The Lebanon 9-12 Project

Preserving the Constitution and the Founder's Principles at the Local Level

Public Vs Private Property

Public Vs. Private Property

I am a citizen of this country.  That is no little honor.   As citizens, we carry a burning responsibility.  It means that when we elect men and women to public office we cannot do it as lightly as we flip a coin.  It means that after we’ve elected them we cannot sit back and say “Our job is done, what they do now no longer concerns us!” 


That philosophy of indifference is what the enemies of this country want.  If we allow them to have their way to grow strong and vicious than the heroic struggle which welded thousands of towns like this into one Great Nation means nothing.  Then we are not citizens, we are traitors.


The great Liberties by which we live have been bought with blood but the kind of government we have is kind of government we the people give to our self.  A government by the people, for the people can mean any kind of government.  It is our duty to make it mean only one kind, uncorrupted and truly free.

(from the 1943 film A Stranger In Town)


Because of my role with the Lebanon 9-12 Project I am often asked:  What is the goal?  What are you trying to accomplish?  Those questions have been asked with more frequency since we brought Agenda 21 to the forefront.  In essence the questions are looking for a specific justification as to why we exist.  In that justification, the question they are asking about us is “What right do we have to question our government?”  I am here tonight to address, in public, an answer to that question.  We live in America and it’s is supposed to be a free country;  One where the right of the citizen to peaceable assemble and to question their government is supposed to be a protected and sacred right.  I am of the mindset that this is not just a sacred and protected right, it is our duty.  When we no longer have this right, we are no longer free.


As people have begun to realize that our liberties and freedoms are being challenged on a daily basis more people have come forward to question their government.  Groups like ours exist all across this nation and the media obsesses, as do some elected officials and some citizens, to ridicule those of us who would dare to challenge public policy. 


Yet we have to ask ourselves when a Senator has to take to the floor of the Senate and filibuster to get a simple yes or no answer to the question of “Does the President have the Authority to take the life of an American Citizen on American Soil who poses no imminent danger to the nation or his neighbor?”  how can anyone not see how far we have strayed from our Founder’s Intent.


Underneath our Constitutional banner on our webpage, underneath the rising sun in the banner of our newsletters and email blasts you will read these words.

Preserving the Constitution and the Founder’s Principles on the local level


You see, it really doesn’t matter what the issue is - our position on that issue is based around a simple question, does it advances the Founder’s Intent, from their own words,  or does it move in a different direction.


It’s simply not enough to know what we believe.  It is essential that we know why we believe it.  That is why the Lebanon 9-12 Project has focused on Education.


Education is essential because as important as knowing what we believe is, if we cannot make a solid case on why we believe it we are going to have a very difficult time persuading others to stand with us.  I believe this is even more critical today than it was just 40 years ago.  The reason for this is actually a simple one.


We are far from a United Nation today.  Volumes have been written about the polar divide in this Country, far be it for me to compete with them.  The way I see it though, the divide in this nation comes down to two opposing world views and those views are centered around one theme.  Property!


Property!  It has been the struggle of society since the dawn of civilization.  Property!  It is reason behind more wars.  It is the reason empires are born at it is the reason empires are destroyed.  Property itself is not the cause, it is the two words views on Property.


One view says that I am free, I am my own property.  I am Sovereign in my personhood.


100 years before the Founding of our Nation John Locke wrote, in his Second Treatise on Government that:

The reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of their property; and the end why they choose and authorize a legislative, is, that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the members of the society,


He continued to this by adding that:

Whensoever therefore the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society; and either by ambition, fear, folly or corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who. have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society.


1700 years before Locke Marcus Tullius Cicero became one of the first important social and political thinker to affirm unequivocally that the basic purpose of the state is the protection of private property.  Cicero wrote:

“For political communities and citizenships were constituted especially so that men could hold on to what was theirs. It may be true that nature first guided men to gather in groups; but it was in the hope of safeguarding their possessions that they sought protection in cities.”


He would add to this to further emphasis this position:

“For, as I said, it is the peculiar function of the state and the city to guarantee to every man the free and undisturbed control of his own particular property.”


