Compare Differences between the American Patriot Party and other political parties.
American Patriot Party Endorsements:
The
American Patriot Party Endorses Candidates outside it's own party that most
closely follows our aims and goals for a free country.
In 2004, the Patriot Party gave Limited Candidate Endorsement for President Michael Peroutka of the Constitutional Party, for President. Note:
The Oregon Patriot Party had abstained from that endorsement. In 2008, Ron
Paul was endorsed by a number of states through the primaries; Upon endorsement
of Chuck Baldwin by Ron Paul, some states members followed with their votes.
Review the National American Patriot Party website Candidates Page and see who, why, and what American Patriot Party members are voting for.
See
the Patriot Party solution to the two party monopoly, The American Patriot
Party is made up of registered Republicans, Libertarians, Democrats who wish
to see the true intent of the founding fathers of this country realized.
The two candidate voting system:
This system allows the voter to vote for the candidate he believes will be the best person for the job;
If that person does not get enough votes, his second choice is recorded.
This allows the voter to vote his conscience first without throwing away a crucial vote.
An
example would be, if you believed Ron Paul was the best person for the job
as president but did not want to loose a vote to another Republican Candidate
that may or may be more popular You would simply vote Ron Paul as your
first choice and the more popular candidate for second choice;
If Ron Paul did not carry the votes necessary to be a contender, you would not loose anything;
This is because the second choice vote would automatically engage and be counted that candidate.
This innovative voting system allows for greater options to vote your conscience.
------------
Taxes
The American Patriot Party and Oregon Patriot Party, Championing the "No Names No Numbers Tax";
The States Liberty Bill,
Federal Government Patriot Tax System Reform Bill, Zoning Abolishment Bill;
The Private Person and Property Security Bill and the Freedom Responsibility
Bill which places the responsibility on every court and government
agency at every level to have the power to refuse laws that it deems contrary
to the Inalienable Rights guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence as
intended by the founders letters and constitution of this country without
reprimand by federal, state, county or other entity, thereby empowering the
responsibility defined in the Declaration of Independence wherein it states
clearly:
"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...
--------------
Note,
that when this was written, it did not mean within the constraints of the
existing law or within the constraint of a government procedure such as a
voting system; As they stood outside and apart from their own present government
at that time, and had no "legal" government.
They were individuals making a stand.
This imposed a power of a people, any group of people; not of a, or any, government.
1.) a free individual his first right and duty and;
2.) 40 Definitions of a Tyrannical government in which to impose your first right and duty upon.
The
Constitution's purpose is to fully, in compliance with the Declaration
of Independence's foundation, limit the powers of the Federal Government.
This is the sole purpose of the Constitution; and it does
not, in any way, overwrite the foundations and duties laid out by the Declaration
of Independence.
Clearly as written in the Constitution Article VI,
that the Constitution is bound by prior Oaths which are Engagements of the
People, declared in The Declaration of Independence, and all agreements set
forth in the Confederation; All those and future laws subject ultimately
to those oaths which are "Engagements" of and with the People presented in
the Declaration of Independence, "Not Withstanding".
Constitution: Article VI: All Debts contracted "and "Engagements" entered into (Oaths and Declarations), before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as validagainst the United States under this Constitutionas 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 ...."
Note that any law made under the Constitution is limited to laws within the "DELEGATED" Powers; The federal legislature - federal government cannot create laws outside those very limiteddelegated powers, nor can they "arrogate" ANY new powers.
Police
powers are limited to the 10 miles square of Washington DC The Supremacy
Clause is a limited power; It cannot exceed the delegated powers.
These are clearly defined by the Founders in the Constitutional Debates in the Ratifying Conventions of 1788.
Home of the American Patriots of the American Patriot Party.
American Patriot Party
Serving National Campaign Headquarters. American Patriot Party.CC (Not associated
with .org). American Patriot
Party - Home of the American Patriots of the American Patriot Party.CC
Website Optimized for WIDESCREEN
American Patriot Party.
Welcome to the American Patriot Party National Headquarters. VOTE
The True Patriots Party, The American Patriot Party. Educating Patriots and Defending Freedom, one Patriot at a time. See also Special Reports at far right>
CONSTITUTIONAL COFFEE
FLASH!
