The Bill of Rights!
The Ultimate Reference to Being an American
You might also like…
It’s All Too Easy to Be Anti-American
It doesn’t take much of an effort to be Anti-American. Hate is a paradoxical emotion. It takes a lot of energy out of someone, but is rather easy to indulge in. That’s just on the individual level. Put some power-hungry leaders in positions of influence, sprinkle that with apathic followers and useful idiots, and you’ve got yourself a Police State that disregards individuality, meritocratic efforts, and free thought.
So, why the hell do we have the Bill of Rights? Well, here’s a straightforward summary of the American document, broken down and simplified into the “Ultimate Guide to Being an American.”
What Are the Bill of Rights?
The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution that guarantee essential rights and civil liberties, such as the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms and personal protection, trial by jury, as well as reserving rights to the people and the states.
Was the Bill of Rights a Necessary Addition to the Constitution?
I give this answer with an unequivocal yes! Yes, the Bill of Rights were and still are necessary. They are protective, empowering ideals and standards. Not only do they secure individual freedoms that Americans, and every human should have, but they helped establish what I have come to see as the Fourth Branch of Government. Now, I know that some on the doom and gloom side of life see the Fourth Branch as the bureaucratic, unelected portion of our government like the FBI, CIA, NSA, and even the military who move up a corporate like ladder rather than being voted into office. We can have a conversation about that down the road, however, the purpose of the Bill of Rights was not only for our protection, but also meant to empower the citizenry.
It’s a check list of power for the people and states.
For good or evil, the Bill of Rights empowers and protects the freedoms of the citizens of the Republic, but in the hands of radicals—those who truly understand their enemy—they can be utilized as a list to most effectively and efficiently eliminate American culture and ideals.
Why is the bureaucracy called the 4th Branch of Government?
Although not created by the Constitution, independent executive agencies sometimes are called the fourth branch of the federal government, including the unelected officials within the intelligence agencies such as the FBI, NSA, and CIA. These institutions are in charge of regulating business, performing high level investigations, and gathering intelligence for national security.
Now, all this aside, what I am arguing and will lay out below, is that what is generally accepted to be the fourth branch of government is rather an invisible arm, and the actual fourth branch are the citizens and states of the country.
The First Amendment: Freedom of Religion, Speech, the Press, and Grievance
“To those who cite the first amendment as reason for excluding God from more and more of our institutions and everyday life, may I just say: The first amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people of this country from religious values; it was written to protect religious values from government tyranny.”
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom, prohibiting the free exercise of worship and expression of opinions…
If there is one thing learned from 2020, it’s that we are a silly people looking first to Government and God second. There is a lack of sacredness for higher, vertical relationships that exist within our culture. When God, family, country fall underneath the Government, all other rights crumble as a result. The right of worship given away out of sheer fear is completely contrary to the concept of faith. Giving up freedom of speech or censoring “mean” people not only takes on tactics mirroring Catholic Suppression, but it also deprives the listener the opportunity to choose for themselves which ideas hold merit and truth, refining their own knowledge as a result.
It’s hypocritical!
I don’t like subscribing to the fear porn, but the two-faced behavior of Twitter and the handling of Parler should scare everyone, left, right, conservative, liberal, and all between, because when a company begins violating the rights of citizens unchecked, it must be asked: where does it stop?
In short, it won’t, not unless American’s step up and learn something about history.
In a 1946 case, Marsh V. Alabama, a Jehovah’s Witness was arrested in a “company town” for distributing religious material in said town without a permit. The Supreme Court ruled that this was an Unconstitutional arrest and “that a person distributing religious literature on the sidewalk of a ‘company town’ was protected by the First Amendment rights of freedom of the press and religion and could not be arrested for trespass.”
This is a clear court case setting precedent of how a private company cannot arbitrarily take away basic rights and freedoms of citizens. We have OSHA to protect workers from the companies they work under, it only makes sense to have the same value of protecting citizens from corporate oligarchs, and if the government won’t even hear our grievances, then what good is that entity doing for the people it is built for?
The Second Amendment: Freedom to Personal Protection
The Second Amendment simply states that the individual American has the right to protect themselves, to include their family and property...
