when the citizens being oppressed stand up for their rights and demand the bullies, tyrants, and fiends cease and desist!

Thomas Paine, writing in “Common Sense,” discussed simplicity, stating:

“I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature, which no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple anything is, the less liable it is to be disordered; and the easier repaired when disordered.”

The American government was established on simplicity, and the US Constitution is a simple document. Using Thomas Paine’s pattern, the disorder in the government is simple to correct; all we need are people insisting that the infection is terminated. Using the systems established in the US Constitution, the US government can be brought to heel, the rot removed, and justice can be delivered to those tyrants employing LIC for personal gain and political profit. LIC is happening in every government agency, and it is time for change to begin. Where are the politicians willing to do the job we elected them to perform?

Mark Twain provides the final word, “The government of my country snubs honest simplicity but fondles artistic villainy, and I think I might have developed into a very capable pickpocket if I had remained in the public service a year or two.” From artistic villainy to LIC is not an arduous shift, merely the extension of abuse of power to a larger audience. Learn, choose, and then make your voice known through elections and peaceful assembly for redress per the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

© Copyright 2022 – M. Dave Salisbury
The author holds no claims for the art used herein, the pictures were obtained in the public domain, and the intellectual property belongs to those who created the images. Quoted materials remain the property of the original author.

Legitimacy and Consent – Principles Governing Power

In the book 1634: The Baltic War (Ring of Fire Series Book 3), a point was raised:

“A ruler needs legitimacy before all else, and legitimacy, in the end, must have its base in the consent of the governed.”

Bobblehead Doll In reviewing the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, a person will find the term consent a mainstay of constitutional law, foundational to establishing and solidifying the legitimacy of the citizen in this Constitutional Republic. Let’s be specific here and take a moment to understand the principles of consent. Consent occurs when one person voluntarily agrees to a proposal or desires of another. It is a term of common speech, possessing specific definitions used in law, medicine, research, and sexual relationships, to name but a few.

Consent does not dictate or imply legitimacy; legitimacy is independent of consent, but actions of those in charge must be legitimate, or the governed’s consent makes the government’s actions illegitimate. Hence, the need to understand legitimate activities and how these actions are either legitimate or illegitimate. Legitimacy depends on the root word legitimate; if something is legitimate, it complies with the law, follows established or accepted rules or standards, and must be valid and logically sound.

Using a piece of recent legislation, we can more fully understand the point about something being legitimate and appropriate to the consent of the governed. 40-years ago, the US Congress (The Senate and the House of Representatives) stopped passing budgets to authorize and oversee federal government spending, and the holders of America’s checkbook began using continuing resolutions (CR) instead of appropriating funds as part of a national review of expenditures to a published budget. ?u=http2.bp.blogspot.com-fGEUjJsJ2h4VcJgswaisnIAAAAAAAABcsoFqEewPF_E4s1600quote-if-the-freedom-of-speech-is-taken-away-then-dumb-and-silent-we-may-be-led-like-sheep-to-the-george-washington-193690.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

Consider with me, no CR appropriates money, merely extends a previous CR approved by Congress. 40 years of making the same mistake doesn’t legitimize the actions of Congress not to pass a budget. The original CR was illegitimate and was against the consent of the governed, so every single CR replacing a balanced budget since has been against the consent of the governed as the actions were illegitimate, even if those making the decisions claimed they were needed or legal. Thus, the CR fails the sniff test for government spending. A historically wrong decision does not legitimize the current actions of the elected.

The law clearly states the US House of Representatives must pass an annual budget. Part of that budget process must include evaluating the spending previously and determining if those writing the checks performed their jobs appropriately. This is why independent audits of government agencies, including each of the members of Congress, are desperately needed to maintain the economic health of the United States. For the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense, and every other agency to continually fail audits is 100% illegitimate and against the consent of the governed.

Does this make sense? Your personal and family financial fiduciary health requires an end-of-month audit of spending, a balancing of the checkbook, and an evaluation of expenditures to meet budgetary restrictions and fiscal goals and objectives. At the end of the year, you evaluate all the past year’s spending in preparation for the annual tax deadline. Yet, the example of the executive, legislative, and judicial, both at the state and federal levels, is not reflected in the daily struggles of the governed. Making the government’s actions illegitimate and against the consent of the governed. These two principles, legitimacy and consent, reflect a significant portion of the basis of the anger many in America feel but cannot express. Plato 2

Why do we struggle to express this anger? We have not understood the principles of consent and legitimacy. In a constitutional republic, if what those elected are doing hurts one portion of the populace, it hurts the entire population. We do not have a democracy where a mere 51% of the people benefiting can justify destroying the other 49% of the population. Why does the US Constitution require what the media calls a “supermajority” erroneously?” Because in a constitutional republic, the rule of law protects all citizens equally, thus providing legitimacy to follow the law, an impetus to adhere to the law when no legal authorities are directly observing you, and allows for the consent of the governed to be honored and upheld even if a small minority disagrees with a decision by the elected authorities.

Hence the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic. We are encouraged under the rule of law to disagree, petition the government peacefully, and insist the elected representatives follow and live by the same laws they enact. Nothing in the US Constitution allows for an elected representative to play the stock market for personal gain, to abdicate their duties by voting via proxy, disregarding their legally authorized obligations, or many of the methods for abusing the citizenry that have become “accepted” because a vocal minority pushes an agenda.

Speaker Pelosi cannot claim that something is acceptable merely because she was the house speaker. The president cannot break the law simply because they are the commander in chief of the armed forces. Elected representatives cannot, and should not, be making money trading stocks with insider information. The list of what has become acceptable behaviors of elected officials is long and egregious. Always the same two principles balance as a means to judge those behaviors and actions. Is what they are doing legitimate and consensual to the expressed opinions of the governed? If the answer to one is negative, the elected representatives have no power to govern. Apathy

Consider the crime of rape. If consent is withdrawn, the intercourse is non-consensual and illegitimate, and a legal charge of rape can be investigated for criminal activity. The same is true for speeding; the laws clearly state speed limits are acceptable, breaching the limit in a motorized vehicle is unsafe, and simply because the occupants of the car consent don’t make speeding legitimate. Both consent and legitimacy must be approved to make an action acceptable.

If the driver operating a vehicle demands that speeding is legitimate, will a judge or police officer agree? Does a passenger screaming about the need to go faster legitimize the illegal actions of breaking speed limits? If a passenger suddenly replaces the driver, even though they own the vehicle, is responsibility for actions moved to the new driver or remain with the owner or original driver? These are easily understood questions when consent and legitimacy principles are fully understood in context.

Consider the ramifications of neglecting legitimacy and consent. Does a make-out session between two consenting adults mean the sex was consensual? No, because if one party does not want sex, merely wants to make out, provided both parties have reached the legally determined age of consent, the make-out session is consensual, but not the sex. This is not splitting the proverbial legal hairs. If making out and sexual intercourse are two separate actions, which they are, then the legal need for consent legitimizes sexual intercourse.

Now using this analogy, let’s evaluate the legislation for not passing a budget. Not passing a budget is one action, but not passing a timely budget does not justify a continuing resolution to authorize government spending. Not passing a budget, not conducting audits, and not demanding fiscal responsibility are all separate actions but never legitimize the continuing resolution. The root cause does not justify the stop-gap spending. Just like consensual necking does not legitimize sexual intercourse or speeding on a highway.

The courts have been very clear actions supporting lawbreaking do not imply permission or consent. Consider the laws of drunk driving, the rights of the injured victim, or the families of those killed. Society has allowed, through legislation, the ability to drink alcoholic beverages provided the consumer is over a specific age. Does the legal permission to drink automatically legitimize the consumer to operate any motorized vehicle after drinking; of course not, and laws have shaped and changed drunk driving behaviors since 1910. The consumer is granted consent based on age and legal limitations to drinking alcoholic beverages but is not legitimized to drive, ride a horse, operate a bicycle, boat, etc., while intoxicated. Those injured or killed did not grant consent for the consumer to ruin their lives. Hence the consent of the governed and legitimacy of drunk driving laws are established, and the consumer’s responsibility to drink responsibly is solidified in society. The Duty of Americans

Returning to the continuing resolutions, the fiscal insanity of the government and the bureaucrats’ fiduciary irregularity contradict the governed’s consent. Taxes are paid, but the taxpayers still hold responsibility and accountability for the money they earn to pay those taxes. Through electing representatives to oversee how tax monies are spent, the responsibility to provide an accounting for those funds is exchanged by the citizenry electing to the elected. The citizen cannot be held directly responsible for the actions of the elected representative. Still, through fair, transparent, and legal elections, accountability for the actions of the elected is expressed.

By failing to provide clear and logical, transparent, fiscal accounting to the electorate, the elected representative is discounting the consent of the governed and delegitimizing the concerns and investment of the voters who paid the taxes. Precisely like the consumer who drinks alcoholic beverages and then insists they can drive home safely. Understanding the principles of legitimacy and consent is a prerequisite to clearly identifying the problems in government and then correcting course to right the ship of the state. Patriotism

Does anyone want to return to the legal days when a rape victim is blamed for exciting the mind of the rapist who took sexual advantage and committed an act of violence? Does anyone want to return to 1900, when drunk driving was socially acceptable if you were rich enough? Does anyone want to cancel the speed limits and try to declare the lack of speed limitations makes roads safer? Of course not, so why do we, the electorate continue to allow for fiscal insanity with our tax dollars? Why should we ever accept another continuing resolution? Why should we even pay taxes when those spending the money have so egregiously spent our money until how many umpteenth-great-grandchildren are in debt to their eyeballs?

