In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Do we need a "government"?
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
by Ed Lewis
"To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded,
by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so." -Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's book entitled "General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, 1851 (Taken from VOMIT UK 22/02)
What would Mr. Proudhon write today if he saw a country with possibly the strongest military force in the world headed by a man who is a warmongering idiot capable only of mouthing the words that his controllers want him to stick with? Get real. Any person who promotes and wants war in this day and age of government weapons of mass destruction has to be a complete idiot. And, off course, the word "headed" is used loosely as the man doesn't actually "head" the nation - he is just the head of the Executive Branch of government. At least, that is how it is supposed to be.
"Govern is an interesting concept, especially since most people mistakenly believe it is the job of the government to govern the people. From the American Heritage Dictionary, we find:
Govern - (transitive verb) 1. To make and administer the public policy and affairs of; exercise sovereign authority in. 3. To control the actions or behavior of: Govern yourselves like civilized people. (My emphasis)
We also find in this dictionary the many definitions for "government".
"Government - 1. The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit. 2. The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body. 3. Exercise of authority in a political unit; rule. 4. The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions and exercises authority. 5. A governing body or organization." as:
Any American who loves the concept and practice of "liberty" should be scared to the very core of his being when government moves beyond its authority and does not adhere to the dictates of the true governing body - the sovereign people - resulting in a "ruling" body over people.
This is a hard concept to grasp but originally the American people - or any free people - are not governed by outside sources other than their Creator. Each in a free society governs himself. Because each of the people governs himself does not mean there is the absence of any form of political authority resulting in disorder and confusion or lacking in any cohesive principle or anarchy.
If we do not understand or come to understand that the sovereign - the people - have the responsibility of self rule based on the laws of God - the cohesive principles - while men forming the government are delegated only to protect this right of God given self-determination (political authority), liberty will not exist in this country - at least for 95 percent or more of the population.
Affect the laws of self-rule and any semblance of a Republic is lost to the emerging dictatorship or oligarchy government being created by those who would undermine liberty.
Because we have lost the concept of "liberty" to tyrannical legislation that has changed our constitutional government to sovereignty resting in elected officials and others, we have essentially allowed our country to be overthrown by greedy, lustful, and immoral persons lacking in integrity.
Now we have this power-mad person in the Oval Office making statements such as this one: "Thousands of trained killers are plotting to attack us," to which he added, "this terrible knowledge requires us to act differently."
Well, he is right about one thing - thousands of trained killers are planning to attack us. But it is the source of these thousands that are not mentioned by him, his staff, or his controllers. The thousands are those of the different levels of government who now have the primary goal of enforcing de facto laws that, in fact, do not apply to the sovereign. And, now more de facto laws are being added to "justify" terrorist actions by law enforcers.
This man - biologically speaking, anyway - has also on many occasions used one of his favorite propaganda (lies, in other words) phrases - protecting the freedoms against those who hate the freedoms we in America have.
What a pea-brain. One cannot protect the rights of people by removing the rights of people. When are the brain-dead majority of the American people going to wake up to this fact? When are the brain-dead going to come to realize that the people who hate freedom are not those of foreign origin, except when one acknowledges the District of Corruption as being foreign.
The functions given the federal and state governments are to uphold the Constitution and provide protection against those who would invade our shores and/or infringe upon our rights. Is this what the current and past administrations have done?
Is this what your state and local governments have done?
If you have any inkling of what is going on, you know the answers to these questions is "no, rights have not been protected but have been infringed upon by every level of government."
So, you see, we are not having our freedom threatened by foreign countries - we are being threatened by the very organizations that are supposed to provide protection against infringement upon rights, whether from a foreign or domestic source. And, just as the bush man said, we should behave differently but not the way he means.
Friends - and at least 95 percent of the thousands of people the writer has known during his life - internalized certain values, including those of respecting the rights and property of others - along with working for what one gets. Integrity was instilled in us by family, friends, other peers, and only in a small way by the threat of "getting caught". In fact, people I have been closest to did not consider the possibility of jail as the block to harming another. The usual reason for avoiding doing something to harm another person was "it's wrong".
Thus, one might say there were clear-cut lines of "right" and "wrong". But, what of now?
