|
AMERICAN PATRIOT PARTY STAND ON
NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION
1.) On the issue
of a "National ID" or "Real ID", the American Patriot Party stands
firmly against any such "National Identification"
whether for person, property or animal ownership for
any reason.
The attempt by Oregon legislature as well as other state legislatures
to begin implementing a "National ID" for animals (property) in the pretense
or guise of "health or spread of disease" is yet another attempt by the
federal government to "measure everything you eat, drink or wear" as presented
in Patrick Henrys warning in the constitutional debates;
Constitutional Debates: MONDAY, June
16, 1788.[1] [Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.]
Patrick Henry: "...They may, unless
the general government be restrained by a bill
of rights, or some similar restriction, go into your cellars
and rooms, and search, ransack, and {449} "measure",
every thing you eat, drink,
and wear.
They ought to be "restrained" Within "proper
bounds"."
And by these, the Constitution's
limits and Bill of Rights, exceeds the limited "delegated"
powers of the national "and" state governments into privacy guaranteed by
the Constitution and all natural law of being secure in person, papers and
effects.
Disease can be tracked by private as well as state and counties with
interstate agreements when any disease may arise. There is no need for
"National ID".
The Excuse for national ID in either Man or Animal can only be for the
purpose of invading peoples privacy to control and have record of what
they own for more invasive taxation and property manipulation.
It is purposely proposed to count the number of persons and of animals
you possess and determine the value of each in taxation.
It is a clear misuse of the definition "providing for the General Welfare".
George Mason: "But I
wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which
are not granted, that they are retained by the states.
Otherwise, the power of providing for the "general
welfare" may be "perverted" to its "destruction". .... Unless
there be some express declaration that every thing not given is "retained",
it will be carried to "any
power" Congress "may please"."
2.) In regard to National ID
for U.S Citizens, it is the attempt by federal agencies pressed on by private
institutions and interests under the "guise" of necessity or "public
welfare" to use simple boarder issues and the random acts of criminals
to enact laws to shackle the freedoms and liberties of United States Citizens.
Boarder issues are not an excuse to number the citizenry of the states.
(see also Immigration)
Rights of the Colonists 1772:
Rights as Men:
"All Men have a Right to remain in a State of Nature as long as they please:
And in case of intolerable Oppression, Civil or Religious, to leave the
Society they belong to, and "enter into another".--
In short it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power
of one or any number of men at the entering into society, to renounce their
essential natural rights, .... as is before observed,
are life "liberty" and property.
"The natural "liberty" of man is to be free from any superior power on
earth, and not to be under
the will or legislative authority of man; but only to have the law
of nature for his rule."--
3.) Such national ID is rooted
in socialism and the propagation of "fear" alone, instigated by
the fearful and manipulative bureaucratic and private powers to organize
people into their own "designs" .
John Adams: "Fear is the
foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion,
and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable,
that Americans will not be
likely to approve of any political institution which is founded
on it." — Thoughts on Government,
1776
Thomas Jefferson: "When governments fear the
people there is liberty.
When the people fear the government there "is"
tyranny."
There "is" Tyranny.
4.) It is the position
of the American Patriot Party that Tyranny "is" present; And to
seriously urge that all representatives lay down any contemplation of
it and bar all private enterprise from establishing
any construction of it; for any reason what so ever..
As even when voluntarily accepted, it is voluntary
slavery; Prohibited
by the Constitution and all foundations of freedom before it.
Samuel Adams, Rights of the
Colonists, 1772
"If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should "in terms" renounce and
give up any essential
natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society,
would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the
gift of God Almighty, it is not in the
power of Man to alienate
this gift, and "voluntarily"
become a slave."
Declaration of Independence:
"That, to secure "these" rights, governments
are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the "consent"
of the governed; that, whenever "any form"
of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the "right"
of "the people" to "alter" or to "abolish" it, and to institute
a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing
its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect
their safety and happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should
not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience
hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable,
than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably
the same object, evinces a "design" to reduce them
under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their
duty, to throw off
such government and to provide new guards for
their future security.
