This, our day of Independence...

The mire of occupation, the treatment as a second class of citizen, the onset of egregious new taxation, and no power to seek honest counsel before the King, the people of the American Colonies were pushed into war. Long had our people endured hardship, but this yoke was too much for the ox to bear. And so, a council of brave men put pen to paper, and before the ink had dried lay down their pens in favor of their muskets. If men on this earth were ever to truly know freedom, this would be the moment that would break down barriers for generations to come.

And so a war was fought. Great men battled the mightiest army and navy the world had ever seen... and won. What was won was not won lightly. With the blood and bone of many a brave soul, the mortar of this country's foundation was mixed. With the sweat and tears of those still living, the foundation was laid - a foundation rooted on a simple concept, that men are naturally free and that free men instinctively resist the shackles of tyranny.

On this, our day of Independence, some 234 years after our freedom was declared and the fate of an entire people put to the test, we are once again faced with tyranny. Free men and women recognize tyranny at its basic existence, but even today in this once free country there is a tyranny so much more oppressive than that beat back by our forefathers. In this country, in our home, grown from our seed, there is an evil that has overtaken the very institutions established after our great war... the institutions so fragile that a mere whisper once could have destroyed them. Now, to the trumpet of the lion's roar, corruption screams through the highest level of government, and tyranny once again befalls our great people.

On this, our day of Independence, remember these words:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. 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, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Remember that Government is granted power by the consent of the citizen, though the government of today would have you believe that you are granted certain freedoms at the pleasure of the government.

Remember that Natural Law dictates that it is man's will to be free, and we should be prepared to spill blood and have our blood spilled in order to secure liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

And remember, on all days as you do today, that freedom, absolute freedom, is the responsibility of every man, woman, and child to maintain. Surrender some freedom and you have put all freedom in jeopardy.

Pursuit of Happiness

I have previously shared posts on Life, and on Liberty. Now to close out the series on the three explicitly defined rights, I feel compelled to share with you, first, a video from Fox News on the subject:

All the points shared by this commentator I tend to agree with - namely that Conservative Americans tend to lead happier lives. Our outlook on life in general is more optimistic, and we are more likely to give of ourselves. This is not a pat on the back - but the statistics from the video seem compelling.

But personally - what is the right of "the pursuit of happiness"?

In discussing this question with economic scholars, I have consistently heard that it is in reference to the pursuit of financial wealth and personal prosperity.

In discussing the question with religious friends, I have consistently heard that it is the freedom to worship openly without persecution.


The message being shared by the video is simple - there are constant truths, and those constants create an overwhelming sense of happiness or unhappiness. For instance - the ability and willingness to give freely to those in need - regardless of the individual, on the whole those who are able to give feel happier.

He also hinted at family. We all have family - and the betterment of the relation with our families is the most immediate source of happiness... there is nothing simpler than kindness in the home - a smile, an extra long hug... something that says "You are safe and loved"... Even with extended family - conduct some genealogical research and reach out to a distant cousin... you would be surprised at the truth in the Lakotah Phrase "Mitaku Oyasin" (We are all related)

Truly - happiness is what you make of life that fulfills your soul's yearning. Find it on a mountain top, or behind the counter of a soup kitchen... Happiness is giving more of yourself than you take in...

That is a right that no government can take from you.

When in the Course of Human Events...

The Declaration of Independence, written by men no longer able to idly allow usurpation of their natural right to freedom from tyranny and excessive and burdensome law, has been forgotten by most and ignored by more. What is worse, the importance and relevance of this document is further il-understood in the context of the sequence of events which have recently elapsed.

Over the weekend, the United States ceased to exist as a free nation, as a nation of free men.

This statement has been closer to reality for some time, but the events of the last week have ensured an end to the free society which was so nobly defended by the blood of our forefathers - the same blood that now boils in my veins.

The United States Government, under the guise of security in the financial markets, has simply cast aside the Constitution - a document which identifies the limited government which was allowed by the free peoples of this nation to be established with the limited roles of providing for the common defense of this nation and it's people - and have instituted in it's place an entity with limitless power over finance, business, banking, and the very core of the market system.