That’s it!
It is not the amendment that created a National Guard, giving reference to “a well-regulated militia.” I’ve heard that argument before and they are hinging solely on that military-like term without taking any critical thought to it. The Army National Guard was established on December 13, 1636 when the first militia regiments in North America were organized in Massachusetts, one hundred forty years prior to the Declaration of Independence and just over 150 years before the Constitution of the United States was ratified on September 17, 1787. Even if the Second Amendment was for the National Guard, the roots of this organization are that of the everyday citizen stepping up against a tyrannical government, and how better to do that than to let the citizenry arm themselves like they did back in the Revolutionary War?
We get the term “Minutemen” not from the Army, but from the patriotic individual.
Yes, the Federal Army and military overall will have tanks, artillery, aircraft and military technology beyond the comprehension and access of Joe Schmo, but need I remind you that in 1776 the British Empire was the world superpower and yet, Joe and Jane Schmoes still defeated them. The Second Amendment is as much of symbolic empowerment as it is a gross deterrence against unchecked tyranny and crime. Any governmental power grab always starts with disarming the citizenry. From Hitler to Communist China, when you demoralize your citizens, you have nearly unlimited power to do with them how you will—essentially raping their souls.
There is something cynical and rather genius about the subjective nature of terms like “common sense gun reform”, because yes, the vague nature purposefully allows for radical interpretation. While common sense to one person might be to take away guns, common sense to me is the fundamentals of firearm safety: treating any weapon as if it’s loaded, keeping fingers off the trigger until ready to fire, not pointing the weapon at anything one is not willing to destroy, and knowing what's beyond the intended target as bullets often pass through.
Not only that, these kind of abstract claims are steeped in emotion.
I am sympathetic to any death for any reason (exceptions being the Taliban and like-minded pieces of shit), however, pulling at the heart strings when it comes to the Second Amendment is gross and delusional. All too often political prostitutes use tragedy and sorrow to push forth radical agendas, knowing that strong sentiments cloud the judgements of us all. It’s why Congresswoman Barbara Lee voted the way she did against the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) on September 14, 2001, three days after the tragedy of 9/11. Emotions can drive and innovate and do amazing things for human progress, but the solution being to disarm the citizens “for our safety” has the potential to be much more deadly for the population overall than it would be to keep guns accessible to the law-abiding American citizen.
The citizenry has the right to bear arms… Period!
The Third & Fourth Amendments: Freedom to Protect Our Privacy and Property
The Third Amendment might seem like it’s out of date and doesn’t apply to modern Americans. We have the right to refuse a militant presence in our homes, especially if it is being forced upon us, which was a major problem back in the Revolutionary War. However, and I’m not calling them prophets, but I think the Founding Fathers had a little foresight that went beyond Redcoats in the home. While we don’t literally “quarter troops”, there is a reason I coupled the Third Amendment with the Fourth, which is the foundation to protect against all unreasonable searches and seizures.
But first...
If we go any further on the matter of the Second Amendment, I think we’ll be beating the dead horse—it's a check against tyranny, and if you still have issues with that, then you might be a communist and should save us all time and get off my site. For argument’s sake though, let’s say the Liberal Left gets everything they wanted—dead babies, a disarmed populace, the whole shebang. What is often overlooked is the step after the blatant violations of Second Amendment are implemented. When citizens are disarmed physically, it does not take much to then disarm them ideologically, and when our ability to protect ourselves from abusive authority is removed, our safety is then put in the hands of a Police State.
This is where the Third and Fourth Amendments come in.
Even the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments have a part to play in this thought experiment, but we’ll get to that later. When “troops”, aka governmental officials, are allowed to occupy our homes via the internet, when privacy laws are unenforced or non-existent, this sets a cultural precedence for anyone with a badge to start investigating you without probable cause. And for those who say, “I have nothing to hide!” you’re a sheep. First of all, just because you’re a saint sent to Earth to bless us all does not mean we all have that same privilege of “having nothing to hide.” Second, I’m sure that’s exactly what Matt Damon said and any other woke, recently cancelled celebrity that went along to get along.