5.) It is the expansion of powers
the Constitution does not grant; It is a perversion of the Constitution:
Constitutional Convention Debates
- MONDAY, June 16, 1788. [1] [Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14,
1788.] :
George Mason: "But I wish a clause in the Constitution,
with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are
retained by the states.
Otherwise, the power of providing for the "general welfare" may be "perverted"
to its "destruction". .... Unless there be some express declaration that
every thing not given is "retained", it will be
carried to any power Congress may please."
6.) It is the enactment
of human slavery and control.
Samuel Adams, Rights of the
Colonists, 1772
"If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should "in terms" renounce
and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason
and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation;
the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the
power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave."
7.) It is the removal of the
essential rights of "property of one's own person", of ones willing consent,
of personal privacy and of personal liberty:
Rights of the Colonists 1772
"...Now what liberty can there be, where property
is taken away without "consent"?
"The supreme power cannot Justly take from any
man, any part of his property
without his "CONSENT", in person "or by his
Representative".--" (APP Note: VERY
IMPORTANT POINTS, as even representatives do not have this power)
" These are some of the "first principles" of natural
law & Justice, and the great Barriers of all free
states," ...
8.) It is the chainwork and
shackles of national taxation schemes and subjugation to a socialist
and tyrannical governmental power. And reason to limit the federal
government's powers of taxation (ANONYMITY TAX):
Declaration of Independence, 17th Grievance
and definition of a tyrannical government: "For imposing
taxes on us without our consent;
Constitutional Debates: MONDAY, June
16, 1788.[1] [Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.] (see link for
full)
Patrick Henry: ... "A bill
of rights may be summed up in a few words. What do they tell us? That our
rights are reserved. Why not say so? Is it because it will consume
too much paper? Gentlemen's reasoning against a "bill of rights" does not
satisfy me. Without saying which has the right side, it remains doubtful.
A bill of rights is a favorite thing with the Virginians and the people
of the other states likewise. It may be their prejudice, but the government
ought to suit their geniuses; otherwise, its operation will be unhappy.
A bill of rights, even if its necessity be doubtful, will exclude the
possibility of dispute; and, with great submission, I think the best way
is to "have no dispute".
In the present Constitution (Under Articles of Confederacy
and Virginia Constitution), they are restrained from issuing
general warrants to search suspected places, or seize persons not named,
without evidence of the commission of a fact, &c. There was certainly
some celestial influence governing those who deliberated on that
Constitution; for they have, with the most cautious and enlightened circumspection,
guarded those indefeasible rights which
ought ever to be held sacred!
The officers of Congress (of the proposed Constitution) may come upon
you now, fortified with all the "terrors" of paramount
federal authority. Excisemen may come in multitudes; for the limitation
of their numbers no man knows. (APP Note: this was a serious
warning long before the 16th amendment)
They may, unless the general government
be restrained by a bill of rights, or some
similar restriction, go into your cellars and rooms, and search, ransack,
and {449} "measure", every thing
you eat, drink, and wear.
They ought to be "restrained"
Within "proper bounds".
With respect to the freedom of the press, I need say nothing; for it
is hoped that the gentlemen who shall compose Congress will take care to
"infringe" as "little as possible" the rights of "human nature".
This will result from their "integrity". They should, from prudence, abstain
from violating the rights of their constituents. They are not, however,
"expressly" restrained. But "whether" they will intermeddle with
"that" palladium of our liberties or not, I leave you
to "determine"."
9.) Regardless of
arbitrary law, the natural law is clear, it is to be anonymous and free
from any superior power on earth and not to be under the will or legislative
authority of man.
