Government Of The People, By The People, For The People. NOT.

The U.S. government is certainly NOT of the people, NOT by the people, and NOT for the people. In the vernacular of the day, what do we have? Government of the People, by the People, for the People. NOT.

I submit that the people or peoples that inhabit a certain portion of North America known as America did not overthrow the government of Iran in 1953. They did not direct themselves into the Vietnam War. They did not decide to bomb Serbia, starve the people of Iraq, and later invade Iraq. They didn’t decide to debase the dollar. They did not devise or pass Obamacare. They did not decide to bail out Wall Street investment bankers or hedge funds. They did not decide to militarize America’s police. They did not decide to have a war on drugs with stiff prison sentences. They didn’t decide to have a war on poverty. They didn’t decide to have a massive NSA program of surveillance and spying on themselves and the rest of the world and then to keep it secret from themselves. A certain number of Americans may have been polled and their positive, negative and ambiguous opinions sounded out on some of these actions, but the People certainly didn’t make these decisions and many other important decisions.

Obama’s agenda has been his own. The same goes for his predecessors. The People have never written a State of the Union address that contained the president’s favorite causes and agenda. What the people have done is to supply the bodies and the resources to the State and to obey its laws and directives, and all of that under the threats that if they did not obey, they would be punished.

The People simply do not have decision rights on what the State does. In the normal course of events, what the State does is out of the People’s hands. Occasional mass protests, polls or votes have influence on the State, but only temporarily so and not to any substantial degree. The People are not running the ship of State.

In a masterpiece of political propaganda, the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln penned one of the most famous slogans in American history: “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Lincoln was referring to the U.S. government, but the U.S. government has never fit such a description. A government of that description with its seat in Washington could not have perished from the earth in 1863 because no such government existed in the first place. What existed was a State, one that Lincoln wanted to be large, permanent and growing.

This slogan has been fabulously successful at getting people to identify with, acquiesce in and support the State and its administrative apparatus. Schoolchildren are encouraged to memorize the Address or at least that clause.

“Of the people” makes people think that the State’s officials and bureaucrats are drawn from “us” and are “of us”. Physically, they are. Morally and behaviorally, they are not. Their intentions and actions differ drastically from us. It is the difference between rulers and the ruled, between sovereigns and subjects, and between masters and slaves.

The rulers, who are apart from us, over us, and wield powers unavailable to us, would have us believe that they are “one with us.” Obama is still saying the same thing as Lincoln almost 150 years later when he tells us: “The government is us [sic].”

The phrase “by the people” fools people into thinking that American government is being accomplished by everyone in a team effort and by team decisions. A democratic consensus is supposed to be at work; or else in republican fashion, the people are not construed to have rulers but representatives who are agents. We are supposed to believe that they sense and read our collective will and then translate it into laws and regulations, taxes and wars, programs and debts, for our own good, for the general welfare. These are the illusions fostered by those who enter the ruling elite.

These illusions are designed to make people think that they are governing themselves. The State’s apparatus of potentially unlimited despotism is substituted for self-government and for limited government that protects rights.

Does voting mean that government is by the people? Ask yourself what influence you have on any legislation by your vote or by your vote in conjunction with others. Many members of Congress frequently do not even have an influence, neither reading the massive bills nor knowing what is in them. A few members and lobbyists are writing laws in the dead of night. Hearings are rigged.

What influence do you have on what a president decides? What influence do you have on what a Supreme Court says is or is not law? What influence do you have on what a Congress legislates?

What influence do you have on who is elected to office and who your representatives are? In 1789, there were less than 30,000 constituents for each representative in the House. Today, that number is about 700,000.

Most of those who are elected to national office are candidates of the two major parties, which themselves are entrenched by behind-the-scenes rules and laws. These parties vet the candidates using criteria and processes of politics and finance that are not constructed by the people, but by the party’s leaders and suppliers of money. The resulting representatives do not represent issues and priorities of the people, and they are not beholden to them but to their backers and financiers. Furthermore, if they wish to remain in Congress and gain power, they must accede to the priorities of the more powerful politicians that they must work with inside the State’s system.