Here we have an administration - all the clods in government regardless of level of government or of position within the government - that openly and flagrantly takes the property of others under some guise or another. By property is meant not only one's land, buildings, automobiles, trucks, and money, but also his right to determine how to best live his own life for maximum enjoyment.
The government does this not only domestically but in other countries as well. If a country has oil that is blocked from US oil interests, then the answer is to change the government of the country (kill the leaders in opposition to US Government's intents) and put a person or group in place that will go along with oil interests backing and/or in the US Government.
Let's turn the clock back for a moment. People managed their own affairs. What government there was small and non-intrusive on the people. The laws to obey were the laws of God. If one transgressed on the rights of another, the people made the judgment as to redress being due and what the redress was.
Most of the people settling this country had had enough of tyranny and lack of freedoms concerning spiritual beliefs and not being able to live as free men. Or, maybe they wished to start a new life with everything they could gain through their own hard efforts was theirs and theirs alone.
Eventually, enough in each of these colonists believed strongly in separating themselves from the rule of England headed by King George III. They had a long list of grievances never resolved by the King. Hence, the Declaration of Independence was written and separation from England declared. The right to do so was fought for - and won (even though some try to convince people we are still under English rule).
Each colony in becoming a State maintained its sovereignty over the other states and, most important, the centralized government. Certain functions were given the central government which can be boiled down to two - defend the shores of the states against all invasions, whether foreign or domestic, and to uphold the Constitution thereby protecting the Christian and God-given rights, whether enumerated or not, of the people.
The central government's jurisdiction was limited to the District of Columbia and territories. Each state's jurisdiction was limited to the confines of the State but could not infringe upon the rights of the people. The duty of the government established for the State was to uphold the Constitution and defense. Thus, the people were sovereign over the central government, each individual state government, and each man and woman was sovereign to each other.
Now, one might wonder as we have seen the Constitution and the rights of man destroyed by the anti-Christian (including Ashcroft - he's a fake Christian), anti-patriot forces in all levels of government exactly the necessity for a government if the government is intent on infringing upon human rights. Or, asking in another fashion, if government makes laws that infringe on the rights of even one man or woman, then is it not an anti-constitutional act, which must fall into the category of treason? We must ask then - do we need treasonous governments?
Consider for a moment the purpose for weapons of mass destruction. Better yet, consider why they are even developed. Is it for defense? And, if so, why is such defense a necessity? Is it because the people in one country want to destroy the people in another country? Or, is it because leaders of countries want something some other country has?
While considering this, also think about this. The people in this country are being told that Muslims (first, it was just Islamics hated but it spread to include all Muslims) hate Americans because of their freedoms. We are a Christian nation founded on Christian principles so the "alleged" conflict between the two religions is often brought up - you know, the old religious war thing. But, if this is so, why have Christians and Muslims lived in peace for centuries in Egypt with the only expulsion being Jews?
To bring up another relevant point, let's say you are on a picnic with many of your family and friends on the 4th of July. There are several other groups, one of which is close enough for you to see what they have. Now, let's say the group has an item of food or drink your group doesn't have. Is your first inclination to think - "Hey, let's go over there and take their food that we don't have"?
A bunch of us were having a military group picnic on one of the beaches In Okinawa. Near to us was an Okinawan wedding party. Well, a couple of the kids smelled our roasting hot dogs and saw us roasting marshmallows, something this group had not seen before. The kids wanted some so a couple of us that knew a few words went to talk to the adults and see if it was okay.
It was and we worked out a mutually beneficial trade. They shared their Okinawan food and drink with us and we shared ours with them. Quite a deal.
The point is that neither group wanted to attack the other to get what they had. We ended up having a great afternoon and evening sharing food, drink (saki for bourbon and beer) and many laughs in spite of the language barrier. It is still one of my fondest memories for the past 36 or 37 years (I was either 19 or 20 at the time).
There was no "government" to tell us how to behave. All that governed us were our respect for other people.
The founders of this country preached and practiced non-interference with other nations, just as most of us preach non-interference with other people. We were at peace with the world as long as this doctrine was upheld, just as we remain at peace with other people when we do not interfere with their rights. Other countries that were open to visitors accepted us, including those in the Middle East, now alleged by government to be the "deadly" enemies of our freedom (excepting Israel).