Samuel Adams - Rights of the Colonists
1772
"Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty"
in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all Men are "clearly"
"entitled to", by the eternal and immutable laws Of God and nature,
as well as by the law of Nations, & all well grounded municipal laws,
which must have their foundation in the former.--"
"The natural liberty of man is to be "free from" any superior
power on earth, and not to be under
the "will" or legislative authority of man; but only to have the
law of nature for his rule."--
10.) It is an immeasurable crime
against freedom and a free people to be branded like cattle for "convenience"
of the federal or state bureaucracies, for which no remedy but defiance
and removal by force shall be given should any establishment of it be attempted.
Declaration of Independence:
"But when a long train of abuses
and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object,
"evinces" a "design"
to reduce them
under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is
their "duty",
to "throw off "such" government" and to provide
new guards for their future security."
11.) All free citizens should
involve themselves in representation in government to protect this country,
refusing to allow such measures or mandates within their states;
"Governors" should make sure of their state's
ability, through their powers of arming state and localized militia, (not
the national guard which is ultimately controlled by the national government),
to repel an invasion of rights; and assure assistance from and to neighboring
states for which all states have the right and power to prepare for, and
to establish:
Here these "powers" of the state to do so without
hindrance are made clear:
Constitutional Debates: MONDAY, June 16, 1788.[1] [Elliot
misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.]
Mr. HENRY wished to know what authority the state governments had over
the militia.
Mr. MADISON answered, that the "state governments might do what they
thought proper with the militia, when they were not in the "actual"
service of the United States. They might make use of them to suppress insurrections,
quell riots, and call on the general government for the militia of any
other state, to aid them, if necessary."
Mr. Corbin: "He thought this section gave the states power to use
their own militia, and call on Congress for the militia of other states".
"The state governments did not derive their powers from
the general government; but each government
derived its powers from the people, and each
was to act according to the powers given it. Would any
gentleman deny this? He demanded if powers not given
were retained by implication. Could any man say so? Could any man say
that this power was not retained by the states, "as" they
had "not" given it away? For, says he, does not a power remain
till it is given away? The state legislatures had power to command and govern
their militia before, and have it still, undeniably,
unless there be something in this Constitution that takes it away."
"For Continental purposes Congress may call forth the militia, as to
suppress insurrections and repel invasions. But the power given to the
states by the people is "not taken away"; for the Constitution >>
does "not" say so<<. In the Confederation Congress
had this power; but the state legislatures had it "also". The power
of legislating given them within the ten miles square is exclusive of the
states, because it is expressed to be exclusive. The truth is, that when
power is given to the general legislature, if it was in the state legislature
before, both shall exercise it; unless there be
an incompatibility in the exercise by one to that by the other, or negative
words precluding the state governments from it. But there
are "no negative words" here.
It rests, therefore, with the
"states".
To me it appears, then, unquestionable that the state governments can
call forth the militia, in case the Constitution should be adopted, in the same
manner as they could have done "before" its adoption.
Gentlemen have said that the
states cannot defend themselves without an application to Congress, because
Congress can interpose! Does not every man feel a
refutation of the argument in his own breast? I will show
{420} that there could not be a combination, between those who formed
the Constitution, to take away this power. All the restraints intended
to be laid on the state governments (besides where an exclusive power is
expressly given to Congress) are contained in the 10th section of the 1st
article. This power is not included
in the restrictions in that section.
But what excludes every possibility of doubt, is the last part of it
that "no state shall engage in war, unless actually invaded, or
in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay." When invaded,
they "can" engage in "war",
as also when in "imminent danger". This clearly proves
that the states can use the militia
when they find it "necessary"."...
The idea of the worthy member supposes that men renounce their own interests.