Constitutional Debates - June 14, 1788 - Virginia Ratifying Convention.
James Madison: "...The Constitution has taken a medium between the two extremes, and perhaps with more wisdom than either the British or the state governments, with respect to their "ELIGIBILITY" to office.
They can "FILL" "NO" new "offices" created by themselves,
<><><> "NOR" <><><>
(***APP-WAKE UP!***)
<><><> "OLD ONES" <><><>
of which they
"INCREASED THE SALARIES"."
------------
***APP CONSTITUTIONAL CAFFEINE:
Would this not keep LEGISLATORS from being reelected "back" into their office...
if they had
RAISED THEIR SALARIES IN THE PREVIOUS TERM???
Clearly it would.
Madison Continued:"... After having heard a variety of principles developed, I thought that on which it is established the least exceptionable, and it appears to me "sufficiently well guarded".
APP Wake Up: Apparently not... They simply stepped outside the "delegated powers of the "Original Compact" which they have NO AUTHORITY (see link) to do. Also see link to Rights of the Colonists that establish that Governors have "NO RIGHT" to "seek what they please" in salaries, as it makes way for them to become TYRANTS and DESPOTS, instead of servants of society.
Mr. GRAYSON: "Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge that the honorable gentleman has "REPRESENTED THE CLAUSE RIGHTLY" as to their exclusion from new offices;"
APP Wake Up: This establishes James Madison's intent was correct and that "NEW OFFICES"also means, by the definitions given here "NOR Filling Old Ones", as reelection to the same office for a "NEW TERM" of Office for which the salaries were increased by the person seeking reelection to it.
-------------------
WARNING * WARNING * WARNING
WARNING TO TEA PARTY GOERS
Warning;DO NOT be taken in by the attempts to establish a NATIONAL FLAT TAX, FLAT PERCENTAGE TAX, FAIR TAX, FLAT PURCHASE TAX or other ARBITRARYUNENUMERATEDTAXSCHEMES!
These are INDIRECTTAXES,UNENUMERATED Styled taxes; The ARBITRARY flat percentage will insure and grant government money without consent prior to receiving funds; It will be no different than the income tax is now.
WORSE it will guarantee increases to governments with the increase of the private sector WITHOUT CONSENT AND OVERSIGHT; It will EMPOWER GOVERNMENT.
The Founders understood the necessity of aDIRECT taxation; Taxes that are not arbitrary, but are DEFINED AND ENUMERATED >>>BEFORE THEY ARE GRANTED TO GOVERNMENT.
>>>>FURTHER DANGERS: Some plans combine state and federal taxation or federal taxation into one "sales tax" plan; These are EXTREMELY DANGEROUS as it is a "SHOEHORN" for the Federal government to involve itself with State and local taxation! The federal government will be come a legal "PARTY" to the taxation process and thereby WREST CONTROL of local taxation and LOCAL REGULATIONS!!!
>>>ADDITIONAL WARNING: We have heard speakers at TEA PARTY RALLIESATTEMPTING to place Fascism as being to the FAR RIGHT; THIS IS INCORRECT. This is a "Centrist and leftist" "Ploy" to make you think we need to move to the center i.e. toward the left; This is meant to confuse;
Do not buy into it.
Socialism and Communismand Fascism are ALL LEFT;
ALL THREE require huge socialistic bureaucracies to operate and therefore are ALL THREE, FORMS of SOCIALISM and ALL "LEFT".
Understanding that the State of Nature under the Law of Nature to guide it are the Far Right, then Constitutional Compacts to enforce the Law of Nature are the RIGHT-Freedom and Property are protected;
To the Left are Various forms of Socialism and collectives which include Fascism and Communism; These naturally degenerate through arbitrary poweragainst the properties and liberties of the people.
To the Far Left when these break down through ABUSES to the Law of Nature, is the temporary condition of Anarchy which is the State of Nature without respect for the Law of Nature, referring to lawlessness of any kind and without compacts to enforce the Law of Nature;
Anarchy is a condition that will exist until either people respect the Laws of Nature; The protections reemerge to recognize and enforce again the Laws of Nature through Constitution"s"; Or else the people allow themselves to again be enslaved under Governments of arbitrary power.
