We are being played, which is why the players suppress the principles that can save us, which are the founding principles of America.
America’s founding principles are being suppressed because they are a direct threat to the most powerful people in America and the world.
Americas founders did not themselves fully understand or articulate the principles that motivated them. For this reason, and for reasons of pragmatism and expediency, the Constitution is an imperfect implementation of America’s founding principles. The Articles of Confederation were a more accurate implementation.
A more perfect articulation of America’s founding principles is:
Do not initiate force.
Fight words with words and never with force.
Fight ideas with ideas and never with force.
An idea can always be challenged.
If there be law,
Law can only be by the consent of the governed.
No man is above the law.
Secession is a right.
Every man owns himself.
Every man has a right to defend himself with lethal force.
Every man owns the fruits of his labor.
Every man has a right to trade the fruits of his labor.
No man has a right to the fruits of another man’s labor.
A man can only survive by the fruits of his labor.
Every man has the right to use lethal force to resist any threat to the fruits of his labor.
The mainstream narrative about Abraham Lincoln is almost entirely myth. Lincoln is portrayed as all good and as one of the greatest men who ever lived. However, the reality is very different from the mainstream narrative.
Let’s first look at the handful of positive things we can say about Lincoln:
In spite of the few positive things we can say about Lincoln, the facts prove that Lincoln was a reckless racist fascist democidal psychopath. For example, Lincoln:
Although governments, and especially US administrations, have a long history of perpetrating false flags, I have not verified the claims that the Union itself fired on Fort Sumter to get the war started. However, even if the South fired first, it is self-evident that the Union, under Lincoln’s orders, started the Civil War because placing one’s troops in a foreign country is an act of war.
For months after the Confederacy had seceded, it kept asking Lincoln to get his army out of Confederate territory and told Lincoln that if he sent more troops into Confederate territory, then they would be fired upon. Now, Lincoln knew the Confederacy was mobilized for war and was not bluffing, and he knew that Washington DC was undefended because he had been negligent, but he still sent troops to Fort Sumter, and thus it is self-evident that Lincoln started the Civil War.
When evaluating American history in relation to slavery and the Civil War, it is important to note several additional facts:
In the following letter from George Washington at the Library of Congress, he expresses his certainty about the Illuminati conspiracy that was infiltrating America and the Free Masons.
The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799. John C. Fitzpatrick, Editor.
Mount Vernon, October 24, 1798.
Revd Sir: I have your favor of the 17th. instant before me; and my only motive to trouble you with the receipt of this letter, is to explain, and correct a mistake which I perceive the hurry in which I am obliged, often, to write letters, have led you into.
It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am.
The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of seperation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a seperation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned.
My occupations are such, that but little leisure is allowed me to read News Papers, or Books of any kind; the reading of letters, and preparing answers, absorb much of my time. With respect, etc.
The letter starts at the bottom of the first image:
New World Order conspiracy theorists cite an article by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. entitled “The Future of Socialism” in the May-June 1947 issue of Partisan Review. I learned about it from the 1983 interview of Congressman Larry McDonald who’s plane, KAL-007, was shot down four months later …
The gist of New World Order conspiracies is not nearly as crazy as it sounds. There is a lot of very interesting evidence. So, I looked for this article to see if it was really the smoking gun it was purported to be.
Given the interest in this article by New World Order conspiracy theorists, it seemed very strange that I could not find its contents anywhere on the Internet, which made it even more strange that I found one copy of that issue of Partisan Review for sale on the Internet (for $8.00). Stranger still is how it is not as incriminating as I expected, and how it frequently advocates freedom and even advocates libertarianism, which are the opposite of the New World Order theory.
The images below are some low resolution versions of the photos I made of the actual periodical after I received it. It is incriminating, but no more so than similar materials written today that are too sophisticated to openly admit unpopular or unethical motives. Lest someone miss the true gist of what he is saying, I will summarize and analyze.