This would produce general inconveniences throughout the Union, and would
be equally opposed by all the states. But the worthy member fears, that
in one part of the Union they will be regulated and disciplined, and in
another neglected. This danger is enhanced by leaving
this power to each state; for some states may attend to their militia, and
others may neglect them. If Congress neglect our militia, "we can arm
them ourselves". >>>>Cannot Virginia
"import arms?<<<< >>>>Cannot she put
them into the hands of >>> "her"<<< >>>
militia-men?<<<
He then concluded by observing, that the power of
governing the militia was not vested in the states by implication, because, being
>>>"possessed of it"<<<
antecedent to the adoption of the government, and >>>not
being divested of it<<< by any grant or restriction
in the Constitution, they must necessarily be as >>>fully possessed
of it as ever they had been.<<< And it could not
be said that the states derived any powers from that system, >>>but retained
them,<<< >>> though not
acknowledged in any part of it<<<."
(for complete Constitutional
Debate on this issue click HERE)
12.) For all individuals
to educate themselves in the foundations, definitions and
purpose of freedom and to be aware
and prepare themselves in all ways, at
all times to take stock in defense, food (6 mo.
min. of canned goods on rotation), clothing, supplies and fuel with proper
rotations of each and not to become complacent or
accepting to all bureaucratic or private
inventions that arise:
Agriculture, Ranch, and Dairy should make a continual habit of holding
back and rotating such reserves yearly as may be needed in food and supplies
for as many as number can be feasibly undertaken. All persons should educate
themselves for tending to the necessary preservation of family and friends
and plan for logistics in supplying others;
To work to create networks of secure communication with others that needs
no public or private company network or power.
Manufacturers, large and small, should lay groundwork on necessary supplies
and augmentation of necessary manufacture and plan procedures in stock
piling and implementation at a moments notice.
All military personal past, present or future should make their decisions
as to where they stand and to where their "duty" stands. Educate
themselves in the Founders writings and intents so that they cannot be deceived;
Making choices to protect freedom and not simply go along with nationalist
propaganda, unexplained military orders with questionable purpose and causes
that are of the ambitious in government and not of true freedom;
The rule of thumb, is that the national army, which now includes the
national guard, is for defense against foreign invaders, not against
domestic insurrections in defense of freedoms. If you are told to aim toward
a citizen of the United States who you know is to be defending your rights
as defined by the Founders, lay down your weapon and or leave the field;
A right of any truly voluntary force that defends freedoms.
Declaration of Independence: "And for the
support of this Declaration, with a firm
reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge
to "each other" our Lives, our Fortunes
and our sacred Honor." (This can be
said no clearer and surpasses all commands from government.)
Constitution: Article VI: All Debts contracted
"and "Engagements" entered into (Oaths and Declarations), before the adoption
of this Constitution, shall be as "valid against"
the United States under this Constitution as under the
"Confederation". This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
shall be "made" in >>>"pursuance thereof"<<< ; and all Treaties
(Oaths and Declarations) "made", or which shall be "made", under
the Authority of the United States, shall be supreme Law of the Land ...."
The Constitution is limited
to only those powers "DELEGATED" to it. It has
not the power to expand its powers outside the "delegated
powers".
Below are some thoughts to why
the federal government must be only allowed operation within its very limited
"delegated powers":
People often ignore the
first part of Article VI:
Constitution: Article VI: All Debts contracted
"and "Engagements" entered into (Oaths and Declarations), before the adoption
of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United
States under this Constitution as under the "Confederation"....
The defining establishment of
this can be found in the Constitutional Debates which define the second
part of Article VI and Article 1, Section 8 (The sweeping clause):
"The Congress shall have Power
To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts
and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;"
Constitutional Debates:
MONDAY, June 16, 1788.[1] [Elliot
misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.]
Where James Madison clearly
presents:
..."The honorable member asks,
Why ask for this power, and if the subsequent clause be not fully competent
for the same purpose. If so, what new terrors can arise from this
particular clause? It is only a superfluity. If that "latitude
of construction" which he contends for
were to take place with respect
to the sweeping clause, there "would"
be room for "those horrors". But it gives
"no" supplementary
power. It only enables
them to execute the "delegated
powers". If the "delegation" of their "powers" be "safe", no possible
inconvenience can arise from this clause. It is at most "but" explanatory."
