Director's Report . . . Robert Hayes

I do not have to tell our well-informed members of the empire’s continued encroachments upon our Constitutional rights, but the empire’s increasingly rapid usurpation of our Constitutional rights surprises even me. I do not need to list all of our individual and state rights that have been trampled on. But one well-established and understood right which I suspect few had thought would so soon be shattered, the right of private property, has recently been denied by that cesspool of socialism, the U.S. Supreme Court. As deplorable as the court’s decision was, I actually welcome it along with the many other unconstitutional decisions the court has decided. Each despicable decision awakened a few more people to their loss of God-given rights that the framers of the Constitution tried to protect for the people from a government they knew would try to grow and promote itself, for they knew that is the evil nature of government—any government and all governments.

For a very long time, our people have been indoctrinated into believing that the Constitution is a document that bestows rights upon the people. But that clearly is not the case. The Constitution is a document protecting the rights of the people only in a negative sense. That is, it does not provide rights to we the people, but prohibits the central government from violating the God-given rights of the people. The First Amendment does not provide freedom of religion, speech, petition and assemblage, but instead prohibits the central government’s interference with those understood God-ordained rights. The First Amendment begins with these words, “Congress shall make no law. . . .” Again, this is protecting rights only in the negative sense by telling the central government that it has no authority to encroach upon these God-given rights of the people. The same standard is expressed in the Second Amendment concerning the right to bear arms by ending with the words “shall not be infringed.” Clearly, the framers understood that the central government they were forming could not bestow on the people God-given rights they already possessed, but instead declared to the central government that the right of the people to bear arms “shall not be infringed.” This is very clear wording for any self-educated individual or those of us that came through the government’s schools before their total degradation. The Ninth Amendment clearly states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Again, the framers understood that they could not bestow God-given rights. They could only try to create a document that would prevent the central government they were creating from usurping those God-given rights.

The framers created the Constitution not as a provider of rights, but as a document of restriction upon the newly created government. Unfortunately, due to vague language used by the framers, the usurpers have been able to twist the meaning to their liking without trying to determine the framers’ intent. Most of the Supremes, being educated as they are, know and understand the framers’ intent, but, like Hamilton, they have other intents in mind. Unfortunately, due to the uneducated and undereducated citizens of our union, few have a clue as to what the framers intended. Actually, I might be a bit harsh with my criticism of vague language, because no vague language is in the First, Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Yet the Supreme Court has flushed them down their socialist toilet.

From the very beginning of our union, there were those that wanted to form a national government. Alexander Hamilton was a leader in this movement, but I am sad to say that some South Carolinians were also of this mindset. Arthur Middleton and Charles Coatesworth Pinckney, Low-country aristocrats, among others, also wanted a strong centralised government to protect the elite’s interest.

The word “nation” was voted down by the delegates to the Constitutional convention early in the convention, but there have been those associated with government from the beginning that wanted a strong centralised government. The sentiment generally against a strong central government was strongest in the Southern states.

At the Constitutional convention in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787, it was not until May 25th that a quorum of seven states assembled. On May 30^th, Edmond Randolph of Virginia proposed a national government. Randolph said that “a union merely federal will not accomplish the objects proposed.” James Madison said that a federal government operates on states and a national government directly on individuals. James Wilson of Pennsylvania asked if the government they were forming was to be over men or over imaginary beings called states? For three weeks the debate continued as to whether a federal or national government was to be formed. Finally on 21 June, the offending word, “national” was struck from the wording, not to appear again in the Constitutional debate. I cannot speak for James Wilson and Pennsylvania, but for me, my state (country) of South Carolina is not an imaginary being. The concept proposed by Randolph was primarily aimed at protecting the moneyed elite. One form of government that most concerned the framers was democracy. The framers knew world history and the history of democracies and wanted no part of one. There was no sentiment for forming a democracy, yet Bush’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Roberts, has said that we had a Constitutional Democracy. And he has been nominated for the Supreme Court!

The final ratified Constitution established a federalised republic composed of independent sovereign states (countries) with a central government of very limited powers which had been delegated by the states, which clearly understood that they, the states, could retrieve those delegated powers at any time they so desired. Unfortunately, from almost the very beginning of the centralised government, it, being true to the evil nature of any government, began to accumulate additional powers unto itself. Our well-educated readers know that this power grab by the central government was in motion from the beginning, but the decisive blow to federalised government occurred with the defeat of the Southern Confederacy in 1865. I need not reiterate our loss of state government and self-government, for our members well know the situation we are in. Our problem is fairly well understood, but a fairly simple solution to our problem is not well understood. We must take back our state government. I can hear the cries now, “Simple, you say?” Yes, simple, I say, but not easy. No, indeed, it will not be easy, but quite hard. If hard means work, more work, and hard work, it will require. We lost our state government primarily as the result of our enemies using the legal, and political process while outworking us. I know the argument; I have heard it ad nauseam. They have big business, big media, chambers of commerce, and big trusts on their side. This may well be true, but they truly do not have the hearts and minds of the majority of the people on their side. Two years ago, former Governor Roy Barnes of Georgia had all of the above on his side and more campaign money than he could spend, but notice his title now: former Governor Barnes. The people of Georgia, the unwashed, overcame all of the above and unelected him.

We have proved by our actions and results that the SCLoS has become a political entity in the state of South Carolina by being able to defeat scalawag politicians. We must now take our actions to the next level by electing and placing in office true statesmen who honestly believe in self-government for the citizens of South Carolina. When we elect a governor and fifty percent of the legislature of our belief, we will have secured our goal. I said that the solution is simple, and it is. But easy? In no way will it be easy. Ten, twenty, or thirty years ago, it would have been easier, but we sat around for far too long on the sidelines. It is now time to enter upon the playing field and do some work.

It is really very simple how we take back our government. We must decide to work. I will not go into great detail, for most of you really know what must be done. However, a few of the obvious actions needed are:

1.Recruit new members. Since you have been a member, how many members have you recruited? Have you brought any prospective person to a League function?

2.Put on your red shirt and join the protest lines. Did you flag Beasley? How many times? Other opportunities are coming. Will you be there?

3.Help the cause financially. Have you contributed for a free South Carolina other than paying your dues? Freedom is not free nor cheap. You need to help.

4.If an active chapter is in your area, do you attend at least every other meeting? Any? If no chapter is in your county, will you start one?

5.Have you considered running for public office?

I am sure that you can add to this action list, but the above is a start. I am convinced that we will win our fight for a free South Carolina. But I am also convinced that the longer we wait, the harder it will be. I discussed in the last South Carolina Patriot how we South Carolinians are being invaded from both the North and the South, and our time is limited. We can wait no longer to get active. Our goal of self-government is pure and God-ordained, but the adage is that God helps those who help themselves. Again, what we strive for is simple, but not easily achieved. Every one of our members must start today and accomplish at least one, and better all, of the actions stated above. It is time for action.