Our colonists who became the American people lived and traded with each other and other countries without any bad feelings developing that would have resulted in wars being declared. Trades for goods were worked out. Even though most of the world's people were armed, arms were not used to take what they wanted. Governing bodies have always done this, not the people.
Not so now. American foreign policy today is nothing more than "Hey, you back my aggressive war-like actions against such and such country since we (my financial backers and companies I am associated with) need its resources and I will make sure you get my backing (or money) in your aggressions against such and such country." Or - "Don't back us and we will assure you will be boycotted or bombed back to the Stone Age."
Name a war that was not instigated by a government rather than the people. Next, prove that the war was not the result of persons in government - or those who supported government financially, meaning major industrialists and bankers - wanting something that another country had and for the lust for power and control over other people.
Without centralized governments, People, I fervently believe that all people, regardless of country of origin, would be much further down to the road to world peace. It is always leaders, whether political, religious, military or a combination of these that starts wars. They are NOT started by the people who want only to live their lives in peace.
Thus, war machinery and weapons are developed for the governments to provide defense for themselves, not for the people. The US Government does everything to protect itself, not the people. Read for example, the final paragraph is EO 12333 issued by Reagan. And when you do, remember the United States is only the District of Columbia and United States Citizens are "artificial persons" under the jurisdiction of the US Government. This does not include the people of the many States.
The US Government protects itself because of the many invasions this country has made into the private affairs of other countries. It uses the people to defend its actions by promoting "patriotism" and "defending freedom". Invariably, when the bottom line cause for the attacks on other people is revealed, the reason is without fail related to major industrialists, especially defense contractors, oil suppliers, illegal drugs, and bankers that influence to the extent they effectively own the US Government.
If this country's central government had never began interfering in the affairs of others - including the States that seceded from the union -there would have not been any need for probably 95 percent of weaponry developed. Effort and resources could have been directed to improvement of mankind, including lawful birth control methods, rather than control and destruction.
If the assumed elite - but gutter scum scoundrels to me - had not wanted to control the oil and drugs in the Middle East and to aid Israel militarily and to the tune of billions of dollars a year in aide and equipment, there would not be any terrorist actions by Middle Eastern people against any American.
If the gutter scoundrels - elite to them - had not wanted, as another example, to control the oil and drugs in Central and South America, there would not be any of our people covertly - and occasionally overtly - killing leaders of other countries who do not go along with the present politico/military/industrialist coalition of the federal government.
Damn, People, put yourselves in the shoes of the other people. How would you feel if suddenly a bunch of Chinese (and they far out number us) started invading your towns and cities, killing leaders and others at will because they decided Texas or California rightfully belonged to Mexico or because they wanted control of - darn, can't think of a product I know is 100 percent American made - anyway, something we have they don't? Wouldn't you get rather upset and try to take acts of retribution against them as a freedom fighter?
Now, consider this. Do you hate other people because your first conscious thought of them was "I hate them" or were you taught to hate, primarily based on false information?
It is my contention that without learning to the contrary one does not care about races, religions, or anything else that keeps people separate. (You are welcomed to prove hate for a specific type of person or belief is innate in people.) If one learns based on false information, then what is learned is false. The government knows this very well. Thus, its words against Middle Eastern people - especially Muslims of the Islamic persuasion -excepting Israel which uses the same sort of hostile actions as the Palestinians. The difference in terminology at to 'terrorism" or "freedom fighters" - none except the US Government seems to want to be partners in crime with Israel.
Is all the false information about other countries because of and controlled by the US Government? You can bet your sweet bippy it is. It is called divide and conquer. Besides, regular everyday people haven't the need to run a propaganda campaign to justify its attacks on other countries. Regular people could give a healthy crap about what people in other countries are doing.
To date, events credited to terrorists in this country were found to be - or highly suspected - works orchestrated by the federal government (including massive cover-ups) as tools to establish the New World Order and domestic tyranny over the American people. The actions, along with wars, conflicts, and covert actions by the US Government, have also been used - at least since the build up to the Civil War - to instill fear in our people, to get the brain-dead to go along with removal of rights, and to cause fervor for the unconstitutional attacking of other people.