Also Understand that Corporations, Unions, Tax supported Special interests and undelegated federal and state bureaucraciesare ALLCOLLECTIVES and state born"Exclusive Privileges"which should not even exist in a free country; We have been warned by the Founders to guard against their existence; they are from undelegated arrogated powers.
DO NOT CONFUSE"Exclusive Privileged" "trade" with "free trade".
YOU TUBE VIDEO>>>>>
WATCH Video speech SPECIAL REPORT #3>>>
At right on this page, with regard to the LEFT attempting to Confuse our people; Understand the dangers we are facing!
--------------------
*** SEE>>>"SPECIAL REPORTS>>>"
This page third column to right<>>>.
SOCIALISTS BEGIN THEIR TAKEOVER of the EUROPEAN UNION ...
By "raising thresholds" necessary for political parties to be recognized. >>>
The American Patriot Party represented here is opposed to any and all
environmental extremism or progressivism. Such environmentalism is viewed
by this party as a form of socialism which attacks the very fabric of security
in ones home, papers and effects (property). Environmental laws are a means
of corrupting the individual rights of free citizens through national and
international manipulation of our most cherished laws.
CBC 45 Minute Special Report
World Scientists Debunk Global Warming Myths;
Putting to rest the "one man invented" and "Faulty" "Hockey Stick" tree ring temperature theory.
"It is a mistake to think this fault is proper only to monarchies. Other forms of government are liable to it as well as that; for WHEREVER the power that is put in any hands for the government of the people and the preservation of their propertiesis applied to"other ends", and made use of to IMPOVERISH, HARASS, or SUBDUE them to the ARBITRARY and IRREGULAR commands ofthose that have it,THERE it presently becomes TYRANNY,whether those that thus use it are one or many.
Thus we read of the thirty tyrants at Athens, as well as one at Syracuse;
and the intolerable dominion of the Decemviri at Rome was nothing better."
See also "Fascism is Left" Note at left column this page.
AMENDMENTS ARE NOT FOR ARROGATING POWER
For those who think the federal government through it's constitutional legislative process or even states "ratifying amendment process" has the power of a democracy to do as it pleases outside the republic that limits them, these words from the AUTHORS OF both the Declaration of Independence and ConstitutionPROVE THE OPPOSITE;
The federal government is limited to the delegated powers and NO power can be assumed or arrogated beyond those ORIGINALLY DELEGATED to them by ANY means;
Norcan the state's legislatures act on the federal legislative's behalf through mandates or other means to accomplish the same end;
As that would allow the federal government, or any one or number of states,
to dictate unlimited decrees or to inslave the rest:
2." Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish: a.) treason, b.) counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, c.) piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and d.) offenses against the law of nations,
and >>>> NO OTHER CRIMES >>>"WHATSOEVER";
and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited
by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,"
therefore the act of Congress,
passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled "An Act in addition to
the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the
United States," as also the act passed by them on the — day of June, 1798,
intituled "An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States," (>>>> and ALL their OTHERACTS which assume to CREATE, DEFINE, or PUNISH crimes, OTHER than THOSE so enumerated in the Constitution,)
>>> are "ALTOGETHER" "VOID", and of "NO FORCE";
and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right,appertainssolely and exclusively to the respective "STATES", each within its own territory.
"...That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resultingfrom the "compact", to which the states are parties; as limited by the "plain sense and intention"of the instrument constituting the "compact"; as NO further valid that they are authorized by the grants"enumerated" in that "compact"; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of OTHER powers, NOT granted by the said "compact", the STATES who are parties thereto, have the RIGHT, and are in DUTY BOUND, to "interpose" for ARRESTING the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and libertiesappertaining to them."
10 years earlier in the Virginia Ratifying Convention his message was the same:
James Madison 6-16-1788:"...If that "latitude" of construction which he contends for were to take place with respect to the "sweeping clause" (Article VI), 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.
For when any power is given, its delegation necessarily involves authority to make laws to execute it
Edmund Pendleton 6-16-1788: "With respect to the necessity of the ten miles square being superseded by the subsequent clause,
which gives them power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper
for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested
by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department
or officer thereof (Article VI), 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,
(N)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".
