Who Protects and Serves?

On June 27, 2005, in the case of ­Castle Rock vs Gonzales, the Supreme Court affirmed earlier decisions when it found that Jessica Gonzales did not have the right to be defended by police. The earlier decisions it was affirming were an 1856 decision (South v. Maryland), wherein the Court found that law enforcement officers had no affirmative duty to provide such protection and a 1982 case (Bowers v. DeVito), wherein the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, “…there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.”

This means that, even in the unlikely event that the police are positioned in proximity to where you are when threatened, they have no obligation to protect you.

Now, think about that.  The police, paid with our tax dollars and driving cars we paid for, emblazoned with mottos such as “To protect and serve” have no obligation to protect you.  How many times have you been in an area that made you uneasy only to see a police car and feel more secure?  How do you feel about that secure feeling now?  If the police don’t think they can win or, really, if they are just tired, they do not have to engage to protect you.  This goes against everything we are taught but it is unmitigated reality.

Why haven’t you heard about this already?  How could such an important thing have gone unmentioned?  Well, do you really think they are going to advertise that and have people re-think their support for the taxes required to support the local police, Sheriff’s department and State Police?  What effect would such knowledge have on the population?  Those are the first folks that will assure you they will protect you—even when it is demonstrable that they have failed to do so time and time again.

When your home security alarm is triggered do you still have visions in your head of the hyper-responsible alarm call center calling your local police and immediately dispatching officers to ride to your rescue?  Well, you shouldn’t because the officers don’t have to do it!

In addition to this, in most cities, the police have developed an attitude of “Us and Them”.  Guess which one you are?  This attitude leads to much more dangerous attitudes such as the “We have to show them who is in charge” attitude that has led to thousands of police brutality charges across the country.  The shocking thing is how often the police are found to have acted outside of the law in these cases.  It is a common occurrence to see the police brutally beat handcuffed “suspects” and, in several cases, even shoot them.  Just search YouTube for “police brutality” to get more than you can bear to watch.

I am a good citizen and I used to believe that cases of police brutality were blown out of proportion until a friend of mine witnessed a handcuffed, non-resisting “suspect” have four police officers suddenly just tear into him kicking, punching and using batons.  After talking to my friend, who like me was a Conservative Republican, I went out and did some searching and found the sickening number of videos on YouTube and on news websites all over the country.

“So what?” you say, “What is your point”?

I actually have two points.  The first of these is that anyone who is unprepared to defend themselves is, literally, unprotected.  Period.  If you do not have the knowledge and the means to defend yourself you are, by definition, unprotected.  That alarm may serve to bring a vigilant neighbor out to take a look and it might even bring a police response but not soon enough to stop someone intent on snatching you or one of your loved ones or, especially, if their intent is to kill you or a loved one.

So the first point: Get a gun and learn how to use it well.  After that, get a concealed carry permit and carry everywhere.

Why do you think the police do not advertise the fact that they are not obligated to protect us?  What effect would that have?  Folks would feel the need to protect themselves, right?  What would happen then?  People would go out in droves and buy guns and other means of resistance to being assaulted.  We all know it.  Once the initial shock and denial was finished they would go out and buy, buy, buy.  So, why do the police not want a bunch of folks going out and procuring the means to protect themselves?

My second point is that the multiple levels of law enforcement of this country are rapidly becoming dangerous to the people they pretend to be responsible for protecting.  From the group beat-downs of suspects to “show them who is in charge and make them respect us”, TSA’s grope-fest at the airport and the “VIPR” teams doing the molestations at football stadiums and other big events to the DHS drones monitoring your city for “terrorist activity” and the NSA’s “big ears” listening, watching and reading as much about you as they like, the agencies we thought were protecting us are beginning to spin out of control and threaten to do just the opposite.