Here is a rule of thumb. Anytime the government balks at or blocks independent investigations - or threatens people to keep their mouths shut - or suddenly one who is whistle blowing is killed under questionable circumstances - you can safely bet there was federal involvement in the act of terrorism or that a proper agenda would expose its hidden agendas. Good God, People, common sense ought to tell you that. But, alas and deep sigh - government schools are also wiping out common sense.
As a final observation of recent declarations by the Bush crowd of evildoers, how often have you been at a family gathering, a meeting of some sort, or at other functions with several people present where the topic became "You know, we people need to wipe out the government in Mexico. I heard some of the people there have arms and they could use them against us someday. So, we need to change its government. Joe, why don't you and a few of your elite killers go down there and take care of that SOB that let his people have guns. It may someday attack us and we should do it first. Let's take them out. And, don't worry about any innocents killed - we'll just call them 'collateral damage'."
Or, have often have you thought - "Hmm, my neighbor bought a firearm. I think I had best get rid of him before he uses it against me."
Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Well, that is exactly the reasoning of the US Government, with the focus currently on Iraq, a country our treasonous government wants to attack come hell or high water. It will then be followed by attacks on maybe 60 more countries, unconstitutional military operations that are going to make a few tons of money for defense, oil, and pharmaceutical interests, all of which are tied in extensively with the present administration. The truth in this is, of course, hidden from a dummied down American who believes anything any corrupted SOB in government or its media puppets tells them.
Shoot, if I were another country, I would be preparing to the utmost of my country's ability or other sources to get weapons not to attack America, but to defend against being attacked by it. So would all Americans. Say, wasn't that originally the concept behind government weapons development we were told - to DEFEND, not attack.
Furthermore, do people sit around saying we have to have the oil in such and such country? Not hardly. Most people don't even know where the gas they fill their cars comes from. Ask them. Shoot, ask the place you buy your gas. Only the oil soaked US Government says this.
Most people I know talk about why the federal government has blocked extremely highly efficient alternate energy measures to petroleum or blocked vastly improved, highly efficient systems (300 to 400 miles per gallon in some cases or no petroleum derived fuels at all) for the past 40 years.
How about drugs and their legalization? Now, before you answer, get the facts, primarily the facts concerning recreational use BEFORE government intervention and its push for getting people addicted compared to the number of users today. And, try to find out how much money has been made by the federal government after forcing through armed acts of terrorism unconstitutional drug control measures on the people.
Then, answer the question of why countries the US Government intervenes in either have oil, natural gas sources, produce large quantities of controlled drugs, especially cocaine, or a combination of the three and - simultaneously - has a government blocking US interests.
I believe that without centralized governments acting as the governing authority, the majority of the world would be living in peace. I believe it is the destiny of Mankind to do so. There will always be exceptions. No matter what those of the one world government is shoving down your throat, peace does not come at the end of a gun just because one group holds all the guns (the UN).
Peace comes when all people respect the rights of all other people. Only the evil people directing and controlling centralized governments and their horrendous desire for increased wealth and power have caused major world unrest. History bears this out.
My faith is that all people on Earth - regular everyday people - can live in peace and overall harmony but my reality tells me it will never come to pass as long as evil fills or controls governments, whether the governments are based on political, religious, military, or a combination. It is that evil we must direct our attention to, not what the evil tells us to believe.
Thus, my conclusion is we need a central government for two reasons - to uphold the Constitution and to defend the God-given rights of Man. In both, the current government - I should say "dumb-ya's administration" since Congress and the Supreme Court is filled with cowards and traitors to their oaths of office - is failing miserably. It is acting as an invader, committing treason by the hour by conducting acts of terrorism against the people of this country.
Thus, we would be better off - and certainly more secure - without it.
We can simply govern ourselves "like civilized people" - the way it is supposed to be.