It is clear the federal government has long since exceeded its authority granted to it by the states through the compact between them, the Constitution.
The states themselveshave stepped from their authority
to allow undelegated and unauthorized federal mandates to enter our states
and subjugate the people and their properties under them.
This, when it is clear that it is the State's Duty to do the opposite; and that it is to "interpose for arresting the evil"; as Thomas Jefferson clearly presents.
John Locke establishes the below facts of resolve clearly when a government oversteps the bounds of limited authority and trustgranted it:
John Locke 155:"...I say, using force upon the people, "without authority", and"contrary" to the TRUST put in him that does so, >>>is a State of WAR with the people<<<..."
"....In "ALL" states and conditions the TRUE REMEDY of "force without authority" is to oppose force to it.
The use of "force without authority (without right)" ALWAYS puts him that uses it into a State of WAR as the Aggressor, and renders him liable to be "TREATED ACCORDINGLY"."
American Patriot Party, State Parties Organizations.
The American Patriot Party, State Organization Map:
Welcome
to the new National American Patriot Party web site. The American Patriot
Party has taken on some changes. The Oregon Patriot Party has assumed the
National American Patriot Party role in guiding states to develop their states
parties. For Election Information See Candidates Section.
Previously active states: (green) need to voice reactivation (blue). Several states so far are under organization.
1.) The first fundamental natural law which is to govern even the legislative power itself, is the preservation of the Society."
2.) "The Legislative hasno right to absolute arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people"
3.) "The supreme power (legislative)"cannot" "Justly" take from any man, "any part" of his property without his "consent", in person >>>"or" by his Representative.--"
4.) "There shall beone rule of Justice for rich and poor; for the favorite in Court, and the Countryman at the Plough."7
5.) Justice and Rights being established from "promulgated, standing and known laws"
New Organizers: may request interest in establishing state parties in green or gray states.
People
interested in establishing or reestablishing their state parties should review
this web site and become educated in the Declaration of Independence and
Originating Founders Letters prior to 1776 that defined the intent of freedom;
Further, to become versed in your own state's elections laws prior
to making a commitment with this party in starting a state party.
Each state is responsible for developing their own party.
Be
realistic. Understand this will be a lifetime process, do not expect too
much too soon. Development of your particular state party may take many years.
100% of establishing a party is believing in its goals and always being there
when necessary.
If you choose simply to be a member, your commitment will be the same.
"Statesmanship",
as defined by this party, is first defending certain inalienable rights as
defined by the Declaration of Independence and it's Originating Founding
Fathers of and prior to 1776; Then to the concerns, that are within these
parameters, of their constituents of their state.
This sets the solid foundation for this party's establishments and goals.
This
also limits change from outside forces that water down the true intents of
those who fought to give us the freedoms we have.
Our candidates will
follow the party, the party follows and reestablishes the true intent of
a free community, state, and country as defined in the Declaration of Independence
and letters of the Originating Founders of Freedom.
American Patriot Party Platform
Unlike
the major parties whose platforms are both based on national interests of
a central party agenda, the American Patriot Party not only defers agendas
not in conflict with the party goals defending certain inalienable rights,
to the states, but the American Patriot Party and Oregon Patriot Party, beyond
state issues, defers and works to strengthen both county and local community
strengths against imposing state powers as well as federal.
Our aim is in educating the true definitions of freedom and reestablishing those definitions in all aspects of American law.
Many
people have never read the founding documents or the letters of this country
and often recite statements that have nothing to do with freedom.
It is critical to understand the foundations of freedom, otherwise we undermine its purpose, reason and intent.
What you should do before joining the American Patriot Party Independent States Parties or Oregon Patriot Party
1.) Read the Declaration of Independence. This is the founding document of this country and the true definition of Freedom.
a.) The Declaration of Independence defines your First Right and Duty as a Patriot of Freedom.
b.) The Declaration of Independence lists 40 Grievance that define 40 definitions of a Tyrannical government.
d.)
