After Teaching About The Constitution, Here’s What A Congressman’s Aide Said To Me…

I recently taught a lesson on the “Constitutional Duty of the State and Local Legislators” in West Virginia. In the spirit of education, I wanted to share a portion of a conversation I had with an Aide from Rep. Alex Mooney’s office. (My humble apologies to the Aide, as I do not remember his name. I am sure he remembers this event, so if he would like me to update the article with his name, I will be more than happy to do so.)

Aide: “I really enjoyed your teaching. I just call exception to one thing. The purist attitude you teach is exactly why we cannot get anything done in Washington.”

Me: “I call exception to your application of the word purist. Setting aside principle for compromise is not ‘getting something done.’ Compromising principle is the very definition of immorality. I will never give anyone a pass or permission to be immoral.”

Let us look at this Aide’s statement from a logical, critical thinking perspective…

When I teach, I teach based upon history, fact, and law and the principles established by these factors. I do not teach based upon theory or opinion. History is history, not changed by opinion. An event either happened or it did not. Fact is fact, not subject to opinion. It is either true or not. The law is the law, also not subject to opinion. It is either the Supreme Law of the Land or it is not. History, Fact, and law are not subject to compromise. If you compromise them, you change the very nature of what they are; History becomes theory, Fact becomes opinion, and Law becomes suggestion.

The Constitution is not created upon theory, opinion, or suggestion. It is created based upon History, Fact, and Law. It is a document of time-tested, blood-learned Principles. By the very definition of Principle, it cannot change; it cannot be compromised as it is foundational. If you can change a principle, it is not really a principle, but a mutable guideline. The Supreme Law of the Land is NOT a mutable guideline, subject to compromise. To make such a compromise would be to transmute the very nature of the established American Constitutional Republic.

So when your Congressman calls you a purist for demanding compliance with the Constitution, the founding Principles and Supreme Law of the land, he is suggesting that you should give him permission to act contrary to Principle, Truth, and Law.

What are their antonyms?

Principle: Immorality

Truth: Lie

Law: Unlawful

Therefore, your Congressman wants you to allow him to compromise the Constitution, and is asking you for permission and expects you to give him a pass to act immorally, based upon a lie, and in an unlawful manner. Remember, we elect people to represent us. Are we really represented by immorality, lies, and lawlessness? Is that who we are as a people?

Additionally, when a government and its laws are based upon immorality, lies, and lawlessness, it is not a just government.

I am not asserting that a Congressman cannot engage in compromise. I am proving that there are some things that are not subject to compromise, and the Constitution is one of those things.

I will say it again: I will never give anyone permission to act immorally, based upon lie, and in an unlawful manner. So don’t even ask. I am not a “purist” by its derogatory application. I am a person who endeavors to behave in a moral, truthful and lawful manner. I expect nothing less from the one I have elected to represent me.

Are We Slaves?

In his 1772 essay, The Rights of Colonists, Samuel Adams explains the condition of the Natural Rights of the colonists. I ask you to consider this thought; If the colonists, subjects to the Kingdom of Great Britain, possessed these Rights, shouldn’t freemen in a Constitutional Republic also possess them … even more so?

“Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.”

You have a Right to Life. If you do not have a Right to Life then all you have is a privilege by permission. If you have to ask permission to have Life … you are dead.

You have a Right to Liberty. If you do not have a Right to Liberty then all you have is a privilege by permission. If you have to ask permission to have Liberty … you are a subject.

You have a Right to secure Property. Property, to our framers, was much broader than the land you house sits upon. Property is life, liberty, land, money, wages, produce of your labor, etc. If you do not have a Right to secure Property then all you have is a privilege by permission. If you have to ask permission to secure Property … you are an indentured servant.

“In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.”

“That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations…” said James Madison in his 1792 work, Property.

You have a Right to defend your Life, Liberty, and Property. If you do not have a Right to defend your Life, Liberty, or Property, then all you have is a privilege by permission. If you have to ask permission to defend your Rights … you are a slave.

Being a slave is worse than being dead. Winston Churchill said this:

If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds are against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves.

Take back the narrative. Stop letting the government and media talk about 1st Amendment or 2nd Amendment Rights. Your Rights do not come from the Constitution. Your Constitution is based upon your Rights. If the Constitution caught on fire tomorrow, you will still have Rights. If the government goes crazy and rewrites the Constitution or ignores the Constitution … you still have Rights.