Thomas Jefferson felt this concept of government was so important that he reflected Locke’s words in our Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Those words by Jefferson we signed by 56 of our Nation’s Founders.  Central to the founding of this Nation was a firm reliance on the belief that just governments were instituted among men for the purpose of the protection of the Individual Property of its Sovereign Citizens.


But wait a minute, you have been indoctrinated to believe that whole reason we went to war was because of Taxation without Representation?  It is, after all, all supposed to be about the economy isn’t it?


As this great Nation was struggling in the birth pangs of Independence brave men and boys grabbed their rifles and took to battlefields across the 13 colonies.  Did they do so because their taxes were too high or did they do so in defense of their unalienable right to protect their property? 


James Madison once said “As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

The colonists had come here to escape two things.  The first was Religious Persecution. They came to the New World for the right to determine for themselves how they would choose to worship their God. 


The second reason they came here was to escape the tyranny of serfdom and a feudal system of government that had permeated the European landscape. 


They came here for the right to truly own, to possess, to maintain, to protect their own property.  They came here to escape the system of lords and serfs, to escape the countries where the Crown owned all the land because they knew if the Crown owned the land you lived on and the land you worked on the crown owned you. 


Before the Declaration of Independence - As the colonists settled in America they established governments and in doing so they established charters for those governments - the majority of which had specific protections of the individual right to property.  As the towns grew and the populations increased those towns became colonies and Commonwealths and Constitutions were drafted and in each of those Constitutions you will find the same protections to our individual rights to property.


Our State Constitution is pretty clear on this:


All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.


It extends that protection by declaring:

The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things shall issue without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation subscribed by the affiant.


Those protections not only included a protection in the ownership of property but a protection in the right to defend that property.  Pennsylvania’s Constitution states:

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.


Let me read that one again 

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.


Let’s be clear on this one.  Our Constitution is the rule of Law in the state.  Any law in this state must align itself to the principles of our Constitution and any law in violation of that principle is supposed to be unlawful.  That should means it  should be unlawful for anyone in the state of Pennsylvania, including our legislators,  for anyone to even question our right to bear arms in our own defense.  Any law that seeks to undermine this is Unconstitutional.  Before that right can even be challenged the Constitution would require a Constitutional Convention to change that wording.  A law, federal or otherwise, passed to question this right, is unlawful.  There is nothing to debate.  It’s plain and it’s clear.  It means what it says.


As this Nation struggled to come into being there was already a divide in the nation concerning property.  There was the group who believed that every human being had a right to property and that included their life, their Liberty and their possessions.


They embraced the writings of John Locke who said: “All mankind... being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.


Not everyone agreed.  There were those who believed that others could be denied this right and become the property of others and the institution of slavery was born.  Some have called this a unique institution of America even though it existed long before America was a nation, Long before the Western world even knew this land was here.  The Jews had become slaves in Egypt.  Slavery is born out of the concept that individuals have no right to property but that we are the property of others.  Slavery cannot come into being when laws are established preventing it in a Republican form of Government.  Slavery can only come into being in a Democracy where a majority can decide the rights of an Individual.


Slavery was an imported Institution. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania attempted to remove slavery as an Institution and it was forbidden by the crown to do so.  When the Declaration was written it included a clause abolishing slavery but because the Declaration required unanimous consent.  The Southern States refused that consent until the clause was removed from the document.


This conflict continued into the debates on the Constitution and again, the ratification of the Constitution was dependent upon the consent of the Southern States. They chose to ignore the rule of law, the principle of the very government they were trying to establish and clung to their ability to keep other people as property.


There was another class of citizen in America who did not see their rights recognized and again, this happened because of the power of the vote.  This concerned the rights of women.  While many championed for the rights of women, their rights to property and their right to vote, there were enough who viewed women as the property of men.  Eventually they won these rights and they won standing firm on the Constitution which had granted them that right in spite of a majority vote that would deny it to them.


Yes our country had its flaws when it emerged.  But the founders had drafted a document that served as a vision for a better future and throughout its history for the first 100 years America progressed and that vision was realized for everyone in America.  The flaws we had exemplified the opposing world views.  For the first 100 years we moved towards realizing that we were a nation founded on the principles of the right of the individual in the life their liberty and their possession.  Those who opposed that view, those who believed that we are the property of others, did everything in their power to impede that progress.

This exemplifies the real difference between a Democracy and a Republic.