This nation ceases to be a Republic, and has now boldly stated that Republics are unnecessary - instead relying on a socialist democracy where the mob rules and the government remains in power of business, jobs, and the once free market. Free thinking minds need not apply - the United States of Freedom has officially gone bankrupt.

Free thinking men continue to do nothing, insisting instead that it is actually a good thing for an entity of once limited power to have unlimited power over businesses - and now has the ability to cease failing businesses for the cause of financial security.

Benjamin Franklin noted: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

So what about those of us who acknowledge the error in the government - what choice do we have but to dissolve the political bands between ourselves and the Federal Government - to declare that we are the Harbinger of Liberty, the protectors of our inalienable rights! Experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Our Federal Government has violated the contract in which WE ALLOW THEIR EXISTENCE. They have proclaimed themselves rulers of their people, masters of the land, and have shown intent to bring slavery and military force upon her people.

The Federal Government is guilty by their own admission of the following:

*It has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies with the purpose of combat against citizens in protest against them
*It has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power, usurping jurisdiction from rightful local citizens.
*It has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving its Assent to their Acts of unwanted Legislation:
- For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us
- For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent
*It has violated the trust of the people, conducting unreasonable search and seizure of persons and property without just cause or due process under the guise of Homeland Security and the "patriot act"
*It has moved to establish itself as superior in all matters where rights and laws are naturally reserved for the people or the states, including but not limited to marriage, education, and local security
*It has established evidentiary proof against itself to be called into question its intention of treason against the good will of the free people of the nation

All these actions occur in violation of the contract between the people and the government. We are under siege, yet we remain distracted and indifferent to action.

My recent near detention at the SeaTac airport in Seattle Washington emboldened me to action. I refused to cooperate with additional screening three hours after I went through security as the TSA agents conducted "random searches" of citizens at my gate. My refusal was on the grounds of the 4th amendment protection against unreasonable search or seizure without probable cause - unless they could present me with a warrant or some other document authorizing such a search of my secure person. They were unable to provide a warrant, and unwilling to show me an authorizing document to conduct this additional and unreasonable full body search. Their response to my protest was to call in their management, who was equally unable to cite any directive or authority to conduct such a search, and when fully frustrated that they could not beat me in a battle of constitutional wits, they threatened to have me arrested. I answered back that there is no need to show unnecessary force, when all I am requesting is documentation of their right to search my person. Needless to say, after a 25 minute stand-off, I took down their names and their position and informed them that i intend to file a full complaint - and allowed them to perform their search under my protest so that I could board my plane. I am currently investigating legal action against the TSA for failure to provide warrant or authority to conduct unreasonable searches under force.

And I call into question any citizen who is unwilling to question the actions of our government. What has this society become? Am I mourning the death of the Republic while others are celebrating the birth of whatever our nation has become?

We should never forget that a government that ceases to act on behalf of the people becomes an enemy of the people. This is just as true today as it was in 1776 - when our Founding Fathers - those brave souls - proclaimed that enough was enough.

Shall Not Be Infringed...

Thanks to the DC gun ban, and the lawsuit by a local DC police officer, the Supreme Court is hearing a case on Gun Rights for the first time in 70 years. A circuit court ruling 2-1 decided that the gun ban was unconstitutional, and that individuals had the right to own personal guns for self defense.

The issue, which is a staple of the conservative base, revolves around the intent of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Fox News reports the two sides of the argument being brought before the court. The DC government ‘s first argument is that the amendment applies to the militia (i.e. National Guard and Army) to have guns. Secondly, DC claims that the amendment does not apply to the district, as it is a special federally controlled haven of the government (a strange argument for a government looking for equal representation in congress). Finally, the DC government claims that this is a reasonable ban used in protecting the DC citizens from violence (looks like it has worked! I can’t think of one person that equates DC with Crime!)

The opposition claims, of course, that the 2nd amendment is very specific about guaranteeing an individual the right to keep and bear arms, and that the DC ban is a “draconian infringement” of our rights.

Heller’s lawyers also present its Founders-era evidence by quoting from George Mason, Blackstone and Madison. They also quote lawyer John Adams during his successful defense of British soldiers in the aftermath of the Boston Massacre.
In that trial Adams conceded that “here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time for their defense, not for offense."

