Send this article to a friend:

July
28
2021

How Important Is Freedom To You?
Neal Ross

How many of you have seen the Mel Gibson movie, Braveheart? If you have, you probably remember the horrific torture that his character, William Wallace, underwent at the hands of the British when he refused to pledge fealty to the King. Since I was not there amongst the crowd, there is no telling how accurate that scene was, but nonetheless, in the movie Wallace remained true to his cause; regardless of how much suffering he underwent at the hands of his tormentors.

I have often wondered if I would have the courage to stand up to that kind of torture without sacrificing my principles; it’s something I hope I never have to put to the test, that’s for sure. Yet, it does make me wonder how much I’d be willing to give up to hold dear to the principles I claim to hold. Would I have the courage of a Patrick Henry, and say Give me liberty or give me death; and mean it? Would you; which is the point of this essay; how much would you be willing to sacrifice to defend your liberty? 

However, before one can defend anything, they must first be able to accurately describe what it is they are defending; which is where the problem lies. I see, and hear, a lot of people complaining that not enough people show respect for our nation’s flag; that they refuse to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. I have my reasons for not reciting it, but they are not germane to our discussion. The thing is, those who take offense at those who do not recite it, aren’t living up to what they are pledging allegiance to.

The pledge states: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The first thing about that is, I pledge no allegiance to a symbol, or the nation that symbol represents; I pledge my allegiance to the principles that our nation, and by virtue of that, the symbol, are supposed to represent; which they haven’t represented in a very long time.

Secondly, I find the terms Nation and Republic contradictory; but to explain why I say that would require I go into a rather lengthy explanation of the differences between a national and a federal system of government; something I don’t wish to do at this time. Thirdly, I do not believe that this nation/republic, is individual. I believe it was created by the consent of the people, but people acting as citizens of their respective States; and that whenever this system of government becomes destructive of the ends for which governments are instituted of men, it is their right to revoke their consent and return to their prior status as a sovereign and independent State. The declarations of ratification by 3 of the States included that provision within their ratification statements: Virginia, New York and Rhode Island. Therefore, if they retained that right, then as per Article 4, Section 2 of the Constitution, each State retained that right: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. To assume otherwise would be to assume that no matter how tyrannical and oppressive this government might become, the people of each State had no right to revoke their consent for this system; which was the entire premise behind the Civil War, if I might add.

All that being said, it is the very last part of the pledge which I’d like to address, the part where it says: under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Are we a nation under God? If we are, why did those who drafted the Constitution refuse to seek His guidance while drafting their plan for a system of government for this country? If we are a nation under God, how can we support a system of government that has declared, (Roe v Wade), that the murdering of unborn babies is legal? If we are a nation under God, how come this system sanctified the institution of slavery, while its predecessor never mentioned it in the Articles of Confederation. Finally, and where I would like to spend the remainder of my time, if we are a nation under God, how can we support a system of government that tramples upon the rights and liberty that are God’s gift to all mankind?

How many of you know what the word justice actually means? I’m guessing that most believe it means that those who violate the law are punished according to the law. The question you must ask yourself is, what law; natures law or the laws written by men? According to Bouvier’s Dictionary of Law, the word justice means: The constant and perpetual disposition to render every man his due.

If we are all created equal, then we are also all equal in our rights and liberty; meaning none of us are superior to another, and that since none of us are superior, none of us have the right to deny the rights and liberty of anyone; regardless of how noble you may believe your cause is. If we, acting as individuals, cannot infringe upon the rights and liberty of another, then we cannot delegate the right to do so to another, or to a group of individuals; such as a government.

Finally, although many people discuss it, and some even say they defend it, by their support of this system of government today they have proven that either they don’t know what liberty is, or they don’t care that they are about to lose it forever. Liberty, according to the definition provided by Thomas Jefferson, is unrestricted action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. Liberty is not, as people mistakenly believe, chaos; it is the ability to live your life as you choose, while respecting the lives, property, and equal rights every other member of society.

