Gulf1 - C - From the Gunny's Desk

Finding “The Rule of Law”

by Gunnery Sergeant John McClain, USMC, Retired

In a number of my essays, the question has been raised, where do we find “the rule of law”, along with the parallel question, “how do we know what is right”?  Today’s decision regarding the individual mandate and its constitutionality has brought this question to the point it must be answered clearly and succinctly.

When our Nation was established, our Declaration set out the manner in which we discover our rights, stating self evident facts, which, brought together, form natural laws, and such “natural laws” are law because they are self-supporting and self evident”.

As the Constitution was being written, this was the foundation for all our establishing of principle, if we can’t find cause within a principle to find it a matter of truth, if we can’t find external self evident truths that together comprise a proposed principle, we must consider it no more than an idea or desire, because it is obvious the Universe operates under laws which don’t change, and would be leaping away from logic and rationality to establish society, part and parcel to this Universe, while denying the principles upon which we base all our observations upon.

For most of the past two millennia, there have been two basic principles “the rule of law” has been based upon.  The first is and has been the rule of force.  It was first because it is entirely natural when two people meet for dominance to be determined, and the farther away from a fixed society this meeting takes place, the more certain strength of force will determine the rule of law.

The second principle which has come to be the foundation of “the rule of law” comes out of long established society and custom, straight from the mouth of Jesus Christ, and was established when the Pharisees demanded of Jesus what right did he have to teach in Temple, and further, if he was a teacher, which commandments were most important, and which were lesser.

To this, Jesus replied in essence, you have asked me this not because you wish to learn, but so you have a statement of mine you can twist and turn, and use against me, to reduce me.  He then said the law was laid before them, in its fullness, and easy enough for children to understand, however he would make it even easier for those such as themselves with difficulty understanding.  He stated “you must love God with all your heart, your mind, your body, and your strength, and then you must love your neighbor as yourself.  If you do these two things, you will have fulfilled the whole of the Law and The Prophets.

Our Constitution was written using first principles, finding self-evident truth, considering it in conjunction with other self evident truths, and with logic and reason, expounding upon the simple answers, and finding the reasoned more complex answers in this way.  The most important aspects of our “rule of law” from the very beginning was the notice the only reasonable purpose for establishing governments is to defend the natural rights of people who form themselves into societies, and must establish rules of interactions which recognize the rights of all, and reduce the rights of none.

The “rule of law” therefore must start with the fact that all Man is endowed with rights, and no man may abrogate another’s.  It is a fact that as the society grows, so do the number and kind of interactions, and people will have differing ideas on how such interactions should be guided.  It is thus that “the rule of law” must be established, in order to assure we will not trample any rights, while affording everyone equal opportunity.

To be a self governing Nation, a people must be capable of governing their own personal actions, or they don’t have the capacity to come together and govern themselves.  The same principle is true with the rule of law.  The law must be seen by all as having exactly the same form and influence on every person, for it to qualify as “equal”, and that is the standard by which we have determined men must be measured to fulfill our concept of “right”.

The most fundamental aspect of our Constitution, our form of society at the time of our founding, and our society in and of its self, was the utter simplicity of every bit of it, with the founders recognizing that only in utter simplicity can one easily keep what is good for many from crushing the few.  They spent long hours for many months, and in doing so, produced the simplest Nation establishing document in the history of Nations.

Our own decision of how we would form “the rule of law” for our federal Republic was based on the principle of self evident facts, and the understanding that true laws are self-regulating.  No one questions the law of gravity, it is self evident.  No one should question who reaps what is sown, the answer is as obvious as the nose on our faces.

The only reason there is any question regarding “the rule of law” is precisely because its means of discovery has been hidden.  The way of proving it out has been put away, and any question on such a line is forbidden.  The form and function of “law” has been taught to a different purpose than solely securing the Natural Endowed rights of each and all, and lies have been put in the place for reason.

The sole reason the question of the legitimacy of mandated health care had to be sent to a supreme court is the simple fact no part of our government even considers “the rule of law” in any of its daily practices or operations. The answer to the question which was buried in three thousand pages which comprise this new “law” is simple.  Does this proposed law in any way provide a substantive enhanced access to The People’s natural rights?  Does this proposed law impede any individual’s right in any way?

