“Just Doing My Job” and Other Things Tyrants Say

Perhaps I missed the “Pandemic Clause” the last time I read the U.S. Constitution, but I don’t recall anywhere in that inspired document where is says that all our God-given rights can be curtailed in a crisis. Yes, the Constitution allows certain specific rights, such as that of habeas corpus, to be temporarily suspended during a time of “Rebellion or Invasion” when the public safety “may require it” (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2), but, otherwise, the document grants no authority to any officer of government to strip peaceable American citizens of their rights. Yet, during the current Coronacrisis hysteria, which I have openly called a psyop, the Constitution has been almost totally suspended by the president, governors, and local public servants. This article rebuffs that erroneous notion and is addressed to anyone who feels the Constitution can be suspended at their will and pleasure, but more particularly local law enforcement, sheriffs, judges, mayors, city councilors, county commissioners, and so forth.

B36TjgrCEAEM_9d

From New York to California, and from Idaho to Vermont, our sacred rights enshrined in the Constitution have been curtailed as a result of Coronavirus hysteria. Fear has proven to be a far deadlier contagion than this Red Chinese virus. At a time when the economy was booming, confidence in the president was high and rising, and the public was finally starting to talk openly about the dangers of socialism, an illness with an extremely low mortality rate imported from communist China has succeeded in gutting the Bill of Rights and reducing us to patients in a medical police state. In this piece, I won’t discuss the growing mountain of evidence that Coronavirus was and is a false-flag. Rather, I’ll focus my attention on the fact that fear of a limited disease is no justification for violating the rights of an entire nation.

For years, I’ve used the term “mini-tyrants” to refer to those in society, whether private citizens or public servants, who take it upon themselves to destroy people’s rights. In a recent article for The Federalist, John Daniel Davidson used the term “little tyrants” to refer to those who have reacted to Coronavirus by curtailing the American People’s rights guaranteed in the Constitution. In part, Davidson wrote:

We’ve now witnessed local and state governments issue decrees about what people can and cannot buy in stores, arrest parents playing with their children in public parks, yank people off public buses at random, remove basketball rims along with private property, ticket churchgoers, and in one case try—and fail—to chase down a lone runner on an empty beach. All of this, we’re told, is for our own good. . . .

Pandemic or not, this stuff has no place in American society. Petty tyranny of the kind these mayors and local officials are scheming is wholly alien to our customs and way of life, and destructive to the social contract on which our nation is built.”

Amen to every word! It is “wholly alien” to American history, heritage, and law to curtail individual rights simply because a crisis situation arises. Few would argue that society has a right to hunt down subversive groups, like the Communist Party or the MS-13 gang, which are attempting to undermine and destroy society or do harm to Americans, but that’s not what’s happening in the present case. Rather, normal, peaceable American citizens are being targeted, by mini-tyrants in state and local governments, as criminals for simply attempting to go about their daily lives, walk outside, play in the park, assemble in groups per the First Amendment, or go to church.

tyranny26

Let’s highlight a few of the horrid rights violations and outright irrational things governments have done because of Coronavirus hysteria:

In San Clemente, California, the city decided to dump 37 tons of sand onto a skate park to deter skateboarders from minding their own business and harming absolutely no one during the lock-down.

Near Malibu, California, a man was arrested on the beach for paddle boarding alone in the ocean.

In my home state of Idaho, in the little town of Rathdrum, a woman was cited by police for holding a yard sale and threatened with jail time.

In Meridian, Idaho, where I once lived, a mother who was playing in a public park with her kid was arrested for peacefully refusing to obey a cop’s unconstitutional demands to leave. This despicable incident, the protest at the officer’s house that followed, and the rash of pathetic online comments condemning the woman and ripping on anyone who doesn’t grovel before the golden throne of law enforcement and government “authority,” is what finally prompted me to write this article.

