have been considering the words "owner" and "freedom" that are used so often these days. Many Americans have prided themselves that in this free country one gets to participate in the American dream. They get to own a home or own a business. They believe that Americans are free to "make something of themselves" and to choose those things which are best for them. They are free to reap of the benefits of those choices. This dream, this hope, is understandable since it is parroted in almost every classroom in America from the earliest years. What is missed is that the force of law [read: lawlessness] has taken away most of those imagined freedoms and powers of the individual. The state wants it all.
It is understandable that men might have laws which protect citizens from crimes perpetrated against them. It has always been accepted policy that the state has the right to prosecute murderers. Thieves should be incarcerated until they have paid back what they owe or until they are punished in some way for their crimes. If we would only look at our situation in the world today, one who uses his mind for more than football and Santa Claus may be able to see that things have gotten out of hand. In fact, things have gotten out of all of our hands.
Concerning our private property, it is true that a few folks still believe there is such a thing. There really isn't. At least there is no private property the way men usually believe it or express it. The only owner of land today is the state. Federal land is all there is. Let us consider why I might make such a radical statement. What is ownership? Is it not the power to do with what is yours? I think it is something like that. Is not ownership sovereign power to do what you like with what you own? Of course, we can all see the reason behind the laws which do not permit someone to use his property to intentionally harm someone else, but I am not writing concerning that. I know of no citizen who has the right to do fully what he wishes with his property. Do you? What we have these days is the right to do with the land what the federal government says we may do with it. Does that not make it federal land? The true owner of the land has the final word as to what is to be done with it. Is that not so? One might say, "Wait just a minute. I can mow my lawn." Yes, you can do that, but only because the federal government says you can. If the federal government passed a law that said you could not mow your lawn because it had an endangered flea, then you would not mow it since they are the actual owners of it. If one is a renter, he may still mow the lawn if the landlord approves. It is true that men have their own names on the deed, but that only identifies the caretaker or the one to be sued if anything goes wrong. Some may argue that this premise is wrong because of the Constitution etc., etc. What I am writing is true in the practical sense and in the real sense. It does not matter what the law says if I am unable to fully appreciate those freedoms that the state pretends I still have.
This is not picking at straws. Land is confiscated or the owners fined or sued every day because that land was not used according to federal law. The latest assertion of federal land rights that I have heard of came to me via a reader of The WINDS. He reported a story in theRiverside Press Enterprise. I used to live in that city which now belongs to the Feds. The story goes, "A U.S. appellate court has ruled that the federal government has the right to protect an endangered fly that exists only in the Inland Empire. Riverside and San Bernardino county officials say the insect, the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, has stymied development, stalled job growth and cost taxpayers money. ...'This decision is essentially a license to the federal government to regulate anything it wants,' said Jackson...If the federal government can regulate a fly in California because of biodiversity, there is nothing the federal government can't regulate'. ...Since then, the fly has cost San Bernardino County 3.3 million to shift by 200 feet the location of its new 373-bed county hospital in Colton.... In 1995 Colton, Fontana and San Bernardino County, along with the home builders group, sued the Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Department of the Interior. The plaintiffs asserted that the federal government did not have the constitutional authority to regulate activities affecting the fly because it exists only in California. The federal government contended it had the right under the commerce clause of the Constitution. The case was dismissed in Dec. 1996."
Don't swat a fly or you go to jail if it is one of those rare ones. I wonder if they are going to make nice little radio collars for each little fly. That could start a whole new industry. Please excuse me for my sarcasm. Some things become a little too much for my right brain to process without rolling in the aisle.
A grower of hemp may have his land confiscated by the real owner if he gets caught. There is a confiscation law about that somewhere, you know. The real owner of property is one who can take possession of that land if it is not used as the owner decrees. Is that not so? If you stop paying your property taxes, you will find that the next in line to the federal government will come and possess the property. If one truly owned the land himself, this could not occur. The owner of the property has the ultimate say. Suppose you want to build a high-rise on your land but it is zoned for rural homes. Can you build it? No. Suppose you want to build two homes on the land that is zoned for one. Can you build them? No. Let us suppose you had the unction to dry out some property that the federal government says is wet. Can you dry it out? No. That is, no, unless you would like to spend your last penny in court trying to do what you want to do; and, then the court will decide what you may do with its land. You see, all of this free talk that we hear so much these days from the White House is not freedom at all in the real sense. It is freedom to do what the federal government decrees you may do. That is what the government means by "free" America.