This is going to come down to the intent of the amendment. What did the founders intend by placing those 27 words into our constitution? What purpose could those words serve for future generations?

Let’s take a look at the words, and identify with the founders… what experiences had they lived that would move them to include such a statement?

Definition of MILITIA: The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency; without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service

The founders had just fought and won a war against the largest army and Navy in the world, with little more than farmers and family men with a want to be free. Had these men not owned their own hunting rifles, or been trained in how to use them, there would be no USA. The militia is a band of ordinary citizens versed in defense.

“A well-regulated militia” refers to the ability to call on the citizens of a country to stand in defense with little training in order to face foes the likes of the British regular army.

“being necessary to the security of a free state” – it is the people of a society which are it’s very defense. The security lies in the necessity of ability to defend… and without this ability, the freedoms so valiantly fought for will be succumbed.

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms” – the two most important words are in this clause: right, and people. “Right” indicates that the words of this amendment are equal to those rights endowed by our creator, as described in the Declaration of Independence, which states that “among which are Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness”… of course the founders were bright enough to say “among which”, which meant that further rights were yet to be defined that were also Divinely Endowed. And the word “People” is equally important. They did not say that it is the right of the government to issue arms, rather the right of the people to keep their own arms outside of a government armory. These would be their personal arms, well known to the individual, and able to sue in times of necessary defense of their personal property… be it from a tyrannical government or in simple defense of their personal property.

“shall not be infringed” – the meaning of this line is self evident… it was stated very clearly and bluntly… “No Trespassing” on our afore mentioned rights.

So according to my most accurate interpretation of the amendment, it would read (in layman’s terms): For the protection of our God Given and Earned Rights, a trained and knowledgeable citizenry is necessary. There is no better way to ensure that the United States will always have a citizenry ready to defend than to ensure that the people are always armed and well versed in their personal firearms. This is a right that a government of, by, and for the people shall never take away.

The court is expected to have a ruling on this case by June. I expect that a court truly in understanding of the intent of the people who founded this country will vote unanimously against any bans on firearms by the government. Unfortunately we have a court full of very liberal activists, willing and waiting to strip the people of their Endowed rights. Luckily we have a slim conservative majority, so we can expect a 5-4 ruling in favor of freedom. And this is exactly why we must not allow Hillary or Obama to select our next judges… the very interpretation of our Liberty is at stake.

Lakota Sioux: International Notice, Same US Sentiment

On December 20th I posted a blog on an interesting news flash coming out of Fox News, in which the Oglala tribe of the Lakota Sioux (located on the Pine Ridge Reservation), led not by their elected council but an Indian Affairs Activist Group, submitted a letter of intent to withdraw from all treaties with the United States. Around that time I also took much effort to follow the news and discussion by folks all around the world.

As I searched blogs, blog comments, and online news regarding this issue, I was completely and utterly appalled. Likewise, I was ashamed to be an American, and associated with the history of this country.

Let me explain. As I read through blogs and news articles within the US, it was the norm to come across comments suggesting that we just send the military into the reservation to kill the rest of the Indians. Sadly, this is the same mentality, and lack of regard for the lives of the Native Peoples of this continent. And to think, in the year 2008 it is being suggested that we finish the genocide which was started during the expansion of the United States into the West. In 2008, when we are struggling for freedom and peace around the world, the solution at home is to murder. Inasmuch, where we are a nation that has gained little in the last 150 years where Native Americans are concerned, I have to hang my head in shame.

But my head was not hung for long... Though I am not officially belonging to any tribe, my heritage lies with four native tribes: From my mother - Blackfoot, Cherokee, Chickasaw; From my father - Iroquois. Of course I am also of Danish, English, and French ancestry... but I have always been drawn to the heritage of my family that (because of the racist history of the US) was passed on in secrecy, or in shame... That is the heritage of my Native American ancestors. But in doing so, I have also adopted a love for the history of the native tribes wherever I was. Most of my life it was that of the Pacific Northwestern Natives, where it is amazing that in the Northwest there is such a love for the culture of the native people. And now that I live in the proximity of the Sioux land, I am taking great interest in the history of this land, and the struggle of the Native People to remain free... the very thing that we are fighting for on behalf of other people around the world.