If the apparatus of the State, commonly called government as by Lincoln or “the” government as by Obama, is not of or by the people, is it “for the people”? This is hardly possible given the ways in which the offices and bureaus of government are filled and the ways that priorities are established, taxes imposed and decisions made. It is impossible to think that an organization with the powers of the State, that can instill fear of punishment and can actually punish anyone who does not pay their taxes or do exactly as they’re told to do, is making decisions “for” us and not for their own interests and those who control the organization.

Obama follows the well-worn path of apologists for the State when he says “The government is us.” The government is not We the People – not us –  when the ruling apparatus is that of a State, as is the case in America and many other nations.

A State is an organization that always is manned by an elite bent on domination for its own purposes. Its powers are not unlimited, but their expansion can become exceedingly uncomfortable for those forced to submit to them or who mistakenly support them. When the elite poses as a popular movement or the democratic voice of the people or the leadership of the general will or the vanguard of the people, it is at its most dangerous; for then it possesses a rationale that may result in the acquiescence of large numbers of its subjects who tie their own nooses.

A State always has a government, but not all government is of a State. Government refers to the governing body of such groups as a nation, State, tribe, aggregation of people, federation, association or community. A nation and a people need not have a State, but they still can have a system by which they govern themselves. Members of a church may govern themselves. A corporate organization can govern its own behavior. A clan can develop its own government. So can a commune, a scientific community or an industry.

The State is peculiar in its claim to be the final word in government in a territory. It is ironic that as the form of government has become more democratic over the past few centuries–that is, supposedly of the people, by the people and for the people–the government has in reality become more all-encompassing and more oligarchic. The form does not accord with the substance. This is in part because the State has had the power of being the final word, and the democratic form has reinforced the legitimacy of its sovereignty. The mythical “of the people, by the people, for the people” has reinforced the actual “not of the people, not by the people, not for the people”.

The myth of self-rule in the face of very real elite rule has not acted alone in enlarging the State. Certain ideas that previously limited the scope of the State and its government have been greatly reduced in importance, sometimes perverted, or even have fallen by the wayside; and the democratic form provides no resistance to their absence–in fact, it supports the degradation of these ideas and the expansion of government under the State’s power. Certain other ideas have risen greatly in esteem and importance in supposedly providing support to enlarging the State. A few examples follow. Natural law has fallen in esteem and positive law has risen. Common law has fallen and civil codes have risen. Self-reliance has fallen and expert rule has risen. Individual responsibility has fallen and social causation risen. Neutrality has fallen and expansionism risen. Negative rights have fallen and positive rights risen. Moral codes have fallen and pragmatism risen. Distrust of the State has fallen and trust in the State has risen. God has fallen and the State has risen.

Throughout these alterations in ideas, the statists have continually promoted Lincoln’s slogan “of the people, by the people, for the people”, Obama’s pronouncement being a recent prominent example. The statists want a pliant and acquiescent people, not an active thinking people that questions the State or its constantly increasing encroachments. Witness the State’s reactions to the Occupy movement and to Assange, Manning and Snowden. These are further evidence of Government of the People, by the People, for the People. NOT.

This commentary originally appeared at and is reprinted here under a Creative Commons license

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

The Founding Fathers Agree With Kim Davis 100%

Many self-described conservatives are claiming that Kentucky marriage clerk Kim Davis should either “follow the law” and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples or “find another job” since, of course, the Obergefell opinion that there is a supposed Constitutional right to so-called “same-sex marriage” is now the “law of the land.” (At least according to the Bush appointee federal judge who threw Kim Davis in jail for not agreeing to violate her oath and also according to all the Judicial Supremacist blond bimbos and talking heads over at Faux News)

Jefferson, Hamilton, and Lincoln, however, would beg to differ (by their own words below) with the toxic liberal lie that Supreme Court (SC) opinions immediately and without exception “invalidate” Constitutionally enacted laws and statutes.

The SC is not King, and their opinions aren’t the “law of the land” the very moment they are issued.

We have flouted the grave warnings of the likes of Thomas Jefferson, who wrote:

To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. …The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.