Those who had the vision of a future where the rights of all would be recognized had established a rule of law that protected the rights of all individuals.  It might have taken a while for this to be realized but the one thing that stood in it’s way was those who clung to a principle that a majority vote could outweigh moral principle.  That is one of the flaws of a Democracy.  As some had pointed out, Democracy is two wolves fighting with a lamb over who is for supper.  Under a Republic where the rights of the individual is protected the lamb will be safe, under a Democracy, the lamb will be dinner.


It was Democracy that saw blacks as possession and property and refused to recognize their individual rights to property.  It was Democracy that viewed women as second class citizens and refused to recognize their Individual and Sovereign rights.


Socialism can only begin in a nation that believes they are a Democracy. The problem with Socialism is the central tenant that we have no real individual right to property; that we have no real inherent rights to begin with.  In this world-view rights originate from the state so the state can deny those rights selective to any individual or group of individuals as they see fit.  Socialism requires one of two things to come into existence in an established government, either a violent revolution that establishes a government that does not protect the rights of the individual or a Democracy.  Fisher Ames described it this way


““A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way. The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.”


True Liberty cannot flourish where the rights to property are not respected and preserved.  Liberty is not the right to take from someone something that belongs to them.  Once you grant a person the Freedom to steal from another you must, by its very nature deny the one being taken from an equal protection.  Equality has never meant everyone has equal things.


Ayn Rand immigrated to America from St. Petersburg, Russia, on February 2, 1905.  She was a witness to the Bolshevik revolution and she knew first hand the Dangers of Socialism and how Socialism is the path to Communism.  She fully understood the principle of the right to property and in her essay The Virtue of selfishness said:


The protection of a right to property does not secure a right to an object.  It secures a right to an action.  It is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.  It is also the right to fail in that endeavor.


Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort.  That application of human knowledge and effort is also in the realm of private property—by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort.


Just as man can’t exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one’s rights into reality—to think, to work and to keep the results—which means: the right of property. The modern mystics of muscle who offer you the fraudulent alternative of “human rights” versus “private property,” as if one could exist without the other, are making a last, grotesque attempt to revive the doctrine of soul versus body. Only a ghost can exist without material property; only a slave can work with no right to the product of his effort. The doctrine that “human rights” are superior to “property rights” simply means that some human beings have the right to make property out of others; since the competent have nothing to gain from the incompetent, it means the right of the incompetent to own their betters and to use them as productive cattle. Whoever regards this as human and right, has no right to the title of “human.” 


You either have the right to the things you own, to your property or you become the property of others.


We are watching as this nation moves from become a nation of producer/consumers to becoming a nation of consumers who do not produce.

While we are all consumers, the fruitful success of a nation is reliant upon people who are both producers and consumers.  When you are no longer producing, in order to survive you must still consume what others produce.  While it sounds like compassion, creating generations of people dependent on everyone else to produce has consequences.  Everyone now must deal with less.  And less mean less jobs, less economic prosperity and less consumption which also translates into less jobs, less economic prosperity and even less consumption.  It grows the consumer base by force and by the sudden realization that if I don’t need to work to provide for myself, why should I?  That shrinks the producer base even further.


To put is in simple terms I’ll quote Margaret Thatcher “Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess.  They always run out of other people’s money.  Its quite a traditional characteristic of them.  Then they start to nationalize everything and try to control everything by other means.  In doing so they actually reduce the choices available to ordinary people


She has been paraphrased as saying “The problem with Socialists is that they always run out of other people’s money!” but that is what she actually said in full context.


The rise of the progressive movement in America has been a consistent push for the advancement of Socialism and a transformation of this country away from the principles of our Founders.  Central to its theme is the removal of the protections of Property; the property of our Religious views, the property of our real estate, the property of our freedom of expression through speech and press.  They openly embrace the concept of “It takes a Village” which simply translates into a world view, that we, as a part of that village have no individual property rights but are, in fact, the property of others.  Ultimately the goal is to nationalize everything making us so reliant on government that we become the property of government and to remove any notion of our reliance upon our self for our success and our failure.


To advance this that have taken noble words like equality and justice and defined and limited through social mechanisms.  The say “Social Justice” and “Social Equality” and by those terms they mean something vastly different from Justice and equality.  By doing this they demand the same outcome regardless of the effort.  That is not Justice, nor is that Equality. 