In Kentucky, the governor forbade in-person Easter church services and instructed police officers to take down the license plate numbers of all those evil church-goers.

The city of Westport, Connecticut is currently testing “pandemic drones” that detect coughs, sneezes, and people’s temperatures. I’m sure that won’t violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

In Philadelphia, a passenger was violently dragged off a bus by police officers for what crime? Not wearing a face mask. And how did the police know that some random, peaceful man wasn’t wearing a face mask? Why, the bus driver did his Soviet civic duty and called them, of course.

The state of Utah has limited public gatherings to ten people. Utah has also considered, though for the moment delayed, a bill that would allow local governments to “establish, maintain, and enforce isolation and quarantine, and exercise physical control over property and over individuals.”

The Michigan governor has deemed seeds “non-essential” and has forbidden their sale. Yes, seeds. Vegetable seeds. Fruit seeds. Seeds. I can’t think of many things more essential than seeds.

Walmart, Target, Costco, and other stores across the country have closed entire aisles of products, declaring them “non-essential” to conform with state orders closing all “non-essential” jobs and businesses.

The Chinese-owned Smithfield Foods meat plants in South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Missouri, the first of which alone supplies 5% of the nation’s pork, have been shut down.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has used Coronavirus as an excuse to close all gun stores. Not to be outdone, Los Angeles ordered gun stores closed during the “pandemic.” An activist judge agreed that guns are “non-essential” and that the city has the authority to close any business it wants to for any reason it deems necessary.

In Florida, a pastor was arrested for holding church services in violation of a rights-violating stay-at-home order. Pastors in others states have suffered similar persecution.

A toddler’s birthday party in a southern California public park was broken up by an entire goon squad of baton-wielding police officers. It reminds me of the System of a Down lyrics in the song “Deer Dance”: “[V]isible police, presence-sponsored fear. Battalions of riot police with rubber bullet kisses. Baton courtesy, service with a smile.”

The list of arrests and insane, authoritarian behavior could continue on and on, but these suffice to give you the flavor of what’s happening in America today.

This is the sort of behavior that people’s irrational fear engenders. This is the type of thing that people who support draconian stay-at-home orders allow to happen. This is what anti-Americans and mini-tyrants do and support. This is tyranny!

94317342_2943199515733213_3856028033555103744_n

People who are scared of Coronavirus have the right to stay at home and lock their doors if they please. But they do not have the right to force me and my family to stay locked up in our home. They do not have the right to prevent other people from going to work to earn a living. They do not have the right to stop other people from operating their businesses or selling their products. They do not have the right to keep other people from traveling. They do not have the right to prevent others in their community from playing in the public park. They simply do not have a totalitarian authority over the lives, actions, bodies, and property of other people. The most these timid and terrified people can do is stay at home if they truly think self-quarantine is in their best interest.

The general hysteria has shown millions of people to be hypocrites and supremely inconsistent in their views. For instance, isn’t it ironic that the same people who protest for their “right” to murder unborn babies are now supposedly so concerned about society’s health and well-being that they want us to give up our rights for their own personal safety? What happened to “my body, my choice” in these people’s darkened minds? Apparently this privilege only applies to them. These are the same sort of intellectually-stunted individuals who think that vaccines are safe and effective, yet are worried if you don’t vaccinate. At any rate, whether out of fear or ignorance, these cowed people have thrown their lot in with the mini-tyrants who never let a good crisis go to waste.

There is a lot of blame to go around for the hysterical overreactions and tyrannical impositions that have occurred during this Coronacrisis. We can blame those in government who have usurped power and have taken to dictating how we may or may not live our lives. We can blame police who say “just following orders” or “just doing my job” as they violate the Constitution and arrest innocent people who exercise their rights. We can blame the public for their timidity and for tolerating the tyrannical acts. As noted, however, I’m addressing this to public servants.

tyranny23

Police are the ultimate public servants. They are where the rubber meets the road. Their job is to “enforce” laws. But which laws? All laws? Or only constitutional laws? History has established that saying “I was just following orders” is no justification for committing immoral or oppressive acts. “Just doing my job” is what mini-tyrants say. Making the excuse “just doing my job” provides no excuse for implementing tyranny.

