Return the Beacon

Roughly 240 years ago a small group of self educated, self reliant men gathered in pubs to spread an idea. These guys new that their idea would never be accepted by a majority because the necessary action would require a level of bravery and sacrifice unlike any witnessed in recorded history. Another thing these fellows knew, beyond doubt, was that there would be enough rugged individuals who embodied the American spirit and would be willing to pay any price to earn their freedom. A freedom to be responsible for their own futures based on their own merits, this is real freedom. Modern Americans seem to have lost touch with the very same rugged individualism that earned them the freedoms that they have since forsaken in the name of comfort and security.This complacency has been chipping away at everything from education to social interaction and represents one of the biggest problems with modern society.


After winning the Revolutionary War, our founders gathered to create a new style of government. This government would be the first of its kind, in that; the citizens would be the focus of the entire system. They realized that the war would never have happened, and freedom would never have been gained, if the decision had been left to democracy and the majority. The American Revolution was, after all, only supported by about 30% of Americans. Knowing the inherent oppression created by Democracy, our founders turned to a near facsimile of the Roman Republic. In this system, Republicanism, the minority has power equal to the majority rather than being subject to the whim of the masses. In his first inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson said “though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect”. Jefferson also said “a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits”. The idea of Americanism, at least until Andrew Jackson introduced Democracy, was that the federal government would have very limited powers and only be responsible (on a social level) for preventing citizens from interfering in each other’s personal freedoms. Under this system our nation blossomed at inconceivable rates and the rest of the world rode on its coat tails.


The global rise of socialism (a byproduct of democracy), at the end of the nineteenth century, brought with it a new sense of entitlement. Many self proclaimed socialists were entering the political horse race with promises of financial security- a chicken in every pot. The cost of that financial security, according to the new progressives, would fall on an unpopular minority; the rich. This oppression of a minority set precedence for future generations who learned that they could forgo their personal obligations as long as the majority had democratic power. With each passing generation the lessons of self reliance slowly turned into lessons on social reliance and the individual grew ever weaker. Ridiculous is the premise that a society comprised of the weak and held together by strict governance is stronger than a society of strong individuals who find communal adhesion through shared religious and philosophical beliefs. America is now following the rest of the world into the downward spiral created by the vacuum that results when productivity is replaced by consumption.


The political battle between the ideologies has boiled to a bubbling head with American progressive leaders claiming that their opponents are “clinging to their guns and religion” while constructionists suggest that the weak and unsuccessful are clinging to social programs and mob rule. The purpose of this essay, however, is much less political than it might seem at this point. The solution to the societal woes, so rooted in political dependency, starts, not with a political movement, but at home. Public education plays a role but a role which is not as vast as most would expect. The term teacher, as it refers to our sanctioned education system, is a colossal misnomer: the better term might be tellers. These are the folks who have generally been taught what to teach, irrespective of their own rational influence. As teachers tell students what is known (or accepted as known) by others, it is up to the student to run the information through his/her own system of rationalization; that system is built at home. Parents have the primary responsibility of creating a foundation for the philosophy of their children and teaching them how to measure new information against their philosophy while measuring their philosophy against the new information. This process defines rationalization and keeps the power of learning in front of the power of teaching.


Past generations, the now relic rugged individuals, learned how to fend for themselves. From a very young age these Americans were exposed to the skills necessary to provide every basic necessity, and thus, were instilled with the confidence that they would always have total control over their own survival. Personal responsibility allowed the individual to assign his or her own worth rather than having the community assign it for them. Parents today could have a tremendous affect on the future of this nation, as well as the world, if they would take time to teach their children self reliance and personal responsibility. By teaching these kids the kind of life lessons that can only be learned through real experience, giving them the opportunity to fail “safely”, and passing on the concept of integrity, the tide of dependency can be turned.


There is no time better than the present to honor that small minority of brazen insurgents who risked everything to lay the foundation for a nation that they would never live long enough to enjoy. As a nation, we should let our children see us as we take care of our neighbors. We should, as families, join social groups and churches and get out of our houses. Expose our youth to nature, teach them to hunt and gather, teach them how to survive as individuals and to thrive in groups. Politicians are subject to the market forces, just as private industry is, so we must stop looking to them to “change” things for us and begin to change ourselves so that the politicians are forced to follow. With a little bit of gumption and some personal responsibility, we Americans can take back our freedom and return the beacon to that long lost hill that Ronald Regan once spoke so proudly of.

Ballot Initiatives are UnConstitutional!

Many states have found a way of circumventing their state legislatures and putting bills (laws) directly on the ballot. Florida, for example, has a statewide indoor smoking ban that totally offends me. For the record; I’m not a smoker, nor do I wish to eat my meals where others are smoking.

