Monthly Archives: March 2016

Wisdom from Gandalf


I was reading The Return of the King, the last book in J.R.R. Tolkien’s captivating trilogy, The Lord of the Rings, I was thoroughly wrapped up in the drama of the story when suddenly in Chapter IX, The Last Debate, it struck me that the words of Gandalf very much apply to the real world.

The setting is the council of all the foes of Sauron after their victory over the fraction of Sauron’s forces at Minas Tirith, and the council is trying to decide the best course of action now. Sauron’s forces are vast and growing bigger still, hopelessly overwhelming to those left in Middle-Earth who still oppose evil. Gandalf then gives his advice, and in the middle of it is this epic quote. I couldn’t help but read it for our situation today and our battle with the United Nations which, like the dark lord Sauron in Tolkien’s story, unceasingly grasps for more and more power over the whole world.

“If it [the Ring of Power] is destroyed, then he [Sauron] will fall; and his fall will be so low that none can foresee his arising ever again. For he will lose the best part of the strength that was native to him in his beginning, and all that was made or begun with that power will crumble, and he will be maimed forever, becoming a mere spirit of malice that gnaws itself in the shadows, but cannot again grow or take shape. And so a great of evil of this world will be removed.

“Other evils there are that may come; for Sauron is himself but a servant or emissary. Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour [to give assistance to in time of need or distress; help; aid; relieve] of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule.”

Concluding his counsel, Gandalf said:

“For, my lords, it may well prove that we ourselves shall perish utterly in a black battle far from the living lands; so that even if Barad-dûr be thrown down, we shall not live to see a new age. But this, I deem, is our duty. And better so than to perish nonetheless—as we surely shall, if we sit here—and know as we die that no new age shall be.”

The evil power of our day that grows ever stronger and takes more and more power for itself is the United Nations. It is our duty today to do our utmost to thwart the UN and restore freedom and peace to our land.

Of course, as Gandalf pointed out, “Other evils there are that may come; for the [UN] itself is but a servant or emissary [of Satan]. Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till.”

Isn’t this precisely what America’s Founding Fathers did? They not only drove out all remnants of British tyranny, but they even provided a Constitution for posterity that unquestionably left “those who lived after clean earth to till”—free markets, limited government, peace, and prosperity.

Satan has been at work since then (he never seems to take a vacation, does he?) and it is up to us to fight the evil of our day and resist the tyranny of the wannabe world government by educating our countrymen on restoring our republic.

Let’s get going!


Side Note: This was posted on March 25th, the supposed day in 3019 (1420 shire-reckoning) that the Ring of Power was destroyed and Barad-dûr was indeed thrown down.


Fixing the Real Problem

It’s presidential election year again! Every four years there is a big to-do about who America’s next chief executive will be. It means excitement, debates, rallies, fundraisers, partisan politics, increased civic involvement, rallying behind politicians, etc. The presidential race becomes a huge distraction for many well-meaning patriots who throw their time, money, and political efforts into campaigning for whomever they think should become president. Many of these supposedly “conservative” candidates are in fact no friends of the Constitution at all. We should always measure candidates (for any public office) by their loyalty to, and track-record of abiding by, our Constitution.

A significant point often missed by those distracted with presidential politics is that the president really does not, according to the Constitution, hold much power. This is a good thing! The Founders did not want too much power delegated to any man, and this is why we have Congress. The real lawmakers in our land are those we elect to Congress. If Congress abides by the Constitution, then the president will be held accountable for his actions, and that problem is fixed. But if we somehow managed to send a Constitutionalist to the White House next year, while our capitol remains filled with a bunch of lying politicians who delight in burdening us with ridiculous amounts of rules and regulations that choke the free market, how much good could really be done by the new president with a Congress like that? The key to reigning in the government is Congress.

Imagine a mad dog in your neighborhood who is viciously attacking your child. Would you dash over to the chaotic scene and put all your focus into simply preventing the dog from biting by shutting the dog’s mouth and trying to keep it shut at all costs, even while the dog continues to kick, claw, scratch, and injure with the rest of his body? Or would you instead focus your energy on immobilizing the dog itself? If you kick the dog so hard in the ribs that he flies into the street and limps away whining, you have controlled the harmful beast itself, and you no longer need worry about simply containing the mouth of the dog.

So it is with our federal government. The president is under the authority of Congress, who has the power to impeach him for violating his oath to the Constitution. If we force Congress to abide by the Constitution, by extension our over-reaching president problem will be fixed as well if he wants to keep his job.

Which part of the federal government writes the laws that affect our daily lives? Who taxes us so heavily? Who regulates us nearly to death? Who gets to declare war? Who’s in charge of our money supply? Who is in control of the vast bureaucracy encroaching on our rights? The answer to all of these is Congress. Most people would agree that Congress has been doing a terrible job at each of these things, and that’s because they aren’t acting in accordance with the Constitution. Who must we then focus on fixing? Congress!

If there were any Constitutionalists currently running for president (and that’s a big if), certainly it would be good to support them. A president who strictly obeys the Constitution would be the most excellent president possible! Yet our federal representatives would still be the ones who held the law-making powers. They are the key to restoring obedience to the Constitution.