Any right-thinking individual must conclude that a police officer’s job is to enforce constitutional laws and protect the rights of citizens. By implication, police have no license to violate citizens’ rights regardless of what the law allows. Thus, it is fair to say that there can be no tyranny unless police acquiesce. A heavy burden and responsibility to rigidly enforce the Constitution and reject that which does not comply with it rests on their shoulders.

One of the things that sets America apart from other nations is that we have a national creed – the Constitution. The Constitution is the keystone of Americanism. It holds the Republic together. It is glue which keeps the fifty states in a workable Union. All public officers are bound to uphold the Constitution and the American People are likewise bound to sustain and obey it. It is important, then, that we understand the Constitution’s most important element – the Supremacy Clause.

In the national Constitution, there’s a thing called the Supremacy Clause. You can find it in Article VI, Clause 2. It states that the Constitution and laws made “in Pursuance thereof,” that is, constitutional laws that don’t violate any of its provisions, “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” In other words, the national Constitution trumps any and all state and local laws that touch upon the same objects.

Let’s briefly examine,using three examples, what this means in practice. If a governor forbids you from assembling peaceably in your state, this is a direct violation of the First Amendment which guarantees “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This obviously applies to city and state governments, not merely to the federal government. No city can forbid people from peaceably assembling on public property, such as in a park or the steps of the capitol. Next, if a governor forbids church services, he is violating the First Amendment which guarantees American citizens the “free exercise” of their right of worship. Lastly, if a governor or mayor assumes the authority to ban firearms or firearms sales because of a “crisis,” their declarations are null and void because the Second Amendment guarantees that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

92679235_1576638902505998_2350104360890925056_n

As you see, the Supremacy Clause is the linchpin of the entire Constitution. Either the Constitution is supreme and all citizens and officers at any level of government must obey it and all just laws passed “in Pursuance thereof,” or it’s a pointless document with no purpose or efficacy. If we admit that the Supremacy Clause is valid, which we do when we acknowledge the Constitution and claim the rights of citizens, then we also admit that any public servant – mayor, governor, judge, president, senator, sheriff – who passes or enforces a law, decree, or executive order that violates an individual’s rights is in blatant violation of the Constitution. If we are to remain a free nation, we must reclaim the understanding that was so basic to our Founding Fathers; namely, that the People had established the Constitution and, thus, it was obligatory and binding upon them and their representatives.

George Washington explained it this way:

This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.”

Notice what President Washington said and did not say. He said that a free people which chooses its own constitution is bound by it. He did not say that the American People are bound to obey any and all laws and dictates that come from government. As noted, the Constitution says that we are bound to uphold the Constitution and laws “made in Pursuance thereof.” A law cannot be in pursuance of the Constitution if it violates portions of the Constitution, such as the First Amendment, Second Amendment, and so on. Any law, then, that violates any provision of the Constitution also violates the Supremacy Clause and is null and void.

To reinforce this crucial concept, which is at the heart of the subject at hand, I give just a few more quotations. In the famous, or infamous, court case Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court acknowledged: “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”

Constitution89

At the North Carolina Ratifying Convention of 1788, Governor Samuel Johnston referred to the Supremacy Clause and reasoned:

Without this clause, the whole constitution would be a piece of blank paper . . . Every law consistent with the constitution, will have been made in pursuance of the powers granted by it. Every usurpation or law repugnant to it, cannot have been made in pursuance of its powers. The latter will be nugatory and void.”

Finally, in Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton likewise explained:

There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid” (Jonathan Elliot, ed., The Debates, Resolutions, and Other Proceedings, in Convention, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol. 3, 166).