I am not yet at the point where I am going to encourage an armed citizen to make a citizens’ arrest of an officer they see engaged in gross violations of Constitutional Rights but, if I were to see someone do that, I’d certainly step in to help them.   I’m not at the point where I think we need to protect ourselves from the government but….oh, wait…actually I am exactly at that point.  I hope that if you aren’t, this article moved you one step closer to being here with me.


What is the “Gray”?

Many Americans believe that anyone with the wisdom of a few years knows that there is a gray.  When chance brings them together with someone who believes that there is only black and white, they either write them off as a “religious whack job”, “tolerate” them and breathe a sigh of relief when they are gone or they are outright hostile towards them.  Children who believe there is only black and white are ridiculed by teachers and counseled by school counselors in an effort to “help” them—as though they have something wrong with them!

So just what are black, white and  gray?  Black is, of course, evil and white is good.  You know, Satan and God.  Black and white are metaphors of morality.  Many people have a moral code that is a bit fuzzy around the edges.  They can usually differentiate between right and wrong but they are also often hesitant to try to unravel the moral complexities.  Their hesitation stems from emotion triumphing over logic, an inability to admit that something they have done is wrong or a lack of a solid standard upon which to make the judgment.  These are the promoters of the gray.  The gray is supposedly an indefinite area between the black and white.  It is an area of moral uncertainty of indefinite size that varies in each person’s unique moral code.

A moral code is typically defined by a number of things in a person’s life.  It is influenced by one’s upbringing, one’s peers, etc.  It is also influenced by contact with or isolation from religion.  It is influenced when one’s parents divorce and it is influenced by the outcome of prior decisions.  It can be as unique as a person’s frame of reference.  This potential for wide deviations was recognized as destructive of society from the very beginning.  Humans enforced a strict adherence to a shared set of values, or moral code, as they built their societies.  Those who failed to adhere to the shared moral code, what we think of now as the law, were shown the door very quickly because it was recognized as a disqualification for association with that society.  We recognize the same truth today when we sentence criminals to prison or even to death.

… freedom of men under government is to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it. A liberty to follow my own will in all things where that rule prescribes not, not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man, …” — John Locke, Second Treatise, Ch. 4 § 21.

The shared moral code of the United States is based upon the Christian Holy Bible.

Our law and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind.  It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian. …this is a religious people.  This is historically true.  From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation…we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth…this is a Christian nation.


                                                                                                                              Justice David J. Brewer

                                                                                                                              Holy Trinity Church v. U.S.

Justice Brewer was, in penning the majority opinion of the Supreme Court, not suggesting that Christianity is in any way the “established” religion of the United States.  He went on to write a book entitled The United States A Christian Nation:

But in what sense can it be called a Christian nation?  Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it.  On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.  Neither is it a Christian nation in the sense that all of its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians.  On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders.  Numbers of people profess other religions, and many reject all.  Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in the public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially.  In fact the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions.

                                                                                          Justice David J. Brewer

                                                                                          The United States A Christian Nation, (1905)

What Justice Brewer, and the majority of the Supreme Court of the United States, says in his opinion is that the Christian religion provides the standard by which morality is measured in the United States.  It forms the basis for the core philosophies that comprise the foundation of the United States of America.  One of those philosophies is articulated in John Locke’s Second Treatise on Civil Government. Below, the first several lines from Second Treatise are quoted:

Sec. 1. It having been shewn in the foregoing discourse,

1. That Adam had not, either by natural right of fatherhood, or by positive donation from God, any such authority over his children, or dominion over the world, as is pretended:

2. That if he had, his heirs, yet, had no right to it:

3. That if his heirs had, there being no law of nature nor positive law of God that determines which is the right heir in all cases that may arise, the right of succession, and consequently of bearing rule, could not have been certainly determined:

Continued exploration of Second Treatise reveals even more references to God and First Treatise refers to the Bible and God even more liberally.

There are other philosophies contemporary to or pre-dating the establishment of the United States that do not reference God.  Many would have us believe that these formed the basis for the nation.  A serious examination of history by any fair-minded person will reveal the truth.  It is an exploration that is rewarding and educational and I encourage all to do the research for yourselves.