What was James Madison responding
to in the debate?
Let us review Patrick Henry's clear warning:
"If you intend to reserve
your unalienable rights, you must have the most express
stipulation; for, >>>>>>>>if
"implication" "be allowed"<<<<<<<<, you are ousted
of those rights. If the people do not think it "necessary" to
{446} reserve them, they will be "supposed" to be given up.
How were the congressional rights defined when the people of America united
by a confederacy to defend their liberties and rights
against the tyrannical attempts of Great Britain? The states were "not
then" contented with "implied" reservation. No, Mr. Chairman.
It was expressly declared in our Confederation
that every right was retained by the states, respectively,
which was not given up to the government of the United States. But
there is no such thing here. You, therefore, by a natural and "unavoidable
implication", give up your rights to the general government.
Your own example furnishes an argument against it. If you give up
these powers, without a bill of rights, you will exhibit the most absurd
thing to mankind that ever the world saw government
that has abandoned all its powers the >>>>>powers
of direct taxation, the sword, and the purse<<<<<<<<<. You have disposed
of them to Congress, without a bill of rights
without check, limitation, or control. (see 16th amendment)
And still you have checks and
guards; still you keep barriers pointed where? Pointed against your
weakened, prostrated, enervated state government! You have a bill of
rights to defend "you" against the state government, which is "bereaved of
all power", and yet you have "none" against Congress,
though in fill and exclusive
possession of all power! You arm yourselves against
the weak and defenceless, and expose yourselves naked to the armed
and powerful. Is not this a conduct of unexampled
absurdity? What "barriers" have
you to oppose to this most strong, energetic government? To that
government you have nothing to oppose. All your defence is given up.
This is a real, actual defect. It must strike
the mind of every gentleman. When our government was first instituted in
Virginia, we declared the "common law" of England to be
"in force"."
Mr. Pendelton:
"....I understand that clause as "not going"
a "single step beyond" the "delegated" powers. What can it
act upon? Some power given by this Constitution. If they should be about
to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue some of the
"delegated" powers, but can by
"no means" depart
from them, or arrogate "any
new" powers; for the >>>>>>>plain<<<<<<<<
language of the clause is,
to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the "delegated"
powers"."
and again Patrick Henry:
"We are told, we are afraid
to trust ourselves; that our own representatives Congress will not exercise
their powers oppressively; that we shall not enslave ourselves; that the
militia cannot enslave themselves, Who has enslaved France,
Spain, Germany, Turkey, and other countries which groan under tyranny?
They have been enslaved by
the hands of their "own" people. If it will
be so in America, it will
be "only as it "has" been"
"every where else"."
Quite some statements to consider,
with regard to "delegated" "powers".
Declaration of Independence
establishes prior "ENGAGEMENT":
37th Grievance: "We, therefore, the representatives
of the United States of America, in general congress assembled,
appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our
"intentions", do, in the name and by the authority of the good people
of these colonies, solemnly publish and "declare" that these united
colonies are, and "of right" "ought to be", free and "independent"
states;"
39th Grievance: "and that as free and
independent states they have full power to levy war,
conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts
and things which independent states may of "right" do."
13.) And to possess
powers greater than the standing army to impose that duty should
the government (s) decide to "evince a design" to reduce them under absolute
despotism"... .
Declaration of Independence, 12th Grievance in defining one of the definitions
of a tyrannical government:
"He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to
the civil power".
14.) "Despotism" is Tyranny
and Tyranny in government is defined in the Grievances
of the Declaration of Independence;
"Tyranny" is also defined in the
history and prior declarations that had
led to its construction.
SEE: The History and Foundations
of Inalienable Rights
SEE: Powers of Counties, Powers
of Communities and Importance of "Local" Legislatures
(Dangers of Distant Legislatures)
American Patriot Party National
Political Campaign Election Headquarters
American Patriot Party
Oregon Patriot Party
|