They have understood from the onset that the application of these principles required the dismantling of the rule of law in this nation by rendering our Founder’s Vision and our Constitution as outdated, null and void. 


They did this by infiltrating our institutions of Higher learning where our Teachers, our Lawyers, Our Judges and Our Politicians would receive their training.  They did this by corrupting the principle that we are a Republic and began promoting the concept that we are a Democracy and that under the Democracy, right or wrong becomes an illusion that is to be determined by the vote of the majority.


They brought in European Socialists who embraced the principles of the Fabian Society which gave birth to The Progressive movement in America.  They corrupted our history and turned away from our founder’s words to promote legislative and judicial activism and our Constitution was on being interpreted in the context of, not our founders words and visions, but on case law and legislation even when the case law and the legislation violated the principles of the Constitution and they found ways to reinterpret our language to change the meanings of words like Equality, Justice, Entitlement, Entitlement.  Even the word Liberal was so distorted that it no longer meant what it did in our founders time.  Many of our Founders identified themselves were liberals but not in the modern inception of the word.  They believed in open debate on any subject or as Stephen Hopkins, delegate from Rhode Island in our Continental Congress is quoted as saying: “Well, in all my years I ain't never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about.


As our institutions of Higher Learning transformed, places that were once bastions of Freedom and Liberty began proclaiming the joys of Socialism and Communism under the principles of a Democracy.  And we bought into it.  60 years ago, many did not recognize the threat of Democracy rule because we honestly believed that this could never happen in America.   Yet it was Democracy that had innocent American citizens of Japanese ancestry rounded up and placed in detainment camps during World War II and yet Rand Paul is ridiculed for suggesting such a thing is possible in America today because people still think it can’t happen here.  The rule of law of the protection of the rights of US Citizens was denied to the Japanese.  A majority vote was all it took to deny them their unalienable rights.


Our Nation was designed in such a way that it required the active participation of its citizens who were educated on the principles of Freedom, Liberty and Property.  Our schools, until the progressive take-over, were places where moral views of right and wrong built around principles of Liberty Freedom and Property  were reinforced in their primers and text books.  They reinforced the morality that my rights to my property were dependent upon the protection of my neighbors rights to their property and when I imposed upon my neighbors rights I broke the law.


Not to steal, Not to Trespass, Not to inflict bodily harm except in the case of self-defense.  Things were right and wrong based on moral principles, not based on economic benefit.  Slavery was abolished because of the moral principle, Women were given rights because of the moral principle and Civil Rights were recognized because of the moral principles.  At the center of the debate was the individual right to be lord and master of their own life.  To be free make the necessary decisions to protect their own Sovereign and individual rights to the property of their Life Liberty and Possessions.


In the debate on Obamacare we often hear that the majority doesn’t like it.  In the debate we hear that Obamacare is going to cost us tons of money.  Those things may be true but is that really what makes Obamacare right or wrong.  It must be right or wrong because it violates the principles of our Freedoms and Liberties and infringes upon the protections of our right to property.


When we lose sight of the moral obligation of government to exist for the protection of all people and allow the majority to start making choices guided by Economic Benefit horrible things happen.  The German Economy in the 1920’s was one of the worst economies in the world and then came Hitler. 


Germany was economically devastated after a draining defeat in World War I.  Social spending was rising at an unbelievable rate. In 1913 the government was spending approximately 20.5 per resident; by 1925 it had risen to almost 65 marks per resident and finally in 1929 it reached over one hundred marks per resident. The elevating amounts of money which were used for social spending combined with plummeting revenues caused continuing deficits. Eventually the municipal finance collapsed in 1930.


With Germany at its weakest and most vulnerable point, Hitler took the opportunity to begin his ascent to power. When the economy is down people look for someone or someplace to place the blame.  Hitler’s rise to power was accompanied by identifying who to blame.  The target was any business and organization not friendly to the aims of the Nazi Party and the Jews. 


Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933.  Hitler’s recovery plan involved large scale borrowing for public expenditures, and at first this was principally for civilian work -- railroads, canals and the Autobahnen [highway network]. Hitler also instituted wage and price controls. He essential used to Germany Government to control all industry by Nationalizing everything.  The German people were so devasted by their economy that, as they saw their economy reviving they were willing to accept the denial of rights to property of some as long as they received benefits through Hitler’s Social Programs.


DOES ANY OF THIS SOUND FAMILIAR?


By late 1935, unemployment was at an end in Germany. By 1936 high income was pulling up prices or making it possible to raise them … Germany, by the late thirties, had full employment at stable prices. It was, in the industrial world, an absolutely unique achievement.


On April 10, 1938 Parliamentary elections were held in Germany that included the recently-annexed Austria. They were the final elections to the Reichstag during Nazi rule and took the form of a single-question referendum asking whether voters approved of a single Nazi-party list for the 813-member Reichstag as well as the recent annexation of Austria (the Anschluss). Turnout in the election was officially 99.5% with 98.9% voting "yes". In the case of Austria, Hitler's native soil, 99.71% of an electorate of 4,484,475 officially went to the ballots, with a positive tally of 99.73%.


It was Democracy that put Hitler in Power and we need to think long and hard about that before we allow the Progressives to throw out the electoral college to openly embrace the popular vote.


Frederich Bastiat said:

“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”


If that sounds like something that isn’t happening in America I point you to an article in the Harrisburg Patriot criticizing citizens who are suspicious about a regional comprehensive plan and look at the quotes in that article which claims that because those citizens oppose certain elements in that plan they oppose all planning.


Rather than doing the research necessary to grasp the reason for the concerns of these citizens the indoctrination of the press turns the concerned citizens into radicals chasing some conspiratorial nonsense.  The informed become the fools and because the debate is not framed around what is right and wrong, because the debate is not framed around that governments are instituted to protect the individual’s sovereign right to property, people openly accept that it is the role of our government to control the property of everyone.


In their own documents, the advocates for Sustainable development spell out what they want to do to private property.

"Land...cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable...."


Just in case we missed that point they set out direct objectives declaring:


Recommendation D.1

    (a) Public ownership or effective control of land in the public interest is the single most important means of...achieving a more equitable distribution of the benefits of development whilst assuring that environmental impacts are considered.

    (b) Land is a scarce resource whose management should be subject to public surveillance or control in the interest of the nation.    (d) Governments must maintain full jurisdiction and exercise complete sovereignty over such land with a view to freely planning development of human settlements....

Do you still think this can’t happen in America?

 

The concept of public property is so alien to the principles of the founding of this nation that it is something altogether different.  It’s not simply different, if it violates the principles of the protections of Individual property, the protection of Life, Liberty and possessions then it is Un-American and we become a traitor to the principles of America to advance this position in any way shape or form at any level of government.

 

If what I am doing on my property is no risk to the health and safety of my neighbors, if I am not threatening their rights then it’s none of the governments business.  You have no place regulating my garden or punishing me through taxation because I want to improved my property.  How did we get to a place where governments have a right to fine us through fees for a permit to replace our roof on put on new siding?  How did we get to a place where somebody, in the name of planning, can come into our community and tell us how big our garden can be, what and how many vegetables we can plant in those gardens?  How does that threaten anyone else in my neighborhood.  How does that impose on the rights of anyone else?


Regulating the size of a doggy door isn’t really about the size of the doggy door;  It’s about the size of the dog?  Is regulating what dog I may choose to own really part of the necessary function of government?  It is when the planners start from a predetermined view that they own you, when the planners believe that you are the property of the state and they have placed you on the same playing field as a common criminal?


This is no wild conspiracy theory, the evidence is there for anyone who takes the effort to do the research.  There are people in this country who have been arrested, fined and even imprisoned for growing gardens and collecting rainwater to water those gardens.  Farmers in this country have had their property seized for providing raw milk to their neighbors.  There are places in America when farm fruit and vegetable stands have been shut down because they fresh vegetables and fruit haven’t gone through Food and Drug inspections. 

 

We are watching as farmers around the nation are being forced into subsidy, grant and tax relief programs to provide them with relief from over regulation and taxation.  All they have to do is give the government a portion of the control of their property to the government.  When the government controls the food supply, the government controls everything.  You don’t protect a person’s right to property by taxing them so hard they are forced into government programs.  You protect a person’s right to property by making sure that taxes aren’t used to interfere with free market principles.  You don’t protect a person’s right to property by using taxes to steal a portion of that land and claim it as your own.  That’s not freedom, that slavery.