Please allow me to specify I am not advocating a person stop paying taxes and risk judiciary action! I am advocating understanding consent and legitimacy as keys to government power and how the power being exercised currently needs to be evaluated. You are free to reach opinions different than mine. I implore you to understand how legitimacy and consent of the governed lend the right to rule, in our constitutional republic, to the elected representatives.

Legitimacy and consent must be the number one motivating factor for every decision of those elected. Until we, the electorate, demand they change course, we will be forced to wash, rinse, and repeat until America is left an empty shell, her people driven into captivity by her enemies, and the American Dream is shattered for personal political power by those who we elected.

Detective 4 Returning to where we began, “A ruler needs legitimacy before all else, and legitimacy, in the end, must have its base in the consent of the governed.” Whether a ruler is a hereditary monarch, an elected representative, or a despotic tyrant, legitimacy and consent remain principles upon which power is derived. Absent either legitimacy or consent, the ruler has no power to govern; lacking power, that rule is either quickly deposed or will shortly be destroyed by those being abused in the name of governance. History is replete with examples of citizens who have rejected their consent after actions were taken that delegitimized the ruler’s power.

No, this is NOT a call for violence, merely a plea for understanding consent and legitimacy, evaluating what you see in each branch of government, and then making a personal decision to continue to grant consent or withhold consent from those who claim to “represent” you in the halls of government. How you choose is your choice, and you are free to make that choice. I know my choice and have already withdrawn my consent to be governed by the current elected representatives.

Flashes – The Power of, Reliability of, and Majesty in, the Law

Exclamation Mark Frank Crane begins our discussion with an absolute flash of brilliance from the Eternal Semaphore:

“I am law. I am Nature’s way. By me comes order, unity. In my hand, I hold three gifts: health, happiness, success. I am more clever than the cleverest. I am as old as God. I am the secret of goodness; I am the horror of sin. I am the eternal path, and besides me, there is none else. Without me, men wander in the labyrinth of death.”

Do we understand what Frank Crane is trying to communicate? Nature is ruled by law, God executes actions according to law, and justice and mercy can be served without compromising either. Law is eternal, and nobody can escape the power and majesty of the law. Consider another truth when understanding the majesty of law:

“Give a man a chance, and you will often find him equal to the occasion.” – The Majesty of the Law (Short movie 1910).

What is the potential of a man; nobody but God knows for sure, but through obedience to the law, that man can become more than he ever thought possible. I am listening to M*A*S*H 4077, episode 18, from season 9. This is the episode where two buddies come in wounded, they enlisted together, they got injured, and the buddy discovers he has leukemia. In the same episode, Father Mulcahey is expecting a visit from a Cardinal. Two men were given a chance, faced with difficulty, who both rose to the magnitude of their stations. What is Nature’s way; law. R. W. Alger is quoted:

“Laws are silent assessors of God.”

Father Mulcahy 2 When the law is described, Leo J. Muir provides five words that are inseparably connected to describing what law is:

“Eternal; Immortal; Immutable; Irrevocable; Inexorable!”

Looking back to Rome, how was Rome able to achieve greatness; they wrote their laws down and posted them above everyone’s head to symbolize that no one is above the law. Writing down laws was nothing new, but holding everyone accountable to the law equally was unique in human history. On this single principle, Rome rose in glory and failed ignominiously; everyone was accountable to the law equally. Senator, pauper, soldier, general, no one could escape the equality under the law. How did Rome lose their empire; Ceasar held themselves above the law. At the second that law was to be applied unequally to the various classes of citizens in Rome, the fall of Rome was set in stone.

Flash forward a couple of thousand years, what do we find; the law is no longer the supreme entity governing civilized behavior. For the cost of a lawyer, all laws become rubberized, twistable, and not applicable to those with enough money. More than that, the tools of law, police officers, are not treated to the same laws they are enforcing, and the Monday morning quarterbacks strip them of their initiative, ability, and dignity. Gavel

The USA Today calls this Monday Morning Quarterbacking “transparency.” As a point of fact, USA Today credits their actions to George Floyd’s death. The officers involved in the George Floyd debacle followed standard and acceptable policing procedures. George Floyd died from the drug combination in his system and his own stupidity. Yet, the officers have been harassed into jail, their lives destroyed, their families ruined, all because the George Floyd inanity “looked bad” to the same media who hold themselves above the law. The same laws that magically did not apply to Michael Jackson, politicians like Hillary Clinton, or even the Bidens and Romneys. The media harps and complains when the rules are applied equally to them, and then harps and complain when the law equally applies to causes or people the media protects. What destroyed Rome was the failure to equally apply the law to all citizens regardless of job, title, and friendliness with reporters. H. W. Beecher sums the problem nicely:

“Expedients are for the hour, principles for the ages.”

Laplace also pitches some additional power for consideration:

“Truth and Justice are the immutable laws of social order.”

What is most often missing in modern society, any country globally; truth and justice are the laws of good social order. Calling upon Frank Crane again, we find more consideration upholding the majesty of law:

“Truth is the logic of the universe. It is the reasoning of destiny; it is the mind of God. And nothing that man can devise or discover can take its place.” The only constraints that you have on your income and advancement potential are those you place ...

What are the constraints upon a mans potential; look to the laws that man will obey. Going back to Rome, Julius Caesar was but one of the more notable of Rome’s emperors; what moral laws did he obey; not many. What social laws was he willing to follow; few to none. Is it any wonder he was stabbed? Modern society has the term “Arkancide,” it was invented to describe all the mysterious deaths, accidents, and happenstances that occur to people close to the Clinton political machine. True, nothing has ever been proven, and neither President Clinton nor Hillary Clinton has ever faced justice, and I am not casting aspersions. Merely noting there are a lot of incidents that need full and complete explanations, and transparency and accountability appear to be dodged by the Clintons at every turn.

Not that these two are the only politicians needing to face a judge and jury to explain and expound the whys and wherefores, merely noting they are definitely in the top ten of those needing to come clean about their actions while supposedly being “public servants.” Hence the point of laws and the power in obeying the law. When those who need to explain and expound come clean before the law, this concludes the speculation and truth and justice are meted to those needing it.

Image result for grace and truth came through jesus christ | Law quotes, Lovely quote, Words Think of the great questions in modern society where truth and justice would solidly end speculation. JFK’s murder, Epstein’s “suicide,” TWA Flight 800, Michael Jackson, OJ Simpson, etc. Yet, for all the world, the truth remains missing, and questions rightly remain. What is the power of law; the ability to publish the truth. Consider the wise words of Rousseau:

“Truth is the most precious of all blessings; it is the eye of reason.”

Radcliffe detailed the same semaphore a little differently:

“There is no progress in fundamental truth. We may grow in [the] knowledge of its meaning, and in the modes of its application, but its great principles will forever be the same.”

Both authors are semaphoring the same message and provide clarity of reason to denounce the falsehood that the US Constitution is a “living breathing document.” This constitutional republic’s foundational principles of the American experiment are not living or breathing but are alive only through our continuing growth of knowledge in how we apply the principles. Only those who would destroy the law talk of the principles as “living and breathing,” easily changed,” or “plasticized” into any shape to justify the application of law to let the guilty free and punish the innocent. Law Cartoon # 6402 - ANDERTOONS

Cast your mind upon the first amendment to the US Constitution, also the first of the rights discussed in the US Bill of Rights:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Why is this the first right in the US Bill of Rights; without this right being acknowledged by the government, the executors of government would have zero restraint before forcing people to believe what they choose them to believe. Communism in China requires the CCP member to carry their “little red book” close to their hearts. Mimicking and parroting the twisted ideals of Mao, who learned them from Marx. Equally as important is the final phrase, the “right of the people to PEACEABLY assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances [emphasis mine].” Tell me, how often have riots been “peaceful petitions for grievances to be redressed” in any of the recent years? I repeat only for emphasis, when you block traffic, start fires, yell, scream, destroy property, etc., you are no longer “peaceably assembled” you are a terrorist group, and the total weight of the law should come down upon; you! Ravi Zacharias Quote: "Justice is the handmaiden of truth, and when truth dies, justice is ...

Consider all the “criminal justice reform,” “bail reform,” and other legislated and judicial chicanery foisted upon the American citizenry. Surely Colton and Joseph Parker are semaphoring an urgent message:

“Truth, like light, travels only in straight lines.”

“Falsehood is in a hurry; it may be at any moment detected and punished. Truth is calm, serene; its judgments on high; its king cometh out of the chambers of eternity.”

Leo J. Muir asks a question worthy of deep consideration, “Why this rigorous inflexibility of law?” The answer should be apparent, especially when considering Rome and comparing America’s growth and current deterioration, “The immutability of law is the assurance of progress and the guaranty of justice upon the Earth.” The US Constitution cannot be an easily plasticized document and still be a foundational bedrock of this constitutional republic. A stone cannot be like silly putty, a non-Newtonian fluid. Solid one moment, flexible another, shatterable, and resilient. Laws cannot be a law and be shapeable and moldable to a situation, for then it is no longer a law, but a good suggestion applicable only to specific situations and people. Is the point clear? truth : alcoholism

William Ernest Henley, in his immortal poem, “Invictus,” declares this immutable truth poignantly in the final stanza:

“It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the master of my fate,
I am the captain of my soul.”