Schlesinger correctly claimed that communism, fascism, and pure socialism did not work and led to tyranny, so he prescribed a democratic socialism with a very strong role for government but with libertarianism and no cronyism, which is unsustainable because it is an oxymoron. I don’t think his mistake is an honest one because his mention of libertarianism and frequent mention of freedom were just claims devoid of ideas; whereas, all of his actual ideas were more totalitarian than libertarian. Consider that elsewhere, his sloppy ridicule of an armed citizenry sounded a lot like Michael Moore.
Schlesinger also correctly observed how both the business community and the workers would always cave in to pretty much any demands from government or from anyone else who tried to rule them. This led him to promote the concept of an elite class of rulers who would prevent a less savory class of rulers from filling the power vacuum created by the cowardice and apathy of the business community and the workers. Therefore, this elite class of rulers must be willing and able to use overwhelming force to maintain their rule – for the good of the people, and for future generations – of course.
The mainstream media and politicians have nothing but praise for Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., so his ideas were thus consistent with those that created the world we live in today, and our world is notable for the rise of government and the devolution of the people.
At a time when the President is trying to revive old-school progressivism, he would be wise to remember the 1992 epiphany by old school progressive George McGovern. Like the current President, Senator McGovern had been making rules for businesses while having never worked in the real business world nor having owned a real business. Then McGovern, the former Presidential nominee for the Democratic party, spent 12 years collecting nice lecture fees around the world as he taught us all the wisdom of regulating business.
Then, in a beautiful act of Karma, he took all his capital and invested it in a business – The Stratford Inn. Only after suffering under the very rules he created and promoted, did he finally have something to teach us:
A Politician’s Dream Is a Businessman’s Nightmare
(BY GEORGE MCGOVERN)
“Wisdom too often never comes, and so one ought not to reject it merely because it comes late.” –Justice Felix Frankfurter.
The Stratford Inn promised the realization of a longtime dream to own a combination hotel, restaurant and public conference facility–complete with an experienced manager and staff.
In retrospect, I wish I had known more about the hazards and difficulties of such a business, especially during a recession of the kind that hit New England just as I was acquiring the inn’s 43-year leasehold. I also wish that during the years I was in public office, I had had this firsthand experience about the difficulties business people face every day. That knowledge would have made me a better U.S. senator and a more understanding presidential contender.
We intuitively know that to create job opportunities we need entrepreneurs who will risk their capital against an expected payoff. Too often, however, public policy does not consider whether we are choking off those opportunities.
My own business perspective has been limited to that small hotel and restaurant in Stratford, Conn., with an especially difficult lease and a severe recession. But my business associates and I also lived with federal, state and local rules that were all passed with the objective of helping employees, protecting the environment, raising tax dollars for schools, protecting our customers from fire hazards, etc. While I never doubted the worthiness of any of these goals, the concept that most often eludes legislators is: `Can we make consumers pay the higher prices for the increased operating costs that accompany public regulation and government reporting requirements with reams of red tape.’ It is a simple concern that is nonetheless often ignored by legislators.
For example, the papers today are filled with stories about businesses dropping health coverage for employees. We provided a substantial package for our staff at the Stratford Inn. However, were we operating today, those costs would exceed $150,000 a year for health care on top of salaries and other benefits. There would have been no reasonably way for us to absorb or pass on these costs.
Some of the escalation in the cost of health care is attributed to patients suing doctors. While one cannot assess the merit of all these claims, I’ve also witnessed firsthand the explosion in blame-shifting and scapegoating for every negative experience in life.
Today, despite bankruptcy, we are still dealing with litigation from individuals who fell in or near our restaurant. Despite these injuries, not every misstep is the fault of someone else. Not every such incident should be viewed as a lawsuit instead of an unfortunate accident. And while the business owner may prevail in the end, the endless exposure to frivolous claims and high legal fees is frightening.
Our Connecticut hotel, along with many others, went bankrupt for a variety of reasons, the general economy in the Northeast being a significant cause. But that reason masks the variety of other challenges we faced that drive operating costs and financing charges beyond what a small business can handle.
It is clear that some businesses have products that can be priced at almost any level. The price of raw materials (e.g., steel and glass) and life-saving drugs and medical care are not easily substituted by consumers. It is only competition or antitrust that tempers price increases. Consumers may delay purchases, but they have little choice when faced with higher prices.
