Government

The Myth of Government

The myth of 'government' in the U.S. is that it is benign, trustworthy, law abiding, just, fair, moral, omniscient, and magnanimous; That it will protect our Life, Liberty, and Property; That it will also protect us from chaos, terrorists, dictators, tyrants, criminals, and things that go thump in the night; That it has the consent of the governed; And; That it is morally superior to all others, in form and in action.

Merriam-Webster states that a myth is "an idea or story that is believed by many people but that is not true." The alleged properties of 'government' listed in the first paragraph are called myths by this author for good reasons. Those reasons will be presented, examined, and explained on this page.

The myths of government are parroted continuously without any critical thought or examination. It is not until one actually takes notice of the myths and chooses to examine them that one rejects them for the falsehoods they are.

'Government' is only men and women who call themselves 'government'. 'Government' is NOT a demigod with supernatural power to protect us from chaos, terrorists, dictators, tyrants, criminals, and things that go thump in the night. The myth, and those who would have us vote for them, would have us believe otherwise.

The Purpose of Government

Any person who has spent time in a public school system within the 50 states united, should have no problem recognizing and identifying the following words and document.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and 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 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.

Did you identify those words as being from the United States' Declaration of Independence? If yes, then I assume you've enjoyed the fireworks lit on the evenings of July Fourth.

Are you aware that the Fourth of July Independence Day festivities celebrate the willful refusal to obey existing law? That these festivities celebrate the violent overthrow of the existing 'government' and the killing of that 'government's' agents? Or has the 'government' approved patriot propaganda caused you to forget these facts? Just something for you to consider on the next Fourth of July.

If all humans are created with equal rights, doesn't this mean that no human ever could be born with innate authority over any other?

Please note that the U.S. Declaration of Independence states that the purpose of 'government' is to protect individual rights. This is 'government's' raison d'être, its reason for existing.

If something habitually and continually violates its reason for existing, is there any reason to continue its existence? Doesn't this declaration claim that when 'government' violates its raison d'être it is to be altered or abolished? How many violations of 'government's reason for existing do you need to ignore, just to continue to pretend there is nothing wrong with the current system?

The Declaration of Independence claims that government's alleged authority comes from the people. This can be proven false with one simple question: Can anybody delegate (give) an authority that they themselves do not have?

Taking my cue from the cited declaration; I find it self-evident that:

• Nobody can delegate an authority that they do not have.
• That if all humans are created with equal rights, then all are without innate authority over any other human.
• That if no human has any authority over anybody else, then they have no authority which they can delegate to those men and women called 'government'.

Likewise voting can not delegate authority to those people called 'government' that the voters themselves do not have. I will specifically address the inherent illogic and idiocy of voting elsewhere on this site.

The Charter of Government

The Constitution of the United States of America is the charter document that allegedly created the Federal United States 'government'.

The Preamble to the Constitution states in part, "We the People of the United States … do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

This leaves me with several questions. And I shall ask them because I do not consider the Constitution to be sacrosanct and beyond questioning.

• Who, specifically, is this "We the People" that ordained and established the Constitution?
• Is it true that those who ordained and established the Constitution are long dead?
• Is it true that any people now living did not exist at the time of the ordaining and establishing of the Constitution? Then;
• Is it true that any people now living had no say in the ordaining and establishing of the Constitution? If so;
• Is it true that the "We the People" that ordained and established the Constitution are NOT the "We the People" now living?

Article 1, Section 1 of that Constitution states in part: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States…"

• Is it true that legislative Power means the authority to make law that must be obeyed?
• Is it true that nobody has or can have any innate authority over anybody who does not yet exist?
• Doesn't this mean that those long dead people could not have had any innate authority over you, I, or anybody else who now presently exists?
• If none of those who were We the People 200 plus years ago had any authority of legislative Power over you, I, or anybody else, then how could they have vested (delegated) any legislative Power (authority) over you and I to Congress?

Lysander Spooner wrote of this in his essay No Treason, The Constitution of No Authority in 1870. Spooner's first paragraph states:

The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. [Now 180⁺ years] And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but “the people” then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. No Treason No. 6: The Constitution of No Authority 

The Truth of Government

What our 'government' "is",  will be shown and proven by its actions. 

If you want to learn what a person "is", you only need to observe certain actions by the person in question.  You know what the person in question "is" if you observe this person murder, rape, rob, steal, lie, enslave or terrorize. 

Likewise, to learn what a 'government' in question "is", you only need to observe certain actions by the 'government' in question.  If a 'government' murders, rapes, robs, steals, lies, enslaves, or terrorizes, then you know what that 'government' "is". 

On Protecting Real Estate

How does Eminent Domain protect the property of the people? For those not familiar with Eminent Domain, Eminent Domain is when private property is taken for "public use".

In Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005); The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the City of New London taking Susette Kelo's land and giving it to the private New London Development Corporation. The reason stated for the taking; to further economic development; an event that eleven years later still did not happen.