The entire poem Invictus is a declaration of the majesty of law, the power of law, and the reliability of law. Obedience of law does produce fruit or consequences for choices made, and in that choice and consequence cycle comes the justice and mercy of the law. Once, I was asked, when I step before the bar of God, for a final judgment, do I want a lawyer or an advocate? I do not want a lawyer, for a lawyer only plays with the law. I want an advocate who knows the law, is aware of my good and ill choices, and can plead my case as if my fate was worth the universe’s weight. How would you answer, and why? Do you understand the role of law better? What will you do right now to honor the law, even if in honoring the law you must loyally oppose those who are twisting the law for personal gain?

Knowledge Check! Let me be perfectly clear; I abhor the suffering the Ukrainian people are experiencing in the strongest language. I denounce the actions of Russia in creating violence. But, Zelensky is using the excuse of a Russian invasion to destroy the laws of Ukraine and create a dictatorship. These actions are as reprehensible to me as the invasion of Ukraine! Yet, if the American citizenry does not awake and arise, using the laws currently written, we too will see ourselves in a similar position. Where the laws of America are twisted out of shape and then used as a cudgel to beat the American spirit out of her people, and destroy the last bastion of freedom on Earth. The saving grace for America is her laws, and her citizenry needs to demand that all are equal under the law, for the innocent to escape and the guilty to be punished.

Let us now understand the role of law and thank “Whatever gods may be” for the immutable power of law!

Wants vs. Needs – Problems vs. Inconvenience

I recently encountered a highly emotionally driven individual who claimed to have a problem but could not identify whether they were experiencing a problem or inconvenience. This person wanted but could not identify a need. The heaped emotional hyperbole only added fuel to the fires of hostility. From this encounter, this article is born.

Wants

Wants are things we wish for, desire strongly, and do almost anything to acquire. First-world nations generally want material things, and in many parts of the world, food is wished-for in sufficient quantity to silence the hunger pains and provide a good night’s sleep. Is coffee a want or a need?

Needs

Needs are items that are necessary, indispensable, and required for survival. Many people claim they need coffee in the morning to “start their day,” but the need is the caffeine, not the coffee. Coffee is a want as the preferred method for obtaining caffeine. Lacking coffee, is this a problem or inconvenience?

Problems

Problems cause difficulties, presenting a puzzle requiring solving, people who are difficult to deal with, and personal matters requiring action, not merely words, represent problems. For example, lacking coffee, the problem becomes how do I obtain sufficient caffeine to begin my day—a problem requiring solving to feel empowered to act. A want, masquerading as a need, presenting as a problem, is merely an inconvenience in truth.

Inconvenience

Inconvenience is rooted in the word inconvenient, and something inconvenient is merely an annoyance or a disruption in the normal routine. Walking to the coffee pot and not finding sufficient grounds to make a cup of coffee is an inconvenience as it disrupts a plan.

A simple analogy, but adequate to the purpose of helping to identify the differences between each item under investigation. Wants are desires embodied; not getting those wants is inconvenient; plotting for a way to obtain that which is desired presents a problem or a puzzle for solving but cannot ever elevate a want to a need. Needs are more critical problems requiring solving; not obtaining a need is not inconvenient; it is imperative, which if not resolved always leads to a negative consequence.

For example, the Daily Signal is reporting, sourced from the Media Research Center, that the ratio for censoring by big tech is 53 to 1 Republicans to Democrats. Does this present a problem or an inconvenience? Is less censorship a want for Republicans or more censorship a need for Democrats? Some people will erroneously claim, “It depends upon which side of the political aisle you reside.”

Why is this an erroneous claim; for the simple fact that censorship is a denial of liberty and freedom. When one person is denied their rights and freedoms for political gain, everyone loses all their freedoms and liberties. The Second Amendment cannot stand with the First Amendment. Theft of the First Amendment for one person is a roadmap to stealing the First Amendment rights of all people. The Third and Fourth Amendments to the US Constitution fall apart by removing the First and Second Amendments. The legal framework of the Rule of Law is forever destroyed when the US Bill of Rights can be controlled by political operators for personal or political gain. The importance of understanding the interconnectedness of the Rule of Law with morals, values, and the social contract cannot be understated.

What is the Social Contract?

The social contract is an agreement that all capable people living together in a society form with each other, declaring they will abide by a specific set of behaviors, ideals, and shared beliefs codified into law, which undergirds the “social fabric” of a society. The social contract of the United States of America is found in the US Constitution and the US Bill of Rights, the first amendments to the US Constitution. By choosing to be labeled an American, we agree to honor the rights of all people to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, so long as their pursuit does not inhibit another person from pursuing the same.

We understand that the pursuits of life, liberty, and happiness are a path, a journey, not a destination, and not a guarantee. We respect those who achieve and emulate them to reach the same potential destination. We Americans possess hope, born of struggle, that we can achieve liberty and happiness fairly and realize the consequences are ours alone to enjoy or curse based upon our decisions individually.

Let me pause here; currently in K-12 education, witnessed in Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Seattle, and many other locations, the public education system is intentionally abusing children. Stealing their potential by refusing to teach them, and in so doing is raising generations of people who will struggle their entire lives in captivity and ignorance. These actions by teachers, administrators, and elected political officials are intentional and stand in direct opposition to the social contract. However, the children, and their parents, retain the ability to choose a different path, even if it means trying to learn how to read, write, and figure independent from the school abuse. Individual agency to pursue life, liberty, and happiness is the first and quintessential aspect of being an American!

Here’s the rub…

Despite government intervention, the government arbitrarily picks for political gain and personal advancement (through cheating) those which achieve without effort, and Americans inherently despise this aspect of government. Consider the vitriol thrown at Hunter Biden, who has achieved, lived beyond his means, and benefitted from his family’s political connections. The Pelosi’s, Kennedy’s, Clinton’s, Obama’s, Romney’s, and so many others who have achieved, living off the backs of pioneers, but have not contributed, breaks the social contract. Theft, lying, and breach of honor in America are crimes, but when the criminals escape justice, this breeds contempt, copy cats, and empowers others into chasing the same path to a modicum of success through devious and nefarious means—rendering the social contract impotent, sundering any hope of success without government intervention, and placing millions of Americans into captivity.

Look at the disgust America has for Big Technology firms. While these firms have achieved and pioneered success, they have turned monopolistic, oligarchical, and thwarted their competitors, all for personal gain. How are these companies pursuing keeping their gains? They are employing the government authority. They are using mergers to acquire intellectual property to protect their revenues, abusing the power of law, all of which harms competition. This also breaks the social contract, sundering the social fabric of America and destroying the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness of others.

The want of power is breeding a need for correction in America by the oppressed. Look at the rising feelings of freedom as expressed in the #FreedomConvoy. Other examples include the protests against the interminable government mandates, the continued spreading of information deemed by the government, and Big Tech as “misinformation.” Presenting us with a question is this a problem or inconvenience; the answer is PROBLEM! This means there is a solution to the problem and a path to fix the rips in the social fabric and mend the social contract in America.

What is the solution?

With a nod to The Lorax and Dr. Seuss:

“I, the Once-ler, felt sad
as I watched them all go.
BUT…
business is business!
And business must grow
regardless of crummies in tummies, you know.

I meant no harm. I most truly did not.
But I had to grow bigger. So bigger I got.
I biggered my factory. I biggered my roads.
I biggered my wagons. I biggered the loads
of the Thneeds, I shipped out. I was shipping them forth
to the South! To the East! To the West! To the North!
I went right on biggering… selling more Thneeds.
And I biggered by money, which everyone needs.”

Return to the Rule of Law, smaller government, and stricter adherence to a moral code. Some will claim, also erroneously, this is not the solution or is only a solution in a “perfect” “utopian” world. However, I counter with the following, “What has brought America to this precipice?” The 1880s saw the rise of bureaucrats restricting the ability to read, as a means of controlling the population, born of fear, and as racist an action as enslaving people! Post-WWI, repeated more severely Post-WWII, the rise in government as a means of “recovering from war.”

Trace through history, and every time the government has undertaken a path to grow, the industrial complex has more closely tied itself to biggering government as a path to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. However, the growth of government has come at the expense of the electorate through increased laws and legislation, bureaucratic mandate, and larger standing police organizations. All this while simultaneously reducing the quality of education, restricting the power to read, write, and figure, and calling the advances “progress.” Restrictions on competition, merging to form larger military-industrial organizations, and increased costs have shut out citizens from politics, thus capturing the reigns of government to keep feeding the growing beast.

Recently Biden has begun pounding the war drums to escape the financial problems, social unrest, and other problems at home. He is sending congressional representatives out to try and support protecting the national borders of Ukraine while removing and destroying the borders of the USA. Why take this path of war and destruction; because it has always worked previously. If Biden can get America focused on war, he can keep biggering the government without scrutiny and with the tacit approval of the electorate.