Not even Hamilton imagined that the right to opine is a power to rule. Courts, he pointed out, have intentionally been given no means of enforcing their opinions — making it obvious that the executive and legislative branches are not compelled to “obey” false or even dubious opinions. Therefore, he wrote:

“…the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution. … [T]he judiciary … has no influence over either the sword or purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL…”

Lincoln acknowledged that court opinions are binding on the specific parties named and “entitled to very high respect and consideration (by) other departments of the government.” But like the Founding Fathers, he utterly rejected the claim that judges’ opinions are the law of the land:

“..if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased, to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government, into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

Americans must reject the Orwellian Lie that is cancelling self-government in the United States. Lincoln said on the battlefield at Gettysburg:

“Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether … any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure… It is for us the living…to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us… we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

The Supreme Court issues administrative opinions that the other two superior branches (legislative and executive) should strongly consider. But any change in the laws must be made via the Constitutionally proscribed process (by the legislative branch and signed into law by the executive).

Judicial opinions are only legally binding on the parties in the case being heard insofar as they comply with the Constitution.

Any law or court opinion contrary to the Constitution is legally null and void on its face and must be ignored and rejected by every civil magistrate at every level and branch of government.

The problem is that many Americans have been brainwashed to believe the lie that COTUS and POTUS must always obey SCOTUS no matter how immoral, illegal and unconstitutional their opinions may be.

The truth is that COTUS and POTUS and every civil magistrate at every level and branch of government has a moral and Constitutional duty (per the oath they swear) to ignore/reject ALL anti-Constitutional court opinions (such as Obergefell, for example).

The Supreme Court is no more “supreme” over the other 2 branches or the people than the Federal Reserve or Federal Express is part of the Federal Government. The Framers intentionally designed the Judiciary to be “the weakest of the 3 branches” for a reason. (See Federalist #78 for more.)

The Democrat governor of Kentucky is blatantly violating his oath by allowing marriage licenses to be issued (and illegally altered) to same sex couples since the marriage statutes in Kentucky have never been altered or amended in any way and still limit marriage to one man and one woman.

And every single marriage licence that has been issued to a same-sex couple in Kentucky is legally null and void.

He is the one who should be in jail.

Not Kim Davis, who has a far superior understanding of the oath of office, the rule of law, our Constitutional Republican form of government and God’s Immutable Word than 99.9% of our elected representatives. (including virtually every GOP presidential candidate)

All unconstitutional judicial opinions must be ignored and rejected by every civil magistrate at every level and branch of government.


Roe should have been. Lawrence should have been. Dred Scott should have been. And Obergefell should be ignored and rejected by every governor of every sovereign state in the union for the immoral and unconstitutional abomination it is.

That is how our Representative Republican form of government was originally designed to work.

Ever hear of the term “checks and balances?”

Sadly, all 50 governors are violating their oaths by treating a toothless and totally immoral opinion as if it were the “law of the land” by issuing marriage licences to same sex couples despite the fact the SC can’t make, amend or “overturn” laws–and in spite of the fact that in virtually every state in the Union, the Constitutionally enacted marriage statutes still define marriage as the exclusive union of one man and one woman AND in spite of the fact that no majority of jurists, legislators or voters possesses the authority to re-define what God Almighty Himself has once and for all explicitly ordained, defined, and established (i.e., that marriage is the EXCLUSIVE union of one man and one woman!)

Including the state of Kentucky, where the marriage statute that limits marriage as the union of one man and one woman is still the “law of the land!”

Gregg Jackson is the author of the new book “40 Things to Teach Your Children Before You Die: The Simple American Truths About Life, Family & Faith” (Dunham Books)

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

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Huckabee Is About To Put His Money Where His Mouth Is For Kim Davis In A BIG Way

There is a time and a place to take a stand.

For Mike Huckabee, that time and place is Tuesday afternoon in Grayson, KY, as he sponsors the “#ImWithKim Liberty Rally” at the Carter County Detention Center, where Kim Davis is being held for refusing the grant marriage licenses for same sex couples. The Rowan County, KY, clerk, has been jailed since last week.

“There comes a time when you must take a stand for your faith and this is one of those times,” Huckabee said in an e-mail to his supporters. “Let’s make sure Kim knows she is not alone. We must always defend our religious liberty and never surrender to judicial tyranny.”

“The purpose of it is to show support for Kim and also to let the world know that it is unacceptable to put a person in jail without bail because she followed her conscience. And not only that, but she followed the only law that is in front of her,” the Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas governor said in an interview Monday on “Fox & Friends.” Before the rally, Huckabee plans to meet with Davis inside the jail.