COMMENTS
Ed Lewis is a veteran writer, having been published in many online journals and newspapers. Mr. Lewis, a Missourian dedicated to liberty and truth, may be reached for comment at elewis@mail.shighway.com
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
"To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded,
by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so." -Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's book entitled "General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, 1851 (Taken from VOMIT UK 22/02)
What would Mr. Proudhon write today if he saw a country with possibly the strongest military force in the world headed by a man who is a warmongering idiot capable only of mouthing the words that his controllers want him to stick with? Get real. Any person who promotes and wants war in this day and age of government weapons of mass destruction has to be a complete idiot. And, off course, the word "headed" is used loosely as the man doesn't actually "head" the nation - he is just the head of the Executive Branch of government. At least, that is how it is supposed to be.
"Govern is an interesting concept, especially since most people mistakenly believe it is the job of the government to govern the people. From the American Heritage Dictionary, we find:
Govern - (transitive verb) 1. To make and administer the public policy and affairs of; exercise sovereign authority in. 3. To control the actions or behavior of: Govern yourselves like civilized people. (My emphasis)
We also find in this dictionary the many definitions for "government".
"Government - 1. The act or process of governing, especially the control and administration of public policy in a political unit. 2. The office, function, or authority of a governing individual or body. 3. Exercise of authority in a political unit; rule. 4. The agency or apparatus through which a governing individual or body functions and exercises authority. 5. A governing body or organization." as:
Any American who loves the concept and practice of "liberty" should be scared to the very core of his being when government moves beyond its authority and does not adhere to the dictates of the true governing body - the sovereign people - resulting in a "ruling" body over people.
This is a hard concept to grasp but originally the American people - or any free people - are not governed by outside sources other than their Creator. Each in a free society governs himself. Because each of the people governs himself does not mean there is the absence of any form of political authority resulting in disorder and confusion or lacking in any cohesive principle or anarchy.
If we do not understand or come to understand that the sovereign - the people - have the responsibility of self rule based on the laws of God - the cohesive principles - while men forming the government are delegated only to protect this right of God given self-determination (political authority), liberty will not exist in this country - at least for 95 percent or more of the population.
Affect the laws of self-rule and any semblance of a Republic is lost to the emerging dictatorship or oligarchy government being created by those who would undermine liberty.
Because we have lost the concept of "liberty" to tyrannical legislation that has changed our constitutional government to sovereignty resting in elected officials and others, we have essentially allowed our country to be overthrown by greedy, lustful, and immoral persons lacking in integrity.
Now we have this power-mad person in the Oval Office making statements such as this one: "Thousands of trained killers are plotting to attack us," to which he added, "this terrible knowledge requires us to act differently."
Well, he is right about one thing - thousands of trained killers are planning to attack us. But it is the source of these thousands that are not mentioned by him, his staff, or his controllers. The thousands are those of the different levels of government who now have the primary goal of enforcing de facto laws that, in fact, do not apply to the sovereign. And, now more de facto laws are being added to "justify" terrorist actions by law enforcers.
This man - biologically speaking, anyway - has also on many occasions used one of his favorite propaganda (lies, in other words) phrases - protecting the freedoms against those who hate the freedoms we in America have.
What a pea-brain. One cannot protect the rights of people by removing the rights of people. When are the brain-dead majority of the American people going to wake up to this fact? When are the brain-dead going to come to realize that the people who hate freedom are not those of foreign origin, except when one acknowledges the District of Corruption as being foreign.
The functions given the federal and state governments are to uphold the Constitution and provide protection against those who would invade our shores and/or infringe upon our rights. Is this what the current and past administrations have done?
Is this what your state and local governments have done?
If you have any inkling of what is going on, you know the answers to these questions is "no, rights have not been protected but have been infringed upon by every level of government."
So, you see, we are not having our freedom threatened by foreign countries - we are being threatened by the very organizations that are supposed to provide protection against infringement upon rights, whether from a foreign or domestic source. And, just as the bush man said, we should behave differently but not the way he means.
Friends - and at least 95 percent of the thousands of people the writer has known during his life - internalized certain values, including those of respecting the rights and property of others - along with working for what one gets. Integrity was instilled in us by family, friends, other peers, and only in a small way by the threat of "getting caught". In fact, people I have been closest to did not consider the possibility of jail as the block to harming another. The usual reason for avoiding doing something to harm another person was "it's wrong".