Can anyone read the plain language of the Constitution, and the unmistakable explanations of these good men, and conclude that the Constitution is not indeed the supreme law of the land? If it is the supreme law of the land, then state and local governments cannot violate it and still be in the right – regardless of their oh-so-benevolent reasons and intentions. When any governor, police officer, judge, mayor, county bureaucrat, ad infinitum, violates any provision of the Constitution (e.g. your right to assembly, your right to keep and bear arms, your free exercise of worship, your right to operate a business), then they have overstepped their authority and are in open rebellion to the Constitution and to the People who established it. Their dictates and actions, in these situations, are inherently and expressly null and void. One may even say they are even tyrannical.

As noted, the heart of the matter is the U.S. Constitution. There is no “Pandemic Clause” which nullifies the Constitution in the event of a crisis. There is no clause, section, or article of that document which allows it to be suspended at the say so of Congress, the president, the Supreme Court, your state governor, or your local mayor. It simply cannot be suspended except, as President Washington put it, “by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people.” Otherwise, it is in force and any local, state, or federal decrees, executive orders, or “laws” to the contrary are null and void.

Another issue connected with the Constitution and important to our understanding of the contrived Coronacrisis hysteria is that of rights vs privileges. A privilege can be taken away by the one who grants it. A right, however, cannot be taken away. It can be forfeited by violating another person’s rights, but it cannot be justifiably taken away from a peaceable citizen of this land.

Rights existed before the Constitution. They are inherent in man. He receives them as an endowment from his Creator, as the Declaration of Independence states so plainly. No government, then, can justly take them away unless the individual forfeits them by violating the rights of others. Thomas Jefferson explained:

[R]ightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual” (Thomas Jefferson to Isaac Tiffany, April 4, 1819).

Liberty or death1

If Jefferson was correct, and he almost always was, then the measures being taken by both our federal and state governments to curb Coronavirus are, by definition, tyrannical. How can they be otherwise? They most certainly violate our individual Liberty as guaranteed in the Constitution; the right of assembly foremost among them. Ah, but it’s a “crisis,” you say; it’s for the “public safety.” I dispute that putting an entire nation under house arrest can control a virus. But let’s assume it’s true that forced quarantine is good medical practice, where does the Constitution tell government it can nullify my Freedom just so it can fight a disease?

I fully grant that in legitimately extreme situations, such as in the face of a subversive enemy attempting to overthrow society from within, the Constitution is perhaps not sufficient. However, this is not such a situation. We’re supposedly faced with a virus akin to the common cold that has a 99% recovery rate and which can be cured with a simple $20 medication. Cite me the article, section, and clause that tells me the Constitution can be suspended in this situation and I’ll be pacified and remain silent.

If you cannot find a provision of the Constitution which empowers government officers to trample the Constitution in a “crisis” and violate individual rights for the so-called “good of society,” then you must, if you’re honest, conclude with me that what’s being done in the name of fighting this “pandemic” is tyrannical. And if you cannot draw this conclusion, I cannot in good conscience stand with you, but must consider you an enemy who seeks to destroy my rights. If you find yourself on the other side of this equation, you’re a mini-tyrant and a traitor.

I recant what I said a moment ago; we actually are in a crisis. However, the crisis is not because of some sickness (which may not even be caused by so-called COVID-19), but because of the despotic overreaches that have occurred as a result of the unfounded hysteria the media has whipped up. That is the real crisis. It is a constitutional crisis. We’re faced with an epidemic of mini-tyrants who, like cockroaches, have come out of the woodwork to capitalize on the public’s fear and massively expand the size and power of government.

Police, mayors, governors, and others have assisted in this wholesale destruction of the Constitution by acquiescing and going along with the tyranny. Yet, they say they’re “just doing their job.” If their job is to destroy the Constitution and eviscerate our rights, then they are correct. If their job, however, is to defend our God-given rights, then what they’ve done is break their oaths, trample the Constitution, and betray the trust of the American People.