Suzette Kelo and 15 other property owners had their property taken.

Ten years ago today, [June 23, 2015] the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision upholding the City of New London, Connecticut’s “right” to condemn Connecticut homeowners’ properties, transfer them to a state-created entity called the New London Development Corporation, which would then transfer those properties to a private developer of a planned mixed-use redevelopment project aimed at supporting an adjacent Pfizer research facility.
 Competitive Enterprise Institute.org 

For those who would argue the property owner gets "just compensation" I point out that the owner doesn't really get any say as to what just compensation is. Judges decide what is just compensation and the property owner is stuck with whatever the judge decides. And I also point out that judges are men and woman who call themselves 'government' and are paid by 'government' funds.

The properties are still vacant as of the writing of this web page.

On Protecting Personal Property

Incredible as it sounds, civil asset forfeiture laws allow the government to seize property without charging anyone with a crime. Police can seize property first and hold it pending trial, which could be four to six years later. The government’s case for forfeiture can be based on allegations of illegal activity of someone other than the property owner. At trial the owner has to prove innocence – the government does not have to prove the property owner was guilty. Many forfeiture victims don’t have enough assets left after the seizure to hire counsel, yet the procedures are too complicated for property owners to successfully defend themselves.
 Forfeiture Endangers American Rights Foundation.org 

On Protecting Liberty

What is Liberty?

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
-- Thomas Jefferson --

The tyrants who call themselves government have ordered that it is against the law:

• to drive without a license;
• to drive an unregistered car;
• to exceed the speed limit;
• to distill whiskey and other spirits without a license;
• to smoke marijuana;
• to gamble;
• to carry a gun without a permit;
• to do many things that are actually none of their business.

Whose individual rights are being violated by doing these things proscribed by those who imagine that they are 'government'? Compare that to whose Liberty is being violated by the laws banning all of the above?

On Protecting Life

Capital Punishment doesn't happen unless Capital Punishment Laws are on the books. Any 'government' that executes people premeditates murder.

'Government' murder is not limited to executing prisoners. Do a web search for “Ruby Ridge” and you will find articles such as the one this excerpt was taken from:

During the night, FBI snipers took positions around the Weaver cabin. There is no dispute about the fact that the snipers were given illegal "shoot to kill" orders. Under the law, police agents can use deadly force to defend themselves and others from imminent attack, but these snipers were instructed to shoot any adult who was armed and outside the cabin, regardless of whether the adult posed a threat or not. The next morning, an FBI agent shot and wounded Randy Weaver. A few moments later, the same agent shot Weaver's wife in the head as she was standing in the doorway of her home holding a baby in her arms. The FBI snipers had not yet announced their presence and had not given the Weavers an opportunity to peacefully surrender.
By Timothy Lynch, published in National Review Online, Aug. 21, 2002.
 Cato Institute 

Likewise, a web search for "Waco Tragedy" will find articles such as the one this excerpt was taken from:

Independent filmmaker Michael McNulty came upon some evidence that appeared damaging to the government. He found a shell casing from a certain type of tear gas round that could start a fire - a device the Justice Department had denied using for more than six years - publicly and to Congress.

"Congress was mislead on this; there is no question about it," says Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Johnston, the top justice department official in Waco. He worries that someone in the Justice Department hid the truth.

For several weeks Johnston wrote to his superiors warning them that the new evidence contradicted what they had been saying. But the Justice Department did not change its story until August, when Attorney General Janet Reno was forced to admit that the tear gas round had been used.

Investigators have concluded that two of these devices were used. Though credible experts still overwhelmingly believe the Davidians started the fire, the damage had been done. The FBI was caught in a lie.
 CBS News 

The FBI is part of 'government'. Those who call themselves government are liars.

How many people have been killed by 'government' armies?

Betcha it's many, many more than the number of people killed by the Manson, Dahmer, Bundy, Gacy, and Berkowitz personalities of the world. There are many more serial killers and their body count doesn't come anywhere near the numbers killed by government.

On Police Protection

Do a web search for “Hope Steffey” and you will find an online video of her rape by the Stark County, Ohio sheriff‘s department.  Forcibly stripping a handcuffed woman who called 911 for help IS rape.  No penetration was required as you will find out when you view the video.  WARNING: The video is extremely disturbing. View in a new window. 

While looking for an active link for the above video, I found another video of another strip search of a woman by the thugs police.
 View in a new window. 

Stated in Warren v. DC, 444 A.2d 1 (1981):

[T]he fundamental principle [is] that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.

Stated in DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. DSS, 489 U.S. 189 (1989):

A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services.

Police have no duty to protect you. You can NOT sue them for failing to protect you.

Why do you suppose you have the belief that the purpose of the police is to protect you? Could it be that the liars that call themselves government don't want you to know that truth, until you try to sue them for not protecting you?

This video is a 40 second clip of the police protecting a person's life.
 View in a new window. 

When you learn the truth about police protection, you're not going to want to fund the police.