The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights stand frozen in time, saying what they say.

The founding fathers having a deep belief in Deity, divided church and state, and purposefully used "covenant theology" in establishing the constitution. Covenant theology is not known today unless you are a student of constitutional history.

Covenant theology establishes a 3-way contract between (1) God, (2) the people and (3) the government. This contract or promise states that man as offspring or progeny of Deity have certain automatic inalienable rights. God as a loving parent gives these rights to his children for purposes of their growth, development and happiness.

Government's part of the contract is to hold inviolate and defend these rights and as such be public servants.

The people's part of the three-way promise is to exercise these rights, without harming others, but without sacrificing their right. They also covenant to hold government to the contract should government over step its bounds. Thus, inherent in the constitution itself is the RIGHT AND DUTY to rebel against unrighteous government rule that interferes with these inalienable rights. In return, God promises to prosper the governed.

Like it or not, this understanding among the founding fathers was universal.

It was their motivation for establishing the constitution. It was widely taught, understood and believed among the U.S. populace 200 years ago.

This understanding has long since been buried by the current alphabet soup of, I.R.S., F.B.I., A.T.F., M.S.H.A.,C.I.A., N.S.A., B.L.M., N.F.S., S.S., D.O.I.,D.O.T.,D.O.A., N.F.W.S., N.M.F., and so on. This has been allowed by a population of the governed that have had it too good for too long and have no understanding of how we gained, guaranteed, and maintained our inalienable freedoms.

Volumes could be written about this. I can't do that here. Since wolves and their reintroduction has been a hot topic here, I'll tell two true stories. Keep in mind that the people involved related these stories to me. These instances are not secret, but they've never been publicized.

In Jan. 1995 the first group of wolves were reintroduced to central Idaho 60 miles from my house at Corn Creek. Corn Creek is where the road ends and the Selway Bitterroot and Middle Fork of the Salmon River Wilderness areas start. On the day of the wolf release, an acquaintance of mine named Russ Cozak (Russ is an enforcement officer for Idaho State Fish and Game) was with our county judge (Jerry Meyers) at Corn Creek. Russ and Jerry were lion hunting with hounds and had just turned loose hounds on a hot lion track when several federally licensed trucks from the Federal Fish & Wildlife service pulled into the Corn Creek area. The federal officers proceeded to release several wolves. Then they broke out a picnic blanket, champagne bottles and goblets and took a toast to "THE END OF THE BLOODSPORT OF HUNTING IN THE ROCKIES". Russ was a little confused and asked about the subject of their toast. The following is a paraphrase of what they told him.

As the wolves populate they will severely reduce the elk and deer herds. Under the Endangered Species Act, the wolves will then take precedence over humans for the remaining ungulate populations. The endangered species act gives us power to control the game animals use as well as land uses for hunting, logging, mining, etc.. Slowly hunting will be reduced or eliminated. This is why we are reintroducing the wolves.

The 2nd story I'll tell here happened in Feb. 1995, one month after the first wolves were released.

A local rancher named Gene Husse, age 83 (at the time) shot what he thought was a large dog that was eating one of his new born calves. As Gene approached the dog he had just killed, he saw the radio collar and realized he had just killed the first federal wolf transplant. Gene got legal advice. The attorneys told him not to call Federal agents yet, but first to get both local veterinarians to perform an autopsy on the wolf and the calf and to have the autopsy videotaped as proof of the findings.

The reason for the taped autopsy is simple. If the calf was live born and killed by the wolf, it was legal for Gene to shoot the wolf. If the calf was still born and the wolf was feeding off of an already dead calf, it was a felony to shoot the wolf. Since the feds were not to be trusted and since they would certainly confiscate the wolf and calf, a video was necessary.

After the autopsy was complete, Gene called the Federal Fish and Wildlife service agents. They came to Gene's ranch and took the wolf and calf.

Several days later, the feds returned to Gene's ranch and arrested Gene on felony charges of killing a wolf that was protected under the Endangered Species Act. The Federal agents said the calf was still born and that it was illegal to shoot the wolf. The Federal agents did not know about the videotape!

While the feds were arresting Gene, one of Gene's friends got on the phone and started calling people for help. Now, the entire county already knew about the local autopsy report - it is simple, real simple to determine if a calf is live born versus still born. It had been proven and videoed by both local vets., (both cattle experts as cattle and horses make up 99% of their business) that the wolf had killed the previously live calf.

Friends of Gene came with their rifles to his aid immediately. The residents of Lemhi County were not going to allow Federal agents with a hidden agenda to take Gene out of the county. Several residents lined Gene's driveway with their trucks and rifles.

Fortunately the sheriff showed up and convinced the agents that their lives were in grave danger (this is the short version) and that they had over stepped their bounds. The sheriff informed the Feds that the local autopsy was on film. The Feds left Gene, the sheriff and Lemhi County and never came back.

The Feds obviously knew they were fabricating charges, but they were determined to make an example of the first person to kill a federally planted wolf. Their own laws meant nothing to them - only their agenda matters!

So why were wolves reintroduced to this area? (Some wolves were already here and in Yellowstone, so it was technically impossible to "reintroduce" them any way - the Feds knew this too)

I'll tell you why. Armed people do not make good subjects! The largest contingents of gun owners in this country are hunters. Hunters generally own the most dangerous type of gun - i.e.: long range, powerful rifles with scopes that can reach great distances and do horrific damage. If the upcoming generation has no or limited hunting opportunities, they will largely be raised without firearms ownership or training or self-reliance. In one short generation a large segment of the public will be unarmed without any federal challenge to the Bill of Rights. This will be accomplished through reducing hunting by introducing wolves/grizzlies, etc. and giving the protected predators first rights over hunters on the game populations and land rights through the endangered species act!

These two stories are simple and not conclusive - you be the judge. Several life times could be spent writing about government conspiracies - many of them provable. I simply can't take that kind of time in an essay. Never the less, I think these two stories are informative.

I also find it curious that 9 of the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights refer to individual rights, but one of them (the 2nd amendment) refers only to a collective or government right, ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT!

Anyone understanding the slightest bit of constitutional history or the history of the founding fathers, knows the 2nd amendment refers directly to individual rights that are in place to keep a potentially out of control government in bounds.

Why would factions of our government be working to take away the individuals 2nd amendment rights? All of the other 9 amendments can be enforced ONLY if the 2nd amendment stands as an individual's right. Otherwise we are unarmed and are at the mercy of government interpretations on the other 9 amendments also!

As already pointed out, inherent in the constitution itself is the right and duty to resist and rebel against any government - that seeks to take away any of our inalienable rights as endowed upon us by God. Just as our founding fathers and writers of our constitution did against King George III.

Have we reached a point where our God given rights have been or are being removed? I may need to write a separate essay on this question alone. I say, that without doubt, some of our inalienable rights have been removed altogether or are seriously encroached upon. What do you think?

Speaks for itself and is self-evident. I leave this statement open for discussion on the message board.