Since few in government, the courts, and law enforcement apparently have any desire to stand up for American Freedom, it is our duty as freemen to declare our rights, to hold up the Constitution, and to punish traitors. George Washington once wrote: “[It] is a maxim with me, that in times of imminent danger to a Country, every true Patriot should occupy the Post in which he can render them the most effectually” (George Washington to James McHenry, February 25, 1799). Now is such a time.

The smallest, but perhaps most effective, thing you can do right now in this time of “imminent danger” to our Republic is to fearlessly vocalize your resistance to the tyrannical, communistic lock-down measures in place from coast to coast. You can take to social media to inform others that what is happening is nothing short of tyranny, that it is not for the public good, that it’s destroying the economy, that it is contrary to the Constitution, and that it severely weakens our Liberty. You can be the one who shares critical information with your family and friends both in person and online, because you can rest assured that the mainstream press won’t share it. Indeed, social media and the controlled media are attempting to silence and censor truthful content about the reality of this “pandemic,” cover up rights violations, and keep you in slavish fear. You can the voice of reason in a time of paranoia and fear.

Paul Revere1

I urge you, fellow freeman, to lend your voice to the resistance effort. Stand up for your rights and encourage others to stand up for theirs. Help rally your countrymen against the godless Marxist tyranny that oppresses us. Name names. Note those who vote against the Constitution and against personal Liberty. Organize electoral resistance to these charlatans in the next election. Call out and protest your local police for “just doing their job” to put shackles on you and your family. Educate and, if need be, rebuff your acquaintances, friends, and family members who support measures that, by their nature, are unconstitutional, tyrannical, and aimed at the demolition of our Republic.

Never be ashamed to stand up for your Freedom. Stand boldly and know that others stand with you. Be warned that if you cave to the pressure and go along with tyranny, even if it’s supposedly for the “public good,” you disgrace your nation and everything which the title “American” stands for. And also know that if you sincerely resolve “give me liberty, or give me death,” you stand with the great ones whose names we speak with reverence – Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Henry, Hancock, Parker, and so forth. America needs its Sons of Liberty and Daughters of the Revolution more now than ever. It’s your time to show where you stand.

Zack Strong,

April 24, 2020

Private Property Essential to Liberty

There can be no Liberty without the right to own and manage private property. Private property is essential to Liberty. It is indispensable to individuality and fundamental to life itself. Where there is no right to private property, there is no Freedom and self-will. In order to maintain our American Republic in Liberty, we must reclaim and secure our cardinal right to own and oversee our own private property.

tyranny32

The great political scientist Frederic Bastiat, in his classic book The Law, defined property this way. Note how it encompasses much more than mere objects and tangible possessions, but is wrapped up in the very concept of Liberty:

We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life — physical, intellectual, and moral life.

But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.

Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.”

These words are found at the very beginning of Bastiat’s The Law. They are at the beginning because Bastiat understood that there can be no comprehension of Liberty without a correct understanding, first, of the importance of private property and individual stewardship.

Property is the root of Liberty. It is the foundation of free will. It is the essence of personhood. In a very real sense, there is no life – at least, no life that satisfies and uplifts – without property. What is our life without our God-given right to own and manage private property?

property5

Our Eternal Father created us, His children, and sent us to earth to progress and grow. But how can we accomplish this mission of growth and progression unless we have a personal stewardship to manage, direct, and be personally accountable for? How can we have a stewardship without private property to superintend? And how can we claim we have Freedom if we do not enjoy property and, thereby the chance to use our faculties in administering a stewardship of our own?