The problem for me is that these kinds of laws are oppressive to minorities and highlight the fundamental flaw with Democracy as a system of government. I have often ranted about this topic before but the point behind my premise is applicable across the board so I feel compelled to spell it out again.

First let me clarify my position on the specific example of the smoking ban. To take the choice of whether to allow smoking or not away from the proprietor of a privately owned business in the back woods of Plant City and give it to the majority of Floridians who reside in Miami, Jacksonville, and Orlando (people who would never set foot in said business) is simply wrong.

The way these things are supposed to work is based on our free market system, not Democratic “mob rule”. In America (at least as I remember it) we have the right to go to which ever business we choose. Likewise, we can choose to avoid any business for any reason that strikes us. If there is a large demand for places in which smoking is not allowed, that market WILL be met. The beauty of the free market is that a smaller demand for establishments where smoking is allowed would not be denied. This reality is best summed by the old adage: When a conservative wants to stop eating meat he becomes a vegetarian. When a liberal wants to stop eating meat he makes meat illegal.

Beyond the question of right and wrong, there is a Constitutional component to the legality of these ballot initiatives. The concept of bypassing representative legislation and initiating popular government is known as Democracy. Webster’s Dictionary, in fact, defines Democracy as: “government by the people; especially : rule of the majority”.

On the other hand, Webster’s defines a Republican form of government as: “a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law”. The difference should be very clear, Democracy allows the majority to have complete control at the expense of the minority while a Republic requires elected officials to act on behalf of all people at the expense of none.

The reason that these distinct differences are important boils down to the legality of State sanctioned Democracy. Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution states: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..” . Having seen all of these facts, how is it legal for the States Constitutionally guaranteed Republican government be bypassed by an act of pure Democracy?

If you think that my view of a Republic is flawed then read the words of Thomas Jefferson from his first inaugural address…

“all too will bear in mind this sacred principle, that the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”

“A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, AND SHALL NOT TAKE FROM THE MOUTH OF LABOR THE BREAD IT HAS EARNED.”

The New Urban Order

“NO HOME, NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!” These are the words hand painted on a sign in the window of a vacant apartment building that had been forcefully taken over by homeless people in San Francisco. This movement, known as “take back the land”, started a few years ago but has gained much ground (no pun intended) over the past two years. To those who follow it, home ownership is simply a “natural human right”. The contention is that foreclosed homes belong to banks which were bailed out by taxpayers, and thus, owned by the people.

Maybe there is some truth to that statement but there seems to be something missing. For one, I would like to see the amount of taxes paid by the homeless compared to the amount paid by banks. Secondly, these “agents” (who are nothing but liberal activists) are forcing entry into foreclosed homes and showing them to potential squatters without legal authority. The stated intent of these individuals is to create such a huge draw on legal resources, including law enforcement officers, that they create a long term cushion for the squatters. The underlying intent, however, looks a lot more like socialism.

Below is an excerpt from a presentation by one of their leaders, S’bu Zikode, entitled ‘Re-imagining the City: A New Urban Order’.

“It is very nice to re-imagine the city. We can all start to imagine cities with good housing for everyone and then we can imagine affordable public transport and safe streets with beautiful trees, cool shady parks and welcoming schools, clinics, libraries and sports clubs. We can imagine and imagine cities where everyone’s humanity is respected and where everyone counts. It is very nice to imagine a city where no one has to live like a pig in the mud, where everyone is safe from fires, abuse, police raids, disconnections, evictions and political attacks…..Those who are in power today have the power to distribute our land fairly and freely to those who do not have land. Why have they betrayed us today? The answer is simple. If they do so they will be giving away the very power that makes them powerful.”

“In fact of all the people in society our demands are the most legitimat
e and the most reasonable because we are living in the worst conditions. The demands of those with the most money and power are the least legitimate. Logic as well as justice is on the side of our struggle to put the will of the many against the will of the few which is the only way to turn our imaginings of a new urban order into reality.”

If this sounds reasonable to you then there are a few questions you must ask yourself…

1. Do you believe that a house is a fundamental human right?

2. Are you prepared to build this free house yourself?

3. If you cannot build this free house, then who should be forced to build it for you for free?

4. Where do you think the free lumber, hardware, and supplies should come from and who should you enslave to supply them?

5. If you need to relocate, who should be enslaved to help you find a new free house?

6. What happens to all of the Real Estate agents who will now be forced to give away houses? After all, the commission on free is zero.

You see, nothing that must be provided through the labor of another is a “fundamental human right”. That is, of course, unless the provider is not subject to the right of personal liberty. If you are in accord with the ladder then you would have been quite at home in the former Soviet Union. Here in the USA, our personal liberty is guaranteed by the founding documents that form the base of our legal system.

Make no mistake; those who are propagating this movement are violent and dangerous. Although they profess to be a movement of peace, they are taking property from others and refuse to return this property by any means other than a retaliatory act of violence.