In services, however, consumers do have a choice when faced with higher prices. You may have to stay in a hotel while on vacation, but you can stay fewer days. You can eat in restaurants fewer times per month, or forgo a number of services from car washes to shoeshines. Every such decision eventually results in job losses for someone. And often these are the people without the skills to help themselves–the people I’ve spent a lifetime trying to help.
In short, `one-size-fits-all’ rules for business ignore the reality of the market place. And setting thresholds for regulatory guidelines at artificial levels–e.g., 50 employees or more, $500,000 in sales–takes no account of other realities, such as profit margins, labor intensive vs. capital intensive businesses, and local market economics.
In 1776, America’s Founding Fathers made a great leap forward for all of humanity. America’s Founders, at great personal sacrifice, championed the liberal concepts of limited government, tolerance, equal application of the law, and individual freedom. The liberal concepts of the Founders bore their first fruit by promoting common white males from serfdom to full rights, and certainly no one could have done more at the time.
America’s Founders created a nation, and championed the liberal principles that greatly hastened the promotion of women and minorities from serfdom to full rights. America’s Founders created a nation, and championed the liberal principles that would later emboldened the people of the Soviet Union to fight for their rights. To this day, the principles of America’s Founders inspire others to fight for their rights all around the world.
I had never dreamed there was any point in writing another history lesson on the Founders because I thought this was all common knowledge – until recently. I was stunned when my so-called “liberal” friend Jean-Luc said that he didn’t care what the Founding Fathers said because they were slave owners!
Such “liberal” hate is reason #17 why so-called “liberals” cannot seem to win the hearts and minds of America’s true liberals: the independents, libertarians, and conservatives – who are more liberal than liberals.
Now, I am certain, that Jean-Luc would have really enjoyed owning slaves in 1776, just like everyone else in the whole world in 1776, and I am certain that all of his heroes: JFK, FDR, Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, Keith Olbermann, and Barack Obama, would have owned slaves in 1776. The only difference is in how much we would have each enjoyed owing slaves, and how well each of us would have treated our slaves in 1776, and you know that every one of these champions of the Democratic Party would have been real douchebags who really enjoyed owning and punishing their slaves.
Such “liberal” hypocrisy is reason #23 why so-called “liberals” cannot seem to win the hearts and minds of America’s true liberals: the independents, libertarians, and conservatives – who are more liberal than liberals.
Liberals don’t understand the Constitution or the Founders, and they don’t want to understand. They want to luxuriate in their hate and hypocrisy. Liberals are intolerant posers, who are not really liberal at all.
Don’t just take my word for it. Frederick Douglass, the escaped slave turned author, orator, philosopher, and intellectual, had agreed with William Lloyd Garrison, the most prominent “liberal” at the time, that the Constitution must be a pro-slavery document – until the open-minded Douglass actually read the Constitution. He then admitted that he had been wrong, and that the ideas of the Founders embodied in the Constitution were in fact anti-slavery.
Now contrast the open-minded Douglass with the closed-minded Garrison – the putatively tolerant open-minded liberal, who stubbornly refused to concede any value in the Constitution in spite of his former collaboration with Douglass. Garrison, a prototype for white so-called liberals today, felt that he understood the issues of slavery and freedom far better than Douglass – the black man and former slave! Perhaps even more telling – Garrison resented that Douglass didn’t need him any more!
Sound familiar? Liberal bullies attack conservative women and minorities more viciously than anyone else – except for the special hate they reserve for libertarian women and minorities.
Now you know that when any liberal dismisses the Founders or the Constitution because of slavery, then that liberal is just a closed minded hack who drank the Kool-Aid.
It should be no surprise then that Douglass found that he had far more in common with one of my personal heroes – libertarian, Lysander Spooner, than he did with William Lloyd Garrison.
I have to agree with Spooner however, that the Constitution either authorizes the government we have, or else has been powerless to prevent it. Nevertheless, since its ratification, the Constitution has greatly slowed the inevitable progress from freedom to fascism in America and the world, and the path back from fascism to freedom lies in the direction of the Constitution.
Independents, conservatives, libertarians, and real liberals should all join forces into the foreseeable future because until we find our way down the long, long road back from the fascism of the future to the freedom of the Founders (embodied in the Constitution), our differences will be minor compared to the forces of fascism arrayed against us.
