The idea of government in America had a glorious beginning. America’s foundational concept was that men, by right, ought to be free. Self-governance was the goal. Centralized forms of government should be pre-determined and limited. The original 13 colonies developed a compact to serve certain, specified national interests.
The main interest of that federal compact was to secure individual rights. The rights of the individual are foundational, eternal and set the stage for our nation’s premiere document–The Declaration of Independence.
These rights are self-evident endowments from our Creator. They carry enormous weight because all men are created equal. Five unalienable rights are identified:
- the Pursuit of Happiness
- the Right of the People to alter or to abolish a faulty or failed system, and
- the Right to institute new Government, laying its foundation… in such form, as to …most likely effect their Safety and Happiness.
Our founders weren’t suggesting that governments should be done and undone like disposable diapers. They were aware that mankind is, “more disposed to suffer… than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”
Yet, this is where we find ourselves. We are suffering under the weight of the modern Leviathan, 1) because we have slowly become accustom to government controls and 2) because many people profit from the corruption pulsating throughout the system.
Our original American designs have been transmogrified from institutions that were engineered to secure our rights and ensure our freedoms. Now they have become organizations that demand our strictest obedience and compliance with what is acceptable to the so-called “majority.”
This follows the same technique that was used by Lenin in the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. At the time, in Russia, there were many factions seeking government power and control. One group was the Russian Social Democratic Workers' Party, which was a Marxist organization. It was a small party and it was split amongst two competing subgroups: the Mensheviks (“minority”) and the Bolsheviks (“majority”).
The Bolsheviks actually represented the “minority” because they were the smaller of the two factions. They successfully acquired the name “majority” after an internal party-wide campaign to acquire the name.
The Bolsheviks represented the small faction led by Lenin. Lenin successfully used this “minority” to organize his violent and revolutionary opposition to the czarist government. They propagandized, campaigned and used violence to spawn factions among the populace and they created enormous divisions across regional boundaries.
Across our nation we can witness, daily, these same destructive tendencies that fomented the minority sponsored Bolshevik revolution. In America, we can see the echo of these progressive redefinitions, where ideas shed their traditional meaning to correspond to the latest populist ideology.
Ten years before the Bolshevik revolution, American author, J. Allen Smith wrote his own progressive redefinition as follows, “True liberty consists not in divesting the government of effective power, but in making it an instrument for the…prompt enforcement of public opinion.”
This redefinition is nothing more than an attempt at spit and polish on the arbitrary chains stemming from some arm of bureaucratic control.
Look at recent events in Oregon. Have these people been heard, treated fairly, set free or shackled?
- the occupiers of the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge, Harney Co.
- the $400,000 fine and re-sentencing of Dwight and Steve Hammond, Harney Co.
- the $135,000 fine against Sweet Cakes by Melissa, Multnomah Co.
- the firing of Harmony Daws, from Sparkling Palaces, for being elected as president of a pro-life group, Multnomah Co.
- the harassment of Jessica Morton after false charges were made and her innocence proven, Josephine Co.
- the killing of LaVoy Finicum, Grant Co.
Shackles are shackles and the bigger the government, the bigger the problem.
President Woodrow Wilson was a big government guy. During his presidency he felt that businesses had gotten the upper-hand and that more government interference was needed as a legitimate check. He knew big industrialists who were, “afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it…” This accurately describes the fear that most Americans have of their own government.
Wilson continues in his progressive double-speak and identifies what he helped to successfully engineer:
“We have been dreading all along the time when the combined power of high finance would be [combined with] the power of the government....We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world–-no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men.” – — President Wilson, 1913 [edit added]
Political power means leveraging the government machinery for purposes of control. Political control allows for politically mandated punishments but this has nothing to do with justice. This is why we have not seen any mainstream media outrage at the $135,000 fine levied against Sweet Cakes by Melissa. After all, it was “legally” assessed by an official bureaucrat. This means bureaucrats throughout the system “possess far more power over people than could be justified by any social contract–unless people are presumed to have implicitly contracted for their own destruction.”*
* Bovard, James, Freedom In Chains: The Rise of the State and the Demise of the Citizen, (St. Martin's Press, New York, 1999) p. 211