MODERN PHENOMENA

To consent means to give permission. In other words, you are the one who grants authority. You are the one empowered. You are the one who gives the power. Are you with me so far? Good! What am I getting at? This: when Thomas Jefferson and others drafted the Declaration of Independence after stating our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it was recorded, "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

"When you vote in an election, you delegate your authority."

It's the very same thing you do when you give someone "the power of attorney." You give them consent to act on your behalf, as though they were you. In fact, if their acts are criminal, and you have knowledge of such, you can be held as an accomplice. It's as though the person to whom you've granted authority, and who is acting on your behalf, becomes you. So you see, giving consent can be a very serious matter.

"Let's turn this around."

What if you discovered that your potential legal agent is a cheat, a liar, and an indiscriminate wastrel with other people's money? Wouldn't it be in your best interests to withhold consent? Certainly! You would have to withhold on numerous counts, not least being your reputation and integrity. So what if you, the individual, refuse to delegate your authority and give consent to the government?

In the late 1800's, William Godwin stated the legal outcome clearly:

"If government be founded in the consent of the people, it can have no power over any individual by whom that consent is refused."
Herbert Spencer concurs with Godwin in his book Social Statics,
"If human beings are indeed 'created equal'; if they all possess individual rights; if therefore they have sole authority over their own lives, and are in effect sovereigns, each one of them; and if government authority is derived from their consent, then plainly government has no authority over those who have not consented. Nothing could be plainer. Do you accept that?"

As beautiful as the concept of "inalienable rights" is, has government honored your wishes and held sacred the authority you've granted them? No! So take back your consent. Will they honor that? Of course not, because criminal organizations don't obey agreements— they break them with impunity and threaten you with violence. Not a comfortable situation, is it? But for those of you to whom issues of conscience matter, then withhold consent.

"Well, doesn't majority rule legally bind the individual?"

Not if the point I just made is reasonable and justified. Well, what about "we the people…"? "We the People" is a collection of individuals. There is no separate creature called "the People." It is all about individuals. When we agree and work together for common goals, voluntarily we can call this a society, which is plural for many individuals.

"While our leaders in Washington are openly saying that the Constitution is flawed..."

...what has actually been flawed from the very beginning is the entire basis of an illegitimate government—that is, if we reject the premise that majority rule is legally binding on the individual (which therefore ignores inalienable rights). Let's have a little history lesson: when the U.S. Constitution was up for electoral adoption, how large a percentage voted for it?

Women, of course, were excluded; no woman was allowed to vote until 1920. There's half the population. No Native Americans were allowed to vote. No African slaves were allowed to vote. No one under 21 was allowed to vote. No one who didn't own property was allowed to vote. Actually, 95% of the population was not allowed to vote! So we might guess that, among those eligible to vote, perhaps 2-3% voted. "We the People?" I don't think so!

If you got the impression that most of our actual population is saying "hands off!" then you've got an accurate pulse on "We the People." Your voice is not the voice we hear from Washington today. However, the voice that beats within your heart swears to you that you have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that no man can bestow or take away. This right is written on the tablet of your heart, and you must not allow anyone to erase it.

Jefferson wrote,
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
Therefore, I publicly declare the continued withdraw of my consent from a monstrous parasite that lives by force and sucks the lifeblood of a nation dry.

"So what if you don't consent?"

At the very least, you'll live with a clean conscience, and someday the sun will shine much brighter than today! We were born free—isn't it time we lived free? However, like seeds long dormant, awaiting the spring, liberty may suddenly bloom, surprising us all. The climate for freedom is cultivated and ripe!

Much Love and Success,