Thus, one might say there were clear-cut lines of "right" and "wrong". But, what of now?
Here we have an administration - all the clods in government regardless of level of government or of position within the government - that openly and flagrantly takes the property of others under some guise or another. By property is meant not only one's land, buildings, automobiles, trucks, and money, but also his right to determine how to best live his own life for maximum enjoyment.
The government does this not only domestically but in other countries as well. If a country has oil that is blocked from US oil interests, then the answer is to change the government of the country (kill the leaders in opposition to US Government's intents) and put a person or group in place that will go along with oil interests backing and/or in the US Government.
Let's turn the clock back for a moment. People managed their own affairs. What government there was small and non-intrusive on the people. The laws to obey were the laws of God. If one transgressed on the rights of another, the people made the judgment as to redress being due and what the redress was.
Most of the people settling this country had had enough of tyranny and lack of freedoms concerning spiritual beliefs and not being able to live as free men. Or, maybe they wished to start a new life with everything they could gain through their own hard efforts was theirs and theirs alone.
Eventually, enough in each of these colonists believed strongly in separating themselves from the rule of England headed by King George III. They had a long list of grievances never resolved by the King. Hence, the Declaration of Independence was written and separation from England declared. The right to do so was fought for - and won (even though some try to convince people we are still under English rule).
Each colony in becoming a State maintained its sovereignty over the other states and, most important, the centralized government. Certain functions were given the central government which can be boiled down to two - defend the shores of the states against all invasions, whether foreign or domestic, and to uphold the Constitution thereby protecting the Christian and God-given rights, whether enumerated or not, of the people.
The central government's jurisdiction was limited to the District of Columbia and territories. Each state's jurisdiction was limited to the confines of the State but could not infringe upon the rights of the people. The duty of the government established for the State was to uphold the Constitution and defense. Thus, the people were sovereign over the central government, each individual state government, and each man and woman was sovereign to each other.
Now, one might wonder as we have seen the Constitution and the rights of man destroyed by the anti-Christian (including Ashcroft - he's a fake Christian), anti-patriot forces in all levels of government exactly the necessity for a government if the government is intent on infringing upon human rights. Or, asking in another fashion, if government makes laws that infringe on the rights of even one man or woman, then is it not an anti-constitutional act, which must fall into the category of treason? We must ask then - do we need treasonous governments?
Consider for a moment the purpose for weapons of mass destruction. Better yet, consider why they are even developed. Is it for defense? And, if so, why is such defense a necessity? Is it because the people in one country want to destroy the people in another country? Or, is it because leaders of countries want something some other country has?
While considering this, also think about this. The people in this country are being told that Muslims (first, it was just Islamics hated but it spread to include all Muslims) hate Americans because of their freedoms. We are a Christian nation founded on Christian principles so the "alleged" conflict between the two religions is often brought up - you know, the old religious war thing. But, if this is so, why have Christians and Muslims lived in peace for centuries in Egypt with the only expulsion being Jews?
To bring up another relevant point, let's say you are on a picnic with many of your family and friends on the 4th of July. There are several other groups, one of which is close enough for you to see what they have. Now, let's say the group has an item of food or drink your group doesn't have. Is your first inclination to think - "Hey, let's go over there and take their food that we don't have"?
A bunch of us were having a military group picnic on one of the beaches In Okinawa. Near to us was an Okinawan wedding party. Well, a couple of the kids smelled our roasting hot dogs and saw us roasting marshmallows, something this group had not seen before. The kids wanted some so a couple of us that knew a few words went to talk to the adults and see if it was okay.
It was and we worked out a mutually beneficial trade. They shared their Okinawan food and drink with us and we shared ours with them. Quite a deal.
The point is that neither group wanted to attack the other to get what they had. We ended up having a great afternoon and evening sharing food, drink (saki for bourbon and beer) and many laughs in spite of the language barrier. It is still one of my fondest memories for the past 36 or 37 years (I was either 19 or 20 at the time).
There was no "government" to tell us how to behave. All that governed us were our respect for other people.
The founders of this country preached and practiced non-interference with other nations, just as most of us preach non-interference with other people. We were at peace with the world as long as this doctrine was upheld, just as we remain at peace with other people when we do not interfere with their rights. Other countries that were open to visitors accepted us, including those in the Middle East, now alleged by government to be the "deadly" enemies of our freedom (excepting Israel).