The point one hopes can be made is that there is a solid standard by which all Christians, by definition, can measure to discern the difference between good and evil.  The United States, and a vast majority of Western civilization, can trace their laws and their current moral codes back to Christianity.  So why is this important?  It is important in this discussion because the “gray” and its promoters are, knowingly or not, engaged in decaying the very foundations upon which our civilization and government exist.  “Who could want to do that?”, you ask.  The sad fact of the matter is that anyone with a good education in history or the will to pursue self –education of same can find the proof of what I say above readily—and I do mean anyone, including our enemies.

“This grasp of the duality of all phenomena is vital in our understanding of politics.  It frees one from the myth that one approach is positive and another negative.  There is no such thing in life.  One man’s positive is another man’s negative.  The description of any procedure as “positive” or “negative” is the mark of a political illiterate.

Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals (Vintage books, 1971) Page 17

When the idea of the gray was born it was not intended to be a weapon aimed at our country.  The concept of the “gray” comes from Taoism or Daoism and the gray appears early in Western society as well, in the form of Plato’s Dialectic.  They both share a central theme: There is good in everything evil and there is evil in everything good.  One cannot know precisely how much of either is in a specific action and, therefore, everything is shades of gray.  The basic principles of the dialectic:

  1. 1.        Everything is transient and finite, existing in the medium of time (this idea is not accepted by some dialecticians).
  2. 2.        Everything is made out of opposing forces/opposing sides (contradictions).
  3. 3.        Gradual changes lead to turning points, where one force overcomes the other (quantitative change leads to qualitative change).
  1. Change moves in spirals (or helices), not circles (sometimes referred to as “negation of the negation”).

One sees the symbol of the Tao message in many places in modern society.  It is the symbol called Yin and Yang.


Yin & Yang

The moral uncertainty reflected in the gray was compelling to a couple of young Germans.  They were seeking a weapon to fight capitalism and both understood that one must attack the foundations of capitalism to destroy it.  In Western civilization the foundation of capitalism is Christianity and both had been taught so at university (if you question this learn the history of the Knights Templar).  Karl and Friedrich finally developed the theory that they believed capable of toppling Western civilization.  They called this theory Dialectical Materialism.  The book they wrote is called Das Kapital.  The political/economic system it advocates is called Communism.

How is Communism aimed directly at the heart of the West?  One of the core tenets of Communism, or Dialectical Materialism, is that man has no soul.  Communists believe that man is merely animated matter.  Without a soul, the argument for God-given Rights is undercut.  This is also the purpose behind the advancement of Darwin’s theory of Evolution.  The links between Marx and Darwin are well documented.  Anything that is destructive of the foundation is elevated and anything that strengthens it is ridiculed.

The United States is founded upon the belief that Rights are directly conferred by God upon each individual person.  The excerpt below is from the second paragraph of the 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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The Founders warned us repeatedly to not lose sight of the origins of our Great Nation:

On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. — Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)

The Founders knew what Marx and Engels knew: the political destruction of the United States depends upon the destruction of the foundation of our nation.  The theft of faith from millions of Americans by our schools and institutions and the all-out war the “progressives” are waging against religion finds its origins in this simple understanding.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them…Whatever may be conceded to the influence of a refined education…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.[1]                     

                                                                                                                                                                  George Washington

The gray is, quite simply, the decay of the foundations of the United States of America.  Once the standard has been removed from sight and the ambiguity of the gray prevails the United States will cease to exist.

One evening a young lady went out with a wealthy man.  They were having a quite wonderful time and all was going well.  At the end of the evening the man realized that he was not going to be able to charm the young lady enough to get her to have sex with him, so he asked her: “Would you sleep with me for $20.00?”.  The young lady looked offended and replied that she would not.  Undaunted, the man asked, “Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?”.  The young woman enthusiastically nodded her approval but was taken aback at the millionaire’s next question: “How about $50?”.  “What do you think I am?”, the young lady fumed.  The man replied, “We have already established what you are–now we are just debating the price.”.