Take back the Truth! Do not be pulled into an emotional illogical argument. Speak the facts, openly and boldly. Your Rights do not exist conditioned upon someone’s feeling or desire for safety. Your Rights exist based upon your creation.

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident. That all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

Why do we continue to act as if government has the authority to tell us when and how to exercise our Rights?

Why do we continue to allow government to dictate the conditions of our Rights?

Are we dead? Are we subjects? Are we indentured servants? Are we slaves? It is a matter of choice. How will you choose?

What’s Really Going On In Oregon?

Too often, the narrative is dictated to us by the media and government. I created this video to put truth back into the discussion about the Oregon Standoff. This short video will tell you exactly what is going on in Oregon and all throughout the Western States. It will explain the real problems and real solutions. In less than 9 minutes, you will be educated enough to shut down the ignorance!

Take back the narrative. Reclaim the Truth.

In Paris Massacre’s Aftermath, Here’s One Important Truth We Must Apply From History

As we pray for the people of France today, can we learn some very important lessons from the past?

When the Twin Towers fell, we made a very serious mistake. We believed we could trade our Liberty for security and allowed our government, with our permission, to “temporarily” impose upon our Rights in an effort to keep us safe.  

Let’s be very clear of two things: it was NEVER temporary, and we are NO safer now than we were then. We have just lost very precious Liberties, and dangerously expanded the power of government.

You will undoubtedly hear, over the next few days, people claiming the need for MORE government power of surveillance and the need for MORE government power to keep us safe. Make no mistake; whenever government gets more power, the people have less Liberty.

When we hear these “desperate” cries for power, in the face of a fearful and vulnerable generation, we must remember the words of William Pitt, the younger:

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

These cries of necessity, Pitt is explaining, classify people in their own human nature. Those who want the power as tyrants, and those whose fear will turn them to slaves. Who do we want to be?

I believe John Milton would punctuate Pitt’s statement with this:

“And with necessity, The tyrant’s plea, excus’d his devilish deeds” (Paradise Lost)

These tyrants will NOT let a crisis go to waste. They will frame the narrative such that if you care about civil liberties, then you don’t care about national securities. They admit you can’t both keep their oath and fight terrorism. So they take the oath disingenuously and then set about to remove the constraints of that oath. Their cry will become, “We must defend America from these radical barbarians at all costs! If you don’t give us the power to do this, in all cases whatsoever, you won’t have your Liberty because we will all be dead.” Enter the “Necessity Plea.”

The danger we are facing is the attitude that Liberty doesn’t matter, that any boundary and limit of government can be violated if you can come up with a good enough reason. Then those who control the narrative will be able to use any reason at any time to violate the Liberty of an uninformed people for the purposes of power and control.

Our framers lived through ALL of these scenarios prior to our Independence. There is a reason they declared the purpose of the union was to “Preserve the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”  There is a reason John Adams wrote in 1765 that “Liberty must at all hazards be supported.” There is a reason that Samuel Adams wrote:

“No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.”

We cannot let our ignorance destroy our Liberty in the face of ignorance and fear. There is a reason that Patrick Henry asked these questions and made his final stand:

“What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

Without Liberty, you are a slave, and your life is not worth living. Without Liberty, your peace, your national security, will become your chains and bonds.

These are the times that will try men’s souls. We will see what Americans really want. Do we want to remain the greatest place on earth, established on the fundamental principle of Liberty? Or do we want to be just like every other country in the world, driven by fear and dictated by government power?

On an individual level, I will simply say that no person’s fear ever trumps my Rights. And as for me and my house, we stand with Patrick Henry.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Oregon County Stands To Defy Federal Gun Laws

The People of Coos County, Oregon, are standing up against unconstitutional federal laws! However, according to an interview in World Net Daily, The Heritage Foundation​ says they are wrong to do so. So let’s see what the founders of the Constitution say…

Coos County, Oregon, has passed an ordinance that says that the Sheriff is not to enforce any unconstitutional laws in their county. But the Heritage Foundation says:

… the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution leaves “no question that federal law trumps state law”…(Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation)

No, Mr. von Spakovsky, you are wrong. The Supremacy Clause says the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and federal laws are ONLY supreme if they are made in compliance with the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause (Article VI sec 2) is a very simple statement, and it doesn’t need complicated legal analysis. It says what it means and means what it says.

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; …shall be the supreme law of the land.”

That means that if federal law is contrary to the Constitution, it is NOT the Supreme Law of the Land. Not only that, Alexander Hamilton tells us that any law that is contrary to the Constitution is NO LAW at all.