Here we are, in 2008, where we (the United States) consider ourselves the moral authority of the world, spreading freedom, democracy, and rule of law around the world, yet we find ourselves unable to follow that same rule of law. The Oglala council of the Pine Ridge reservation has taken the actions of the activist group into strong consideration, and though they were not initially consulted, the international interest has piqued their interest. The Rosebud Reservation, which is the second largest of the Lakota Sioux, has spoken out against the actions of the activist group, though they long for the ability to win back their land. What they do not fully grasp is that the means with which the activist group acted is entirely legal, both by the constitution and by international law of the UN. I imagine that if the Pine Ridge Reservation's elected officials decides to take action on the side of the activist group, then the other reservations that comprise of the Lakota Sioux will join as well.
What I have determined in my research of this event is this:

• In 1803, the US purchased the Louisiana Territory (530 Million acres) from France for $23 Million. The Lakota Territories where part of this territory on map, though France never owned the territory. It was occupied and protected by the Sioux.


• In 1805, a peace treaty was signed between the US and the Lakota.


• As tensions arose between the Lakota and US settlers, the Treaty of Fort Laramie was requested by the US in 1851. This treaty allowed for safe passage of US settlers on the Oregon trail through Lakota Territory. This treaty explicitly recognized the Lakota territory as an independent and sovereign nation, and promised it's borders for as long as the rivers flow and the eagles fly. Laramie also allowed for US forts and rail-lines to be built in Lakota territory. The treaty promised payment of protection of the US transportation lines for 50 years, later ratified to 10 years of $50,000 for the time. Nearly no payments were received by the tribes, and settlements began to pop up on Lakota land. This was in direct violation of the 1st Laramie Treaty.


• 1866 - 1868: With no payments received, and the increased population of homesteaders in their land, War broke out between the Lakota and the US. These were referred to as Red Cloud's Wars, for lakota Chief Red Cloud. The Lakota defeated the United States, and maintained control over the Powder River. This led to the 2nd Treaty of Fort Laramie. Red Cloud was the only Native Chief to win a major war against the United States.


• 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie: After losing the battle for the Powder River, the US defined the "Great Sioux Reservation", which is the land being claimed by the Lakota Sioux in today's legal battle. This treaty ceded the land to the Sioux as sovereign soil in exchange for peace.


• A Gold Rush into the black hills occurred, following George Armstrong Custer's confirmation that there existed large amounts of gold. Though it was known that this was Sioux territory, the prospectors came, backed by a thousand men led by Custer. The Sioux declared war on the occupying forces, but were unable to remove the prospectors. The natural resources of the Sioux were being stolen and exported out of the territory under the protection of the US. This was in direct violation of the 2nd Laramie Treaty.


• In 1871, the US had decided to no longer enter into treaties with Native Tribes. The US had grown significantly, and with no major wars (internal or external), the US had freed up it's military to occupy and settle the Native territories, though this was in direct violation of the treaties already recognized by both the US and native tribes.


• 1876: the US is defeated at Little Big Horn.


• 1883: The Ex Parte Crow Dog decision of the US Supreme Court, which recognized the ongoing freedom and independence of Lakotah


• 1885: The US Congress attempts to violate sovereignty of Lakota- Major Crimes Act, that unilaterally extended U.S. criminal jurisdiction into Lakotah territory


• 1903: The US Supreme Court ruled on the case of Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, which authorized congress to violate treaties made with the Native tribes. The United States not only said that it could violate, change or abrogate treaties with Indian nations unilaterally, but it also said that the U.S. Congress possesses plenary (absolute) power to legislate in any way in indigenous affairs without the consent or consideration of indigenous nations. This is in direct conflict with the Treaties of Laramie.


• 1969: Vienna Convention on Treaties - where international agreement is made on what a treaty is, how it should be handled, and what is the justification for the breaking of a treaty. Ref specifically Article 49, Article 60 Parts I and II


• September 2007: The United Nations passes a nonbinding Declaration of Indigenous Rights, outlining the right to the recognition, observance and enforcement of treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements concluded with States or their successors and to have States honor and respect such treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements.


• December 2007: The Lakota declare that the US has broken treaties, and wishes to withdraw from the treaties made with and broken by the US. This includes a complete hand-over of all territories taken in violation of the treaties.