That perfect freedom to govern our own lives as we see fit, has a law of nature to govern it, and Locke expresses that law as follows: The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.

In that perfect state of freedom, our rights are constantly under threat from the strong, or the many. In a perfect state of nature each of us has the right to defend all those things, even with death, if necessary, but how can one do so when confronted with someone much stronger than them, or a mob? Locke explains that as follows:

In transgressing the law of nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men, for their mutual security; and so he becomes dangerous to mankind, the tye, which is to secure them from injury and violence, being slighted and broken by him. Which being a trespass against the whole species, and the peace and safety of it, provided for by the law of nature, every man upon this score, by the right he hath to preserve mankind in general, may restrain, or where it is necessary, destroy things noxious to them, and so may bring such evil on any one, who hath transgressed that law, as may make him repent the doing of it, and thereby deter him, and by his example others, from doing the like mischief. And in the case, and upon this ground, EVERY MAN HATH A RIGHT TO PUNISH THE OFFENDER, AND BE EXECUTIONER OF THE LAW OF NATURE.

In 1772 Samuel Adams explained the right of self-defense as being the First Law of Nature:

Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can–Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature.

However, as I said, in a perfect state of nature our ability to defend ourselves against the strong, or the many, is often unsure; and it is for that purpose that governments are instituted among men, so that laws may be passed which punish those who would threaten the lives, property, or liberty of others. That is, or at least it is supposed to be, the purpose for which our government was established.

Frederic Bastiat explained it like this: What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

If every person has the right to defend—even by force—his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right—its reason for existing, itslawfulness—is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force—for the same reason—cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. And there we return to the word justice; which if you’ll remember, means giving to every man his due.

If our government rests upon the proposition that we the people have delegated certain powers to government, then if that government exceeds those powers, it has violated the trust placed in it, and it’s acts become nullities; meaning we are under no obligation to obey them. In his Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XIII, Thomas Jefferson explained that quite accurately: [The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights.

Therefore, when government oversteps its just authority and makes a tyrannical use of its power, by depriving the people of the very things it was established to secure, it is our right; nay, it is our duty to resist…with every ounce of our beings. As Jefferson took as his personal motto: Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.

So, how much resisting are you doing; or are you sitting around with your head in the sand hoping for someone to come along and resist for you, or for a better system to be established so that you do not have to do any of that ‘risking’ yourself? Mark Twain once said: In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.

Unfortunately, tyrants have a powerful weapon in their arsenal – fear. Everyone has something they are afraid of, even me. Tyrants know this, and they use that fear against us to cause us to submit to their authority. For some it is simply the fear of being seen as a rebel; someone who rocks the boat; upsets the status quo. For others it is the fear of fines or jail sentences for those who disobey the law; but as Jefferson also said: The law is often but the tyrants will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

But the biggest fear people have is the fear of something that threatens their sense of normalcy; their day-to-day comfort and security; if tyrants can convince people that there is a real danger to that comfort and security, most would gladly give all they have to government for things to return to normal. Rahm Emmanuel, Barack Obama’s former White House Chief of Staff, laid that out perfectly for us, and still it went right over the heads of most: You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.

The thing is, if there is no serious crisis, they often invent them; just so that they maintain a constant state of fear among the public. If they can keep the fear levels at a fever pitch, most people eventually succumb, saying: Please, I’ll do anything; just make this go away. But, as Ben Franklin once said: Those who would surrender essential liberty for a little temporary comfort or security will deserve neither and lose both.

Look at our recent history, it seems like there is always some threat; something that requires government intervention; which usually means further infringements upon our rights and liberty. There was 9/11 and the ensuing anger and fear that that brought; along with a whole host of liberty destroying legislation and agencies. There are the many mass shootings; some of which I firmly believe were carefully staged events designed to cause the public to call for further restrictions upon our right to keep and bear arms. It’s truly sad that people would so willingly surrender any part of that right; for it is only because that right existed in 1776 that the Colonists were able to free themselves from the shackles of tyranny imposed upon them by King George III.