Over the weekend, Huckabee expressed strong support for Davis and compared her situation with that of Abraham Lincoln.

“Lincoln ignored the 1857 Dred Scott decision that said black people weren’t fully human,” Huckabee said Sunday. “It was a wrong decision. And to say that we have to surrender to judicial supremacy is to do what Jefferson warned against, which is in essence to surrender to judicial tyranny.”

“What I’m coming back to, and I think people are missing this, is that we live under the rule of law, which is a three-branch checks and balances system of government, or we end up with what I think was so powerful when Lincoln said this, “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court the instant they are made, then in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers having to that extent having practically resigned their government into the hands of this eminent tribunal,’” Huckabee said.

Davis is also the victim of highly selective prosecution, Huckabee said. He noted that when California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom was mayor of San Francisco, he issued 4,000 marriage licenses to same sex couples in defiance of what was then California law.

“Did he ever get put in jail?” Huckabee asked. “He most certainly did not.”

Huckabee will be joined by Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel (Davis’ attorneys), Tony Perkins of Family Research Council, Pastor Joshua Feuerstein, the National Organization for Marriage, Faith and Freedom Coalition, American Family Association, Faith2Action, the Benham brothers, United in Purpose, and Concerned Women for America. In addition to the rally, 170,000 Americans from across the nation have visited to sign an online petition supporting Davis.

h/t: The Washington Times

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Founding Fathers To Americans: Don’t Forget God

Many argue the Ten Commandments have nothing to do with U.S. law, that the depictions of Moses and/or the Ten Commandments carved into the architectural structure of the U.S. Supreme Court building only represent one concept of several “early written laws.”

The marble frieze, “Justice the Guardian of Liberty,” located on the Court Building’s eastern pediment, depicts Moses as one of three Eastern law givers (Confucius to Moses’ left, Solon to his right). Some historians argue that by including Moses holding two blank tablets (the Ten Commandments) as part of the frieze, Moses represents only one of three Eastern civilizations whose laws primarily influenced American law.

Image credit:

Image credit:

Likewise, others argue that the South and North wall friezes inside the Court’s Chamber where the Justices rule do not emphasize Moses over any other lawgiver. Moses is only one of 18 lawgivers whose images are carved: Menes, Hammurabi, Moses (holding an inscribed tablet), Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius, Augustus, Justinian, Mohammed, Charlemagne, King John, St. Louis, Hugo Grotius, William Blackstone, John Marshall, and Napoleon.

Yet, above the bench where the justices rule, carved on a marble relief are two men sitting on either side of a tablet on which I through X are carved. The allegorical figures represent “The Power of Government” and “The Majesty of the Law.” The numeric tablet represents the Ten Commandments, not any other law.

Entering the Court’s Chamber from the central hallway of the Supreme Court building are two oak doors on which there are carved two tablets with roman numerals I through X. These numeric tablets represent the Ten Commandments, not any other law.

The images of tablets with inscriptions all depict the same roman numerals I through X, not any other number or letter in any other typeface. The numbers specifically represent the first ten letters of the Hebrew alphabet, which are widely acknowledged and understood as interchangeable with the numbers one through ten (1-10).

Many oppose recognizing the Ten Commandments’ influence on American law. Many also demand that any public displays be removed from public property. Yet the majority of Americans oppose their removal. In fact, according to Pew Research polls, “Americans overwhelmingly support displaying the Ten Commandments on public property, with more than seven-in-ten saying they believe such displays are proper.”

Stephen McDowell of the Providence Foundation clarifies why:


McDowell surveyed and found numerous biblical inscriptions on government buildings from the Library of Congress, to the U.S. Capitol, the National Archives, the Washington Monument, the White House, the Lincoln Memorial, the Jefferson Memorial, Arlington National Cemetery, and others.

Interestingly, despite public opposition, the National Park Service repositioned the Washington Monument’s metal cap on public display in order to block visitors from being able to read its inscription: Laus Deo (Praise be to God). It has not, however, covered or removed the blocks embedded in the inside walls of the structure on which numerous references to God are inscribed, including “Holiness to the Lord,” “Search the Scriptures,” “In God We Trust,” “The memory of the just are blessed,” and others.