                                                                                                                                                Unknown to author


[1]James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897, (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899) Vol. I, pg. 220, September 17, 1796.

The United States and National Suicide–A How-To Guide

“The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”–Lenin

“An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.” –Arnold Toynbee

When Lenin uttered the words above he revealed his understanding of the darker side of capitalism: greed unrestrained by morality.  In previous posts I laid out some of the evidence that the United States is a nation founded upon Christian values.  The danger of subversion of those values is that freedom cannot exist in the absence of morality and responsibility.

When one is analyzing an enemy, the key is to understand how one’s weaknesses can become strengths and how the enemy’s strengths can become weaknesses.  The strength of the United States is it’s economy.  WWII Japan and Germany discovered this too late and Reagan used this natural strength again in helping to win the Cold War.

Capitalism is our strength but when unrestrained by responsibility and morality, it is a recipe for national suicide.  It is the weakness of the strength.  When the drive to make money trumps the security of the nation or the responsibility to do that which is right, it follows that those who pursue these profits will act against the security of the nation in the most irresponsible ways.  The need to grow profits and the attendant need to expand markets to do so, have led businesses and special interest groups in our country to not only lobby for irresponsible and damaging policies but they have lured many of these companies into acts that are directly responsible for the difficulties that plague our nation today.  Loose immigration enforcement, “free” trade, most-favored nation status for China and relaxed export laws for dual-use technologies are all playing a part in the erosion of our nation’s supremacy.

Illegal Immigration and Free Trade

I recently discovered a site that has a plethora of statistics on how illegal immigration is affecting our country.  This site reveals frightening details of the impacts to everything from sex crimes, drug crimes and infrastructure to medical care.  The disturbing information on this site is readily available to the officials in our government but, too often, they look the other way.  Why?  The simple fact of the mater is that illegal immigrants represent cheap labor.  Democrats and Republicans both look the other way because they have not taken the time to look at the issue and understand why businesses need this cheap labor resource.  Neither have they attempted to educate our citizens as to why they are not a viable resource to these firms.

Business profitability is all based on COGS.  COGS stands for the cost of goods sold.  COGS is the difference between earnings and profits or net and gross.  Labor intensive businesses can most readily reduce COGS by utilizing an inexpensive labor force.  When it comes down to it, the vast majority of the immigration issues in our nation are a result of COGS and, more specifically, the price of labor—skilled and unskilled.

The price of labor is an amalgamation of wages, taxes and benefits.  The benefits include a couple of things that one might not think of: Social Security and Unemployment Insurance.  The addition of these two government-mandated benefits, along with the government-mandated minimum wage makes the use of citizens of the United States extremely expensive for unskilled labor-intensive industries.  Why does the guarantee of a “living wage”, retirement benefits and a fund to help workers between jobs have such an effect?  Because they raise the price labor and therefore of production.  This means that these government-enforced benefits cause a direct increase in COGS.

Back in 1994 an agreement called NAFTA went into effect.  NAFTA stands for the North American Free Trade Agreement.  It is a treaty that created the largest trade bloc in the world and its provisions were intended to level the playing field across borders.  Goods produced in Mexico are treated, by law, as though they were produced in the United States or Canada and vice-versa.  There are no import or export taxes for goods crossing these borders.

This means that a labor-intensive industry in Mexico has a significant advantage over the same industry in the United States and the advantage was created by our own government!  There are two ways to eliminate this advantage: 1) Eliminate the minimum wage and allow the market to set the rate for labor, 2) Open-up our Southern border and allow illegal immigrants to cross the border and work.  Since #1 is strongly opposed by our economically uneducated population it would have been political suicide.  Thus illegal immigration has been allowed to continue unabated by both parties.