The single most important aspect of “the rule of law” is the second half of that.  There can be no good purpose in any law and no proper reason for making any law, if it does not meet completely, both these two questions.  For the rational person, there can be no doubt the supreme court got it completely wrong, again.

 

Copyright June 28th 2012 by Gulf1

Abusing the Rule of Law

By Gunnery Sergeant John McClain, USMC, Retired

A short time ago, prisoners being held in Afghanistan in the security zone were found to be writing notes in the margins of their Korans, and surreptitiously exchanging them, to communicate with each other.

Today, seven subordinates, six Army Soldiers and one Navy serviceman have been announced they will face administrative disciplinary action for burning those confiscated Korans as part of their assigned duty that fateful day.  They were offered Non-judicial punishment in lieu of courts martial.  Such allows one to accept the summary judgment of the commanding officer, and avoid a court martial, and avoid a felony conviction a court martial finding of guilt provides.

The official story is the Korans were those issued to prisoners held for acts of terrorism or collaboration.  Guards noted the prisoners were annotating in the margins, and trading Korans under cover.  Once discovered, translators demonstrated the use of these Korans as tools to plan for escape, uprising, or any action possible, any action any prisoner of war would attempt, and something we, who have faced that possibility, can easily both understand, and note would be our own actions, in the same situation.

The Korans were inspected; those with messages were bundled into heavy canvas bags, tied up, and put with the mass of detritus for burning, usually several times a day (my experience having been in Beirut, not Afghanistan, where I have not served).  The remaining ones were returned to their owners, according to the reports.

The crime these Seven are said to have committed is the burning of Korans.  They did not per se “burn Korans”, they burned the “burn pile”, the fact the command had placed the confiscated to be destroyed Korans in it was no responsibility of the accused.

Those assigned to burn the trash were not given orders to burn everything like normal, except those bags.  They were simply those who fell into the daily duty of burning the trash, the classified documents, the confidential information, the normal communications, and in this case, the Korans being abused by the prisoners in an attempt to maintain communication with each other.

As a point of law, it would have been a court martial offense for any of them to have opened any closed or sealed envelope, bag or package, as such are routine with classified material being destroyed, and they must have orders to open anything, no matter how innocuous, and no one can ever suggest those bags, carefully tied off were “innocuous”.  Each and every item set to be burned had to be done so with themselves as legal witnesses, signing in a logbook, and without any authority to even read a line off a piece of paper.

These Seven Patriots, men who volunteered with the whole of their lives, and accepting orders to war, without qualms, they were given a simple order:  “you have burn detail today, make sure it is all completely burned before you sign off”.  For all they knew, they may as well have been taking the trash to the curb, except there is no pickup service.

Not one of them chose this duty, and not one of them has any responsibility for what was put out for them to burn.  They are not being taken to court martial because they have violated no law, but merely followed orders.  I can’t know the personal story of each of these “accused”, but the issue is not one of a crime they committed, but only an issue of the enemy inciting the Afghan people into riot. The response of our leaders was selecting seven junior enlisted innocents, and a sham punishment, rather than deal with the issue in full truth in the light of day.

This Nation’s sole standing as an honorable Nation is our principle of “the rule of law” being applied equally for all Citizens, across the board, no exceptions, no special dispensations. Our standard established a new paradigm for the world to consider.  We established the law was to apply to the least of all exactly as it applies the highest in authority.  Where is “the rule of law”?

The order to destroy those Korans came from the Commander of the base.  If he did not issue it, the order was issued in his name.  Not one of those accused had any authority to even question what was being burned, much less the authority to look and discover.

The whole of this issue is simple.  We run a prison, while we attempt to help establish a government in Afghanistan.  We run it according to our law, for our self-protection, with greater liberty and rights for prisoners than any other venue they could experience.  In the routine of doing so, the prisoners used their Korans to try to communicate, and we took them.

If the intent were anything other than maintaining order, there is no shortage of means to desecrate.  Those Korans were properly confiscated, properly put to be burned, and the entire issue is a matter of the Commander of the forces not willing to confront the Afghans with the fact we won’t tolerate any act to break out of prison, and willing to cede seven innocents to be offered up instead of the truth.

If the Commander has any testicular fortitude at all, he would have stood up with his opposites of the Afghan side, clearly stated what took place, stand on the fact the burning of the Korans was the only way to destroy them without deliberate desecration, and take the full weight of the action upon his own shoulders, and put our standard of Honor in their faces, with enthusiasm and vigor, denying any honor in their stand on the issue.

We don’t have a general over there, we have a political appointee, instead, and as usual, politicians have no problem offering enlisted Soldiers and Sailors up for sacrifice.


Copyright June 23, 2012 by Gulf1

The Rule of Law

by Gunnery Sergeant John McClain, USMC, Retired

Most Americans consider our establishment as a Nation as a complete departure from history, with little tying it to historical precedent, however that is by no means true.  In this stance, we take the worst of regimes as our example, and demonstrate how distant we are from such.

From the dawn of our history, man has had “the rule of law” in various forms, with the most common being one of two tiered societies, with the law fully controlling and ruling the lives of the serf tier, and the aristocratic tier primarily administering the law, while usually electing to be above it, or at the very least, have the right to make exception to it, for themselves.

In Declaring our Independence we established a logical line of reasoning defining the natural rights of man, the means they are obtained, and the reasonable cause we had to separate ourselves from long held bonds.  We did this by establishing as self evident facts the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God were equally valid for all people.  No one above the law, and none denied the full measure of protection of the law.

In doing so, we established a Nation where the standing of a person was determined by that person’s own actions, will, and standards of principle, rather than blood lines or heritage, and by this, we broke a chain which ensured wealth traveled with family, and made it possible for wealth to follow its actual producer.  The only real change we made was denying the ages old myth that some were endowed by God with authority to rule, while the vast majority were endowed with the right to work until they died, in labor for the land they were subjects of.

Our simple success, our proof of the correctness was demonstrated as fact by the enormous changes our mere existence made for the whole world.  Our standard changed every Nation’s way of trade, war, and money. We established a new height of productivity which had to be matched to compete in a world dominated by Free Men.

I want that world, that Republic established, I want to live in it, and breathe its air, and I loath the weight of this government upon my shoulders.  I am reminded constantly, in my call for revolution, my statement we cannot undo in months or years what took a century and a half bring about, and I am confronted with the fact a nation in revolt is subject to attack.  I am reminded we never know the outcome of revolt until all the chips lay where they fall, and we take great risk in even considering such.

My only answer to that is simple.  We are not a nation under the rule of law, but a nation ruled by a semi-elected professional political element, a central government.

This government has no connection with the “Rule of Law” our Constitution was specifically written as, thus we have no legitimate federal government.  The size and scope of our current illegal central government is some three or four times the size of any possible government under the law.  As such revolution is the only means remaining by which we can stop this illegal entity from continuing to expand, while it continues to reduce our influence upon it.

This government does not serve us, it stands directly against us.  The simple fact a man with “born in Kenya” by his own words in the written biographies of the several books he was commissioned to write his own words, putting his father as a British Subject, and thereby, himself a British Subject by British Commonwealth law in this establishing beyond argument his ineligibility yet it is the man whose past is completely public who was investigated.  With regard to obama, the Constitution has been utterly denied.

Three years into the process of fulfilling his promise of “change”, with every aspect being completely antithetical to our Nation’s principles, and in full consonance with the worst aspects of communism, we still do not know who this man is, yet the central government will not allow his status be questioned.

It has been well over a hundred years since the U.S. Constitution was the actual operative “law of the land”, ruling over every act of government, establishing the standards for all subordinate governments.

The vast majority of Americans would have our Constitution as the law, and our government limited under it, yet it is no surprise that we have strayed away from it, it is in the nature of man to try utopian solutions, as well as part of our nature to fall to choosing to rule, and take, rather than self-rule, and earn, and through these actions, corruption has become the rule, not the exception.

The form we established was substantial enough against the natural inclinations of man for a time.  We’ve gone far from our beginnings before we have truly approached the precipice which looms for all Nations which stray from logical and rational productivity, but we are at its edge now and must do something or fall.

While any reasonable person would choose a peaceful way of restoring that which has been discarded, rational people must look at the situation, at the dire situation we face, and seriously consider if there is any possible peaceful way, or if revolution is all that remains.

Numbers say that A United Citizenry, determined to restore our original form, can well force this, because no government can stand against the full weight of its citizens.  On the other hand, we must consider the facts, and whether there can be “a United Citizenry”. Can we still be united in choosing to restore our Republic?  Can we realize failure to take action in what ever form we choose, is making a choice which cannot be altered later?

In my own considered opinion we have bypassed that time and have reached a point where only the full measure of force, put forth by those willing to pay out the full price of the Patriot, is sufficient to effectively confront the illegal government this deeply entrenched.  I would have it any other way but I will not deny facts before me.

 

Copyright June 20, 2012 by Gulf1

America Must Rise

by Gunnery Sergeant John McClain, USMC, Retired

Very few Nations have ever been established with careful deliberation, a chosen committee, the wisest sent to attend, with the finished product sent around for The People to read, consider and approve or disapprove of, but doing such is the singular way of establishing a nation on principles common to all, and a rule of law which is in keeping with the society’s principles. Such Nations prosper while the rule of law stands, and they are subject to failure when it is no longer in force.

Our nation is falling and many of my friends ask why I write.  They agree with me to the point we are equally preparing for the future, but I am asked, “It’s all going to go down anyway, you won’t change it by speaking out or up, why”?  I don’t get this question from acquaintances; they tend to be acquired because of what I say in public, and what I write.

I am also confronted by those who consider me a bit loony, they being far more concerned about our Nation floundering while we square away our problems, and suggest that is far greater a danger than what we face in the world.  Those are who I speak to, and who get it, or walk away shaking their heads.

I say we must rise because we have broken from our foundation and we no longer are the republic.  We no longer stand on principle, and our government has become the empire we won our independence from.  Friends know this, and don’t believe those who don’t can ever be won over.  Those who walk away from me often know I’m dead on target because they are among those working to continue our destruction.

I write and speak because I believe the greatest impediment to our fixing it is the fact our press has become a complete moral enemy of our Nation, and if people will see what the bottom line is, many will choose to follow our forefathers, and choose “the animated contest for our liberty and our rights”.

We are divided in a large part because of the deliberate action of the press, in moving the communist agenda forward.  We’ve been fed all our lives “the press is the fourth estate” and we accept it as “The Watchdog” even as we watch it eat the meat the government hands them, licks their hand, and snarls at us for asking a question.

We fight for civil rights, even though the only rights we ever had were natural rights, but letting everyone live under the same set of rights allows us to stick together.  We fight for religious freedom, we fight against those demanding we allow our form of society be discarded out of hand, and calling us bigots for holding on to truths which remain from millennia past.

There are a hundred and more avenues of attack on our form of society, and it is so for just one purpose:  to disabuse us of the notion “the rule of law” provides the equality of opportunity all can use to make the most of ourselves, and bring us to believe the force of government is the only thing which can give us equality of outcome.

As I look at America, the sole value which established our unique position in the world, made us a “model society” studied for half a century, and the example for many other Nations, the singular thing we did, was form our government under the rule of law.

Every advantage, every bit of progress we have made beyond others, ever bit of expanse we have behind us, is entirely due to the constraint the rule of law put on government, preventing it from expending all our National wealth.  The wealth earned by citizens producing things people the world over wanted.  The “rule of law” allowed that wealth be invested by citizens in their own farms, shops, businesses of every sort, and kept it from ever reaching the hands of the bankers.

The work to de-construct our Nation began while the continental congress was in session, and it has never slowed. Evidence of design for Empire rather than republic was present in the congress, and roundly thrown down.  In spite of our best principles, and the best intents of most Citizens, our government has been grown and expanded to fulfill the desires of political despots, and no longer heeds any law.

When the founders established our National Creed, declaring it in our Declaration of Independence, they established how our nation must govern to be true to principle. When they wrote a rule of law to constitute our government, every aspect of that was focused on assuring the government had the means to accomplish its purpose, and there was law to constrain it to exactly that, and allow no assumption of power.

It has been more than a century since the U.S. Constitution has been used to define our form, size and purpose for government.  Every bit of substantial change has been in direct defiance of our “rule of law” and just as we never could imagine altering the ways of King George and the British Empire, we can not reasonably expect to “return the central government back under the Constitution”.

I call for Americans to Stand up demanding our government stop, and demand it begin an accounting for its self.  Every warrior who fought in Korea knew exactly why we made no headway, and we remain in occupation.  Every warrior who fought in Vietnam knows that exact truth.  We cannot fix our government using the ways and means which were used to destroy it, no more than we can win a war stopping at the corner because we aren’t allowed to cross the street.

America rose in a stellar fashion because our principles are right, our rule of law simple and in full consonance with those principles.  This “ease” stands in the way of those who would steal all by confusion, dissembling, using fast talk and sleight of hand, replacing money with paper, value with numbers, and walk away with all the profit, leaving only paper for what they have taken.  The sole reason for the complexity of government is to keep us from ruling it, giving its rule to those who enjoy rule.

When the facts are laid out, when history is fully considered, we have only this choice:  take dramatic action, and restore “the rule of law” which puts Sovereign Citizens ruling, or we can allow those who rule today to continue, and we can watch the end of this Nation and the rise of world government.


Copyright June 14th, 2012 by Gulf1

Owning Property

by Gunnery Sergeant, John McClain, USMC, Retired

In Greeley Colorado, farmers are begging their government for permission to use their wells, on their property, to irrigate the crops they are growing, and about to lose in a serious drought condition.  They have wells because that was what people did when they bought property for farming, and intended to water their crops so they would grow.

Some few years ago, complaints were brought against the farmers by people who live on the Platte River, and court hearings were the result, with the court finding the rights of those living on the river preceded the rights of those with wells on “their property”.  The court found the testimony the use of the wells was drying up the Platte River was depriving those on the river, their right to the river water.

Right now, ground water has risen so high, basements are flooding in Greeley, septic systems are overflowing, and at the same time, the river is again at historic lows.

The court system found those on the river had “senior water rights”, and by this, established a ban on the use of their wells by the farmers, based on what was presented, but current events demonstrate with absolute clarity, the fallacy in the logic used by the courts, and the fallacious “evidence” used to convince the courts of groundwater relationship with river levels.

This year’s “snow pack” in the mountains is only 2% of the average, matching that of the last record drought of 2002, with the same results for the river.

When I look up ownership in the dictionary, I find it means I have control over what I own, and may do with it what I want, as long as I don’t interfere with another’s rights in what I do.  These farmers bought land for the growing of crops, and in assuming ownership, they assumed the natural rights that go with it.

The exact reason for drilling the wells was to provide water for times when dry spells occurred.  Colorado is known for its rivers, and for its snow, and science has long shown the primary source of this form of river is water produced from the snow pack on the mountains melting.

At the same time, groundwater is an accumulation of rain, collected in deep aquifers underground, and while they are occasionally linked directly to rivers, the two are usually separate systems.  Unless the rainfall is large and continuous, direct connection between underground water reserves and rivers means empty reserves and running rivers.  Water will not collect in underground cavities, lakes, if you will, if they are tapped directly to large flowing bodies of water.

This drought, coupled with the most recent one, ten years ago, demonstrates physically, the groundwater situation is not tied with the river system directly, and if it is indirectly, the fact the water table has risen so high while the river remains low, demonstrates the fallacy of the argument which the court accepted.

To my mind, a court decision should be accepted if it is reasonable, if it follows the facts, and follows the law.  We have to consider right and wrong or we only have force and weakness, and the law of the jungle.  On the other hand, when Nature demonstrates a flawed argument, we should be able to gather the people contending in the issue, show the facts, and the courts should be able to summarily discard a bad decision, made on flawed information.

If the facts were true as presented in the case which brought on the legal demand to cease using the wells, the current high ground water situation should have an overflowing river.  The fact the river is low, at levels commensurate with drought, even while the water table is so high should be sufficient cause for a review of the whole case, and an immediate finding for relief for the farmers.

We have always dealt with the reluctance to “rush to judgment” by courts, and it is proper for us to fully respect the principle of “due process”, however it is equally sound principle to make precipitous decisions when it is clear an error in logic brought on an improper finding, and when the livelihoods of people are at stake, restoring their improperly reduced rights should be of the highest priority, both for principle’s cause, as well as for the sake of the rights of those were trampled over.

The farmers are appealing to the Governor for relief, they ask he overturn the court finding, and I understand how those in government are reluctant to undo what another has done, however it was never considered fully, the fact that under our law, buying a piece of land includes water rights, mineral rights, and ownership is an issue of totality, in that owning something means it belongs to the person until they do something to transfer their ownership of it to another.

The simple fact the water table is clear and present, while the river is at a drought level demonstrates to all parties, the fallacy of the whole of the former court case.  When the nature of such facts is so clear, there is no excuse for doing anything less than simply vacating the whole previous decision, and discarding the whole notion of “senior water rights” as having any aspect in the issue between farmers, using their wells, and property owners unhappy with the law state of the river.

If one cannot use the property one owns, who really owns it?  Agenda 21 says the whole world owns everything, and the U.N. is arbiter of who can use what.  Are we willing to accede to that notion?

 

Copyright June12, 2012 by Gulf1

The High Costs of Free Trade

by Gunnery Sergeant John McClain, USMC, Retired

When our founders had finished with the war of Independence, they were loath to even consider a centralized government, based on the most recent experiences, and used The Confederation of States, confederated in war, and mutually aligned, to address the world as a coherent Nation.

It was shortly discovered insufficient to our needs, we had to establish a government, despite reservations, and a “Second Continental Congress”, assembled, its purpose to design a representative form of government, with the States remaining free and Sovereign, but with a central establishment able to meet with other governments.

Among the foremost issues at hand was that of trade.  Trade is an issue to be controlled because it is not a fixed and unchanging thing, but changes in circumstances make the value of time and skill, variables, the man hanging by his fingertips values a rope far more than the man looking to tie up his dog.

As a New Nation, we had little infrastructure accumulated, and our greatest commodity was agriculturally derived.  As a long established group of Nations, Europe was long on infrastructure and produced goods, excise taxes had been used for millennia to control trade, and ensure productivity, within.

In establishing “excise taxes” as the sole means of revenue for our “federal government”, the value of maintaining a productive form of society was essential to the funding of federal government operation, and thus, the form of revenue established to provide direct and exacting incentive for keeping trade foremost in its exercise of treaty considerations.

By denying our government any other revenue, the founders made the focus of the federal government be on expanding trade by working to acquire, maintain and operate such trade relations as foremost in foreign policy, and such things which impede trade would be seen as great threat and considered seriously.

At no time in history has man been absent those who would rule as tyrants if able to take such power and our experience was no different. Government is power consolidated, and the tool of desire.  The effort is always one to entice us, the main producer, to desire a gift from government, and thereby accept an opening for government to take from others, since it has nothing of its own.  This becomes a success when we have ceased to educate our children, but allow them be indoctrinated by said government instead.

While the government survives solely on the taxes which we are willing to pay on imports, it must focus on assuring our Nation is a productive one, our society is such a form as is naturally productive by our principles and precepts.  Such a government by consequence, must keep its focus inward, on what it can do to increase its internal efficiency, and this is a self-correcting form that was established.

To act for its own benefit, government had to change the rules of the game.  The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 provided for fiat currency to replace money.  In doing so, the central government was provided with an incremental income via inflation, which enabled the stealing of all non-invested value, incrementally, at every transaction made.

Coupled with the income tax act of 1916, which put a tax on incomes over ten thousand dollars, which equaled about 1%, a second door for independent government income, was opened.

Today, the Federal Reserve has consumed about 97% of the established value of our dollar through inflation.  Because of this, ten thousand dollars is no longer “The Rich”, but the baseline of poverty in our own nation.  The tax on the rich, now is a tax on those who work unsubsidized by government.

This was no error, those who established the Federal Reserve, contrary to The Constitution, knew this day would arrive, they eagerly anticipated it. There was never any intent to “tax the rich”, and all intent to tax the working man.

We have arrived at this point in our Nation’s history because there has never been a time absent those who would undo the fixed and unchanging principles which give us our authority and our power, and convince us to live on “situational ethics and morals”, so we can be enticed to keep things in the hands of those in power.  So far, the score is one to zero.  Are we in the game, or watching from the sidelines?

 

Copyright June7, 2012 by Gulf1