Look at history, especially recent history, and you will find that the most nefarious, liberty stealing regulations, legislation, and bureaucratic mandates have come while America was focused on 9/11, Afghanistan, Iran, ISIS, and the list goes on and on. The hellaciously destructive and misnamed “Patriot Act” was born from 9/11, when had we merely focused on enforcing the laws already on the books, Americans inside America would not have lost all constitutional rights within their own country. The Patriot Act is but one example of the problems created by confusing wants and needs, mistaking a problem for an inconvenience, and using the cudgel of government authority to force behavior changes in the citizenry.

The 9/11 commission found hundreds of places where the bureaucrats enforcing government failed, but were any of these people held accountable? Were any bureaucrats forced from their cushy jobs and made to pay restitution? Of course not, because this would have made the American government at fault as a co-conspirator and facilitator of 9/11’s terror attacks. So, the solution was to avoid culpability, shirk responsibility, and appease the bureaucrats at the expense of all citizens.

COVID-19 is another example of runaway liberty theft, rights reduction, and smoke and mirror charades. The government seized power from the people, biggered itself, and broke the laws for convenience while the electorate was focused elsewhere. How’s that bigger government working for you? Are you tired of being authoritatively ruled, restricted in your pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness? Do you understand the problem? If so, what do you need?

COVID-19 is a viral disease, humanity has survived a lot of viral diseases, yet COVID is somehow different, or so we have been told. Since COVID kills less than .01%, the response has to be the complete and total destruction of the Rule of Law, the restriction of rights, liberties, and the destruction of all we have held dear. But none of those mandating will answer why or how COVID is different from any other viral disease humanity has survived.

The government needs to bigger itself, or it dies. In competition with a bigger government, the citizens need to be “… secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.” The party winning in this competition must be the citizen, and the citizen must staunchly defend all encroachment to their privacy, rights, freedoms, and liberties under the Rule of Law. We, the American Citizens, deserve a smaller and less expensive government; this is not a problem or inconvenience; it is a necessity!

If you believe in the potential of all to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, join me! If you prefer the thumb of government and the boot of oppression, find me when you tire of being abused, cheated, used as cannon fodder for illicit wars, and robbed from, so a select few government employees and elected representatives can live off your sweat and tears. This is the stark reality we are living in right now! We must choose a side and then stand. As Father Mulchay said, “You can’t miss when you have good material.” We, those who stand fast in our liberty, cannot miss, we have good material (the US Constitution), and we can win the day!

Jacob and Esau – The Perils of Government; An Analogy

Bobblehead Doll Several books of scripture, in multiple religions, record the story of Jacob and Esau. Jacob and Esau are twins male children of Isaac and Rebekah. The boys were competitors for their entire lives. Esau acts outside his parent’s wishes in marriage, sells his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of pottage (stew or beans; something cooked in a pot), and late in life is reconciled to Jacob even though his people continue to have animosity towards Jacob’s people to this day. While the story of these twin brothers remains useful to those in religion and teaches several morals of importance, Jacob and Esau represent a classic tale of why government should be limited in size and scope.

Genesis 27, Old Testament, contains the story of how Jacob obtains the birthright blessing, which had been sold to him by Esau for the aforementioned bowl of pottage. Consider with me what would have happened if the same bloated government we have right now had meddled in the affairs of Isaac, Jacob, and Esau. The cost of meddling in the internal family affairs, the government would have taken 40% inheritance tax. Esau would have always had the government as a millstone and ready excuse for not reconciling with Jacob, and lawyers and government officials would have further sundered the family.

Remember this, for it has importance in the following discussion, the government does not grant freedom, EVER! As described and stated in the US Constitution and US Bill of Rights, freedom comes from a power higher than government, and government was only, ever, instituted for the benefit of man. Ask yourself, is your government benefitting you? Plato 2

I guarantee the answer is no; regardless of the political spectrum, you prefer. Why, because the government should not be exerting powers in areas that control or curtail the freedoms of the people. Esau never valued his birthright, so selling it was easy, and a bowl of pottage was a rich reward for something he did not value.

How expensive is government-funded medical treatment? Some will claim, but those receiving treatment never see a bill; really? Costs are more than merely a statement representing the need to pay money. What about the loss of privacy? What about the loss of freedom to choose what treatments and providers are best for you? What about the loss of innovation to the thumb of oppression from the government? What about the loss of self-reliance and the health benefits of independence? What about the destruction of your community and the connections people felt with and pride for community hospitals? What was lost when the medical community forced, through the abuse of government intervention, the knowledge of herbs for the sterility of Big Pharmaceutical drugs?

For the hope of a prosperous retirement, what was sold; freedom and money in the now. Yet, one should ask, where does the government get the power to take money, then give it back at some future point? Except, how many of those government retirement Ponzi Schemes are fully funded, even with all the money flowing in? The answer is as empty as Esau’s bowl. Still, the government continues to steal money through forced taxation and purchase the hopes and liberties of citizens for that hoped-for bowl of pottage, prosperity in retirement. Plato 3

For the hope of reducing poverty, the government purchased a class of people whom they could abuse and ignite for political gain anytime they want or desire. To create this aggrieved class of people, the government took over welfare programs, bought people with bread and circuses, asked them to stay in government houses, live on government food, enjoy government-provided entertainment, etc. What was sold for this bowl of pottage; liberty, potential, freedom, upward mobility financially, safety and security, and hope. What has been the consequences of this purchase; a permanently aggrieved class of people who look longingly at another’s possessions and desire them through theft because hard work is racist, demoralizing, and stops the government handouts. Worse, the government had to grow in power and size to “manage” this class of people, creating those with six-digit salaries to rub the purchased people’s faces in the irony of what was lost in the purchase.

The United States has been waging a “War on Drugs,” almost since its founding. The government considers one drug “good,” mainly due to the ease of controlling it for taxation purposes, and another drug “bad.” Yet, how successful has it been in this “war?” Not at all, and its failures are increasing year-over-year, even while new methods of taxation are being invented to manage “legal drugs.”

Alcohol in the United States has had a history of acceptance, tolerance, legal banning, and returned to tolerance and acceptance, all through human desires, abuse of government powers, and the need for tax revenue. Sin taxes, the class of tax used to allow a citizen government approval to get drunk, stoned, or inject poison into their bodies, are among the highest taxes in America. Yet, the more the taxes increase, the more people want these products, and the more the government wants people to use these products, for we see the purchase of something transitory using something highly precious to barter. What is more precious than time and physical health, and what is purchased but something that can only temporarily ease pain or provide relief at best. Apathy

Tobacco has been a favorite drug of the government for its population to enjoy, pushing the popularity of the drug even while condemning and restricting how, when, where the drug can be enjoyed. Tobacco farmers have played vital roles in American history, and the product has been a significant cash crop for government revenue. Have you ever wondered where the money and research facilities originate to improve cigarette addiction? Have you ever considered where the marketing materials originated to pitch the health benefits of smoking? Do you realize that government is the biggest provider of money for research and marketing purposes? Never forget the government has become flush with cash, pushing tobacco, regulating tobacco, and licensing tobacco. Now ask yourself, why would the government give on the one hand and take on the other, because it is making money with both hands as people sell something precious for something valueless and transitory.

Do people get injured and need assistance; yes, but the government is never the answer to provide help. Are there those who are trying to thrive and escape poverty; yes, but the government is never the answer to providing help. A truth from time immemorial, governments do not produce anything; thus, the government must first take through legalized theft, taxation, and legal abuse to give to someone else. Every representative government must walk a balancing act between what a government is and what responsibilities a government must shoulder. Except, how many continue to make Esau’s mistake and sell something incredibly precious for something transitory and essentially valueless?

Worse, evaluate the consequences of allowing the purchase to occur. First, the seller experiences buyer’s remorse, anger, jealousy, regret, and the government making the purchase laughs, making the bitterness of the sell more poignant. Second, the seller needs an outlet for this buyer’s remorse. In an effort to continue to purchase while appeasing, the government allows the seller to go destroy the property and goods of another less politically connected person and calls this social justice. Third, the abused class of people who are not politically affiliated or are political rivals, whose property is being destroyed, looks on, and envy, malice, and contempt are bred, which furthers the goals and desires of the government. The Duty of Americans

Esau took a long time to be reconciled to Jacob, but it first required admitting that he had sold his birthright (something of great value) for something transitory and valueless (food). Jacob and Esau’s story remains of great importance and a cautionary tale, especially for understanding why government needs to be smaller, less involved, and less able to abuse the citizenry. For too long, the governments worldwide have either abused their powers to purchase or been established as a tyrannical and oppressive government. Either way, the government is the problem, and the answer continues to be the same, curb the government!

Knowledge Check! If COVID has taught the populations of the earth anything, let us learn this valuable lesson, the government is the problem, not the solution! The size of government is oppression, the cost of government is theft, and the loss of precious freedom and liberty for transitory and valueless gifts or benefits which come at too high a price in treasure and other precious resources. We, the owners and the abused of government, must change how we think and feel about the role of government before all is lost to the ever-hungry maw of government and self-interests!

© Copyright 2021 – M. Dave Salisbury
The author holds no claims for the art used herein, the pictures were obtained in the public domain, and the intellectual property belongs to those who created the images. Quoted materials remain the property of the original author.

Making the USPS Irrelevant One Disastrous Decision at a Time!