• NOTE: Article VI of the US Constitution states: All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Though this is an epic legal battle 150 years in the making, I have yet to find just cause why this would not hold up in any court, with one exception: The lack of unity by the Sioux.

However, as the legality of this issue is further recognized by international leaders, and the pressure of the international community increases against the US, the Sioux are going to unite, and the United States are going to have to address this issue as a real concern.

Currently, the international community has this to say:

• Bolivia - the demands of indigenous people of America are our demands. We have sent all the documents they presented to the embassy to our Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Bolivia and they'll analyze everything


• Ireland and East Timor: We're very interested in this development


• Venezuela, Chile, Russia and South Africa are looking into the situation.

The official response from the US Bureau of Indian Affairs is:

This doesn't mean anything. These are not legitimate tribal governments elected by the people [...] when they begin the process of violating other people's rights,
breaking the law, they're going to end up like all the other groups that have
declared themselves independent - usually getting arrested and being put in jail

I am still waiting for this story to develop... but at this time, all I can really say is that I am shocked at the response by the US citizen, who would see the US return to the genocide and murder of Native Americans struggling to do what we in the US fight for around the world: To Be Free.

In the era of Communication, and the Age of Recognition, how is the US to handle this issue without public outcry from the international community... and what about those of us in the United States who understand the struggle of the Lakota? How can the US continue to be the moral authority of the world when it ceases to do what is right, and as such what is the hardest thing to do... Uphold the supreme law of the land.

The US has never been tested on the level that it is about to be tested... how will her people react?

231 Years... Happy Birthday America

231 years ago, there was a spark that ignited a fire... a fire that would ultimately forge the steel foundations for a country with resolve... a new nation rising up from the ashes of tyranny, like the majestic phoenix... As such, the government that has since been founded must learn from the mistakes of past failed governments, or as the cycle of the phoenix, suffer the same fate.

Government, as an entity, has but one purpose... however "free" the ideology of a democratic-republic may make us feel, the fact is that a government set apart from the people has the power to rule the people.

And so, 231 years after the great phoenix that was this budding democracy so gracefully sprang forth from the ashes of tyranny, do We the People of this great nation find ourselves at the mercy of yet another overbearing and unrepresentative government?

I pose a simple question... has the dream been lost?

Or is there hope that the people of this country can realize the err in their direction, and cast off the corruption found in their leaders? Is there that glimmer of a chance that as this phoenix burns, we can rise up, a great nation with new potential... with true freedom from fear of our own government... that the nation will stand in defense of our enemies, but allow freedoms within our own borders?

Is there hope that the once great roar found in the words of the founding fathers, that roar which has since been silenced to a whisper by lack of conviction out of our fellow man... is there hope that these words are not lost, and that the idea of this great nation, where man can be free, is still within our grasp?

In a nation where "fairness must be legislated" (Clinton-D-New York) and the day of our Independence has become a day for "4th of July Sales" and fireworks, I have to ask these questions... And I hope that you are all asking the same.

What is most important to you: Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution?

In an attempt to better understand the way that we citizens view the role of government and the role of a citizen of the United States, I have (over)simplified my analysis into one simple question:

What founding document do you hold nearest to your heart: The Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution of the United States?

As such, I plan to use this same concept/question in my CNN/YouTube video question to the Republican Candidates for the September 23rd debate.

Perhaps I should explain why this question matters to me... and should to you.

One who holds the Constitution closer to his heart puts more of an emphasis on the structure of government, the necessity of government, and the hope that a government can exist as a part of the citizenry. All good things.

One who holds the Declaration of Independence closer to his heart, as a government official, tends to have a fear of the "Overbearing" government, and as such, understands that it is the citizenry who rules the government... not the other way around. Again... good things.

The difference between the two, in my oversimplified analysis, is that a government official who fears the people legislates with a lighter touch than one who envisions that the government, as an entity separate from the citizenry, rules the people.

I, for one, in the spirit of Patrick Henry (give me liberty or give me death) agree that there should be less power in the federal government, and as such, live and die by the D.O.I. - a general "Up Yours" to a government that does not represent the people

Have I oversimplified? If so, let me know... Which document do you hold dearest... and how do you perceive the difference between the two?