Now we’re stuck in an, almost Groundhog Day, scenario with this ridiculous Covid threat. We were told that the mask requirement, even though it was an infringement upon our right to choose for ourselves whether or not to face the threat unmasked, would only last so they could flatten the curve; slow the spread. That went on, and on, and on, until finally the numbers started going down. Now we have the so-called variants, and our elected officials are blaming the unmasked for the increase in numbers. California Governor Gavin Newsom compared the non-vaccinated to drunk drivers; saying we are to blame for the increase in reported cases of the Delta Variant. Just today I heard a news anchor say that this was a pandemic of the un-vaccinated.

The tactics they are using against us are as old as mankind himself; instill fear among the people; cause them to be divided and mistrustful of each other; we just call it gaslighting today; and those who are being gaslit are those who have the courage, even after all that has happened, to try, to the best of their abilities, to exercise a modicum of liberty in a country where liberty has all but vanished.

So, how do they keep us in a constant state of fear; a state of fear that causes you to submit to their proposed solutions? It’s quite easy, they use their Ministers of Propaganda; otherwise known as the news outlets. I’d be willing to bet that if people would just turn off their televisions for a month, or two, their anxiety level would decrease dramatically; allowing people to take a more rational approach to things. As is, however, they watch the news, and the news provides them with all the fear mongering that is necessary to keep the people compliant, and submissive.

Yet, as bad as Covid was for you; as much of a hardship it imposed upon your lives, I fear that what’s coming next is going to make Covid seem like a cakewalk. I believe that, if they aren’t already there, they are approaching their endgame; the complete and total obliteration of the public liberty; that is unless enough people grow a spine and say NO MORE!

I have heard people ask when these restrictions and mandates will end. They won’t end as long as enough people comply with them. They will end when the number of people who refuse to comply vastly outnumbers those who do comply; but that will never happen so long as people are operating emotionally; allowing their fear to guide their decision-making process.

Yet if you love liberty, or at least claim to, you had better thing long and hard about how much tyranny you are going to submit to before you decide to take a stand. Thomas Jefferson once said:

Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage on them.

That obligation applies as much to us today as it did to those to whom he said it in 1775; so think about your duty to pass on some semblance of freedom to your posterity before you submit to any more infringements upon your rights and liberty.

The time is coming when, as George Washington said: The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves. I think that time has passed already, but there is still a chance that if enough people rise up against these tyrants, we can halt their evil plans for ultimate control of all humanity. If we don’t, then we are going to face the scenario described by Winston Churchill: If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. (My emphasis)

Yet, as harsh a scenario as I have painted, there is a single ray of hope, (and I hate using the word hope); it can be found in something Etienne de la Boetie wrote almost 450 years ago: Obviously there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement.

For that to work though, people must stop trying to fix the system as it stands today, or wait until a better system is proposed before doing anything. The time to stand up for your rights and liberty is NOW; not when the jack booted thugs are at your door herding you into boxcars!

So, what’s it gonna be America; are you going to go down into the history books as the generation that walked right into bondage willingly, or are you going to do your ancestors proud and live up to your obligation to pass liberty on to your posterity. Just remember, that if liberty truly is the gift of God to all mankind, you will probably be held accountable for not defending it with all your being. For, as Jefferson also said: God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.

The ball is in your court. The question is, what are you going to do with it. The fate of your country rests in your decision…

 

 

 

Neal Ross, Student of history, politics, patriot and staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Send all comments to: [email protected].

If you liked Neal’s latest column, maybe you’ll like his latest booklet: The Civil War: (The Truth You Have Not Been Told) AND don’t forget to pick up your copy of ROSS: Unmasked – An Angry American Speaks Out – and stay tuned – Neal has a new, greatly expanded book coming soon dealing with the harsh truths about the so-called American Civil War of 1861-1865. Life continues to expand for this prolific writer and guardian of TRUE American history.

 

 

 

www.federalobserver.com