The viral post office | Viral post, Post office, Postal police By now, it is apparent that the USPS has utterly failed in its primary job of delivering the mail. That the US PS has been failing for my entire life is a topic the politicians do not want to discuss. That the business model the USPS is based upon has never been a profitable one, the overhead is disastrously expensive, and the labor costs beyond exorbitant are also not topics the politicians ever want to discuss. They prefer smoke and mirrors, purple squirrels, and Hollywood celebrity scandals to actually doing their jobs. But, I digress; last week, the USPS announced that postal service would revert to the slowest it has been since the 1970s, and the cost for that dismal service is going to increase dramatically.

All weekend the reasons for the USPS being in this fix have been stewing in my mind, and I would like your insight as I discuss the main reasons why the USPS is in such bad shape. Feel free to disagree. Feel free to comment. Feel free to ask questions and research further. To my mind, the most damning problems to the USPS come from the following areas, too much overhead, labor union expenses, business model, and no clear political place in government. Save the US Postal Service! By a zillion dollars comics | Politics Cartoon | TOONPOOL

Labor Union Expenses

Let’s get something clear, the labor unions in government are living high on the hog of taxpayer forced taxation and mandated union dues. Consider the following comment from Representative Dennis Ross.

“UPS (Union) – about 66% of their total operating costs are labor. FedEx (non-union) – about 45% of their total operating costs are labor. USPS – 80-82%.”

Here’s the rub in comparing UPS, FedEx, and USPS; they are not apples and apples; it’s more like apples to rocks. Why? Because UPS and FedEx must show a profit to shareholders at the end of the year; thus, anytime USPS runs into an unprofitable situation, they rely upon USPS to fill the gap. FedEx operates slightly differently based on its business model. From observation from living in extreme rural areas, it does not appear to rely upon USPS as often to cover the gaps in service.

However, the labor costs at USPS continue to run extremely high, and the excuses for these labor costs continue to run thinner and thinner every year. Looking at six specific USPS explicit labor union-negotiated labor costs:

1. 1. Compensation levels – What each employee under the collective bargaining agreement is paid.
  2. Work rules – How often an employee works, who they report to, uniforms, and a host of other processes and procedures, which can and do increase business operating costs.
  3. Contracting – Includes independent contractors, contracts for retail locations, pickup locations, and much more.
  4. Network differences – Differences in the network affect the labor involved in delivery, sortation, transportation, and retail portions of an end-to-end movement.
  5. Capital intensity – Differences in capital requirements affecting the amount of non-labor costs needed to provide services offered.
  6. Congressional requirements – Congressional requirements focus on the aspects of the Postal Service that add more labor costs influencing capital spending.

Hence, if we take Rep. Ross’s statement as accurate, Congress is to blame for some of the added expenses the USPS incurs and the hidden taxes the taxpayer pays to interact with the USPS. This is why the place in government is such an influential portion of this discussion. Congress has been pushing the costs of regulating the USPS onto the taxpayer as a hidden tax since the USPS was started. This is unacceptable, especially since the taxpayers did not have a voice in allowing the USPS to become unionized, tripling labor costs year-over-year. P.S.E Context of PA: SWOT Analysis of the United States Postal Service

Please note, when discussing labor costs tripling, we are not just discussing wage earners’ take-home pay. Labor costs, as shown above, include those six items, plus a host of labor union contracted benefits, plus retirement benefits, plus administrative staff to handle these benefit packages, the regulatory burdens, the reporting burdens, and much more. Thus, while comparing UPS, FedEx, and USPS is unfair and illogical, the labor costs are pretty close to accurate even though they cannot be compared due to business model, Congressional reporting, and quasi-governmental meddling by politicians. Any company with 80-82% labor costs will be struggling with labor problems and turning a profit. Labor costs, fed by a labor union, are a reality that needs rectification and addressing. USPS 2011

Outdated Business Model

2009 the USPS paid a lot of money to have their business model reviewed, and the result was an excellently written document that outlined two potential steps for the USPS to take. Where is the USPS in adopting either of these actions in 2021; nowhere! Why has the USPS not taken any action on this document since 2009; Congress! Item number six in labor costs continues to rear its ugly and monstrous head, and the problem is not so much on USPS; although they indeed share the blame, Congress continues to drag its feet and refuses to scrutinize the government appropriately.

When discussing the USPS business model, the industry is discussing “optimizing the last mile” in the supply chain. That last mile is where the USPS has traditionally filled in the gap and made the final customer delivery. However, USPS is inefficient, costly, and labor-intensive. Yet, until science fiction realizes a Star Trek-like replicator in every home, optimizing the last mile is the discussion we need to be having, and solutions are available!

The 2009 business model review offered franchisee options as a business model — what a novel idea. Imagine getting your mail on your commute route, no more having it delivered to an apartment box, packages waiting on a doorstep for thieves, stop by a convenient place on your regular commute route, and get all your mail. Why not have your mail delivered to your office? Then your office mailroom becomes an arm of the post office; it can sell stamps, handling packages, and then you do not have an extra stop at all. Talk about an employer-based incentive! Better still, for a fee turning over retail establishments to non-profit groups for work programs. Guess what; that has the benefit of increasing public outreach and building communities. Yet, the USPS languishes because Congress refuses to take up serious topics, and our tax dollars are squandered!

Place in Government

Read the US Constitution, the US Bill of Rights, other founding documents, wherein is a postal service discussed? Find me the article claiming we need a Federal Postal Service. Name me the reason why the Postal Service is required. Selling stamps, that can be done using a myriad of different methods. Sending packages, mailing letters, again, many other options are available. Passports, hundreds of other options are available; why not put that into DMV’s across the US? Why not simplify the Passport process entirely?

What is the reason for the USPS? Give me the why and justify the existence for the next 20-years for the USPS. My entire life, I have been asking why the USPS is needed, and I have been asking this since before email, fax machines, and other technological leaps.

Overhead

When was the last time the USPS had personnel layoffs to balance their accounts? 1970, under President Richard Nixon, USPS had a strike, got a unionized workforce, and, as they call it, “a living wage.” From 1970 to 2021, there has been nothing but problems in the USPS; from retirement benefits costing too much, to labor expenses, to Congressional expenses increasing year-over-year, the overhead does nothing but balloon. I was recently in a flagship USPS for Phoenix, AZ. The building is a disgrace, the parking lot is neglected, the lobby is dark and missing half the materials, no forms, no boxes, everything is behind the barred and locked counter, and the retail associates are criminally negligent in their duties. What’s worse, this was a good USPS office to visit in Phoenix, AZ.

Take an honest appraisal of your local USPS and ask yourself, are your taxpayer dollars represented in your USPS in a manner acceptable to you? I visited a USPS in Las Cruces, NM. The design of the building lends a bright feeling to the building atmosphere; the retail area is small and naturally illuminated. Same problem with retail associates, but not as noticeable. However, this was also before the latest changes from Washington, where the employees were told it was okay to work slower and charge more. More is Less at the USPS | Freeport Press

It is my personal opinion that the USPS has outlived its usefulness, and it is time for the USPS to be eliminated from quasi-government offices of the United States. Nothing fruitful can be gained from continuing the charade of the USPS. Congress needs to return to the states the ability to issue addresses and organize their communities and end the USPS debacle!

© 2021 M. Dave Salisbury
All Rights Reserved
The images used herein were obtained in the public domain; this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.

Do We Understand?

Bobblehead Doll One of my closely held beliefs is that we will be held accountable for the heritage left us by those who have fought and bled, and came before us. When I see the farrago that has become Afghanistan, the ineptitude of Vietnamese legacy, the current condition of the White House, politics in America, and the politicians refusing their jobs. I am always left asking, “What will our forefathers say?” With hundreds, possibly thousands of Americans abandoned in Afghanistan by the sitting US President, a complicit Congress, and the spineless Joint Chiefs of Staff, I cannot help but wonder what the President Generals of the United States will say to these people.

Before we hear from the US President’s, let us first clear our minds with the following from Mark Twain.

“The statesmen will invent cheap lies, blaming the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself the war is just and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.”

The fraudulent president, Joey, and his Joint Chiefs are in this position right now. They are deceived, they deceived themselves, and if America is not careful, their self-deception will mean enemies on Main Street. No hyperbole, no scaremongering, no warmongering; simply truth simply stated. Joey and his Joint Chiefs are blaming America for being in Afghanistan for too long, and the chaos in leaving is America’s fault. Their self-deception should not be our problem, our lie, or our “conscience-soothing falsity.” Angry Grizzly Bear

President (Colonel) Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt has the next word, and he declares and details our problem precisely:

“Political parties exist to secure responsible government and to execute the will of the people. From these great tasks, both of the old parties have turned aside. Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare, they have become the tools of corrupt interests which use them impartially to serve their selfish purposes. Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day” [emphasis mine].

Do we understand the problem? Are we clear about the issues facing our nation? Is the mission clear? The current crop of politicians have purposefully turned from their roles, like dogs to their vomit, and refused the people who elected them for personal power and individual success. Well, what do you do when you catch your dog rolling in its vomit? What do you do when you find a toddler crayoning the walls after telling them no? Will the adults in the room, please stand? You are needed! photo_slideshow_max

President (Lieutenant) John F. Kennedy provides a caution pertinent to this discussion, and a word of timely caution is worth gold and silver to those who heed and follow its counsel:

“The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in ensuring our nation’s survival if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is a very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. …
For we are opposed worldwide by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, subversion instead of elections, intimidation instead of free choice, and on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system that has conscripted vast human and material resources into building a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed” [emphasis mine].