Our colonists who became the American people lived and traded with each other and other countries without any bad feelings developing that would have resulted in wars being declared. Trades for goods were worked out. Even though most of the world's people were armed, arms were not used to take what they wanted. Governing bodies have always done this, not the people.
Not so now. American foreign policy today is nothing more than "Hey, you back my aggressive war-like actions against such and such country since we (my financial backers and companies I am associated with) need its resources and I will make sure you get my backing (or money) in your aggressions against such and such country." Or - "Don't back us and we will assure you will be boycotted or bombed back to the Stone Age."
Name a war that was not instigated by a government rather than the people. Next, prove that the war was not the result of persons in government - or those who supported government financially, meaning major industrialists and bankers - wanting something that another country had and for the lust for power and control over other people.
Without centralized governments, People, I fervently believe that all people, regardless of country of origin, would be much further down to the road to world peace. It is always leaders, whether political, religious, military or a combination of these that starts wars. They are NOT started by the people who want only to live their lives in peace.
Thus, war machinery and weapons are developed for the governments to provide defense for themselves, not for the people. The US Government does everything to protect itself, not the people. Read for example, the final paragraph is EO 12333 issued by Reagan. And when you do, remember the United States is only the District of Columbia and United States Citizens are "artificial persons" under the jurisdiction of the US Government. This does not include the people of the many States.
The US Government protects itself because of the many invasions this country has made into the private affairs of other countries. It uses the people to defend its actions by promoting "patriotism" and "defending freedom". Invariably, when the bottom line cause for the attacks on other people is revealed, the reason is without fail related to major industrialists, especially defense contractors, oil suppliers, illegal drugs, and bankers that influence to the extent they effectively own the US Government.
If this country's central government had never began interfering in the affairs of others - including the States that seceded from the union -there would have not been any need for probably 95 percent of weaponry developed. Effort and resources could have been directed to improvement of mankind, including lawful birth control methods, rather than control and destruction.
If the assumed elite - but gutter scum scoundrels to me - had not wanted to control the oil and drugs in the Middle East and to aid Israel militarily and to the tune of billions of dollars a year in aide and equipment, there would not be any terrorist actions by Middle Eastern people against any American.
If the gutter scoundrels - elite to them - had not wanted, as another example, to control the oil and drugs in Central and South America, there would not be any of our people covertly - and occasionally overtly - killing leaders of other countries who do not go along with the present politico/military/industrialist coalition of the federal government.
Damn, People, put yourselves in the shoes of the other people. How would you feel if suddenly a bunch of Chinese (and they far out number us) started invading your towns and cities, killing leaders and others at will because they decided Texas or California rightfully belonged to Mexico or because they wanted control of - darn, can't think of a product I know is 100 percent American made - anyway, something we have they don't? Wouldn't you get rather upset and try to take acts of retribution against them as a freedom fighter?
Now, consider this. Do you hate other people because your first conscious thought of them was "I hate them" or were you taught to hate, primarily based on false information?
It is my contention that without learning to the contrary one does not care about races, religions, or anything else that keeps people separate. (You are welcomed to prove hate for a specific type of person or belief is innate in people.) If one learns based on false information, then what is learned is false. The government knows this very well. Thus, its words against Middle Eastern people - especially Muslims of the Islamic persuasion -excepting Israel which uses the same sort of hostile actions as the Palestinians. The difference in terminology at to 'terrorism" or "freedom fighters" - none except the US Government seems to want to be partners in crime with Israel.
Is all the false information about other countries because of and controlled by the US Government? You can bet your sweet bippy it is. It is called divide and conquer. Besides, regular everyday people haven't the need to run a propaganda campaign to justify its attacks on other countries. Regular people could give a healthy crap about what people in other countries are doing.
To date, events credited to terrorists in this country were found to be - or highly suspected - works orchestrated by the federal government (including massive cover-ups) as tools to establish the New World Order and domestic tyranny over the American people. The actions, along with wars, conflicts, and covert actions by the US Government, have also been used - at least since the build up to the Civil War - to instill fear in our people, to get the brain-dead to go along with removal of rights, and to cause fervor for the unconstitutional attacking of other people.