I just learned from an article entitled Our Forefather’s Failure (at LibertyUnbound.com) that the colonies at Plymouth Rock and Jamestown tried both free market and communist systems – long before Karl Marx was born.
The Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock in December 1620, and in spite of help from the Native Americans, half of them died the first year as a result of their initial system. During the second year, more of them died. They would quickly learn that their initial system was tragically incompatible with human nature. It was simply unnatural.
The colonists had the ideal conditions for their initial system because they all had a reputation as virtuous hard working people, they all were of the same race, religion, politics, and nationality; and of course, they all had agreed to this system voluntarily. They also knew that failure meant death.
Nevertheless, under their initial system, they simply weren’t producing and storing enough food, which lead to starvation, disease, and discontent. Their first solution, in their second year, was to institute beatings for those who did not work hard enough, but this had little effect on productivity, and it further increased discontent.
The colonists astutely observed that their system tended to retard productivity while breeding confusion and discontent. We know this because they wrote about it in their journals. Clearly, their initial system was incompatible with human nature.
By the spring of 1623 the Pilgrims feared they would not survive another winter, so in desperation, they adopted a radically different system, and it saved their lives. Productivity increased, and in 1623, they had the first real Thanksgiving.
Which system failed the colonists initially, and which radically different system saved them? Which system was so incompatible with human nature, and which system was so compatible with human nature? Which system was so ugly, and which system was so beautiful?
According to their original governing document, the Mayflower Compact, they shared everything produced by any one of them – from each according to his ability – to each according to his need. The result was that only a small percentage of them worked hard, and the rest were freeloaders to varying degrees because they would rather risk death than be expoited by others. They were so reluctant to work that they even left food rotting on the vine! The result was indeed death. Half of them died! This reminds me of the saying by the people of the USSR, “They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.”
Then, in the spring of 1623, the surviving colonists decided to let each person keep the fruits of his labor, and the colony’s total output increased so much that they were never hungry again.
The governor wrote in his journal that under their initial (communist) system some of them claimed to be too sick to work, and they were so convincing that it would have been the height of tyranny to force them work. Then, after they learned they could keep the fruits of their labor, those who were too sick to walk suddenly recovered and began working the fields!
Communism was killing the colonists at Plymouth Rock, and by switching to a free market system, they became more productive and saved themselves – in a single growing season.
The transition from communism to free markets still lacked full property rights however. Whereas each individual owned the fruits of his labor, he did not own the land he worked, and thus he did not own any improvements he made to that land.
In 1623, the colonists were still growing food on parcels of land that were reassigned by random lots each year, which they astutely observed was a disincentive for each farmer to make permanent improvements to his parcel of land because in the following year, someone else would inherit the fruits of any labor he devoted to improvements. Therefore, in 1624, they adopted full property rights where everyone owned the land he worked, and the result was another productivity boost. Whereas, the first step toward property rights and the free market increased productivity enough to feed everyone, the move to full property rights produced enough extra food to export and trade for furs and other goods.
The article goes on to explain the similar experience in Jamestown:
Jamestown, the first permanent English colony in America, established in Virginia in 1607, had an experience similar to the Pilgrims at Plymouth. Early years of starvation were followed by converting to a system of property rights and a free market, which brought abundance. Under collectivism, less than half of every shipload of settlers survived the first 12 months at Jamestown. Most of the work was done by only one-fifth of the men, to whom the socialist system gave the same rations as to the others. During the winter of 1609–10, called “The Starving Time,” the population fell from 500 to 60.
But when Jamestown converted to a free market, there was “plenty of food, which every man by his own industry may easily and doth procure,” wrote the colony secretary Ralph Hamor in 1614. Under the previous system, he said, “we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty men as three men have done for themselves now.”
The article didn’t mention the Roanoke colony, which just disappeared, and many speculate that they were killed by the Native Americans, but I think we all know what really happened to them … They were killed by communism.