Now that we are opposed to illegal immigration, are we economically educated and willing to implement the second mechanism to eliminate the advantage?  No, of course not.  This means that one of two things must occur: 1) The industries must acknowledge that they cannot compete and close-up shop or move their business to Mexico, thus eliminating a number of US jobs, loss of tax revenues and overall loss of contribution to the productivity of our country, 2) Find a way to do the work that is not labor-intensive (technology).

The effects of NAFTA on Mexico have created an interesting phenomenon whereby Mexican citizens are incented to come to the United States.  Understandably, Unskilled labor-intensive industries such as industrial farming have the largest advantage in Mexico.  As one can see from the data available at this link, this has caused movement of population from the cities into the rural areas and has caused an overall decrease in the number of workers with salaried jobs.

Despite what Libertarians and others, not the least of which is the Republican Party, would have you believe, regulation of trade and immigration has nothing to do with the freedom of a people within a country. Under our Constitution the federal government was originally funded by tariffs and is empowered to regulate foreign commerce. In the same Constitution, the Founders prohibited the establishment of unequal market barriers between States and empowered Congress to regulate commerce between the States.  There is no question that market barriers are a key part of sovereignty and national security.

Why do I say that? Let’s look at the market principles first: a given market will achieve equilibrium within its boundaries. Making the market larger does produce short term profits and economies of scale but long term, the effect is the same. Thus, having a single, free market, that spans the globe will result in the same equilibrium point that one would achieve within national boundaries in the long term–from a PROFIT perspective, ceteris paribus.

Free trade is also a mechanism of wealth redistribution. The wealth redistribution here is, technically, free as opposed to compulsory. The reality is that in the mid-to-long term it is not free and the effect is that those from wealthy countries end up with less. Also, if one wishes to buy a product not made in the region that produces it most efficiently, one will be out of luck in the mid-to-long term. Saying that the market will correct for this is wishful thinking in many cases. At the very least there will be a period of indeterminate length during which the market pressures will be inadequate to produce results and choice (freedom) will suffer.

We have been pursuing a policy that assumes that we want to be economically equal with Mexico and many other countries while they pursue a policy intended to suck as much wealth out of us as is possible.  While we pursue the utopian BS of equality the leadership of many countries such as China are pursuing dominance.  We are committing national suicide.

The problem with economics is that attempting to discern choices is extremely complex. People will do things to themselves, economically speaking, that are not intelligent at all (i.e. lack of savings), despite the assumptions required for theoretical economic understanding. While the effect is on an individual or a small group it is not a problem. When the effect is on a nation there is a problem that involves both questions of sovereignty and sometimes questions of national security.

In my opinion the radical free-traders are just as bad as the Keynesians and nearly as bad as the socialists. When you combine Keynesian economic theory with radical free trade and socialism you get massive debts and huge deficits along with high unemployment. It is a vicious cycle and we are several “swirls” in.

Let’s discuss the impact of Keynesian economics on our nation.  The foundation for the modern financial system of the United States started in 1933, March 9, 1933 to be exact, during the 73rd Congress and was instituted pursuant to the authority of the President under the War and Emergency powers in the Constitution.  A Senate Committee, in 1972, stated in its report “Since March the 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.”.  The election of FDR and the willingness of the masses to give him unprecedented power resulted in this complete re-ordering of the financial system.  His manipulation of the Supreme Court allowed it to continue to this day.

The new system was linked to precious metals, except for short periods of de-linking, until 1972 but was not directly based on them—a direct violation of Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution. The new system, as recorded in law and in the Congressional Record, used mortgages to secure the currency. Mortgages are given out by banks, banks use the mortgage to buy credit from the Federal Reserve, the Fed uses mortgages to secure external national debt sales. The entire system has been a Keynesian system since that day. The Keynesian debt bubble was institutionalized and the first unexpected result was inflation–which is actually currency devaluation. The politicians like to call it price inflation, though, to make it seem like the fault of the companies as opposed to monetary devaluation which is caused by the government’s monetary policies.