“No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.  To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” Federalist #78

The Heritage Foundation then claims that the sheriff is an “agent of the state” and has to abide by Oregon law; if the state passed a law that requires its officials, including the sheriff, to violate the Second Amendment, individual citizens could pursue a lawsuit, or he could resign from his job. (Andrew Kloster, Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation)

No, Mr. Kloster, you are wrong about a couple very important things. First the Sheriff is NOT an agent of the State. He is an elected representative of The People. The State does not hire a Sheriff; the People elect him, and they expect him to keep his oath to the people. Inherent in that oath is the requirement of the Sheriff to protect the people from all who would take their property in violation of their rights. We expect that our Sheriff, as much as he is able, will help to protect our homes, our property, our lives, and our families from the acts of those who would violate our rights. But what happens when it’s the government itself that takes up the role of one who would take our rights, the role of the criminal?

James Madison wrote in 1792, “In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.” If you would want your Sheriff to protect your home from criminal invasion, Madison is simply reminding us that we should also want our Sheriff to protect us from having our Rights criminally invaded. Is the Sheriff bound to uphold the law even when that law violates his oath to the Constitution and seeks to deprive the citizens of their Liberty? Of course not! The duty and the obligations of the Sheriff do not change, even when the violator of our Liberty is the government itself. To fail to protect our Liberty from all unlawful activity is a dereliction of duty. Remember, our Right to keep and bear arms is NOT a 2nd Amendment Right; it is a Natural Right. It is not there for hunting, sport, or just for robbers and rapists. It is there to oppose ALL forms of government that would deny us of our Rights.

“To vindicate these rights when actually violated or attack’d, the subjects of England are entitled first to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law—next to the right of petitioning the King and parliament for redress of grievances-and lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.” Justice Blackstone, as quoted by Samuel Adams, 1769

I suppose the Heritage Foundation would like our Sheriffs to assume the posture that they must simply enforce the laws as they are written, good, bad, and ugly. That is a very interesting position to take, as that is the same defense most Nazis tried to use at Nuremburg. It didn’t work for them, so why would the Heritage Foundation expect our Sheriffs to take up that defense? Can you just imagine what America would be like today if some Sheriffs had followed their oath instead of the law? Rosa Parks would’ve been able to sit anywhere she wanted on the bus. Civil Rights advocates would not have been jailed and beaten. Japanese Americans would not have been forced into internment camps. Dred Scott would not have been deemed property, but a man with inalienable Rights. All of these acts were supported by “laws,” State and Federal, and upheld by the Supreme Court.

The one thing these Heritage Fellows have correct is that this Sheriff and the People of Coos County may be looking at some legal challenges. But that should not dissuade the people in defending their Rights. After all, our framers believed defense of Liberty was worthy of Life, Fortune, and Sacred Honor. It is unfortunate that some Americans have become so fundamentally miseducated about the Constitution that they would actually want our elected representative to uphold laws that take our Rights.

What is more deeply troubling than the wrong education of the people is the lack of understanding of many in the legal system. People must remember, however, that law schools don’t teach the Constitution anymore; they teach Constitutional Law. These classes teach our future lawyers and judges that they know more about the Constitution than the men who wrote it. After all, we are technologically advanced, so we must be intellectually superior. Therefore, our highly educated judges and lawyers need to use their advanced intellect to tell the framers what they meant when they wrote the Constitution because they were too stupid to know for themselves. Law schools will then spend the rest of their legal instruction teaching future lawyers and judges how to circumvent the Constitution to win their arguments.  Law schools have bred generations of lawyers and judges who are completely diseased with the concepts of Federal Supremacy.

I am very concerned by the opinions of these men who claim to represent the Heritage Foundation, opinions that clearly contradict the words and intentions of our framers. We should not be shy questioning these men; after all, they are products of their education. If these two men truly represent the opinions of The Heritage Foundation, it appears that Heritage, too, may have been overcome by Federal Supremacy and may need a course correction.  

Meanwhile, we must educate ourselves on the Truth regarding the application of the Constitution and the proper role and duty of our Constitutional Sheriffs. May I encourage you to support Coos County, Oregon, and their Sheriff as they act in defense of our inherent Right to keep and bear arms? You can contact Sheriff Craig Zanni at or 541-396-7800. Let them know you support them in the defense of our inherent Rights. If you would like to become better educated on this issue, may I suggest chapter 5 of my book Sovereign Duty, titled “A New Sheriff In Town”? Perhaps we could encourage von Spakovsky and Kloster to read it as well?  

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by