Although both my first hand experience and observations as well as my research and analysis have long since led me to conclude that the free market and property rights are superior to communism, I would have believed that communism could have worked in the case of the first American colonies because they had every advantage one could give communism. They had already unanimously agreed to communism. They all shared the same race, nationality, religion, political views and economic views. Failure meant starvation, and slackers were beaten, but in spite of every advantage possible, communism was a catastrophic and systemic failure in the first American colonies.
Consider that the colonists at Plymouth Rock had no historical precedent on which to evaluate communism vs. the free market, and yet when communism failed them, they invented and adopted a complete free market system with full property rights in just two years.
In just four years, the colonists proved that that communism was a very unnatural and ugly thing, and that free-market and property rights were a very natural and beautiful thing.
Our ancestors’ understanding of the superiority of the free market and property rights made us the dominant nation on earth; whereas, today we are rapidly losing that status. Could it be that Americans have forgotten the hard won knowledge of our ancestors?
Consider that the Barack Obama, the President of the United States, has 400 years of additional historical precedent as well as a Harvard education, and yet he still doesn’t understand how the free market is superior to communism. He says that that when the government forcibly takes the fruits of your labor and gives it to others to “spread the wealth around”, then that’s “good for everybody”.
Those colonists at Plymouth Rock, who seem so much more in touch with reality than the President of the United States, remind me of small town Americans of my childhood. Of course, the President sees small town Americans as basically racists who have “antipathy toward those who are different” and who “cling to their guns and religion”.
Although, the President of the United States is a dilettante, whose image was manufactured by the media, progressives have told me that he is right because communism in early America was too soon. They claim that it is not human nature to be a freeloader and that the people themselves have learned and would no longer be freeloaders. In case anyone cannot see that the progressive argument is BS, then consider that the Danish recently proved that 90% still prefer to be freeloaders when they can – even when they can make more money working.
At the request of one of my fans, I have spent a few minutes to list some preliminary thoughts on the following pro-regulation story Libertarians Are Dumb – Why We Eat Heinz Ketchup.
According to the proponents of regulation, more than 100 years ago, only Heinz used fresh tomatoes in their ketchup, and all others regularly used moldy tomatoes, which supposedly made their customers sick. According to legend, Heinz advertised their exclusive use of fresh tomatoes, and their competitors did not make the same claim, and yet most customers chose to buy the ketchup that made them sick rather than buying Heinz or simply buying no ketchup at all. Therefore, Heinz felt justified in lobbying the government to enact legislation that would benefit Heinz and harm their competitors, which gave Heinz a virtual monopoly over the ketchup market.
Even if we accept all of the pro-regulation version of the story, it makes several incriminating claims.
Now, let’s take a common sense look at some questions any reader should be asking about the pro-regulation version of the story: (I cannot overstate the importance of thinking for yourself.)
America declared independence in 1776, and the Constitution was ratified in 1788. In between, America was governed by the Articles of Confederation, and thus for all practical purposes, America had no central government, and yet we still managed to defeat the world’s dominant super power, but the founders felt that the national government needed some additional powers beyond those granted by the Articles of Confederation, and so they added just what they considered the minimum necessary powers beyond the American anarchy that led them to victory over the British monarchy.
That’s right. Anarchy defeated monarchy. No. A weak anarchy defeated the strongest monarchy. Get over it.
Now back to the Constitution.
The US Constitution derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed, and the US government derives its legitimacy from the Constitution.
The extent of Constitutional violations is the extent of lost legitimacy for the US government, and the extent of constitutional violations is great indeed. The parts of the Constitution that are used to justify the accumulation of power are highlighted in red, and the parts that tend to refute those interpretations are in green.
Although the meaning of the Constitution is clear to any honest and independent thinking person, some parts are phrased in such a way that enable a shyster or ditto head to claim that it means the opposite and still feign gravitas. So proud were the Founders of their accomplishment, and so universal was the understanding of individual liberty after the American Revolution, that the Founders would not have foreseen a future where many Americans would turn government into the dominant religion.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, 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, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The preamble is not law, and its language grants no powers to the government. It is no more law than the Declaration of Independence, neither of which has ever been used by the Supreme Court to uphold any act of Congress. Nor was the preamble describing the Constitution. It was describing the Founders and their act of creating the Constitution.