The Declaration of Independence draws from hundreds of years of slow and
agonizing history to establish the definition of freedom. From the Magna Carta 1200 AD to the Rights of the Colonists 1772, These are 1 page documents - copy them and save them to your desktop; See the full history. To the Originating Founders, is the intent of freedom defined:
2.) Know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
a.) These two documents are entirely different in their function.
b.)
The Declaration of Independence defines Certain Inalienable Rights that do
not change. The intent of these Certain Inalienable Rights are backed and
founded by the letters of the Founding Fathers of Freedom; All patriots who
died giving you and establishing your freedoms died for this document alone.
George Washington read this document to his men before battle so that there
was no question as to what they were sacrificing for.
c.)
The Constitution limits the Federal Government. That's it. It is a document
that was written many years after the Declaration of Independence, after
the Articles of Confederation of which this country operated on during the
revolution; The Constitution itself and the Federalists were opposed by many
of the Originating Founding Fathers of freedom for good reason;
d.)
No one died to ratify the Constitution. Though at the time was deemed a necessity
by some, this document has been incorrectly interpreted and these incorrect
interpretations usurped many of the purposes freedom was fought for; Such
as Independent States Rights, among others at the time;
Later corrupted
in areas such as where the 17th Grievance of the Declaration of Independence
was usurped by the 16th Amendment of the Constitution first deemed Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, then claimed "so called constitutional" by our so called "representatives" after amending the Constitution;
Certain, Inalienable, Rights, cannot be changed at will by representatives or any man, no matter how many vote upon it. That is why they are called "Certain" and "Inalienable".
The 16th Amendment remainsunconstitutional as the constitution's purpose is to protect inalienable rights as presented in the 17th Grievance of the Declaration of Independence - No taxation without our"CONSENT".
The word "Consent" is descriptive of freedom. It is used often in the documents. With out the ability to consent, you have no freedom.
e.)
The Constitution's (or "Central National Government") weakness is that, as
was warned by the Founding Fathers, it is able to be changed, altered and
corrupted.
And has been.
f.)No oath to the Constitution supersedes the Oaths first given and established in the Declaration of Independence; and no oath is held to any man that which original intent the oath was given has been corrupted; Military or Civilian.
--------------------
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."
Constitution: Article VI: All Debts contracted "and "Engagements" entered into (Oaths and Declarations),before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as validagainst 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 UnitedStates, shall be supreme Law of the Land ...."
*** Note that these "Supreme Laws" "Made" can only be madewithin the "VERY LIMITED" "DELEGATED powers.
This was clearly defined in the Constitutional Debates. The Federal Government must stay within the "limited delegated powers" and CANNOTARROGATEANYNEWPOWERS.
Mr. Pendleton:"... 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"."
This was also Clarified again Clearly, by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison after the Constitution was ratified when they established the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (which See)
"That
this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the
"States", to maintain which it pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it is their duty to watch over and oppose "every infraction" of those principles which constitute the "only basis" of that Union, because a "faithful observance" of them, can alone secure it's existence and the public happiness.
That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the "powers" of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the "plain sense and intention" of the instrumentconstituting the "compact"; as "no further valid" that they are authorized by the grants "enumerated" in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous "exercise" of "other powers", "not granted" by the said "compact", the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.
"... so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular "enumeration"which "necessarily" explains and "limits" the "general phrases"; and so as to "consolidate the states by degrees", into "one sovereignty", the obvioustendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the "present republican system"(1789) of the United States, into an "absolute", or at best a "mixed >monarchy<".
APP Note:
You can see how the federal government has twisted the Fifty United Free
Independent State Nations into "one nation" which the Founders had no intention by the Constitution; A simple limited "compact" between Free and Independent States (State Nations); And in fact here have placed a harsh warning >never to allow it.<
"That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution,
in the two late cases of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" passed at the last
session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power "no where delegated" to the federal government, and which by uniting legislative and judicial powers to those of executive, subverts the general principles of free government;as well as the particular organization, and positive provisions of the federal constitution; and the other of which acts, exercises in like manner, a power not delegated by the constitution, but on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto; a power, which more than any other, ought to produce universal alarm, because it is leveled against that right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed, the only effectual guardian of every other right
Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are NOT united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that governmentcertain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their "own self-government"; and that whensoever the general government "assumes undelegated powers", its "acts" are "unauthoritative, void, and of no force": that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compactwas NOT made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself;
since that would have made its discretion, and "not the Constitution", the "measure of its powers";
but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress...."