With this in mind, why does the mainstream media focus so much on the presidential race? It is obvious that the mass media don’t want a return to the Constitution—it is obvious in how they treat any Constitutionally-minded candidates: ignore, ridicule, smear, slander…they go at great lengths to keep the public from hearing the candidate’s real views just in case the public actually decided that limited government and free markets sounded like worthy objectives. So the mass media, being anti-Constitution to put it simply, why do they focus so much on presidential races and try to make them seem enormously important? They are experts at manipulating public opinion and they successfully divert the public eye from where it should be: returning to the Constitution and holding all public servants accountable to their oath of office.

The mass media also skillfully uses the presidential races to divide patriots, which greatly hinders the patriot cause. It is foolish for us to refuse to work with patriots of like-mind simply because we support different candidates.

Let’s not let them dupe us into pouring all our efforts into the presidential race while ignoring our even more important civic responsibilities. What if all the Constitutionalists today who are divided on presidential candidates instead united and worked more on getting their family, friends, and neighbors informed so we could elect federal representatives who are dedicated to liberty, freedom, and the Constitution? Let’s get going! Find out how at

Gun Control

Every time there is another tragic mass shooting, President Obama has virtually the same message: “Our hearts go out to the victims…we need more gun control!”

While the idea of gun control sounds on the surface like it might solve the violence problem, the reality is, gun control never has—and never will—end violence. And why the war on guns? Many everyday items can be, and have been, used for violence. It would be absurd to impose regulations, background checks, and permits on every item that can be used to inflict harm on another person. The idea that government, by controlling external objects, can eradicate internally chosen violence is naïve at best. The fact is, a criminal bent on doing harm to someone else will do that harm with or without guns.

Not only do gun control laws fail to end crime, but they actually give an advantage to the criminals! Criminals are law-breakers by nature. They don’t care if they have an illegal or unlicensed gun. In other words, they don’t try to stay in line with the law on their road to crime. The only people who are actually inhibited by gun regulations are the law-abiding citizens, who dutifully comply with the whims of the law-makers.

Ever notice that many mass-shootings happen in gun-free zones? The criminals aren’t stupid; they know they won’t run into armed opposition in these zones. The unarmed law-abiding citizens are then made helpless victims waiting to be shot by the armed villain, who, thanks to restrictive gun laws or the “gun-free” zone, has a huge advantage.

Guns are an excellent invention for everyone—but especially for women! Guns have better equipped us to be able to defend ourselves, even against the huge muscular would-be robbers, rapists, or even murderers. Talk about making men and women “equal!” The great “equalizer” is under attack, yet it’s the smaller and weaker people who would be negatively affected by gun control—not the attackers.

So if gun-control hasn’t, doesn’t, and won’t work, why are there those in government who are so eager to take away our guns?

The sober truth is that there is a much deeper agenda. “Reducing violence” is their illogical excuse for cracking down on gun owners.

Throughout history it has been the would-be tyrants of the world who want nothing more than to disarm their citizenry. When this is done, what can the common people do to stop the tyrants? They, their cronies, and their army are now the ones with the weapons, and the people are defenseless subjects, hardly able to resist and restore freedom.

This is why the U.S. Constitution does not give any authority whatsoever to Congress (or the president for that matter) to have anything to do with guns and their owners. The 2nd Amendment to our Constitution says, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Could the Founders have been any more clear? Hardly! Yet, in disregard to our governing document, efforts are being made to strictly regulate guns and gun owners.

It is very clear that the federal government has no power given by the Constitution over our guns.

As for state and local governments, the 10th Amendment of the Constitution leaves “the powers not delegated” to the federal government up to the states and the people. Naturally, this will mean some states choose to place heavy restrictions on gun use, and in some cases even make it illegal. Other states would not regulate firearms at all. What would happen? Highly restrictive states, such as California or New York, would be the flocking place for criminals who wish for no opposition to their evil deeds. Freer states would be the place for freedom-loving individuals who want to protect their life, liberty, and property.

Can you imagine the gun regulations in place today if they were in place at the time of pioneers, cowboys, and Indians in the American West? Permits, background checks, rules upon rules laid on gun distributors…it wouldn’t have been acceptable to the people of the time period—not for a moment. Why should we allow government to exert their power over firearms and their owners today?

There is only one acceptable form of gun control. As former Montana governor Brian Schweitzer said, “I guess I kind of believe in gun control: You control your gun, and I’ll control mine.” This kind of gun control is what allows for a free society—guns are used to help people defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property. It also has a way of keeping the government in check, when government knows the citizenry are well-armed.

Of course tyrannical governments have always been adamant about disarming the citizenry, so they might more easily enslave them. (Which should be a warning for us if gun-control is being pushed for by those power-hungry politicians!) A free society should never allow any infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. If a government does so much as require the people to register their guns, this is a bad sign of what may be coming next, since gun registration always precedes gun confiscation.

So beware of Obama and any other politician who calls for more gun control laws!