There are lots of questions about who has been pulling Joey’s strings. Who is president right now, as senile Joe is not in charge, Kamala is not in attendance, and Pelosi is silent and retiring shortly. The Afghanistan farrago is humiliating, devastating, and despicable; yet, none of the politicians are willing to be publicly outspoken, convening investigations and using their powers to lead and rescue Americans. Why? Congress has the War Powers Act; they can act independently of the US President and demand that the US Military enter Afghanistan, rescue US Passport holders, and destroy American hardware, munitions, and other war materials. Congress could depose the US President legally, through impeachment proceedings, and install a new president. Yet, nothing is happening. Why? Plato 2

President (General) George Washington provides guidance, counsel, and direction worthy of consideration in the following panacea of quotes:

- “The power under the Constitution will always be in the people. It is entrusted for certain defined purposes, and for a certain limited period, to representatives of their own choosing; and whenever it is executed contrary to their interest, or not agreeable to their wishes, their servants can, and undoubtedly will, be recalled.” … “Be Americans. Let there be no sectionalism, no North, South, East, or West. You are all dependent on one another and should be one in union. In one word, be a nation. Be Americans, and be true to yourselves.”
- “Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society.” … “It is impossible to govern the world without God. It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits and humbly implore his protection and favor.”

Herein is a call to action, from a general mustering both his troops and citizenry, calling all able-bodied people to learn two great truths. First, we are the owners of government and hold the reigns of power. Second, we cannot make the changes needed without the help of almighty God, regardless of the name we call Him. For too long, we have been divided on the first and not allowed to perform the second, and it is time to end the power that divides and separates. The Duty of Americans

While not a military president, his cunning mind is a powerhouse of wisdom that provides essential ideas and insight, and I am pleased to quote President John Adams. Again we find a panacea of quotes:

- “Every problem is an opportunity in disguise.” … “It should be your care, therefore, and mine, to elevate the minds of our children and exalt their courage; to accelerate and animate their industry and activity; to excite in them a habitual contempt of meanness, abhorrence of injustice and inhumanity, and an ambition to excel in every capacity, faculty, and virtue. If we suffer their minds to grovel and creep in infancy, they will grovel all their lives.”
- “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

Are we allowing the suicide of the American Republic through the groveling in the infancy of our children’s minds? Look at K-12 education and how ideas from the late 1800s and early 1900s continue to shape your child’s classroom experiences — producing functionally illiterate products at state-run schools, abusing your child of their God-given potential, and robbing them of a lifetime of learning through labels, invented science, and drugging them into submission. Angry Wet Chicken

Yet, President Adams is correct; the problem of K-12 education is an opportunity in disguise. The opportunity to learn is an individual one; it is an opportunity for the community to step in and demand the politicians go away; it is an opportunity for citizens to awake and arise and refuse the cruel gruel of oppression and require the fruit of liberty be fed to their children.

There are two pieces of wisdom passed to us from President Thomas Jefferson also apt for this discussion:

- “Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty.”
- “If you want something you’ve never had, you must be willing to do something you’ve never done.”

Knowledge Check! With these thoughts, we come to the brief conclusion of this article, but not the conclusion of the need for learning, teaching, and action. The destruction of America has progressed sufficiently that none of us now living have experienced the tempestuous sea of liberty due to the calm lakes of despotism that has overtaken our land. Desire something you have never had, real liberty, and let’s be willing to do everything we need to possess this gift for ourselves and pass something better to our children!

© 2021 M. Dave Salisbury
All Rights Reserved
The images used herein were obtained in the public domain; this author holds no copyright to the images displayed.

“All Power is … Derived From The People.” – The Consent of the Governed

If you are browsing a second-hand bookstore and come across the book “We, The People: Great Documents of the American Nation” by Jerome B. Agel, I recommend picking the book up and adding it to your library. I have not found a better book discussing the founding documents of this great American Republic. It is historically accurate, provides insights, and is a treasure of wisdom and knowledge.

A phrase in the Declaration of Independence has always captured my imagination and held fast to my mental processes. “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” It has always been understood that men invented governments for the ruling of other men. Rome was a perfect example of this principle, and in writing down the laws, the first attempt at a moral government responsible to the people was attempted. However, it is the second part of that phrase that we are discussing, “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Consider this principle for a moment. First, governments have just and unjust powers, and second, the powers originate with the consent of the populations agreeing to be governed by the government. Czarist Russia is an excellent example from history where the people had enough and began looking around for a new government. That the people were hoodwinked and communism was imposed upon them remains one of the great tragedies of the last century. In less than 100-years, Russia went through two incredible government upheavals is mentally incredible to consider. Plato 2

Unjust powers of government are those powers governments assume where the people have not granted them consent of the governed. When governments take enough of these powers upon themselves, the population’s revolution, anger, and frustration are the only outcomes possible. Worse, the governments are breaking their laws and the trust of those who elected them, proving that the most dangerous person is an honest person betrayed.

Bobblehead Doll All of which is mentioned as we discuss the origin of the philosophy of the consent of the governed in American jurisprudence. Virginia, 1776, The Virginia Declaration of Rights prefixed the Virginia Colony’s constitution and was written by a reluctant statesman and largest landowner, George Mason. In sixteen statements on government and the rights of man, we find the consent of the governed and the need for controls on government pertinent to our day and time!

1. 1. “All men are by nature equally free and independent, have certain inherent rights, … namely the enjoyment of life and liberty, possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”
  2. “All power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.”
  3. “Government is or ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people. … A majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.”
  4. “No man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community.”
  5. The state’s legislative and executive powers are separate from the judiciary, and the operatives return to being citizens after their respective terms in office, in accordance with the laws of the land. [Edited for brevity]
  6. Contains three principles of import:
    - - Elections should be free and open to all.
      - Property cannot be taxed or deprived for public use without consent.
      - Those elected are bound to the same laws as the citizens.
  7. “All power suspending laws or the execution of laws by any authority without consent of the representatives of the people is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised.”
  8. Deals with a criminal trial, due process, speedy trials, a jury trial, and a unanimous jury.
  9. Deals with fines, bail, and cruel or unusual punishments.
  10. Deals with search and seizure requiring evidence of a crime and the need for a warrant to be based upon evidence or not to be granted.
  11. Holds sacred the rights to a jury trial, including for disputes between two people over non-criminal issues.
  12. Holds sacred the power of the press as a bulwark of liberty, and restraining the press is an action of despotic governments.
  13. Details that standing armies in peacetime should be avoided and a well-regulated militia is proper and natural for the defense of the state. Important to note, “the military should at all times be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
  14. Demands uniform government that applies to all people.
  15. Declares that “No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.”
  16. Declares that “Religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience, and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.”

Let’s Discuss

Are we in trouble? We didn't do it!!! — Are we in trouble? We didn’t do it!!!

In opening the discussion, one of the most egregious and despicable actions witnessed every year is the failure to follow the strictures of a peaceful society as required in the 16^th statement, to practice the “mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.” Having been a student of religion, I have found no religious stricture, in any organized religious teaching, to living in harmony with others by practicing forbearance (tolerance, patience, and kindness), love (respect, kindness, gentleness, meekness, all unfeigned), and charity (service) to those in our society. Atheists, this includes you; it is time to live in harmony with others and stop the lawfare. If someone is not violently demanding you adhere to their religion and religious tenets, then leave them alone!

I Find the following extremely important to the news developed, especially over the last two weeks. “No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles” [emphasis mine]. Let’s break this down:

- - Justice: Decency to all as a behavior of equality and commitment to moral rightness.
  - Moderation: This is all about not going to extremes, being restrained, knowing the boundaries and staying within limits, and being reasonable and approachable.
  - Temperance: While primarily used in drinking alcohol, this also applies to any behaviors where self-restraint, moderation, and expressions or observance of temperate behaviors are required.
  - Frugality: Besides being a good steward of other people’s resources, being frugal requires being sparing, prudent, economical, thrifty, and reserved.
  - Virtue: Requires moral excellence, modesty, personal dignity, goodness, and conformity to a standard of righteousness.

Knowledge Check! These are fundamental principles of liberty and the foundation upon which government is built and sustained. How often do you hear politicians discussing these terms, returning to these principles as terms to write laws worthy of printing for society or as standards for scrutinizing the government agencies? What did we observe in government this week that adhered to any of these fundamental principles to America or any other government succeeding in the past week? Does anyone argue that Gov. Cuomo’s actions in New York were virtuous? Were the CDC Director’s edicts frugal, temperate, moderate, or just? How about the reaction by Congress to the mandates by the CDC? Did they perform their jobs to scrutinize the legislative branch using these principles?

Now, some will decry that this is a document solely for the Commonwealth of Virginia and does not apply to the entire United States. Yet, I would counter that the principles and language of this document are interwoven into the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the US Bill of Rights, and every other founding document and US State Constitution. Thus, why could we not use The Virginia Declaration of Rights as a template to benchmark and measure the performance of politicians and bureaucrats?

Fundamental principles do not age, expire, or possess a shelf-life. Hence, knowledge of the fundamentals empowers action by the electorate to change, correct, and demand government adherence, for we are the owners of our representative government. We, the electorate, need to teach these fundamental lessons to the politicians, then demand they adhere and hold accountable the bureaucrats to the fundamental principles of liberty, or we all lose this precious government of the people, by the people, and for the people, where the consent of the governed is respected.

Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot: The Illinois Edition

Exclamation Mark The story is linked in case you missed the news on 09 July 2021; Illinois has become the first state in AMERICA to mandate ASIAN History be taught in K-12 education. Let that sink in for a moment. AMERICAN History has been abused, twisted, contorted, and NOT taught in AMERICAN schools in ANY of the 50-US States. But Illinois wants students to learn Asian History. Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot Illinois!

What is the reported reasoning for this move?

According to a statement from Governor JB Pritzker, the reason for this move is as follows:

“With the recent rise in acts of violence and bigotry against the Asian American community, teaching students about the rich culture and important contributions of the Asian American community throughout history will help combat false stereotypes” [emphasis mine].

For your information, the legislation is called the “Teaching Equitable Asian American History Act,” and the special interest group pushing this legislative nightmare is Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago. The website includes a Los Angeles branch, the Asian Law Caucus, AAJC, and an Atlanta branch. Another special interest group involved in this legislation is PAVE (Pan Asian Voter Empowerment). My first question about this legislation comes from the name, “What is equitable Asian American History, especially when American History is not being taught?” Lemmings 5

What is in the curriculum?

The curriculum declares it is compliant with Common Core standards, which doesn’t mean anything as teaching masturbation to first graders is compliant with Common Core Standards. However, PBS Learning media has a website dedicated to the curriculum plan for teaching Asian American History, even though the curriculum does not describe “equitable.” PBS Learning media claims to be “pleased to present over 30-lesson plans based on a fiver hour documentary Asian Americans in American History. While the Illinois legislation claims that K-12 will begin learning about Asian History, the reality on the PBS Learning media is that the published lesson plans only go from third grade to twelfth grade. Leading to my next question, “Where is this push for historical teaching coming from?”

Plato 2 I have not viewed the series; I have barely scraped the surface of the curriculum offered. What I have seen of the curriculum worries me. I call it “whitewashing” history, to glance over the actions of one group to reflect how other groups were treated, with the intent of stirring the racial divides and creating more chasms based on race alone. What I see in this curriculum does nothing to “ … teach students about the rich culture and important contributions of the Asian American community throughout history” or to “combat false stereotypes.” I ran a search engine using the string, “Violent migrant worker strikes, involving Asian people,” and the first item on the list returned originates with the Seattle Civil Rights & Labor History Project, sponsored by the University of Washington.

The context, labor union organizing, which everyone should know, includes the growth and development of Marxist ideology in America. How did the labor unions create a space for themselves? They drove wedges between groups of people based solely upon race, creating contention, becoming violent, and hiding behind equity and fairness to escape responsibility and accountability for laws they sundered.

Let me be clear!

Knowledge Check! Let me be clear; every group across the skin color spectrum has historically had problems in American society. Any time race separates, chaos, confusion, and violence are bred! I am proud that America has grown out of oppressing people based on the color of their skin and do not judge American history as racist just because historically, people acted out of fear when treating their fellow men fairly. History is full of people who made terrible choices, and teaching that these choices were poorly made is important, but race, religion, handicap, etc., should NOT be the focus on the content in history. The focus of history should be on what grew out of specific actions in specific epochs of time.

America IS better for the Civil War, even though the US Government continues to hinder economically and is biased against the states that formed the Confederate States. A dumb historical decision that has kept many states from achieving greatness is due to President Lincoln’s death and the hostility in the US House of Representatives, the US Senate, and President Andrew Johnson. All of whom believed that the Confederate States needed to be mightily punished. In contrast, President Lincoln was pushing for national forgiveness. Thus, we need to focus on the events, not the race, color, lines of separation and division, but on the outcomes and the fruits from those decisions when teaching history! The Duty of Americans

State’s Rights

I affirm in clear language that a state has the right to set the curriculum of government-mandated schools. I support state’s rights to the fullest and would see each state prepare their students to meet the world and win! Paradoxically, I also affirm in language clear that this legislation will do NOTHING to “combat false stereotypes” but will only increase racial division and disharmony in Illinois and any other state who refuses to learn the lessons from history.

History and Racial Focus

Content of their Character Think about this quote for a moment, who are the biggest race hustlers in America? History has taught that when race is the only concern worth knowing people care only about race, to their demise. Focusing on race is the sole reason why I have questioned, and continue to question, the validity of the arguments for National “Name your Favorite Minority” Month celebrations. There are absolutes in this world; focusing solely upon race as a choice, will breed racial tensions as a consequence, is an absolute. Recent history under President Obama reflected this exact issue to the Nth degree, yet nobody wants to have that discussion. Why; because of race!

Bob Marley When your focus is solely upon an individual’s race, race will be the only thing learned, the only lesson absorbed, and the fruit of that lesson are bitter. Have people from various races achieved great things; absolutely, but why should their achievements be diminished by focusing solely upon their race? Why should their achievements only be mentioned during “Name your Favorite Minority” monthly celebrations? Has the 1960s taught us nothing about the character, knowledge, talents, curious minds, and the work performed where race was NEVER an issue? I have books galore in my home; I continue to collect books about famous people of great accomplishment; I have never cared a whit about that person’s sex or gender. Why; because their sex and gender, race, skin color, religion, handicap, or heritage have never been a factor. As a kid, a thrill ran through me when I read the preamble to the US Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” [emphasis mine].

Even today, these words continue to guide me. Show me; where in the Declaration of Independence does it discuss sex, race, heritage, religion, handicap, etc.? NOWHERE! A lesson America needs to relearn if she is to survive. What hinders the pursuit of happiness, capturing inalienable rights, and stops liberty; focusing upon that which divides instead of that which unites!

Patriotism From the National Archives website, we find the following regarding the Declaration of Independence:

“The Declaration of Independence states the principles on which our government, and our identity as Americans, are based. Unlike the other founding documents, the Declaration of Independence is not legally binding, but it is powerful. Abraham Lincoln called it “a rebuke and a stumbling-block to tyranny and oppression.” It continues to inspire people around the world to fight for freedom and equality” [emphasis in original].

Think about this for a moment. The American Identity, the bedrock principles upon which America was built, the power cell for liberty and freedom across the world, begins with a simple truth:

A document that is not legally binding holds power to inspire actions that unite people, provided our focus is not on those things which separate us. Cementing the lesson discussed herein, focus on race and racial division is the only lesson learned, and the resulting fruit is bitter, chaos ensues, and problems abound in violence. Why have we not learned these lessons from the 1960s, the Watt’s Riots, the death toll in Chicago that makes war zones safer than the streets of Chicago; the focus is on race, not the potential. The focus is on the sex, the invented genders, the handicaps, the religions, the heritages, etc., not on what is essential, character and potential, freedom, liberty, and equality under the law.

Knowledge Check! We need to get back to teaching history, where the focus is on how the decisions and actions from the past hinder or help the present so that the future can be better. Failing that, we desperately need to cease focusing upon race, gender, sex, religion, handicap, and heritage as these things only matter to the individual and not to historical records. Failing that, America fails, and the light of liberty and freedom will be lost to the annals of history forever. So, gather the fruit you choose, focus on race if you prefer, focus on gender, sex, handicap, veterans status, and every other line of separation. Your fruit gathered will be most bitter indeed, for you will miss the rich tapestry of human interaction, for the dirt caught in the fabric.

Powering my third and final question to the legislative and executive branches of Illinois, “Knowing all this, why are you focused on race and forcing students to focus solely upon race?”

Rights, Liberties, Freedoms, Responsibilities, Privileges: A Definitive Declaration!

Knowledge Check! In a previous post, I wrote about the principle of self-control and liberty in law; I did not realize the turmoil caused by not understanding the difference between a right, liberty, freedom, where responsibility enters, and how these principles work together. My apologies; I learned these differences as a child and never considered that others might not be able to detail, define, describe, and delineate between these fundamental principles. My plan originally with this article was not to provide a definitive declaration; then, I researched some of the claptrap online being passed off as learned scholarly discussion and was disgusted! Thus, my aims and intents changed; I would see this article be referenced and used to aid in clearing up the confusion generated by word plasticity and modular language tyranny.

Along the way, I will include both links and resources for further study for your ability to grow and feel confident in defending rights, liberties, freedoms with responsibility and dedication. Only through learning can we, the owners of representative governments, begin to change government direction and regain our liberties and freedoms!

Rights

The founding fathers of America understood rights and called them inalienable. There is a reason for this; rights cannot be taken away. An individual can give rights away, but because a right is inalienable, it means a power greater than the government has distributed these rights, and all are equal in their possession of these rights. Inalienable specifically refers to rights that cannot be surrendered, transferred, or removed permanently from a person.

How does a person give away an inalienable right; they refuse to accept that a right is inalienable. Consider the US Bill of Rights, a document full of those inalienable rights or rights that cannot be surrendered, transferred, or removed permanently from an individual. Consider one of the first inalienable rights discussed in the US Bill of Rights, religion. What you believe is your choice; nobody can, or should, have the power to tell you what you believe. Belief transcends thought into a unique place inside your brain; some would call it a soul. Depending upon your flavor of religion, a soul could or could not exist. I am not writing a definitive declaration about religion, I am writing about rights, and your personal belief where religion is concerned is fundamental to you expressing yourself.