Here is a rule of thumb. Anytime the government balks at or blocks independent investigations - or threatens people to keep their mouths shut - or suddenly one who is whistle blowing is killed under questionable circumstances - you can safely bet there was federal involvement in the act of terrorism or that a proper agenda would expose its hidden agendas. Good God, People, common sense ought to tell you that. But, alas and deep sigh - government schools are also wiping out common sense.
As a final observation of recent declarations by the Bush crowd of evildoers, how often have you been at a family gathering, a meeting of some sort, or at other functions with several people present where the topic became "You know, we people need to wipe out the government in Mexico. I heard some of the people there have arms and they could use them against us someday. So, we need to change its government. Joe, why don't you and a few of your elite killers go down there and take care of that SOB that let his people have guns. It may someday attack us and we should do it first. Let's take them out. And, don't worry about any innocents killed - we'll just call them 'collateral damage'."
Or, have often have you thought - "Hmm, my neighbor bought a firearm. I think I had best get rid of him before he uses it against me."
Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Well, that is exactly the reasoning of the US Government, with the focus currently on Iraq, a country our treasonous government wants to attack come hell or high water. It will then be followed by attacks on maybe 60 more countries, unconstitutional military operations that are going to make a few tons of money for defense, oil, and pharmaceutical interests, all of which are tied in extensively with the present administration. The truth in this is, of course, hidden from a dummied down American who believes anything any corrupted SOB in government or its media puppets tells them.
Shoot, if I were another country, I would be preparing to the utmost of my country's ability or other sources to get weapons not to attack America, but to defend against being attacked by it. So would all Americans. Say, wasn't that originally the concept behind government weapons development we were told - to DEFEND, not attack.
Furthermore, do people sit around saying we have to have the oil in such and such country? Not hardly. Most people don't even know where the gas they fill their cars comes from. Ask them. Shoot, ask the place you buy your gas. Only the oil soaked US Government says this.
Most people I know talk about why the federal government has blocked extremely highly efficient alternate energy measures to petroleum or blocked vastly improved, highly efficient systems (300 to 400 miles per gallon in some cases or no petroleum derived fuels at all) for the past 40 years.
How about drugs and their legalization? Now, before you answer, get the facts, primarily the facts concerning recreational use BEFORE government intervention and its push for getting people addicted compared to the number of users today. And, try to find out how much money has been made by the federal government after forcing through armed acts of terrorism unconstitutional drug control measures on the people.
Then, answer the question of why countries the US Government intervenes in either have oil, natural gas sources, produce large quantities of controlled drugs, especially cocaine, or a combination of the three and - simultaneously - has a government blocking US interests.
I believe that without centralized governments acting as the governing authority, the majority of the world would be living in peace. I believe it is the destiny of Mankind to do so. There will always be exceptions. No matter what those of the one world government is shoving down your throat, peace does not come at the end of a gun just because one group holds all the guns (the UN).
Peace comes when all people respect the rights of all other people. Only the evil people directing and controlling centralized governments and their horrendous desire for increased wealth and power have caused major world unrest. History bears this out.
My faith is that all people on Earth - regular everyday people - can live in peace and overall harmony but my reality tells me it will never come to pass as long as evil fills or controls governments, whether the governments are based on political, religious, military, or a combination. It is that evil we must direct our attention to, not what the evil tells us to believe.
Thus, my conclusion is we need a central government for two reasons - to uphold the Constitution and to defend the God-given rights of Man. In both, the current government - I should say "dumb-ya's administration" since Congress and the Supreme Court is filled with cowards and traitors to their oaths of office - is failing miserably. It is acting as an invader, committing treason by the hour by conducting acts of terrorism against the people of this country.
Thus, we would be better off - and certainly more secure - without it.
We can simply govern ourselves "like civilized people" - the way it is supposed to be.
COMMENTS
Ed Lewis is a veteran writer, having been published in many online journals and newspapers. Mr. Lewis, a Missourian dedicated to liberty and truth, may be reached for comment at elewis@mail.shighway.com
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878