 

We are watching as Senators and House members stand on the floor and defend the right to arrest United States citizens without due process and hold them for indefinite detention. 

 

And still people say this can’t happen in America.

 

If you watched Rand Paul’s filibuster then you heard  Dick Durbin challenge Paul by asking if the government had a right to take out Osama bin Laden as Paul was defending American Citizens from the government’s desire to implement Presidential authority the kill American Citizens on American soil.  I suppose it never occurred to Durbin that Bin Laden was not on American Soil nor was he a citizen of the United States so his point was invalid.

 

We’ve gotten here because as a Nation we are no longer a government that is instituted for the purpose of protecting our rights to property but a government that seeks to control every aspect of our live.  It is the ideology of Private Property VS the world view of all property as property of the Public and that’s what they mean when they use the term Public Property.

 

I repeat:  You either have a right to property or you are the property of others.

 

Under private property you are Sovereign and you have a right to property, under public property, you rights to property are gone and you become the property of whoever is in control.

 

As a citizen of the United States of America, our Founders envisioned a government that was owned by the people not a people that was owned by the Government.  They openly declared our right to throw off a government that abused our rights to property and they rejected a government that had a right to throw you off of your property.


The principles of accountability and responsibility are vastly different when it comes to concepts of Private Property vs Public Property.


Under Private Property Principles a right to property does not mean that at birth or at some predetermined time in my life I receive that property with no effort of my own part.  It requires an action on my part to pursue that property with my intellect and my industry.  A right to property reinforces the noble human characteristics of Responsibility and Accountability.  It makes me accountable and responsible for my own success or my own failure/


Declaring that a property means social equality or a system of all property belongs to the collective under the Public Property world view translates into from each according to their ability to each according to their need means there is not a real right to property.  Private Property is only an illusion. The one with ability, the one who has labored, the one who through their industry and knowledge has earned only to have that taken from them to provide for another who won’t.   This produced the antithesis of Responsibility and Accountability.  It removes responsibility for our own actions or lack of actions.  It does not make us accountable to our own actions but rather accountable to the actions of others.  It takes one group and makes them totally dependent on the actions of others for their survival-for their food, their clothing, their housing which makes them slaves.  It takes the other group and makes them totally dependent to provide for their food clothing and shelter of others making them slaves as well.  That is the dirty and ugly truth behind the concept of Public Property.  It turns us all into slaves!This isn’t a new debate.  It is a debate that has existed as long as there has been civilization.  There has always been a people who believed they have a right to their own property and all the protections that accompany it or and those that have believed they have a right to the property of others.  As it’s most basic it is the cause of all wars.  But’s let’s be clear, the aggressor is never the person who wants to protect their property.  The aggressor is the person or group who wants to take your property from you.


It’s at the core of the whole gun debate, that somehow when a person comes to rob you, rape you, or commit any act of violence against you, the criminal is the gun, not the aggressor.  It is born out of the ridiculous notion that somehow they have a right to take from you and you don’t have a right to protect yourself but what do you expect from a society where this is how our entire government has been re-envisioned.


They over-regulate the job industry driving jobs out of the country and then they take from then punish those who are still working to give the to those who aren’t.  After you’ve used up what you paid in to unemployment insurance you go on the public dole and the rest of society is expected to provide for you.  But let’s be clear, this is a problem that was created by government regulations and interference in free market principles; Controlling wages, controlling prices, regulating everything.   They create the very reasons they need to steal from you and then justify that theft as an act of compassion.  The rest of us are supposed to accept it, go along with our lives or pretend it isn’t happening.


Redistribution is theft.  In order to redistribute you must take from person that which belongs to them and give it to another while claiming that somehow they have a right to the redistribution.  While it might make the economy of one group more tolerable, there is nothing moral about it because it requires mandated theft.  It also ignores that it is the individual’s responsibility to choose to help others through charity. Mandating theft neither charity nor is it compassion.  You can’t be compassionate if you are stealing from one person to give to another.  You can only truly demonstrate compassionate if you make the personal sacrifice.