Today I listened to a popular radio talk show host argue with one of his listeners about affirmative action. They were arguing about quotas and whether or not racial quotas should be mandated. To my mind, this argument seemed to completely miss the point. Both of these arguers were on the same side and they knew it not. To argue that a law should allow for men or women to be hired on the basis of their qualifications, rather than their skin color, is all still part of the same problem. It still gives the federal government the power over my choices. Whether the federal government tells me I may drink water or not drink water is the same thing. It assumes that other men have authority over my personal decisions and my reasoning. Would the citizens of this country like to have the federal government decree that all men, women and children must have eight glasses of water a day and if they do not drink that many glasses, they will be fined, imprisoned or both? On the other hand, what if the federal government got a law passed that said you may drink all the water you like? It is still the same thing. How is it that government has assumed the right over my soul, my self and my mind?
Affirmative action is simply a smoke screen. The rights of the minority have been used as tools for usurping the businesses of the land away from the owners. Let us imagine you had an extra million dollars lying around and you decided to use it to start a business. First of all, you would need a license. After that, you would need to pass inspection as to what you were going to sell, etc. If you construct a building, you must first find out if there are any endangered insects in the area. You then may be told what kind of employee you may hire. You would need a certain number of women and minorities. Now that may be okay to have, women and minorities, but when you are instructed as to how many you may have, you have to admit that the owner of a business is the one who should decide who he will have as an employee. If your business is governed by the federal government, then the federal government effectively owns it. You may only export those items to foreign countries that the federal government says you may export. You may import only those items the federal government says you may import. You may make your products only in ways that you are instructed to make them. Otherwise, you will be fined and sued till you don't have a pair of pants left. You may manage "your" business if you organize it the way the state says and then the state's profit is taken in the form of tax. If you behave, and happily do what the state says, you will be permitted to run the state business and even keep your name on the paper that says you own it. Double-cross Uncle and you will find out how long you may pretend you still own it. This is not to argue laws or the Constitution. This is simply to state things the way they are.
Someone has said, "I can do what I want with what is mine. America is a free country." No you can't and no it isn't. This is mainly because you do not own anything anymore. You do not even own yourself. How do I know this? As has been stated in the news recently, it is unlawful to go into Iraq. There are also restrictions placed on U.S. citizens on travel to Libya and Cuba, among others, who are not in good graces with Washington. Now, if I want to go there and the state says I can't, so I don't, who owns me? If a hate crime law is passed and I cannot say that homosexuality is evil, so I don't say that, who owns my tongue? The state, that is who. When I want to do something with myself, should I not have the right to do it without checking with the state first? Yes, I should, but I don't. What I am saying is I don't have the right according to the state. I can only go where I am told to go according to them. I can eat only what they say I can and I can drink only what they say I can. That does not sound like a free country to me, does it you? I am not saying that some of the things I might eat or drink may not harm me. I am saying that the state does not have the inherent right to decree for me what is good or bad. That seems to me to be my decision for myself.
Many of the things the state has approved and mandated (such as air bags), killed some children. The parents may have not chosen air bags for their family, but since the state said so, they did it. If they had lived according to their own good sense instead of the government's decree, their children might still be alive. This evening's news reported that the state is now to regulate organic foods. I didn't know there was any other kind. Just try eating inorganic. It won't go down well. The state says I may smoke cigarettes but not hemp. If I die smoking cigarettes, it is legal but suicide is not legal. I wonder how may folks the state has put in prison for committing suicide? I can remember my childhood where one would often hear, "yea-yea, yea-yea, yea, yea, you can't catch me". I wonder if those who commit suicide ever said that. Suicide is something they can do illegally and the state cannot fine them or put them in jail.
The state has more aggressively mandated seat belts and more aggressively enforced them. Now it may be a good thing for some individuals to have seat belts on, but there have been accidents in which the seat belt held the individuals in the autos and they died because of it. The point here made is not to decide if seat belts are good to use. The point being made is that the person himself should decide whether or not he will use them. This is not to be. Now the state will decide. Should a person not have the right to decide things which happen to their own body? No, only women with babies in their wombs have that right. While they do not have the right to choose most things, they may choose whether or not the baby will live or die.