Protecting property – that is, life and and the essence of Liberty – is the reason governments exist. The Declaration of Independence states that “to secure [our] rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The three rights specifically mentioned, though of course there are many more, are the rights of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Thomas Jefferson adapted his phraseology from the common political thought of the time regarding the three cardinal rights of man – life, Liberty, and property. Some have erroneously charged Jefferson with plagiarism, but the fact is that the notion of “life, Liberty, and property” was widespread. For instance, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, ratified on June 12, 1776, contained this paragraph:

That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”

Perhaps more famously, the British philosopher John Locke, whom Jefferson highly regarded, had written in his Second Treatise on Government that man has a right “to preserve his property, that is, his life, liberty and estate.” Locke elaborated on the idea of property in these terms:

[E]very man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others. . . .

property9

. . . God, when he gave the world in common to all mankind, commanded man also to labour, and the penury of his condition required it of him. God and his reason commanded him to subdue the earth, i.e. improve it for the benefit of life, and therein lay out something upon it that was his own, his labour. He that in obedience to this command of God, subdued, tilled and sowed any part of it, thereby annexed to it something that was his property, which another had no title to, nor could without injury take from him. . . .

Thus labour, in the beginning, gave a right of property, wherever any one was pleased to employ it upon what was common. . . .

The reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of their property; and the end why they chuse 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.”

Other thinkers besides Locke, including the most prominent American Founding Fathers, expressed similar ideas and knew the value of private property rights. They understood that every individual “has a property in his own person” – that is, his life – and that by the labor of his hands he acquires and exercises a stewardship over other property, for which he is accountable. This individual stewardship and accountability over property and life is the fundamental essence of what we call Liberty.

When seen in the light of Bastiat’s explanation of property, we better understand Jefferson’s phrase “pursuit of Happiness.” It is impossible for man to be happy without property. Or, in other words, it is impossible for man pursue a course that leads to happiness without a stewardship, the control of which is authentic life and true Liberty.

We turn again to Frederic Bastiat. He contemplated the purpose of law, government, and society. As before, please note how property correlates to Liberty:

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, its lawfulness — 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.”

The fundamental basis of civil society is property! Civilization exists to protect individual rights – the most fundamental being life and the stewardship over property that gives that life meaning.

property10

The Founding Fathers knew how important property was. The Bill of Rights was written to protect, among other things, property. The Fifth Amendment, for instance, declared that no citizen shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” These lines in truth encompass the whole of the Constitution and all of our rights. For example, gun confiscation not only violates the Second Amendment, it violates the Fifth by depriving an individual, without due process in a court of law, of his property (i.e. his weapon), his Liberty (i.e. his right to defend himself), and sets him up to be deprived of his life.

The Father of the Constitution, James Madison, concurred with Bastiat and Locke. He gave an eloquent description of property and the purpose of government. Madison stated:

This term [i.e. property] in its particular application means “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man’s land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions. . . .

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own. . . .

. . . Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. . . .

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. . . .

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. . . .

government17

A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor. . . .

If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights” (James Madison, March 29, 1792).

There is much to digest and learn from this description, but the takeaways are these: 1) That man has an inherent right to property, which includes not only his tangible goods like his house and land, but his opinions, conscience, and life; and 2) that government exists to preserve property and can only be considered “wise and just” when it secures this right to each individual.

Like his fellow Founders, John Adams was fierce on the point of private property. He said property is sacred and must be protected as equally as the laws of God Almighty. He wrote:

Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty . . . The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If “Thou shalt not covet,” and “Thou shalt not steal,” were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free. (John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America,” 1787).

Another time, John Adams simply stated: “Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist” (John Adams, “Discourses on Davila,” Chapter XIII).

Samuel Adams was every bit as forceful. To him, forfeiting one’s right of private property is to make oneself a slave. He affirmed:

In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave” (Samuel Adams, “The Rights of the Colonists,” November 20, 1772).

We could continue citing quotes from wise men on the necessity of property and the correlation between property and Liberty, but the point has already been made. Let’s now discuss the opponents of Liberty. The greatest enemies of Freedom are those which seek to abolish private property and, with it, the meaning of life and the essence of Liberty. I speak of the communists specifically and of collectivists in general.

communism775

The Communist Manifesto declares that “the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” Taking what we know about the relationship of Liberty and property, we can rewrite the communist goal in these words: Abolition of individual Liberty.

The communist desire to abolish Freedom is openly admitted in the Manifesto. Marx noted that capitalists complained that the communists’ planned destruction of capital, that is, wealth, industry, and property, would mean the destruction of Liberty as well. In response, the Manifesto, nonchalantly states: “And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.”

You better believe that today’s conspirators – the Satanic communists who lord over us – still desire to destroy Freedom by abolishing private property. They have successfully succeeded in curtailing property rights throughout most of the world, including nearly everywhere in socialist Europe. They are well on their way to undermining our property rights here in the United States, too.

There are many tactics which the enemy uses to subvert our property rights. James Madison mentioned several. I name only three. First, the big-government oligarchs spend so much money and rack up so much debt that an increase in taxes is necessary to pay for it. This unnecessary and exorbitant taxation is nothing but theft of our personal property – property that belongs rightfully to us and which is earned through our own hard labor. And disproportionate and unequal taxation – which people who advocate higher taxes on the rich are really calling for – is more egregious still, constituting little more than classic wealth redistribution. Inflation, which we fork out money to cover at the grocery store and elsewhere very day, is another hidden tax that also robs us of the fruit of our labor. Minimum wage laws also destroy Liberty and property by stripping from employers the right to decide how to dispense their own property and how to run their own businesses. Socialized medicine – welfare statism – is yet another way government expands, centralizes power, and destroys our wealth (i.e. property) taxation.

Second, our property rights are increasingly curtailed by bureaucratic regulations. Government regulations now number in the hundreds of thousands. These arbitrary and unconstitutional regulations dictate how we can and cannot use our land, how we can and cannot use technology, how we can and cannot run our businesses, who we can and cannot hire, and so forth. Regulations restrict our Freedom to use our property according to the dictates of our conscience and in the pursuit of our personal happiness. It therefore inhibits our full exercise of stewardship – and without stewardship and accountability over property there is no Liberty.

communism774

Third, the outright theft of property under spurious justifications increasing at an alarming rate. Americans now lose more property every year to police than to robbers. Under tyrannical asset forfeiture laws, police rob Americans of their property and livelihoods. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is another arm of government that has been busy stealing private land coast to coast. Indeed, government agencies of all types have been confiscating hundreds of thousands of acres of land, in Bolshevik fashion, from innocent Americans – and they’ve been caught on tape bragging and laughing about it! Karl Marx would be proud of what the U.S. government has been turned into by Marxist moles.

No matter how the communists and their abettors do it, the destruction or theft of private property is nothing more nor less than the destruction and theft of Freedom. Remember, even Marx himself acknowledged that the goal is “the abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom.” Please understand that the enemy doesn’t need to arrest you and put you in a cage to take your Freedom. They can do it just as easily by confiscating your property through taxers or by restricting your ability to control your property via bureaucratic regulations.

There can be no real Liberty without private property. There can be little value in life devoid of individual stewardship – and stewardship is embodied in one’s control of private property. In order to be free agents and fully accountable for our individual actions, we must have the right to acquire and control private property. Without this right, no other right really matters. Without private property, there is no Liberty. Without private property, individuality is a hollow talking point. Without private property, we are a collective mass of equally miserable beings. And without the right of private property, there is no Liberty.

America115

I urge you to rise in opposition to the enemies of private property – the communists and big-government collectivists. I encourage you to never relinquish your private property willing, for in so doing you become a slave. And I implore you to always remember that property and Liberty are inseparably linked and that the latter cannot exist without the former. Keep ever in mind the truth that our rightful stewardship over private property is the essence of our Liberty and the essence of our success as Americans. God help America reclaim her sacred rights and her precious Freedom!

Zack Strong,

January 10, 2020