Edward Snowden was (and still probably is) an extremely controversial individual for many, especially those with high levels of security clearance. The debate I often have with myself is quickly dispelled though as I compare his treason to that of Hillary Clinton and her emails, but I digress. As looming questions of a Patriot Act 2.0 create concern, the reality of a Police State is being reimagined yet again, this time with red, white, and blue.
Take former Vice President Biden’s “Misinformation Campaign” for example.
The fear porn these people subscribe to, having Americans justify in giving away freedoms for “safety and protection” is Orwellian to say the least. “Biden allied groups, including the Democratic National Committee...planning to engage fact-checkers more aggressively and work with SMS carriers to dispel misinformation about vaccines that is sent over social media and text messages.” Unfettered access to private information by enlisting corporations to do their dirty work. Why don’t they use that approach with obesity or cancer, all of which kill way more people than Covid-19? They don’t because like the British in 1776, they could give a damn about safety and security.
My fellow Americans, “the quartering of troops” extends well beyond walls of our homes.
The Fifth, Sixth, Seventh & Eighth Amendments: Freedom to Protect Our Innocence
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
What kind of due process is involved with “guilty until proven innocent”. Thought experiment: the state locks you up because they think you’re guilty of—of something. The burden of proof now is on you to prove your innocence—that you didn’t do anything illegal. Because you are locked up, your resources are already limited, the state could then cock block you at every turn because let’s face it, they want you to be guilty. But when you’re presumed innocent, authority figures have to have reason to make your arrest rather than hinging on a simple accusation.
What is the difference between “innocent until proven guilty” and “guilty until proven innocent?” Well, in the simplest of terms it’s who has the responsibility of the burden of proof. The accuser or the accused? This may seem like a semantics game or a mundane detail, however, let’s do another thought experiment with the latter scenario.
Death or exile?
If you’ve seen The Dark Knight Rises you know exactly to what I’m referring to. In the most extreme instances, there would be no due process as the system of law is founded on mob rule to decide the fate of conviction and punishment where no argument can justify your innocence. Even in the mildest of cases, the reputations of those accused are destroyed because of indiscriminate, baseless accusations.
From the Duke Lacrosse scandal and Mike Nifong’s pride staining the legal system, Jussie Smollett allegedly faking a hate crime, to the character assassinations of Nick Sandmann and Judge Bret Kavanaugh**, all are examples of how the court of public opinion is far from moral, leading with emotion rather than facts and an honest desire to know the truth.
Is our current system perfect? No, far from it, but it rests on the ideal that people are innocent until proven otherwise. When we abolish this, we begin raising an entire generation that can justify the condemnation of a thousand innocent people as long as they are able to convict just one guilty individual.
It’s why we have the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
In a nutshell, these amendments state that one, people say stupid stuff that they may not necessarily mean, letting their emotions get the better of them, or can easily be taken out of context. Couple that with unbiased, impartial peers responsible for looking at objective standards and facts, yes, we run the risk of criminals running free, but the point is not to convict, but rather protect potentially innocent victims as we search for the truth. It’s why we have the right to know why we’re brought to court, who’s accusing us, and the opportunity to plead a defense, calling witnesses on our own behalf.
Let’s talk another real-world scenario.
Red Flag Gun Laws are a form of “common sense” gun reform that permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves. In other words, if said police or family member sees any “red flags” in this gun owning citizen, the state can confiscate their guns until it is proven otherwise.
There are so many problems with this, but for time and sanity sakes, let’s talk about two.
One, the subjective nature of these Red Flag Laws is a convenient Radical Liberal Tactic. If there is any sort of discord between two family members, no matter the size, what is to say one won’t report the other just out of malice, and with no way to prove or disprove the immediate claim, the state (by this law) must comply and confiscate the firearm, giving unchecked power to the police, creating yet again a Police State, which is ironic, because the last time I checked, a major campaign was advocating defunding, right?
The major issue of Red Flag Laws though is that they push against the presumption of innocence that our judicial system is structured around. It’s Anti-American to take away a citizen’s liberty and rights for “their own protection.” Basically what 2020 and 2021 have shown us.