#8: "...that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy;BUT, where powers are assumed which have NOTbeen delegated, a "NULLIFICATION" of the act is the RIGHTFULREMEDY: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to NULLIFY of their OWN AUTHORITYALL assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this "RIGHT", they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: "
To ignore the intent set by these original authors, would be to attempt dissolution of the entire Constitution.
Or as John Locke 227 presents: "The "Umpirage" is removed when the legislature acts contrary to the end they "were" constituted, destroying the authority given to them by the consent of the people."
It is clear that the Constitution was never meant to be distorted to the extent that the president, federal government or legislature would be able to act without authorization by the states or beyond the limits set and delegated by the Constitution.
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"."
This is exactly what has happened in this country;
From the federal government assuming non-delegated powers within the states through federal Non-delegated(in theOriginal Compact)"departments"; and non-enumerated taxation in the form of the income tax;
To the states and federal governments granting "exclusive privileges" in the form and design of allowing the creation and existence of corporations, unions and special interest entities;
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 actsand things which independent states may of "right" do."
---------------
g.)
Does anyone think that these patriots died for another differently named
central government not unlike the one they just left and where fighting with
their lives to remove?
What
greater Engagement is there than a oath given by the founders, representatives
and people of their lives in the Declaration to uphold?!
The sole purpose and reasons for freedom are within that Declaration and the intents written in the early letters.
Clearly as written in the Constitution Article VI,
that the Constitution is bound by prior Oaths which are Engagements of the
People, declared in The Declaration of Independence, and all agreements set
forth in the Confederation; All those and future laws subject ultimately to those oaths which are "Engagements" of and with the People presented in the Declaration of Independence.
The
Constitution would never have existed without the Declaration of Independence;
and it, and all law, is bound by its intents and defined by the letters of
the originating Founding Fathers of 1776.
Freedom is "defined" in these certain inalienable rights;
And
being "certain" and "inalienable", these rights cannot be given away, voted
away by man or his representatives, surrounded by limiting requirements (infringed)
set of any man, government or institution, lost by folly to others, or sold.
Here it is defined in the letters by Samuel Adams:
-------------------
"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."
3.) Know where the Constitution has been Corrupted so you can understand where the changes need to take place and safeguards set.
Know
that the Federal Government of this country is a bureaucracy, it is not Freedom.
Federalism is not freedom. Nationalism and national pride is not freedom.
Borders are not freedom. Symbols are not freedom. Flags are not freedom.
Establish your understanding of freedom through the foundation of
the Declaration of Independence and the "Originating" Founders Letters.
Freedom is certain, inalienable, rights.And these rights are defined. They are not anything you want them to be.
If
certain inalienable rights are breached at all, (by vote, by reason or other)
you have nothing more than simply another form of "socialism".
There is many faces of socialism, but they are still socialism.
Examples of where the original Constitution has been Breached and Certain Inalienable Rights corrupted:
a.) Inalienable right Grievance 17 of the Declaration of Independence: No taxationwithout our "Consent";
Breached
by the 16th amendment of the Constitution; Income tax was declared unconstitutional
by the the supreme court; so what did these socialists do? They took an inalienable
right that protected us and usurped it by changing the Constitution; and
calling it then "Constitutional".
Results:Unlimited funds for the federal social bureaucracy machine.
What did the founding fathers of Freedom say about such acts of treason?
In defining Tyranny in government the Declaration of Independence presents:
17th Grievance: For imposing taxes on us without our consent;
Declaration of Independence opening paragraphs:
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.
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."
-----------------
This letter of Intent presents clearly that Inalienable Rights cannot even willingly be given away for any reason.
The 16th Amendment, income tax and taxation of any kind without each person's willing "Consent" is and continues to be unconstitutional, and in direct conflict of our certain inalienable rights, freedom and a free country.