George Washington undoubtedly would be appalled by the National Park Service’s actions. He himself actually insisted that America as a nation must do more than just publicly acknowledge God. He wrote a proclamation (published in The Providence Gazette and Country Journal on October 17, 1789) in which he emphasized:


John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and many other presidents concurred with Washington’s directive. They understood that public displays and public acknowledgements of God were not coercive measures. They were instructional expressions of free speech and free worship. National monuments served as reminders, encouragements, and examples of American leaders who publicly emphasized the importance of valuing, relying upon, and honoring God.

No Founding Father argued that America as a nation should forget God. In fact, they argued the opposite.

Further still, they and their predecessors evidenced through their own actions that they opposed any legal prohibition of inscribing biblical verses or expressions on the very structures and monuments they themselves had commissioned to be built.

This column was first published by

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

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

What’s Happening In 2015 America Meets Sam Adams’ Criteria For Armed Rebellion

Samuel Adams, one of the fathers of the American Revolution, specified four criteria (conditions) for citizens to determine when armed rebellion is justified to respond to a tyrannical and illegitimate government.

Adams and others of a special committee wrote to the governor of Massachusetts, expressing their disapproval of the Shays Riots. Adams specified four criteria for the justification of armed rebellion, which were printed in a circular letter and reproduced by the Massachusetts Gazette on September 12, 1786.

All four criteria are easily met today, in 2015 America:

1. When laws are no longer made by a legislature elected by the people 

Today, no Senator or Congressman writes the laws they claim to sponsor or vote for or against. Bills are written by lobbyists and staff members of companies, and sometimes legislators’s staff. However, the majority of laws enacted are through regulations created by unelected bureaucrats of federal and state agencies.

2. When our form of government exists without our consent

For every law Congress enacts, 56 rules and regulations are enacted by unelected federal and state agency bureaucrats. In fact, in 2013, 65 bills were signed into law; but federal agencies enacted 3,659 rules and regulationsUnelected regulatory bureaucrats and/or lobbyists write America’s laws, without citizens’ consent and most often against the will of the people.

3. Taxation without representation

Obamacare is one obvious example. Congress, against the will of the people, imposed a tax by mandating that individuals must purchase from a selection of government-classified health insurance policies. Congress intentionally substituted a mandate by imposing a penalty for anyone who fails to comply. In response, the U.S. Supreme Court denied due process to Americans.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is another obvious example. Its numerous scandals evidence egregious abuse of power committed by unelected bureaucrats. Unelected bureaucrats have been targeting and discriminating against citizens by selectively enforcing regulations Congress did not create.

In response to the IRS’ abuse of power, an outraged public submitted a record-setting number of comments expressing their opposition to IRS rules. A Center for Competitive Politics study found that 94 percent of public comments opposed some aspects of proposed IRS rules; 87 percent opposed them outright; and of all participants, opponents outnumbered supporters by a 2:1 margin. Yet, their opposition has not prevented unelected bureaucrats from enforcing laws Congress did not create.

4. When authority is no longer derived from ourselves

The 2014 $1.1 trillion quid pro quo omnibus spending bill is an obvious example. (It was not a budget; Congress has not submitted or passed a budget since 2009). The Washington Post calculated that each legislator who voted for the bill received approximately $322,000 from the finance/insurance/real estate industries PACs and employees of firms in those industries. It writes: “On average, members of Congress who voted yes received $322,000 from those industries. Those who voted no? $162,000. Here’s the split by party. House Speaker John Boehner received the most money for ensuring the bill passed.

One provision of the bill written by Citigroup, ZeroHedge reported, could cost taxpayers nearly “$303 trillion in gross notional derivatives as a result of ‘siloing’ swaps, and their associated risks, in FDIC-insured operating companies.” Taxpayers would again (as they were in 2008) be responsible for bailing out financial institutions for losses they incur from these contracts.

Its editors write:


The laws that Congress does pass are written by industry professionals to benefit those industries, not the people they represent in theory only. American citizens, according to Samuel Adams, are justified in rebelling against what the Founders considered an illegitimate, unconstitutional, and tyrannical government ruled by evil men.

Abraham Lincoln warned Americans that they were responsible for losing their freedom. He stated: “America will never be destroyed from outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

The question remains: will Americans heed his warning before it’s too late?

This column was first published by

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

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth