The first and second amendments to our Constitution in the U.S. are said to be the most important. There’s even an oft used quip that goes to the tune of, “without the second amendment you can’t have the first.”
The first amendment is generally understood or thought of in terms of the freedom to exercise religion. Others start with the freedom of speech. In reality the first amendment is really a collection of activities that the government is not supposed to prohibit or make any law concerning. Religion, speech, as well as the press and the abilities to peaceably gather and address the government for redress of grievances are all stated.
This all sounds nice on paper. Everything always sounds nice on paper. The idea that the second amendment protects the first inherently implies that arms may be needed to not only defend the nation from outside invaders, but from those within our borders who would seek to undo what we’ve enshrined as rights guaranteed to all.
Basic public education in America neglects to remind or inform the student the very reason why we needed these amendments in the first place. An amendment, after all, is something added after the fact that was previously missing. Most Americans, outside of having to do so for a school assignment, have probably not even bothered to read the Constitution. And for those who have, it is done so with rose tinted glasses that gives everything the hue of patriotism.
In reality the Constitution was a huge bait and switch job. It paved the way for the United States, Inc. Corporation.
In an age when our Congress passes legislation and it is clearly stated that we must “pass it in order to read what’s in it,” we must first understand that this is just the same basic script and playbook that The Powers That Should Not Be have always used.
Most do not know that it was the sole responsibility and duty of the Continental Congress to amend or pass any new legislation or laws of the land. We’re only told as an aside in our textbooks that the Articles of Confederation were “weak” and therefore a “strong” unifying document was needed. Thus the Continental Congress illegally neglected their duty and allowed a secret Constitutional Convention to take place. A Con-Con if you will. Con being the appropriate word here.
In reality, the Articles were as loose as possible on purpose, as each colony, and now state, was supposed to be a nation unto themselves. Our unity was in arms and defense only if some invader from the East should come and try to usurp our newfound freedoms.
That was the idea anyway. As I said, it sure sounded good on paper. In real reality—this would be two layers in, at least—the crown was already bargaining and scheming to place the shackles back on. When the battles stop and some papers are signed, we’re always told that the war ends, and supposedly everyone just goes back to their respective corners and life goes on. But back in real reality, the war never ends. The Powers always play the long game. As such, losing a few skirmishes in a Revolutionary War does not a loser make.
It just necessitates a plan B. If the outcome of the war was actually not intended and planned in the first place…
Alexander Hamilton, among many others, was certainly a creature of the crown. He was a fierce advocate for “Federalism” which would need a strong governmental hand. In the “social media” of the day, the “Federalist Papers” were launched along with the “Anti-Federalist Papers” as rebuttals. Much attention is given to the Federalist position but not nearly as much to the Anti’s. Patrick Henry and other Anti-Federalists refused to have any participation in the Con-Con and they spent the majority of their time warning of the dangers that would come of it.
The amendments only came about after people actually got to read the document. There was such an outcry and uproar at the Federal Beast it would create, that immediately the masses had to be placated with proposed amendments. They could already see the matrix that this new Republican form of government would create. A king and his loyalists can be easily targeted and removed in a coup when the regime’s atrocities fill the cup. But who do you blame or focus on when it’s a multi-headed hydra? The President? Congress? The Supreme Court Justices? The beauty is that it can be all of them and none of them.
This is the historical milieu that brought about our beloved amendments. There were many more than ten to begin with but it was whittled down to what we see now in the Bill of Rights. That’s probably why some, like the first, are more of a collection of things. And if you are also wondering why two hundred plus years later we are still arguing over the “intent” of the amendments based on how they’re worded, I suggest you do a study on the term words of art and see how it pertains to how laws are written and why they are used. Hint: it’s so they will be argued about for years to come.
So chippy were the proceedings for the Constitution that Rhode Island neither sent a representative to the convention nor did they officially ratify the document until they were forced to. Already nicknamed “Rogue Island” and the “Perverse Sister,” Rhode Island had a reputation for wanting complete sovereignty and to be left alone for the most part.
In fact, it’s my speculation that tiny little Rhode Island might have been a major factor in The Powers wanting a new governing document in the first place. The Articles being “weak” was the artful term used because it stipulated that all of the thirteen States had to be in unison to amend anything to it. That effectively gave each State total veto power. In computer programming that is considered a feature not a bug, but it is now presented as the total opposite.
Clear up to 1789 by official history, Rhode Island was still giving the Constitution the bird. The Senate passed an embargo that would effectively cut off all trade with the tiny State. Before it could move on to the House of Representatives, the government of Rhode Island capitulated under duress. And even then, they only ratified under the auspices that they would still have an “out” if they so chose. The list—which also included their own list of proposed amendments—included the language: “the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary.”
Re-read that last statement. Did you catch it? The people of Rhode Island understood explicitly that they were actually losing control of their governance. “We the People” is effectively a lie. Also note that they didn’t say “if” it ever became necessary to regain control of their own destiny, but when it shall become necessary. Methinks there was a reason that freemason Benjamin Franklin stated that what they had just created at the Con-Con was “a republic, if you can keep it.”
People tend to assume this was spoken as a way of saying that we need to fight for the Republic in some patriotic way. But what if what he was really driving at was the possibility that the people would figure out the swindle and someday fight to regain their true independence?
The State was also—rightly, as it turns out—concerned about such things as devaluation of currency, lengthy terms for congressmen and direct federal taxation. The Federalists decried Rhode Island’s “excess of democracy” which further led the citizens of the State to oppose the Constitution.
This same general tack would be used not too far in the future against Texas.
Shortly after gaining independence from Mexico, Texas was annexed into the U.S. by a joint act of Congress. The government of Texas assented to the resolution, but the people were never allowed to vote on the matter. It’s no wonder that a few short years later, in 1861, as the Civil War was breaking out, the popular consensus—by a margin of 95%—voted to repeal the annexation. Of course later Lincoln’s cronies would call the will of the people “illegal” and send their own into the State to do their own will. A Con-Con was convened but only “loyal Americans” were allowed to vote on the ratification.
The overarching sentiment here is that terms like “popular vote” or “democracy” are only valid so long as men with guns are not pointing them at you either metaphorically or physically speaking. And therein lies the paradox—or I guess, at least some people view it as a paradox.
We’ve long been taught that in the absence of a strong physical governing body that lawlessness and chaos would likely reign. But is that necessarily the case? Does the society we live in—which could be argued to be mostly peaceful—only exist because we know we have a select group of armed, uniformed individuals running around? How many communities would continue to exist just fine in the absence of such people?
Moreover, let’s look at the other side of the coin. Even with thousands of uniformed and armed individuals policing our streets at the city, county, state, and federal levels, there are still thousands of cases of murder, rape, assault, and theft that happen every day. And today, not unlike during the times leading up to the American Revolution and many other times in history, the very force meant to defend and protect are turned into objects of aggression and suppression, used as political instruments that do the will of whomever wields them. Conversely, the statement of, “I was just following orders” is either legitimate or not based on who happened to have “won” the war du jour. It didn’t work out so well for the Nazis after World War II but seems to work quite nicely when it comes to the “war on drugs” and the “war on terror.”
So where does that leave the first and second amendments—or any of our supposed rights for that matter? I would say they are illusory at best. Men with bigger weapons will, at the end of the day, dictate what goes and what doesn’t. This is nothing but naked force. A mob, gang, kingdom, empire or republic can all wield it the same way. And they all do. Their big magic trick is that they fool us into thinking they are somehow different or essentially needed.
It may be shocking to some, but it could be argued that Rome, at some points, had stronger protections on bearing arms and speech than what the U.S. enjoys today. Some will argue that there was no “freedom of speech” in Rome, but the times were different. Of course emperors with fragile egos, who were mostly sociopaths or psychopaths and had unlimited military and judicial powers at their command would be wont to suppress dissent. That’s kind of their modus operandi. And ideas such as the “press” did not exist at the time. That meant that any sentiment or opinion had to be expressed by word of mouth. Greece had perfected the art previously with their professional orators and that tradition continued on through Roman times.
According to the Codex Justinianus, all free men were not only allowed to carry swords for personal protection, it was considered a duty to defend one’s property and people.
“We grant to all persons the unrestricted power to defend themselves, so that it is proper to subject anyone, whether a private person or a soldier, who trespasses upon fields at night in search of plunder, or lays by busy roads plotting to assault passers by, to immediate punishment in accordance with the authority granted to all. Let him suffer the death which he threatened and incur that which he intended.”
Of course, just as we see today, the right was not a universal one. Instead we see that it was “granted” by the beneficent rulers and intended for the ordinary folk. Barbarians, slaves and others considered persona non grata were out of luck. Rome implemented “sword control” for the likes of them. Sure there were caveats, such as slaves who became gladiators in the arena. But even they were forced to practice with wooden weapons until such time as they actually entered the games. The code mentions that if a slave’s master was being attacked, then it was their duty to physically defend them from harm, with arms if need be.
It seems that at the time, Roman legislators actually preferred people to take action themselves in the immediacy of the moment rather than try to bring perpetrators to “justice.” Indeed it is documented that at least one legislator said, “…it is better to meet the danger at the time, than to obtain legal redress after one’s death.”
Religions, up until the time of the emperors, were mostly tolerated as long as the Roman gods were also honored in the correct ways with the proper rituals. As the empire expanded, new gods could and would be brought into the fold. The Roman Pantheon could change, just so long as the Republic and later the Emperors approved. This is why we see the likes of Christianity being at first persecuted, then becoming the official State Sanctioned Religion. And even that story is not real reality. The truth of the matter is that followers of the way were persecuted, reviled, and killed. Institutional Christianity, in the form of the Roman Catholic Church, was a totally different animal. Few understand or even know that “catholic” merely means “universal.” This would be the pinnacle of the pantheon of Greco-Roman gods along with older Babylonian and Egyptian flavors, given a Christian makeover.
Lesser gods were merely turned into saints. Ancestors could still be prayed to and in some cases worshipped. Osiris, who became Zeus, who became Jupiter, was now the Christian Father. Isis, who became Aphrodite, who became Venus, was now the “Blessed Virgin Mother.” And of course Tammuz, or Osiris re-born—who would become Mithras—would become the sparkling baby Jesus. And that’s how you reform a multitude of religions into a palatable State-sanctioned operation for the masses.
But I digress…
If anything, I think it’s safe to say that much of what the U.S. touted as somehow new, in terms of its Republican form of government, was merely just the logical extension of Rome. Daniel’s statue portrayed the loins that would become two legs, just as the Roman Empire split into East and West, then the feet would become mixed with miry clay and have ten toes. There is some controversy over these toes. Some will point to ten Popes and others to the ten immediate countries that became offshoots of the Eastern and Western Empires. There is merit to a lot of the ideas. One thing is for certain, Rome never really fell. It just continued to move around and evolve. Caesars became Kaisers and Czars and later “Holy Roman Emperors.” Is it any wonder that the Imperial Eagle is on the official seal of the United States? I think not.
In the wake of all of this, what have we seen since the inception of our nation? Behind the artful words printed on parchment and signed by our supposed founding fathers, there has been nothing but naked force from the beginning.
No more had the ink barely dried on our new Constitution and Mr. Washington crowned… er, umm… appointed President and already hostilities began. Revolutionary War debts had mounted up and so what better way to test out Congress’ new ability to tax? American Whiskey became the first item to officially be marked as contraband. Distillers were expected to pay a tax on their sales. Of course, just as we see today, larger operations typically just acquiesce to the coercion just so long as they can continue running at a profit. This is no different than the mobster coming and politely “asking” for protection money. I mean, the mobster’s kids gotta eat too, right?
Smaller distillers be damned.