Al Capone helped a lot of people in difficult economic times.  He was able to help them because he threatened the property of others.  He violated those rights 

of others, fixed prices, manipulated business through intimidation yet there were many who benefitted by Capone but those who spoke highly of Capone had to ignore the abuses he committed against others.  To the recipient, Capone was generous.  To anyone who resisted him, their life, liberty and property were violated. 


In the process Capone made himself incredibly wealthy.  He made millions of dollars by making bootleg liquor and employed bartenders, card dealers, pimps and other people throughout Chicago and beyond. He improved the economy of Chicago but he did so in ways that had no moral compass.  How anybody can’t see that the same reason we felt Capone needed to go to jail is the same way our government functions and then somehow justify the actions of our is beyond ridiculous to me.  You can’t claim compassion if you have to beat up one person to provide relief to another.  The two actions have to cancel one another out in any reasonable mind.


True Freedom and Liberty does have a price.  That price is found in Responsibility and Accountability.  If I have the Freedom to make bad choices then I must also have the freedom to fail.  I must also be held accountable for that failure.  It requires that while expressing my Freedoms and my Liberties I have the full respect of the Freedoms and Liberties of others and if I abuse another's Freedoms or Liberties that a government instituted for the protection of property has an obligation to intervene and through due process exact an appropriate punishment.  Outside of that realm then the government is just supposed to get out of the way.


Taxation should exist to provide for the necessary functions of government and that includes things like a police force designed to protect my rights and the rights of others.  Taxation and laws should never be levied to give one group an advantage while punishing others.   Governments picking winners and losers is not a just government.  Governments bailing out failed companies is not a just government.  Governments institutionalizing myriads of agencies for the purpose of bypassing the legislative authority granted to Congress and placing those agencies under the office of the President is not a just government.

None of those agencies are elected by the people and yet every one of them has the authority to regulate, which is the equivalence of legislating, and every one of them has the power to enforce those regulations.


Our Constitution is clear that all legislative authority is to be in our Congress because as an elected body they are accountable to the people.  The office of the President was never intended to be legislative through empowered agencies that are sucking dry the sustenance of this Nation.


The Department of Agriculture, according the bureau of labor and statistics, has 1 employee for every 11.5 persons actually working on a farm.  The 2012 budget for this department was $121.9 billion with another $28.8 billion for discretionary spending.  That’s just one Department.


As to the number of bureaucracies in our government: Even the experts can't agree on the total number of federal government agencies, commissions, and departments.


Most estimates suggest there are probably more than 2,000.  They each have an area of specialization — some much broader than others — but their duties often overlap, making administration more difficult. To complicate things even more, many agencies have counterparts at the state and local level.


Most of them are under the control of the President, not the legislative body of government.  This didn’t happen solely because of the Democrats and it didn’t happen solely because of Republicans.  They share an equal role in the creation of this monstrosity.  Occasionally we get a Ronald Reagan who comes along and starts cutting the size of government but because regulations are not in place to prevent these institutions from growing again new administrations come in and the government grows in size and in power.  It’s not enough to reduce the size of government and to cut spending.  The solution is to make sure that in any legislation, the legislation enacts rules that do not allow these institutions to come back into power again. 


As we move forward it is important that we remember that no issue can be determined right or wrong - constitutional or unconstitutional based solely on economy. No issue can be determined right or wrong based on majority opinion through a democratic process.  


The determination of right or wrong has to be defined by a moral code and that moral code is to be found in the Constitution and our Bill Of Rights which requires an understanding of our Declaration of Independence.  In the grievances listed in  our declaration we read the abuses of the king concerning our property rights and those grievances are exactly what our new government was designed to protect us from.  I encourage you to go home and read those grievances and as you do ask yourself which of them aren’t being implemented by our government at this point in time.


It is important to know what our Founders Documents meant in the words of our Founding Fathers.  To best understand this we have countless original documents available for us to study.  We don’t need case laws from the last 100 years, we don’t need the opinions of a president who never understood that the purpose of the Constitution was to LIMIT the powers of the Government, not to expand it or an administration who is more sympathetic to the enemies of the United States of America than they are to the principles that allowed America to become the greatest nation in the world.