Plato 2 Is the distinction clear? A right cannot be stripped from you by anyone, ever unless you choose to deny your inalienable rights to that particular right. For example, the US Bill of Rights declares your ability to defend yourself is an inalienable right. You choose how to protect yourself, e.g., guns, fists, sticks, knives, alarms, police, etc. How you choose to defend yourself is your inalienable right, and you deserve to be protected in your rights to self-defense. If a person attacks you, you have the inalienable right to self-protection. This is established through case laws. How many women have been physically, sexually, and mentally abused by a spouse or partner, who then took action to defend themselves and were acquitted at trial; too many to mention in a declaration on rights. Just know, you have a right to self-defense, and this right can never be stripped from you by anyone but you.

Liberties

Liberties are a little more complicated to define and detail. Some applications of the word liberty include freedom from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. Whereas liberty is also a power to act as one chooses, even if that action breaks a society’s accepted standards, i.e., laws. Liberties can also include unwarranted risks, deviations from facts (lies), departing from compliance to the accepted and proper methods of prudence.

The Duty of Americans In most societies, you can purchase and legally become the owner of an item due to the purchase. Thus, liberty allows you to become free to use that purchase however you desire. Until the use of that purchase interferes with someone else’s inalienable rights. For example purchase of a baseball bat is legal, mostly around the world. Use that baseball bat for its intended purposes, i.e., to play baseball or softball, and the government does not infringe upon your liberties. Use that baseball bat outside its intended purposes, to break windows, cause injuries or property damage, and you can lose your liberty and your property.

Imperative to understanding, liberty can be taken by force through the law, government action, and or improper use of liberty. Perform an imprudent act, and someone is going to take your liberty away. For example, in Hong Kong, China has ruled that freedom of speech has been curtailed. While freedom of speech is an inalienable right, China refuses to honor free speech as an inalienable right, and Hong Kong peoples suffer. The people of China and Hong Kong can still speak their minds exercising their inalienable rights, but taking these liberties to exercise their rights, has been strictly and violently enforced by a government refusing to believe people have inalienable rights.

Patriotism Thus the confusion and complication in defining and detailing liberties. Liberties can be taken and refused; liberties can be eliminated by government force and social changes. Liberties are not inalienable rights or even a right. You do not have a right to liberty. You may pursue happiness, but achieving happiness is not a right, freedom, or liberty.

Consider the purpose of government as detailed in the US Constitution’s preamble:

“… In order to form a more perfect Union (Government), establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

Consider also the purpose for the US Bill of Rights, as the first amendments to a brand new constitution:

“… Prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (US Government) powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

The government creates liberties, calls these rights, and then attempts to confuse the problem. For example, welfare benefits as currently understood (2021) are significantly different from welfare benefits understood in (1920) America. Today, people on welfare benefits consider their government-provided support a right when in actuality, it is barely a liberty. Most importantly, those welfare benefits can be restricted, removed, curtailed, curbed, and denied based upon the whims of government. This is why welfare is not a right and barely a liberty. Welfare benefits are barely a liberty because someone else has to pay for the privilege of supporting another person through forced taxation (legalized theft). Life Valued

Freedoms

Freedoms are even more complicated, and freedoms have been made more challenging to understand purposefully by political design as a means to steal liberties and rights from individuals, under a myriad of different names, i.e., social justice, equality, freedom, and civil liberty, etc. Let’s start with civil liberties, which are neither a right or a liberty, regardless of the politician pushing the name.

Look Civil liberties are freedoms you pay the government to enjoy. For example, driving a car requires a license. By issuing licenses, the government can control the population, even though driving is considered a privilege, a right, and is often confused with “freedom of the open road,” which is two lies for the price one. Another example is marriage. Marriage throughout human history has been a tug-of-war between religion and government. As a point of reference, marriage ceremonies are unique in the human condition anthropologically speaking. But, as a civil liberty, the government can restrict you from marrying your pets, marrying objects and can grant and deny marriage privileges as it deems appropriate to the political situation.

The state does not recognize some religious ceremonies for marriage, which means that marriage is null and void under the state’s control. Yet, under that religious belief, that marriage is binding. Consider China again; China refuses to honor Christian marriage ceremonies as valid under the law and several other religions and religious traditions. Thus, civil liberties are at best an approved and licensed government action, not freedoms, liberties, and rights. As the saying goes, “The government giveth and the government taketh.”

quote-mans-inhumanity Freedoms are often defined as political independence, which is fine insofar as civil liberties are concerned. Freedoms entail several other qualities that the government cannot give, take, invent, or delete. True freedoms do not need legal support from case law to be enjoyed. True freedoms include living without restraints, acting without control or interference, and not being bound by conventions, rules, and authorities. It cannot be stressed enough, even though liberties and freedoms share some components, they are merely similar, not identical. In trying to push liberty and freedom as equivalent, the tyranny of language is discovered to sunshine disinfectant. A right, especially those inalienable rights, are not freedoms or liberties to be granted and removed at the power of authority, and the distinction should be clear.

Privileges

Privileges are easy to understand; privileges are permission granted at the request of an authority to grant limited power, responsibility, or situational control over something. What is a driver’s license, the privilege to drive, which can be revoked at the whims of the government issuing the privilege (license). Civil liberties are a privilege granted by an authority; ownership is not conveyed, legal responsibility extends only for the controlled use under strict supervision by the authority. For example, while a state employee, I was granted the privilege of operating a state-owned vehicle, provided I followed all the rules set forth by the state issuing that privilege. Ending state employment ended the privilege of operating that government vehicle. Easy enough to understand, a privilege is not a liberty, freedom, right, or inalienable right.

A privilege also contains immunity from commonly imposed laws, standards, and social constraints. Think of the police officer who makes a right turn across multiple lanes of traffic. To conduct their job and fulfill their duties, police officers sometimes have to break laws to enforce a greater law or protect the safety of others and are immune from breaking those traffic laws that the rest of us must follow. However, even in this instance, a privilege is not freedom, a right, or liberty, simply authority granted immunity when on the job to act in a manner that supports public safety and enforces the state’s authority over driving privileges.

The Role of Responsibility

Responsibility is a word that gets thrown around too often where the definition is muddied, and the intent is to harm and control someone else. Responsibility is nothing more or less than the condition of being required to account for one’s actions, behaviors, and the consequences of the same. For example, a defendant in a courtroom can be required to account for and make restitution for behaviors, actions, and consequences that were out of compliance with societal norms; we call this type of responsibility justice.

On a less extreme example, a child is out throwing rocks, the rock thrown breaks a window, who is responsible, the child or the parent? The child should be held responsible and taught accountability; however, society is moving more and more towards holding that parent responsible. Except, does this hurt or help the child stop throwing rocks? Now, I have heard parents proclaim that throwing rocks is a right of passage for children, and the child should not be responsible for the consequences. Therein lay the problem with freedoms, liberties, privileges, and rights, the role of responsibility.

Exclamation Mark It has been said that my freedom of speech ends where your nose begins. Thus, I cannot exercise my freedom of speech through physical violence, or I lose my right to speak and, more likely, some freedom and property as well. Thus, the role of responsibility begins with knowing the extent of and limitations formed around rights, freedoms, liberties, and privileges, for ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Our responsibility of living in society is to know the rules that form the laws and the social constraints of that society.

For example, the people of Germany have worked hard to make their country beautiful, and the principle of living in a Germanic society is In Ordnung. If something is out of order, for example, litter, the person creating that situation outside of order is publicly shamed. In America, the societal norms have been beaten and hindered, so that a person coming into America illegally has the rights, as granted by the government, not to learn the language, learn the culture, or even assimilate. Whereas those coming legally into America are required to learn, adapt, and assimilate into America. Thus, the role of responsibility can be used selectively to provide civil liberties to one group while withholding those same rights from others based upon political conditions.

Conclusion

Rights, especially inalienable rights, are yours as provided by a higher power than the government. Liberties are the power to act without constraint, provided your exercise of liberty does not infringe upon the inalienable rights of another. Freedoms rest upon political independence, something feared by every bureaucrat and power-mad politician in history. Privileges are permissions granted by a higher authority to conduct business or fulfill a purpose. Civil liberties are not liberties, but privileges can be taken away by authorities and social changes. Regardless, the role of responsibility is inseparably connected to rights, liberties, freedoms, and privileges. One day, accountability will be demanded for the responsibilities connected to how a person used their liberties, freedoms, rights, and privileges.

References

Leadbeater, C. W. (1913). The hidden side of things. Wheaton, IL: The Theosophical Publishing House.

Lieberman, M. D. (2013). Social: Why our brains are wired to connect. NY: Oxford University Press, USA.

Poerksen, U. (2010). Plastic words: The tyranny of a modular language. NY: Penn State Press.

Paine, T. (2008). Rights of man, common sense, and other political writings. NY: Oxford University Press.

Tucker, W. (2014). Marriage and civilization: How monogamy made us human. NY: Simon & Schuster.

Spread the word:

Like this:

Spread the word:

Like this:

Spread the word:

Like this:

Spread the word:

Like this:

Spread the word:

Like this:

Spread the word:

Like this:

Spread the word:

Like this:

Spread the word:

Like this:

Spread the word:

Like this:

Spread the word:

Like this: