Reactions to the Oregon Standoff and the Shooting of LaVoy Finicum

Reactions to the Oregon Standoff and the Shooting of LaVoy Finicum
LaVoy Finicum2- Oregon

Video of LaVoy Finicum Explaining His Position on the Federal Land Intrusions on His Arizona Ranch. Watch from 10:15 to 20:38.

The Oregon standoff at the Malheur Reserve has ended on very sour notes.  Arizona rancher, LaVoy Finicum, was shot to death by FBI agents. Two eyewitnesses claim he was surrendering with his hands in the air when he was shot.

The FBI claims he was reaching towards his pocket. Critics point out that he may well just have been trying to balance himself in the slippery, deep snow or was grabbing his side involuntarily after having already been shot.

LaVoy Finicum, Ryan Payne, Ryan Bundy, Shawna Cox and Victoria Sharp were on U.S. Highway 395 headed for the John Day Senior Center in John Day Oregon in Grant County about a 135 mile distance from the Malheur National Wildlife Preserve (approximately a 2 1/2 hour trip). They were scheduled to speak at the evening community center about the protest at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in adjoining Harney County at 6:00 p.m. They reached the roadblock at about 4:30 p.m.

Meanwhile, several hundred people had gathered at the John Day Senior Center, waiting in vain for “guest speakers” that would never arrive.

The occupiers were invited to the meeting by law enforcement.

As it turned out, it was a apparently a set up meant to isolate the group in a cell phone dead zone on a road that had been blocked off for 60 miles by law enforcement.

Silent Low-Res FBI Drone Video and Narration

If you take the time to watch the silent FBI drone video of the shooting (so you actually know what you are talking about if you form an opinion on this event), it appears that LaVoy was being hit in the left side before the fatal head shot. He was reaching down instinctively to the area of pain which any normal person would do.

After the shooting, rubber bullets found at the sanitized scene. The vehicle had been removed and relocated which according to Victoria Sharp testified was riddled with over 120 rounds.

I would suggest viewing the shooting video (separately) with the narration of what happened by the veterans running concurrently as the video is completely silent and poor resolution. The analysis of the video is from the viewpoint of trained combat veterans, including one who was a part of the State Department as an Army Liaison Officer of PsyOps etc.

Video Commentary Based on Expert Analysis

1. The agents at the first stop never cleared their vehicles. They maintained positions next to their vehicles and fired on Ryan Payne on the passenger side when he reached out with both hands empty to speak with them. Visible at 2:07 of the unedited video or 27:39 of the video markings (upper left corner of the video). At 29:32 an agent sets up in the snow to get a better shot at the passengers. He is quickly called back to the vehicle because they were still in pursuit mode and was needed to get back into the vehicle quickly.

Note: If it was a felony stop, they would have taken the tires out with fire, and forced the occupants out of the vehicle. Instead, they kept them in the vehicle with 4 weapons trained on the van occupants, not impeding the operation of the van in any way giving the driver no choice of exit but to press forward towards the ambush zone and crumple set up blockade.

2. At 34:47 of the video (or 9:14) the vehicles parked in the road arranged in “crumple zone” formation can be seen. Even if the vehicle was going 100 miles an hour it could not have gotten through the blockade because the two forward vehicles were arranged to take the bulk of the initial impact. Then, fold into the vehicle parked in the back.

There was a slope on the right so he had only one choice to go which was to the left. An agent then jumped in front of the vehicle and took stance and fired into the windshield. LaVoy instead of running over the agent to get around the blockade (which he could have done) swerved further into the snow to avoid the agent, stopping the van.

3. LaVoy exits the Van immediately after it stopped with his hands in the air (34:54 or 9:18 of the video). An agent emerges from the blockade and starts firing on LaVoy from the rear appearing to hit him in the side (35:00 or 9:28 on video).

There is no blood visible in the snow, so it is possible that shots were not from a lethal weapon (rubber bullets were found at the scene afterwards). LaVoy’s hands go to his side, likely as a response to the bullets hitting him in the left side.

Since the video was not clear and from a distance, there is no possible way to determine that he was attempting to draw a weapon. That is simply an assumption. The fact is evident however that he was being fired on from the rear and in a position that would have hit him on the left side of his body which is the location that his hands went to.

4. After LaVoy is turned, at 35:02 or 9:29, another agent emerges from the tree line and begins to fire on LaVoy from the rear. The weapon was strange looking but it drops LaVoy after the head shot. Still no blood in the snow, another oddity. LaVoy is motionless after the head shot.

5. The head shot agent moves to the left and begins to dismantle his weapon. By 35:14 or 10:02, he has no weapon in his hands.

6. Fire is then brought upon the vehicle from the tree line noted by flash fires and snow being kicked up. At 36:20 or 10:47 two bullet holes are notable in the windshield of the vehicle. One on the passenger side and one on the driver side.

7. At 38:55 snow is still being kicked up. LaVoy is motionless and mutiple lasers are trained on his head (6 or more) which continues until he leaves the video view.

8. At 14:08 of the YouTube, there is an sharp jerk in the video and 39:40 stays on the video for two seconds indicating an edit.

9. At 46:44 or 26:28, there is another sharp change in the daylight (darkening as it was twilight) when the agents are gathered around the body of LaVoy indicating another possible edit.

Eyewitness Audio of the Event

Shawna Cox’s eyewitness description of the event notes that when the van first stopped before they reached the “crumple” vehicle set-up road block, the first reaction to any of their actions was a shot fired. No warning, simply a shot fired. In short, the Feds fired upon the van without provocation.

She also noted that she believes LaVoy jumped out of the van to draw away fire from the van. Shawna also notes that laser light dots were all over every one of them. She said that hundreds of bullets were fired, even after LaVoy was down. You can see laser dots trained on Finicum’s head after he was felled. Shawna affirmed that LaVoy Finicum offered no threat or resistance during the event and was “killed in cold blood”.

When the bullets finally paused after Finicum was downed. They told the remaining passengers to send the men out first, then the woman. She guessed over twenty, well equipped shooters then came out from the woods. Obviously, they were not there by coincidence. After they asked the van passengers if anyone else was in the van and were told there were none, they then peppered the van with many more rounds.

LaVoy Finicum ShootingIf you watch the video, you can skip past the 1st nine minutes. The action described does not really begin until about that point since there is no audio. You can’t for example hear the first shots fired when the van stopped the first time.

In short, as noted by the radio interviewer set up person, one could liken this to a “canned hunt” except humans were the prey, not trophy animals.

Was LaVoy Finicum Armed?

According to Blaine Cooper, one of the occupants at the reserve, Finicum (who had been photographed wearing a holstered revolver) had left all of his weapons at the refuge before leaving for the meeting at John Day.

When they left to go over to the other county, all of them left their weapons behind. As far as Ammon wasn’t armed, LaVoy wasn’t armed, all of LaVoys weapons were at the refuge when he left.

This was also corroborated by Shawna Fox during a telephone interview.

Notes on the Video Analysts Observations

  • LaVoy could have run the blockade. He likely did not because he intentionally swerved to avoid hitting an agent.
  • LaVoy was possibly already hit and injured when he exited the van.
  • He exited the van unarmed.
  • He likely left the van, having several daughters of his own, to take fire away from the  female passengers.
  • The shooting was well-coordinated. The end intentional, possibly inevitable.
  • The video was edited at one point and dated a day after the shooting.
  • The fatal shooter removed something from his weapon after the shooting. Then, discarded the rest of the weapon.
  • Both shooters were FBI agents, not Oregon police.

What About Other Video’s or Audio?

All the FBI showed as evidence was a grainy, long distance, overhead shot from a drone. Why a drone view from a distance? This raises the question of other videos. In an operation with this level of public awareness, were there no other video cameras or audio? No dash cams or body cams/mics on the troopers or FBI agents? Highly unlikely if not impossible.

We know that Shawna Cox made a video from the van itself on her smart phone. What happened to Shawna Cox’s (one of two female passengers in Finicum’s pickup truck) video she made of the event on her smart phone? It was confiscated when she was arrested. Obviously, it would be useful in getting a first-hand look at the events that transpired.

There are other questions but these are a few that could stand some answers. After all, if it were the case that an unarmed man surrendering was shot, shouldn’t there be some prosecution of the perpetrator? Justice would demand so.

FBI Claims Transparency

Why is it that government is able do things that would get a normal citizen arrested without a thorough investigation or punishment levied? The media settles for a grainy overhead shot from such a distance that tactically omits the audio. No real substantial evidence is produced to counter eyewitness accounts. What about the truck itself? Like Kennedy’s shooting, it was taken away and has not been used in the examination of evidence.

As the New American pointed out:

In releasing the initial aerial video, Agent Bretzing said “we want to do what we can to lay out an honest and unfiltered view of what happened and how it happened.” He also said that in spite of the graphic details included in the video, “we feel that it is necessary to show the whole thing unedited in the interest of transparency.”

Is a drone shot video with NO audio really the best they can come up with in this age of technology? What happened to Shawna Cox’s smart phone video and other possible videos or audios of the shootings? Surely if a citizen was doing the shooting, they would exhaust all avenues of evidence to uncover the facts of the event. Yet the mainstream media, as they have done with other past events, simply accepts the government story without question based on partial evidence at best- a doctored drone shot with no audio.

Obama’s Response- 1.8 Million More Acres Grabbed

It may seem that the assumed takeover of a Federal Reserve could only end in this way. However, as noted by one of the observers in the video who had visited the site and spoke with LaVoy a few days before he was shot, it was not the takeover described by the media.

Federal Land Ownership Map

Federally Owned Land Marked in Red. Note Where It Is Concentrated.

The public could still visit this sanctuary. The ranchers were not immediately obvious and did not interfere with visitation. The ranchers were using this location intentionally as a means of bringing national attention to a growing problem, the Federal takeover through the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) of private property.

As pointed out in my previous post on the issue, the Federal government already owns over 28% of the public land. If you factor in State ownership it is over a third now. They have been exceeded the public parks and are continually grabbing more control over more land.

Obama, the Peace President, offered his take on the issue through his actions, not a statement. On February 12 of this year, about three weeks after the shooting. Obama signed an executive order which locked up 1.8 million acres of California land. This is yet another audacious executive action and unconstitutional usurpation of citizen freedoms.

Turns out that Obama has isolated more public land than any previous President, 2.85 million acres. He has used the Antiquities Act of 1906 twenty-two times. Exceeded in number only by FDR but not in area.

The latest order creates three new illegally generated monuments. One is the Mojave Trails National Monument (1.6 million acres). Another is the Sand to Snow National Monument (154,000 acres). The third is the Castle Mountains National Monument (21,000 acres).

Clinton Foundation Profited Millions from Uranium Deal in Wyoming?

Meanwhile, the Clinton Foundation were implicated in profits of millions from a deal involving the uranium bearing land in Wyoming. As noted by the New York Times, the deal involved a company called Uranium One which eventually through 3 separate deals between 2009 and 2013 gave control of the land over to a Russian company- Rosatom. The New York Times reported:

The sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Catch that? The sale was implicated in “donations” to the Clinton Foundation of millions. It ended up giving control of 1/5th of all uranium production capacity to the Russians! This rabbit hole goes deeper and deeper as you begin to see where the government is aiming its land grabs. It ain’t good for the American public. As noted, Hillary was Secretary of State at the time and was involved as one of the agencies signing off on the deal. Nothing like a little conflict of interest huh?

Climate Resiliency? A New Buzzword

Additionally, according to the Obama executive order, these new monuments will support “climate resiliency in the region”. Translated this means the newly “protected” areas will be off limits mining, mineral exploration, oil and gas drilling, grazing, timber harvest or even recreational uses such as camping, hiking, hunting, fishing, horseback riding and off-hand vehicle usage. As the title of the article on this new order reads: Monumental Audacity. And so it is. Read a full article on this new land grab and its implications here.

So, when will the Federal land grabbing stop by the BLM? When all of us own no private property perhaps? That may be the plan. See Agenda 21 for more details.

Obviously, as Obama’s latest land grab demonstrates, the Federal government isn’t in the process of ratcheting any of their efforts down to take more public land under their control. Almost two million more acres is their response.

So, the Federal Leviathan strengthens its grip. The courage of LaVoy Finicum should not go unnoticed.

Undermining Our Constitution- The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)

We hear a variety of opinions about this thingy called the Trans Pacific Partnership. Let me save you some time, in the following paragraphs, I will tell any American concerned with their freedom, everything you really need to know about the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). Follow along and see.

What is the TPP?

The Trans Pacific Partnership is a “trade agreement” between 12 countries. (US, Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore, Brunei, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Chile and Peru) UN LogoOstensibly, it’s main purpose is to deepen economic ties between these nations by slashing tariffs and encouraging more trade. In all, approximately 18,000 tariffs will be slashed.

It is also supposed to harmonize economic policies and regulations. According to the BBC, the agreement could also “create a new single market something like that of the EU”.

Now that the full text of the agreement is available we can read it online.

Inside This Agreement

According to the TTP’s Preamble, the parties to the agreement resolve to:

Establish a comprehensive regional agreement that promotes economic integration to liberalise trade and investment, bring economic growth and social benefits, create new opportunities for workers and businesses, contribute to raising living standards, benefit consumers, reduce poverty and promote sustainable growth

The First Red Flag- Economic Integration

The TPP claims that it promotes economic integration? How does trade alone promote economic integration? This phrase points to something important about the trade agreement itself.

Economic integration means bringing the economies together in terms of their models so that they are no longer independent economies but rather singular economic entities. One indistinguishable from the other.

Do we Americans want our economy integrated with that of Communist oriented nations like Vietnam and Chile or a tiny nation like Brunei, a largely Muslim nation of about 420,000 total population which began to introduce sharia law in 2014? I know that the globalist New World Order elites are pushing for that, but this means global tyranny not American freedom.

Malaysia is another nation facing severe economic strain. Do we wish to integrate with the economy of a nation suffering from severe economic strain? After all, economic integration tends to equalize doesn’t it? Meaning that we will get pulled down as they get raised up. How helpful is this to our nation and its citizens?

Bear in mind that phrase “sustainable growth” is a direct buzzword of the UN globalist crowd and it’s Agenda 21 plan to control the land globally which is now called The 2030 Agenda.

More Red Flags

Red FlagsFurther along in the TPP Preamble is suggested that another purpose of the agreement is to:

Establish a predictable legal and commercial framework for trade and investment through mutually advantageous rules;

Legal framework for trade and investment through mutually advantageous rules? Why should a trade agreement have any bearing on the legal structure of any participating nation? Is that not the domain of each nation rather than that of an agreement? Is there perhaps something else going on here?

Additionally,

set legislative and regulatory priorities, safeguard public welfare, and protect legitimate public welfare objectives, such as public health, safety, the environment, the conservation of living or non-living exhaustible natural resources, the integrity and stability of the financial system and public morals.

A trade agreement having impact on public welfare objectives like public health, safety, the environment, natural resources, public morals and the integrity and stability of the financial system? Really? In a “trade agreement”?

Gee, wonder if that is why it is 30 chapters long?

Does a trade agreement need to have an impact on public health? Is that not a function of local governments at best? The environment? What does a trade agreement have to do with the environment?

Public morals? Really in a trade agreement. This is a responsibility of the individual in the first and secondarily the legal system that one’s government endorses. Certainly, it should have nothing to do with a trade agreement.

The integrity and stability of the financial system? Really now, a trade agreement being intertwined with the integrity or stability of the financial system. Again, why would we expect a simple trade agreement to have anything to do with the integrity and stability of the financial system?

But Wait, There’s More…

Affirm that state-owned enterprises can play a legitimate role in the diverse economies of the Parties, while recognizing that the provision of unfair advantages to state-owned enterprises undermines fair and open trade and investment, and resolve to establish rules for state-owned enterprises that promote a level playing field with privately owned businesses, transparency and sound business practices;

This Preamble statement tells us two things:

1. The economies we are doing business with in this agreement are not free market economies. Free market economies do not foster “state owned enterprises”. Communist or Socialist economies upon which Communism is framed do. Hence, we are quite obviously doing business with Communist and/or Socialist nations in this agreement. Why should we be concerned with doing business with Communist states and furthering their aims? Such as Red China for example, where the majority of our domestic manufacturing has been transferred to at the expensive of our citizens ability to earn a good living. Trading good pay for our citizens for the slave labor of Red China.

2. This is more than a simple trade agreement. This is a means of transferring the authority for governance to another entity. However, the TPP does not just stop here, it also notes that it is designed to help “protect and enforce labor rights, improve working conditions and living standards

Additionally,

protect high levels of environmental protection, including through effective enforcement of environmental laws.

And

Contribute to the harmonious development and expansion of world trade and provide a catalyst to broader regional and international cooperation;

Like through a world government perhaps?

Obviously, this is far more than a trade agreement that is being posed as nothing more than a trade agreement designed to help all of us to prosperity. To paraphrase, Patrick Henry. I smell a RatPic rat!

So What is This Rat?

Well, if you look inside the very first Chapter- Initial Provisions and General Definitions, you will discover who that rat exactly is.

The first full sentence of this first chapter states:

The Parties, consistent with Article XXIV of GATT 1994 and Article V of GATS, hereby establish a free trade area in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.

GATT 1994 is the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 which is a part of the World Trade Agreement (WTO) which is under the authority of the United Nations (UN).

An article that ends with: “Each contracting party shall take such reasonable measures as may be available to it to ensure observance of the provisions of this Agreement by the regional and local governments and authorities within its territories.”

In other words, the TPP is a mechanism to transfer our national sovereignty to the UN through the WTO.

And there is your rat! The TPP is simply a means of stitching the U.S. into the structure of their planned world government or New World Order as they like to put it.

That is all you really need to know about the TPP. (If you are an American who is concerned about their freedom that is.)

Does one really have to take the time to go inside and examine all of its 30 chapters of provisions? Not unless you like wasting your time. You can, of course, but why bother. The end of it all is to place our nation into the world government structure under the authority the UN.

Now, I ask you. How effective is our Constitution if it allows agreements like this to be intiated?

Agreements which clearly disable any sovereignty we have over our trade. Wasn’t a combined trading power in the States one of the primary motives for a Convention to discuss the Articles of Convention in the first place? That doesn’t seem to be working out as planned. Another way our Constitution has been undermined and is failing us.

An Action Step You Can (and likely should) Take Right Now

Obama just signed the TPP. He is now calling on the GOP controlled Congress to hurry up and approve this direct attack on the remaining vestiges of American Constitutional sovereignty. The trade representative, Michael Froman (a member of the globalist Rockefeller as Honorary Chairman Council on Foreign Relations of course) was confident that the Republican’s would comply with the White House demand in the month’s ahead which tells you how many parties really exist.

One action step one can take is to write directly to your Congressional Representatives on this issue immediately. Our representatives are ultimately voted into office (at least that’s what they tell us publicly).

If enough voters contact them on an issue, it provides leverage that can sway an issue simply because it threatens your representative’s job security. (Not because it helps the citizenry. That’s a secondary motivation. Once in the pressing issue becomes re-election. Giving up this cash cow is not a preference in most cases for these people.)

This is an election year for all of the House and a third of the Senate. Leverage for re-election is high now. Thus, your contact now, as a voter, on this critical issue can have more impact simply based on re-election timing.

This link will take you to a page whereby you can construct a letter to your Senators and House Representative. You can adjust it as you see fit and email a copy immediately or print it out and mail it. You can also use this post and the information provided on the link above and call your representatives or set up a face to face meeting if you feel more comfortable with these more powerful methods.

At any rate, making your voice heard is pretty important if you have accepted the Constitution as your authority.

One last thing, all of those other so-called “free trade agreements” that have already been completed have already done the same thing, transferred our trading authority under Article 1, Section 8 on the powers of Congress which is “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations”.

Now, you have been made aware of this. What will you choose to do about it? If it is action, better get to it. Calls are best. Letters and emails next. Otherwise, this will be nothing more than a done deal which will not be good for this nation’s future unless you feel you might enjoy being under the authority of the UN through the UN Charter.

P.S.- If you want to know why our Constitution is failing, you have just seen a direct example of one of the ways this is being done in front of our eyes- in this present time! If you believe in it, you better do something to preserve it. Otherwise, say bye bye to more of our nation’s independence.

If the Constitution Was the Solution, Why Hasn’t It Worked?- Part Three

In the few seconds that it took you to read this sentence, our government in 2011 spent on average nearly $250,000. Five years ago, the budget pace was about $7.2 million a minute which works out to a pace of about money burning$435 million per hour. The velocity of our national debt has continued to grow even faster in the past 5 years, so these levels are like even greater today.

Since our government is based on the Constitution, one has to wonder then, “What kind of people put together a document that could lead to this kind of debt?” So let’s take a look at the socioeconomic facts related to the persons who constructed the document which we base our government upon.

In becoming aware just who these framers of our Constitution were in terms of their general occupations and interests, we will have a better understanding of the nature of the document they produced and why they produced what they did.

Framers Not Founders

First, I must point out that these men were not the “founders” of our nation. This is simply an embellishment designed to elevate this group to an undeserved level of prestige. It qualifies as propaganda designed to produce the illusion that until the Constitution our nation was in a shambles that the Constitution corrected.

The fact is, the nation already existed before these conspirators (planners in secret) rewrote the agreement to reconstruct the form of government. They did not create a new nation. They “framed” a new government.

Illegally, if you want to accurate about it, but nevertheless it was the reframing of an existing governmental agreement, not the founding of a new nation. The actual “founders” were the people who sacrificed their time, ideas, and sometimes their lives to forge a nation out of what formerly a sparsely occupied wilderness.

What Did They Create?

The re-framed government took on the intended shape of a Constitutional Republic. (Article 4, Section 4- “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,) The term Republic comes from the Roman Latin words, res and publica together meaning “the people’s thing”.

This would be in line with the first words of the Preamble, “We the People…” It also is another pointer to the secular nature of the newly created form of government.

So Just Who Were These Framers?

In order to discover who these framers were, it is best to first take a collective approach. By looking at this group in this manner, we can better achieve a general sense of the kind of document theConstitutional Framers collective group would agreeably approve. Otherwise, we end up not seeing the forest for the trees, so to speak.

The Old Guard

First of all, something kept pretty much in the background about this group of invited delegates is the military emphasis in their backgrounds. Of course, in the presiding chair, we have the commander in chief of the Continental Army, George Washington. We will cover his background in more depth in another post.

Then, we have Generals Pinckney and Mifflin, major general and quartermaster general respectively of the Continental Army.

Next, James Wilson briefly the brigadier general of the Pennsylvania militia; James McClurg, surgeon general of Virginia troops; Pierce Butler, adjutant general of South Carolina troops; Gunning Bedford, lt. colonel and muster master general from Delaware; George Clymer, deputy commissary general of prisoners from Pa.; William Livingston, brigadier general of the New Jersey militia; John Dickinson, brigadier general of the Pa. militia, and Hugh Williamson, surgeon general of North Carolina forces.

Between the generals and colonels like Alexander Hamilton and others, to a large extent it was like a gathering of the old guard revolutionary army. That is, men used to wielding authority over the rank and file. Altogether, twenty seven or nearly half of the delegates (mostly men long known to Washington) had been officers in the revolutionary war.

Political Background

With few exceptions, the persons both invited and those who showed up in Philadelphia were continually active in politics, always at the highest levels. However, it was not a political dream team, so to speak.

Missing were the big names of the day like Jefferson, John and Sam Adams, John Jay, John Hancock, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Rush, Paul Revere, John Paul Jones, Patrick Henry (named but chose not to attend), Richard Henry Lee (who later eloquently opposed the Constitution during the ratification process) and a host of others.

With the exception of notables, namely Washington and Franklin, few of the men (even those who later achieved national status) were well known nationally when the convention met. Unlike today with our ever present media, these politicians were for the most part unknown to the general public and mainly only known locally.

However, forty four were either present or past members of congress. Forty six had held political offices in their home states including 7 who were present or former state governors and 5 who were high level state judges. The Constitution, in fact, was generated along defined lines by the government itself by a rather small number of self-selected elite.

Intellectual Capacities

While, there were 25 college graduates, using this as a measurement of a stellar intellectual capacity in the colonial period is distinctly misleading. The colleges of this period were rudimentary in nature and graduated students at much earlier ages than present, often as early as age 16.

Education consisted largely of a study of the classics, some history and some natural science. Harvard boasted a faculty consisting of professors of divinity, mathematics and Greek, four tutors and a steward.

Washington had a 5th grade education. Franklin and Hamilton were both pretty much self-taught. There were of course some good, if not superior, intellects in George Mason (a non-signer), John Dickinson, James Madison and James Wilson who acted as guiding forces.

There were only two professorships. William Houston of New Jersey (mathematics at the College of NJ) and George Wythe of the College of William and Mary. Both lasted very short times. Houston, got sick, left and died after a week of participation. Wythe left soon after the convention started, due to his wife’s fatal illness and never returned.

For the most part, they were sensible and practical thinkers but certainly not a group of extraordinarily learned or exceptional intellectual giants.

Religion

This was not an assemblage of Christians. Most were Deists, Unitarians or simply rationalists. Only one stood out as Christian enthusiast, Richard Bassett, a devout Methodist from Delaware. Washington gave pro forma (for the sake of form) support to religion but was certainly not a devout Christian (more on that in another post).

Both Deists and Unitarians believe in a Creator but are far from Christians. They do not accept the divinity of Christ, nor the Trinitarian concept. Both emphasize reason as much if not more than faith. Both believe in a secular society in which government is kept separate from religious affairs.

Economic Status

Aside from being persistent office-holders and lawyers, a third general characteristic of the delegates was that most of them were men of substance. That is, through inheritance or marriage (thirteen had married heiresses) or gained by their own successful strategies, most of them would have been considered wealthy.

No fewer than 21 were rated to be rich or very rich. Washington and Robert Morris being the richest. Washington mainly through land holdings. Morris through commercial banking.

Another 13 were considered affluent to very affluent. The four from South Carolina had been very rich until the Brits confiscated their slaves and plantations during the war. They were however, well on their way back to financial health by the time of the convention.

All were considered highly solvent at the time of the convention. Thirty one were owners of personal property (merchants, attorneys, holders of continental securities and specie.) Twenty four including Washington had more wealth concentrated in land holdings than personal property.

This was certainly no meeting of the economically ordinary.

Other Characteristics

In an agrarian society largely of farmers, there were no actual farmers at the convention. (Broom and Few were claimed as “small farmers” but their backgrounds hardly substantiate that claim.) There were planters like Washington but he was primarily a military man who also ran a plantation when on the home front.

Directly or indirectly, the delegates consisted of lawyers (33 total bearing in mind that unlike today one could become a lawyer through self-study in a matter of weeks, as Hamilton did), bankers, merchants, ship-owners, slave-traders, slave owners, privateers, money-lenders, investors and speculators in land and securities. In general, not exactly representative of “We the People”.

Anticipated Results

With this kind of background one would not be surprised in the production of a document with the nature of the Constitution that came out of these meetings.

Religion

With essentially no Christians in the group we can expect that a secular, perhaps even anti-Christian sentiment would prevail in the nature of the document. That is, in fact what surfaced which I will cover in a future post.

War

Washington_Crossing_quipWith the military backgrounds, one would also anticipate an authoritarian approach which we find.

The decision to go to war would be the responsibility of our representatives rather than the people who would fight the wars. It’s also no surprise the President, or their leader, would be determined to become the Commander in Chief.

Not only was the power to declare war granted but also to raise money for both the army and the navy.

It follows then that “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”

That is, they (Congress) could declare war but the people who would ultimately fight it would also have to pay for it through taxation. Is it any surprise then that we are continually embroiled in war these days and generating debt at the velocity and level noted in the beginning of this post?

The Courts and Law

With all those lawyers, lifelong politicians and the military bearing, one would anticipate that the Court would be deemed a “supreme” court and that the document would also be deemed the “supreme Law of the Land”

One could also anticipate that the court being supreme would become the ultimate determinant of the meaning of the Constitution, not “We the People.” A characteristic that patriots like Patrick Henry feared and railed against. A characteristic that Hamilton promised in Federalist No. 78 would be the weakest branch of government because it had “no influence over either the sword or the purse”.

Unfortunately, the anti-Federalists turned out to be correct as we more recently saw with the approval of Obamacare on an obscure reference to Congress’ power of taxation by the Supreme Court. No influence on purse? I think not.

Economic Influence

Do the rich ever create legislation that limits them? I think we all know the answer to that one. As expected, this group of wealthy men had little to say about the limits of wealth. I have no complaint about that, not because I am wealthy, but rather because as Jefferson once stated “that government is best which governs least”.

However, as time has passed, the rich are being given more and more advantages while the middle class is shrinking and the number of poor are growing. Corporate monopolies are growing as small businesses struggle mightily to stay afloat under the heavy regulatory and taxation climate of continually expanding government encroachment.

Perhaps the clandestine convention in Philadelphia could have used a few more commoners with a say in the proceedings?

Up Next

Hopefully, the above demographics can help you to have a better understanding of why the Constitution developed as it did and how it helped plant and germinate the seeds for what we have today. There are some other factors we still have not covered.

We can also understand how the secular, man dominant emphasis tends to support an authoritarian control over the people. Perhaps, the little acknowledged military background of the Washington Posedparticipants can help also explain why the seeds of war planted in the Constitution has become as much a part of our lives these days as driving a car.

Less transparent but clearly there is the anti-Christian nature of the document which explains the rise of non-Christian influences and the rejection of the Christian values that our nations real founders relied upon. I will probably address this issue further in a later post because it is more influential than acknowledged. It will also explain why the claim that the Constitution is a Christian inspired, practically sacred document is patently false and absurd.

Next, let’s take a closer look at quite possibly the most revered character in American history and guiding force of the Constitutional convention- George Washington. Without his presence and influence, it can probably be safely said that the Constitution would never have been ratified.

Read more in Part Four.

If the Constitution Was the Solution- Why Hasn’t It Worked- Part Two

As noted in tUS Constitution and Flaghe first post on this issue, it’s pretty obvious that the Constitution is not working as we are told it was intended to. We have been led to believe it was originally designed to limit our government, in turn both protecting and maximizing our personal freedom. The flag is all wrapped around it. You are considered unpatriotic if you do not embrace it as the foundations of our liberty.

However, unless you are sleepwalking through life here in America. simply, not paying attention. One can see that this intended result is pretty much a sham with no real meaning to it. Additionally, the so-called limited government is in our faces at every turn and growing ever more intrusive with every passing day.

However, even for those paying attention, there are other myths attached to the Constitution which distract us from the realization that perhaps the Constitution is not all that it is cracked up to be and has become quite possibly exactly what is was intended to be.

Perhaps if we actually saw the Constitution for what it actually is, rather than what we are told it is or supposed to be, we would begin to realize that the reasons it is not working today are buried underneath the myths attached to it.

Constitutional Myths

There is this aura associated with the Constitution. I mean, the fact that I can refer to the document as “the Constitution” and that nearly all Americans and even non-Americans immediately know what I am referring to points to how deeply embedded this myth actually is. Some even go far as to claim that it was divinely inspired. Many say that it reflects the principles of the Christian culture and the Christian God of the bible that dominated the colonial period.

There are books that even refer to it as a miracle like Catherine Drinker Bowen‘s “Miracle at Philadelphia” or the popular “conservative” classic “The 5000 Year Leap” which has on the top of the cover “A Miracle That Changed the World”. Through patient study and as a reformed Constitutionalist, I beg to differ with those characterizations.

Secret Meetings

Secret meetings are usually held because they wish to cover something up. One would not expect elected public officials to be engaged in them. Perhaps you would expect a few to gather US Constitution Meetingclandestinely to do something underhanded or illegal, but certainly not a large and geographically varied group. Yet, the meetings which resulted in our Constitution were conducted as such.

The “framers” of this document held closed-door meetings. They were not even permitted to disclose the contents of these meetings. The story of Ben Franklin on the steps being asked by the woman, “Well, what have we got?” who answered, “A Republic madame, if we can keep it.” confirms how little people actually knew about this meeting. Nothing to be proud of actually.

The obvious reason for this, as we now know, was that to rewrite government and create a Constitution was never the stated purpose of the Philadelphia convention in the first place. The meeting in Philadelphia invited 74 delegates, 55 showed up. (Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were not among them.) The stated purpose of the meeting was to amend the Articles of Confederation. It was NOT to construct a completely new form of government which is what the Constitution actually did.

The “Unintended” Result?

The plain fact is that the meetings in Philadelphia ultimately led to a complete abandonment of the existing form of government. Under the Articles, we operated essentially as a league of nations. The nations being each state and the league being a general association of the States for the purpose of creating mutual cooperation and agreements.

The Constitution on the other hand is a document that established a central form of government or as noted in Article 4, Section 4 a “Republican form of government“. This is altogether a new form of government.

This was not the original intended purpose of the meeting scheduled in Philadelphia. I think we can plainly see here that this is why the meetings were held in secret. (That also may be why a true Christian patriot like Patrick Henry when asked about why he declined to attend the Philadelphia meeting later remarked, “I smelt a rat.)

This also may give us the first clue as to why characterizing the results of this on-going set of meetings in Philadelphia to generate the Constitution as a “miracle”is, in fact, over the top and incorrect.

A Miracle?

Looking back now, how is it possible to characterize the Constitution as a miracle? There is nothing miraculous about the Leviathan that our so-called Constitutional government has become. If anything, as debt and regulatory oversight of our lives continues to climb, far from being a miracle it has become a monster.

I don’t believe we can think of our Constitution as a “miracle” any more. Now, we have to wonder, why has it failed us? So let’s dispel this first myth of the Constitution. It is far from being a miracle.

Another Popular Myth

The Constitution was inspired by and reflected Christian principles. It is something akin to a sacred document. To be venerated along with the bible in fact.

Sorry to burst the bubble on this one, but sad to say that is simply not the case. Let’s begin with the fact that nowhere in the document is there any mention of God. Let me repeat that again, nowhere!

The Declaration of Independence mentioned “the Creator” and “nature’s God” but heck Deists like Thomas Jefferson (credited as its author) and even pantheists, accept a Creator and nature’s God. Deists and pantheists are certainly not Christians.

The actual reality is that the Constitution never mentions God once, anywhere!

So then where is the evidence that the Constitution was a divinely inspired, Christian oriented document? It is not in the document itself. That much is plain.

The PreamblePreamble of the US Constitution

Perhaps if we read the document we can get an idea of what it actually does represent. Let’s begin with the Preamble. “We the People…..” Wait! Let’s stop there for a moment.

What is this “We the People” thingy? The meetings were held by a small minority of appointed representatives in secret. “We the People” didn’t know anything about the results of those meetings until after they had ended. The people had no input whatsoever into the document. The men who attended these secret meetings were the ones who created it not “We the People…”

So for them to begin this document with the words “We the People” is a bit disingenuous shall we say? (That’s a euphemism for “telling a lie” or as Merriam-Webster’s puts it “not truly honest or sincere : giving the false appearance of being honest or sincere.”) The people had no clue as to what the meetings produced until after they were concluded.

Wasn’t Ratification “We the People” Then?

Well, you may say, the people had access to the information during the ratification meetings didn’t they? As it turns out, only about 20 to 25% of the eligible voting population voted during the ratification process. It passed by a 5 to 3 margin on average. Taking the highest percentage of 25% voting, that means that only a little over 16% of the colonial population ever voted to ratify the Constitution. That would not have included woman and blacks of course who were not able to vote at that time. That can hardly be considered a mandate of “We the People”.

Window Dressing Only?

One could claim then, “Well they only really used that phrase “We the people” for window dressing.” That is, it was only used to produce the view that the people created this document. This would help to assist in its approval. After all, it was really FOR We the People wasn’t it? So how could it hurt to dress it up a bit and make it look more attractive?

OK, let’s suppose that were true. Well then, doesn’t that also amount to another deceptive practice? Why the need to continue to resort to subterfuge after the document was completed and put before the people? After all, the document was already put together in secret (You know, like the Bilderburger meetings are conducted). Why the need for additional deception?

Christian Inspired?

What is more, “We the People” actually also constructs another God, so to speak. That is, a God substitute (since He is never mentioned anywhere in the document) calledWe the People“.

Doesn’t the authority for this document then become, in place of God, “We the People“? How then can Christians claim that it was a divinely inspired, sacred document or “a miracle” when it never mentions God once, and it makes “We the People” (Not God!) the authority for the document?

Fact is, by taking the document at face value, as it is (Which is something Constitutionalists push for, claiming that if we only stuck to the limited nature of the text of the document, it would be the solution for all of government overreach.) it is a secular document! Secular meaning- not spiritual nor religious.

How then can one claim it to be a Christian document? On face value, that is, what it actually presents to us with its language- it is not!

In fact, sad to acknowledge, while it may not be quite as blatantly generous to the State as the Russian or Chinese Constitutions, it is still a secular document just like them. This is to say, it places authority for rule squarely in the hands of man and clearly outside of the laws
of the Christian God of the bible.

In actuality, there is really no specific reference to Christianity in the document anywhere, nor God, certainly not Jesus. No, the God referred to in the Constitution, if any, would be “We the People”!

Can you begin to see where this may create a problem further on down the road? Oh and by the way, it didn’t take long. Thomas Jefferson, a Deist, and James Madison, a Unitarian, wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in response to the 2nd President John Adams (a Unitarian) Alien and Sedition Acts which they (Jefferson and Madison) felt was a clear US Constitution Burningoverstep of the boundaries of the Constitution and human rights.

Next on the Hit Parade

I would encourage you to do your own research on this. Check out the Constitution itself. See if you find any reference to God in it. Read the Preamble and see what is established as the authority. If you have any familiarity with the bible, read it and see if you can find the parallels to the biblical laws of God. Could this be a contributor to why the Constitution has failed to accomplish its mission of limited government and preservation of freedom?

What I would like to touch upon next is the background of the men who wrote the document. After all, since it is basically a secular document and was written in secret, who were these men really? Why would Christians construct a secular document and completely disregard anything Christian? Let’s take a further look at the Constitution by peeking at the men who wrote it to see if this can help us to understand why this so-called “miracle” has so utterly failed us.

Read more in Part Three.