Now, I’m exercising my freedom of speech here and am about to get controversial.
I don’t know about you, but politicians seem to be growing more and more irresponsible the older I get—almost as if they don’t know what they’re talking about. Or maybe they do and are just showing gross negligence. Take Representative Maxine Waters* for example and her abhorrent actions that fed into the tantrums of dogmatic Leftists and Democrats when it came to Derek Chauvin’s trial. Get “more confrontational” if there’s no guilty verdict? Didn’t she help impeach the 45th President for a second time for him using the word “fight”?
But you know this, right?
You’re already aware of the duplicity amongst our elected officials. Coming back to the Chauvin trial, I was proud of Judge Cahill’s statement when he said that:
“I wish elected officials would stop talking about this case, particularly in a manner that is disrespectful to the rule of law and the judicial branch in our function. Their failure to do so is abhorrent.”
Yes, the verdict came back guilty on all three counts, however, the lies in the trial and the stupidity of Representative Waters are easy grounds for an appeal. That’s not the point I’m trying to get at though with these amendments. Before Derek Chauvin was even tried, he was doomed for guilt. Presumption of innocence was out the window before he even stepped into the court room, and as evidence began presenting itself of Floyd’s toxicology report, Chauvin’s training of the knee on neck/back by the Minneapolis Police Department, none of this mattered because the mob already had its verdict. From a severed pig’s head, threatening a witness for Chauvin’s defense to elected officials declaring their own threats publicly all ensured that guilty was the only way the jury would vote, making them far from impartial and possibly compromised.
When our innocence isn’t protected or is overtly attacked, what use is the Eight Amendment? What use is it to keep us from excessive and unreasonable fines and punishments?
*I intentionally used an article from CNN to prove a point here.
**All these examples are also found in Jesse Watters’ book How I Saved the World and sparked the overall conversation in this section.
The Ninth & Tenth Amendments: Freedom of States and Citizens from the Federal Government
In the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Bill of Rights, the most basic, but often forgotten principle in our form of Government is found, that being: the States created the Federal Government, the Federal Government did not create the States. And who are the States? Well, it is us the people.
Any powers not delegated in the Constitution strictly for the Federal Government, or is restricted by the States, it is left to the people. These last two amendments are the foundation that American Citizens have to act as a check against the leaders within our Republic. Not only do we elect them, and hold them accountable, but we are not owned by them. Elected officials are meant to serve the people, not the other way around.
Rules for thee, not me is a sentiment that is forming within the culture of our leadership.
People making the rules and not living by them is about as Anti-American as you can get. From Congress not having to live under the umbrella of Obamacare, to Nancy Pelosi’s hair salon debacle and Gavin Newsom’s dining out hypocrisy, our leadership is flooded with people not abiding by the rules they set up for us all. If you honestly think that the neighborhoods and safety of the people making the border crisis policies will be affected, something isn’t clicking, or at the very least is obscuring your view. When John Kerry, the Climate Czar, the one in charge of upholding erroneous Socialistic Green New Deal policies for average Joes and Janes, takes a private jet to accept a climate change award, no justification makes sense. They clearly do not see themselves as a part of the citizenry, but rather elites, and when there is this gross discrepancy between lawmakers and law-abiders, taxation without representation is resurrected into the conversation.
Examples like the Convention of the States, Second Amendment Sanctuary States, and recall elections are all ways in which the written empowerment the States and People have within the Constitution are being enacted. It is here that the Fourth Branch of Government makes its strongest case.
Be American!
“You have brains in your head. You have feet in your shoes. You can steer yourself any direction you choose. You’re on your own. And you know what you know. And YOU are the one who’ll decide where to go...”
Hope, that’s what an American does. We hope, we work our asses off, and we believe in a higher power. God, family, country and anything that takes away from individuality, thought, and freedom of choice is Anti-Constitutional. All Ten of the Bill of Rights are for the protection of the citizens of the United States of America and any like-minded freedom thinkers.
The Bill of Rights are necessary for true freedom and liberty to thrive. They are protective, empowering ideals and standards that not only secure the individual freedoms of every American, but ones that every human being has the right to access.