As long as we followed the principles of Freedom and Liberty through the protection of Private Property America prospered.  It prospered because the principles of a free market society that encouraged personal responsibility and accountability in the pursuit of their happiness.  When we began to remove those principles, freedom and liberty began to slip away and so did the economy.  As we openly embraced and then institutionalized socialism through the war on poverty that began in the 1960’s, we did nothing to change the percentage of the population in poverty but instead began killing jobs, destroying home ownership and establishing a government that is little more than a leech sucking the blood out of our economy, destroying jobs and decimating the American dream.   


It’s not the government’s role to give things to us.  It is the Government’s job to protect the things we own from enemies foreign and domestic. It’s the government’s duty to get out of the way of people, of business, of property and allow the American dream to become a reality once again.  Not just a dream for America, but a dream that once led the world to aspire to the principles of Freedom and Liberty through the full realization of the role of government in the protection of the rights of the individual to truly own, maintain and protect their property!

 

During this discussion you have seen the logo of the Lebanon 9-12 Project displayed as it is right now.   We are sometimes asked why the crown in our logo and for those of you who don’t know, I ask you to bear with me just a little bit longer.


The Statue we call the Statue of Liberty was actually titled Liberty Enlightening the World by its sculptor Frédéric Bartholdi.  It was not Batholdi’s first such attempt at this type of statue.  The first proposal was for the Northern Entrance to the Suez Canal and was inspired by the Colossus of Rhodes.  It too was a 

large robed female bearing a torch.  


A proposal was made to the American Government that modified the Suez Canal Colossus with the inclusion of a crown on her head which was explained by Bartholdi.  She was also designed to be in motion.


While today we see the statue as a symbol of immigration, that was not in the scupltor’s mind when he designed her.  Having made a trip to New York City

He passed Bedloe Island where he saw Fort Wood erected on the island.  The star shape that was traditional of forts during the early history of the American Revolution is still a part of the pedestal.  He saw this as the perfect location for his statue of Liberty Enlightening the World.


As I stated, the statue was constructed to appear to be in motion.  You will note that she does not face the United States but faces away from America and is in motion going out towards the rest of the world.  Liberty was not to remain in this country, Liberty was to move out to all the corners of the world.  Liberty was not to be shackled to America but, as exemplified by the broken chains around her feet.Liberty wasn’t for America alone, it was not to be bound to it’s shores.  The Principles of American Liberty as exemplified in the statue was a principle for the world.The Tablet Lady Liberty carries is in the shape of a Keystone.  In architecture a Keystone is a central stone at the summit of an arch, locking the whole together.     The term keystone is also used to exemplify the central principle or part of a policy, system, etc., on which all else depends.  On the Keystone is a date.  It is not the date of the Constitution, It is not the date on which Independence was won it carries the date when the Principles of Liberty were established in the principle founding document of our Country, The Declaration of Independence.The crown of liberty is unlike any crown ever seen before.  The points of the crown do not point up as is traditional to crowns, they point outward.  There are seven points each representing the seven continents of the world.    The symbolism was one where American Liberty, once realized in America would guide the world to her principles of Liberty for all.  What was her crown of glory?


The guiding principle that We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


You ask of us to explain why we exist, what right do we have to challenge our government, whether at the local the state or the Federal level.  I say that it is my right as a citizen of the United States of America.  It is my right as an American.  To shackle us to not stand up for the principles of American Life Liberty and Property is against the very principles upon which the nation was born.  It is not un-American to challenge the Government when they threaten our freedoms and liberties, It is un-American to remain silent.

 

Yes,I am a citizen of this country.  That is no little honor.   As citizens, we carry a burning responsibility.  It means that when we elect men and women to public office we cannot do it as lightly as we flip a coin.  It means that after we’ve elected them we cannot sit back and say “Our job is done, what they do now no longer concerns us!” 


That philosophy of indifference is what the enemies of this country want.  If we allow them to have their way to grow strong and vicious than the heroic struggle which welded thousands of towns like this into one Great Nation means nothing.  Then we are not citizens, we are traitors.


The great Liberties by which we live have been bought with blood but the kind of government we have is kind of government we the people give to our self.  A government by the people, for the people can mean any kind of government.  It is our duty to make it mean only one kind, uncorrupted and truly free.

 

 

I am a Citizen of this Country and that is no little honor!