The Founders had previously created the Articles of Confederation, which established a government tantamount to anarchy at the national level, and the Preamble describes what these men believed that they themselves were accomplishing by their act of adding a few more powers at the national level.
The Founders claimed their act of establishing the Constitution promoted the general welfare, and we know the act of establishing the Constitution was primarily an act of creating a very limited government. Therefore, the Constitution promotes the general welfare by limiting government.
The Founders believed that freedom and limited government are good for everybody.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;–And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Article I, Section 8 does not grant Congress the power to promote the general welfare – nor does it grant Congress the power to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper”; and the power to regulate interstate commerce most certainly does not confer infinite power over all portable objects and services. However, these extreme fascistic interpretations are how the Congress, and the Democrats in particular, see the Constitution today.
If the Constitution actually did grant any one of these three fascist powers to Congress, then the Congress would have more power over the people than any fascist or communist government in the history of the world.
It is impossible that the Founders intended for the US government to ever have more power than the King of England over the colonists.
Although the Democrats trumpet the imaginary power to promote the general welfare, the Supreme Court never used such an interpretation to uphold any law. It is the commerce clause, which has been used as the primary justification for constitutional violations. Sometimes the necessary powers clause is also abused in order to violate the Constitution.
The power to regulate commerce among the several states clearly refers to Congress directly regulating transactions between the states. There is no hint that it refers to the manufacture or possession of portable objects. There is no hint that it refers to transactions within a state. There is no hint that it can ban a transaction between two states where both permit such a transaction. There is no hint that Congress can regulate any facet of an interstate transaction except the interstate part.
Congress thinks it has the power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper”, but what it actually says at the end of Article I, Section 8, is that the Congress shall have the power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.”
The number of “foregoing powers” is 18.
Promoting the general welfare is not itself a power. It is a limitation on the power to tax – so that taxes cannot be collected for the benefit of just one or several states. I’ll bet that now they would wish they had phrased it in the negative and said that the Congress may not collect any tax with the intent to benefit only one or several states. So, why did they phrase it in a positive form? Under the Articles of Confederation, the US government had no power to tax, and thus the Founders were trying to sell the idea that taxes were a necessary evil.
In February 1791, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph declared the creation of a national bank unconstitutional because at the very beginning of Article I, Section 8, the Constitution only granted Congress the power to tax, and limited that power to the purpose of promoting the general welfare (not the welfare of any one state), and only to carry into execution the following powers (in Article I, Section 8).
Whereas, Alexander Hamilton led the first major assault on the Constitution by claiming that the Congress could create a national bank because Congress had the power to “promote the general welfare”. To understand the full scope of Hamilton’s evil, consider that the Bill of Rights was not ratified until December 15th, 1791, and thus Hamilton was basically claiming that individuals had no rights because the Congress could violate any individual right in order to “promote the general welfare”.
Perhaps in response to the assault on the Constitution by Alexander Hamilton before the ink was dry, the Founders added a list of rights that had previously been considered so obvious that actually writing them was thought to somehow diminish them, which is probably why they included the 9th and 10th Amendments.
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.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Bill of Rights – Exposition
Just like the rest of the Constitution, what the second amendment is saying is pretty obvious to an honest man who tries to understand it. It is saying:
A well trained militia being necessary to the right of the states and the people to defend their freedom, the right of the people to form militias shall not be infringed, and the right of the people to keep and bear any and all armaments shall not be infringed.
Of course, the purpose of the people’s armaments is to be sufficient to defeat any military force that could pose a threat to their freedom.
Had they foreseen the development of nuclear weapons, they would have added:
The Congress shall have the power to regulate the use of any weapon that can kill everyone within a square mile and/or render the environment uninhabitable for more than 100 years in 10 square miles.
Note that even with nuclear weapons, the Founders so trusted the people and so cherished their freedom that they would not have entirely prohibited the possession of nuclear weapons.
Clearly, the Second Amendment is sufficient reason to conclude that the Founders could not have been a part of any long term conspiracy to rule the peoples of the Earth. In fact, the Second Amendment makes one suspect they may have been explicitly trying to combat such a conspiracy.