All of this talk about a woman having control over her own body, and that is why she should be able to abort her baby, is a whopping lie. The state has no regard for people to have power over their own body; none whatsoever. Look at the hundreds of laws that keep you from having control over your own body. No, the real reason is the state would like to get rid of some of the kids. This is a nifty way to cut the population increase. Because of this, the state made up this story that it cares that women have control over their own bodies. All of the mindless, non-thinkers thought that sounded about right, so they supported it. This is also the reason the state decided that homosexuality is now such a wonderful human right. Two men or two women together can't have babies. The state is committing a hate crime all in the name of human rights. Those children that make their way into society past the abortion clinics will be trained and governed by the state for the purposes of the state. Parents do not own their children anymore. Now the state does. And the state cares about as much for the true worth of that child as all those aborted fetuses.
Mr. Farrakhan recently broke one little bubble. When he was informed by Washington that he was not to go to Iraq because it was illegal, he simply stated, "I am not your slave, I do not work on your plantation." It seems that a few like Mr. Louis Farrakhan can still express the truth about themselves. Well, I am a white man and I am not their slave either and neither do I work in their plantation, but it seems most white folks these days don't know that for themselves. White folks believe that to be a good law-abiding citizen one must sell his soul to the state. One must be a good law-abiding citizen at any cost. I wonder if any black folks believe that. Some probably do.
I will concede the fact that there are functions for government. Societies need an orderly function to guarantee the freedom of its citizens to live happily and cooperatively amongst themselves, but is it not true that government goes too far when it moves into the area of conscience and in areas that should be individual choice? Should government really be able to decide what is good for me personally? And if it can decide that, is it government's prerogative to force me to do what is good for me personally? Was this not the basis for the inquisition? Was this not the basis of every tyrannical, dictatorial regime ever imagined? "We know what is good for you and if you don't do it, we will steal your land and put you in prison. If you still do not do what we say, we will kill you." Yes, I think man's oppressive history went something like that.
The Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, Section 1 reads: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude... shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Webster's Dictionary says that servitude is "a right of one person to use another's property." It is also stated that it is using the labors of another. The question here raised is over the word "involuntary". When a man is forced against his will to serve the state, that would involve "involuntary servitude." This seems especially true in regards to conscience. This issue involves what is good for me personally. It involves whether others should make my conscientious choices for me. Every revolution and overthrow of government has been made on this argument. Men in the past have felt that their governments crossed over from the free use of the will to involuntary servitude. This has been the basis of many a tax revolt. The government forced citizens to pay by force for things they deemed wrong, or in the amount they considered exorbitant. When government forgets that its power only rests in the voluntary cooperation of its citizens and begins to force them to do what it wants, there will be trouble by and by.
The point of this editorial is not to argue whether or not laws are good. It is not to argue whether certain laws are better than others. The purpose of this writing is to simply state how things are. In the old Soviet Union so many demonize these days, it was the same way. We have heard, "workers of the world unite." The Soviets didn't care about the workers. They only cared about controlling the workers. We heard the propaganda about the blessings of state and communist rule. We saw the flag waving and the special educational classes given to the young children and workers of the Soviet Union. We saw how certain children were trained for the higher positions of society and everything the citizen did was overseen by the state bureaucracy. All people had free speech in the USSR unless they said something they were not supposed to say. All people had freedom of movement unless they went somewhere they were not supposed to go. All people had freedom of religion as long as it was the one sanctioned by the state. The religious people could believe what they liked, but they could not exercise those beliefs if the state deemed them inconvenient. These days we have achieved the Soviet system in our own country. The state now owns the property, soul and conscience in every practical way. The difference is that in this country most people BELIEVE they have all those rights that are stated in the Constitution. There is another difference I could mention. Our morals are a whole lot more decadent than the Soviets' morals were. Amazing, isn't it? The world thinks they are free to exercise their freedoms if they are allowed to fornicate themselves, even if the truly meaningful, inalienable rights as God gave them no longer exist. Isn't that written somewhere that we were created with certain inalienable rights? Inalienable means: "not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated." I guess that means we should still have them if we haven't given them away. President Bush said the cold war was over and we won. I wonder why the communists got the trophy?
This system of conscience perversion is about to fall as the other ones have. It behooves any true human being to follow his/her conscience anyway. When blacks were ordered by the state to be returned to their masters if they escaped back in the days of official slavery, certain principled whites refused to obey that law. These days, there are certain laws that will have to be disobeyed for a man to be true to himself. There are certain men who know their God who will not be forced to live as animals with radio collars. We will be living according to our God-given reason. This is fair warning America, your days are numbered. You have been weighed in the balances and found wanting.
Disclaimer: APFN is not responsible for the accuracy of
material on 'The Winds'
and does not necessarily endorse the views expressed within their web pages.
This page is in the public domain.