Remember: this was the fault of both parties. This all started in 1933 and each government thereafter has had the opportunity to change back to the previous, non-Keynesian (Smith for example) system of original economics. None of them have done it. Until this is done, we will continue to have the rollercoaster ride of the Keynesian system and massive levels of external debt. The key thing to remember about external debt is that the value of the external debt instruments is directly tied to the wealth production capacity of the people and companies of the United States. Any assault on that profitability has a direct affect on the value of external debt instruments and on the international value of the dollar.

NAFTA, coupled with the Crop Reduction Program, now called the Conservation Reserve Program, have decimated a large portion of our country’s food production capabilities.  Where I grew up, there wasn’t a farmer around that wanted it said that he was on the government payroll.  Now, there are a lot fewer farmers and the primary income for the region is government assistance.  Not only do they no longer farm the amount of land they used to, they often have neither the knowledge nor the equipment to farm even if it were to become profitable to do so.

Illegal immigration, NAFTA, redistribution of wealth, paying farmers to not grow food, deficit spending, massive national debt and Mexican and Chinese manufactured goods stacked on every shelf of every store in America.  Shall we continue down this road?  What happens if we cannot pay the holders of our external debt?  If we continue to redistribute the wealth of the United States via free trade and through policies that have world socialism as their basis will we ever be able to pay our debt?  How do we preserve the ability to create what we need here in the United States?  If we do not and we can’t repay our debt and the world decides that we no longer have any credit how will we obtain the essentials? If we keep sending our jobs overseas how can we collect the taxes necessary to pay our debt?  How do we retain the knowledge of how to produce these things ourselves?

How do we fix it?  Repeal NAFTA and drop out of the WTO and GATT.  Learn economics.  Establish a secure border and make illegal entry a dangerous enterprise with severe penalties.  Prosecute business owners who knowingly or unknowingly employ illegals.  Lower taxes and raise tarriffs.  Charge both import and export taxes and apply them to our debt until it is gone.  Eliminate national minimum wage mandates and Social Security.  Enhance the current 401(k) legislation and incent folks to save money.  Withdraw our military from all foreign countries and arm our allies with the best weapons we can produce–but retain the ability to turn them off or make them less useful.  Get the federal governmnet out of education and eliminate Unions for non-manual labor enterprises.  Fire up voucher systems to promote school choice and eliminate tenure for faculty of publicly funded universities.  Eliminate the federal Department of Agriculture, Department of Education, the NEA, the Department of Commerce and every other federal organization not overseeing Constitutionally-mandated areas.

Many would say that these positions are too extreme.  I would say that the positions we have occupied are too extreme and the proof is plain for all to see.  We need to return to Constitutional government and sane economic policies.  We can’t afford the extravagances of socialism and free trade.  We can’t afford to have inept faculty and schools that are machines of indoctrination and control because we can’t afford to have uneducated citizens.  We can’t afford to secure the world and we can’t afford to not secure our borders.

Educate yourselves!  Time is running short.  If you do not learn the answers to these questions now, you may never have the opportunity to do so.  I know you are busy–we all are–but the reality is that we have been asleep for too long.  We have become the ignorant mass that the elitists always believed we were.  They speak words that are popular and we go back to sleep.  They tell us “Just vote Republican” and having pulled the lever for a party line vote we go home feeling that we accomplished something.

I tell you we have accomplished NOTHING except to slowly allow ourselves and our children to be turned into slaves.  We may have already lost the opportunity to reverse the decline but we won’t know until (or unless) we try.  Voting for a party will NEVER solve these problems.  They are too awash in corporate, foreign and interest group donations.  They have sold us at the behest of these entities for the benefit of those pursuing riches at any price.  They will not relinquish power voluntarily.

In the knowledge that a child had been born that was possibly the Son of God, Herod the Great didn’t search for Him so that he could surrender his power.  Instead he hunted Him and even killed every child aged 2 and under trying to eliminate this threat to his power.  This is the nature of power.  This is the nature of mankind.

Wake up Americans, or be smothered in your sleep.