Britain taxes the tea and we’re all up in arms and tossing that junk into the harbor, but American Congress wants to tax whiskey without local representation? You can’t make this stuff up. The solution, as always, is send in the guy with the baseball bat to break some legs if they don’t pay up. In this case, the guy is 13,000 plus militiamen and the baseball bat is a bunch of muskets. But you get the point.
History teaches us that those darned whiskey rebels were the bad guys. Scoff laws who didn’t want to pay “their fair share.” Washington is regarded as a hero and admired because he didn’t have to resort to tyranny to get a better outcome. I guess one man’s tyranny is another man’s heroism.
For years various distillers dodged the tax. Hundreds were prosecuted. It wasn’t until the early 1800s when the tax would finally be repealed. So much for life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, eh?
And it wasn’t just alcohol. No, the devil’s drink would be far from the only thing that would incur the beast’s wrath.
Not even one hundred years would pass and the idea of freedom of religion would be put to the test. Brigham Young and his merry band of Mormons would find themselves drawing the ire of that same Federal Beast.
Along with basically everything else, the textbook story we get of the “Utah War” is heavily slanted at best, if textbooks even talk about it anymore at all. “Buchanan’s Blunder” is no more. What we read about now is the “Mormon Rebellion.” That seems to be a more apt description from the government’s point of view. Wars have two sides. People can choose who’s right or wrong. Admitting a president made a blunder or mistake? Not a good look. But a rebellion? That’s the ticket.
No one should find it surprising that in the movies and fiction we’re always taught to root for the rebels. The Empire Strikes Back and all that. Rebellion = good, Empire = bad. And yet it is twisted in true alchemical fashion in the real world. Any hint of defying the Powers is to be put down and suppressed immediately. The only times rebellions are tolerated are when they are actually concocted and approved by TPTSNB. Let that sink in. Savor the aroma.
Ol’ Joe Smith had already met his demise in Missouri, and the Mormons were already being pushed out of that state and Illinois, among others. Although they were not hurting anyone, generally speaking, as a practice, they were certainly different. Did “freedom of religion” only mean freedom for various Christian sects? Did Mormon belief and doctrine put it beyond the pale and therefore they had no freedom to practice? Some might argue that it was a cult and therefore not a true religion and not subject to such freedoms.
It is generally accepted in academic circles that a cult ceases to be a cult if it survives the death of its leader or founder. If that be the true litmus test, then Mormonism easily passed it. In another ironic—or not so ironic—twist of language, we always talk about how important our culture is. Cult-ure. Root word “cult”. Maybe we just need to be honest with ourselves and admit that rights don’t matter so much to us as much as conforming to the culture does. When someone adheres to some culture other than the popular one, then persecution and loss of “rights” will surely follow.
Brigham Young and the Mormons did their best. They decided to head out to the Utah Territory to try to extricate themselves from their plight in the Midwest. That is not to say that they wanted to be outside of the United States. In fact, they figured that being governed by one of D.C.’s cronies would not be for the best. They proposed creating a new State called Deseret. There was precedence for this kind of Religious State. Mary-land was a predominantly Catholic colony and state in a sea of Protestant peers. Why not a Mormon State? Today Utah essentially is a Mormon State, but the struggle was real.
The freedom of speech circulating around the Mormons were that they were grossly immoral because they believed in “plural marriage” or polygamy. Furthermore their right to bear arms was put under the spotlight due to the fact that there were rumored “militant” factions of Mormons such as the Danites and the Nauvoo Legion. The conclusion was that women, children, and others were under some sort of terroristic regime and therefore being held against their will. Common sense would dictate that persecuted people tend to tool up to defend themselves, but common sense is not what typically rules the day.
In order to oust Young and end the polygamist threat to society the Republican Party was formed. When Buchanan was selected elected as president, he promptly activated the military in Kansas—which was itself supposedly bleeding at the time—to march out to Utah, put an end to the “rebellion” and install a new governor of the territory.
Young was given no official letter or communication telling him that a change in leadership was coming. Scouts came back and told him that a large company of armed soldiers were coming their way. In the same situation what would you think? So the Mormons tooled up, manufactured firearms, and generally beat their plowshares into swords for what they thought was a coming conflagration.
In 1857, Captain Stewart Van Vliet was ordered to go ahead of the main body only with orders that the people of Utah would need to provide provisions for the occupying force. Van Vliet was not given orders to tell Young or anyone else that a regime change was in order. Upon entering Salt Lake City alone and spending time with the Latter Day Saints, he remarked that the Mormon people had been dreadfully lied about and slandered. He found nothing but a peaceable people who were concerned that they were about to be attacked.
In the end there were no battles. There were no casualties officially, although there was some violence and skirmishes due to various circumstances. Buchanan was publically and politically shamed for his decisions to send troops, but in the end the Mormons would bow to Federal rule. Although no actual acts of treason, sedition, or general rebellion were found, they were offered full pardons for any actions prior to or during the event that the Federal government itself set in motion. The writing was on the wall perhaps, as the LDS had to submit to having a military fort in their territory permanently. This was supposedly to protect settlers on their way to California for the gold rush. Mm Hmm. Sure it was.
Federal Laws were passed that outlawed polygamy and other forms of plural marriage. Initially Young and the LDS church members were basically given a free pass on this and the Federal Eye of Sauron looked the other way in exchange for them not getting involved in the Civil War. Nothing like a little tit-for-tat, eh? That would last until 1863 when Young was officially brought under charges stemming from violating the Suppression of Polygamy Act.
In a fashion that would be decried had it been anyone but the Empire doing it, the congressional seats vacated by Southern members during the Civil War were subsequently filled with Northerners and the Lincoln administration was able to ram literal tons of special interest laws through Congress. The transcontinental railroad was built off the back of these completely illegal acts being passed—sometimes in absence of a majority of Congress members or with the Northern seat-holders in tow. U.S.A., Inc. was to be born. Create new contracts out of each “citizen” and keep them alive and moving.
We are told that the American Civil War was fought strictly over the issue of slavery. This is patently absurd. If you want to spend an afternoon or evening deprogramming yourself, I suggest you seek out the newspaper articles that circulated around the time leading up to and through the war. The facts are that most Northerners hated the Abolitionists, and war almost broke out in the North amongst the factions there alone. A new form of contractual slavery, not just for those of African heritage, but for every man, woman, and child in the land was brought into effect. The perfect magic trick. Talk about the prestige.
Lincoln’s own words over and over again attest that he cared not one wit whether slavery was outlawed or not. What he really couldn’t stand is breaking up the Union, a.k.a The Empire. The idea of “Union at all costs” superseded all else. How dare people who share common values and a way of life be allowed to live on their own terms? How dare the common culture of the Empire be rejected?
And please understand. I’m not endorsing any slavery in any way. You can spend another evening deprogramming yourself around that issue as well, if you want to. The African slave trade and how slavery was being implemented in the South in the 1800s is not what you’ve been told. And besides, TPTSNB always had plans to expand the plantation from coast to coast, and they’ve succeeded. You think being forced into a 9 to 5 job and living to pay off mortgages, car loans, student loans and credit cards is freedom? They just gave us a longer leash for a while. And now, as of 2020, they’ve decided to further rein in that leash. Velvet chains replaced irons. Metal masks have now been replaced by cloth ones. It’s slavery nonetheless.
Thousands of words can and have been written about all of the encroachments and infringements upon our supposed rights throughout the history of our empire. New infringements come incrementally, often only after first making it palatable through various means in the culture. As one generation passes away, the next can be indoctrinated through educational means when they are young to see issues in a fundamentally different way. Another way is to stage false-flag or hoax events in public, in order to sway public opinion in a certain way. They do all of this and more and have been running the same playbook from the beginning, because it works over and over again.
Fast forward to the 1990s and a very similar situation to the Mormons in Utah played out in Texas on a much smaller scale, but unlike the fairly “positive” outcome achieved in the 1800s, the Branch Davidians in Waco would not be so fortunate.