The forced income tax has not only funds unlimited growth in bureaucracies, it also provides unlimited funds for "exclusive privileges" such as corporations and unions through government contracts; and special interests through tax right offs and loop holes.
b.) Inalienable Right Grievance 36 & 37 of the Declaration of Independence: define Independent States Rights as the purpose;
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."
Breached
by small the Portions of the Articles of Confederacy, Huge manipulations
of the authors of the Federalist Papers and Federalists, the Constitution
and Civil War.
Results: subjugation of independent states to a National Central Controlling federal socialist government.
c.) Inalienable right of a people to secede from any government: Declared in the Declaration of Independence opening paragraphs:
"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the "separate and equal station" to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
Breached by the Federalist Papers, the Constitution and Civil War.
Results: subjugation of independent states to a National Central Controlling federal socialist government.
d.)
Inalienable right Grievance 12 of the Declaration of Independence and founder's
intent: The right of the Civilians to possess greater powers than the standing
army.
12th Grievance: "He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power".
Breached by numerous federal gun laws.
In
addition to federal gun laws imposed by the National Firearms Act (1934),
Gun Control Act (1968), Firearms Owner`s Protection Act (1986), Brady Handgun
Violence Prevention Act (1993), the 1994 Omnibus Crime Control Act and other
laws, most states and some local jurisdictions have imposed their own firearms
restrictions.
Results:
subjugation of independent states and free individuals inalienable rights
from even their own states to a National Central Controlling federal socialist
government which also use administrative rules as if they were law. .
- subjugation of free individuals inalienable rights from Counties by Total democracy (socialist) majority passed laws
- subjugation to Laws of Corporations - this as Cities are corporations,
and create their own gun laws against the individual.
- subjugation and refusal of the right of a free people to use such inalienable
rights to remove such government as defined in the Declaration of Independence defined therein as your First Right and duty: "if any government ...... evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government..."
e.) Inalienable right Grievance 4 of the Declaration of Independence:
4th
Grievance: "He has called together legislative bodies, at places unusual,
uncomfortable, and distant from the repository of their public records, for
the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures."
Breached
by State "Administrative laws" that can force people to drive long distances
to "Hearings" and face appointed judges federal and state, with no juries;
This occurring, long before the trial in an area local to them, and
where findings of the Hearing, are given weight at the trial.
The
findings derived for which information was gathered together from the individual
under great duress to the individual because of this distance.
Corporate
and legal agreements (small print) that cause grievances of an individual
also to be held in a state or location far from the place of the occurrence.
Results:
subjugation to unconcerned contractors of law which have been contracted
by the state and federal governments following administrative rules as if
they were law; Which fatiguing individuals into compliance with state and
federal measures, limits the ability to provide witnesses, presenting them
with unfamiliar surroundings in which to bring and find needed information.
Subjugation
to corporate tactics using the same effect but greater, as such agreements
can cause people to travel thousands of miles to defend themselves.
f.) Inalienable right Grievance 10 of the Declaration of Independence:
The right to have a noninvasive non-complicated small non-intrusive and inexpensive government.
10th Grievance "... He has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."
Breached
by: Huge ever expanding government caused by our "representatives"
lack of understanding of true freedom and owing to union and corporate constituents
who have unlimited funds to lobby.
Results:
subjugation to an ever increasing government imposed bureaucracy, Loss of
individuals certain, inalienable, rights; increased and ever varied taxes
from bureaucracies and programs that eat out our substance.
I
hope this was a clear picture as to the depth that the federal socialist
government, corrupt representatives, its judges, has corrupted this free
country.
4.) Know that the Constitution does not overwrite
the Declaration of Independence or any of the Certain Inalienable Rights
that are the Basis and Foundation of Freedom.
a.) Rights, which are Supreme Law in a truly free country, are Certain and Inalienable.
Rights
that cannot be taken away, given away, voted away, changed, sold or altered
by any individual, government or entity. They are indeed Certain Inalienable
Rights.
About Membership in the American Patriot Party States Parties and the Oregon Patriot Party
The
purpose of membership allows us to register candidates in the various states
and also gives the party respect and credibility to the media, general public
and lawmakers.
We do not require you to revoke any current membership with other political parties.
On
the contrary, we highly recommend that you keep your membership in your current
political party until we have enough registered members in your state.
So you can be a registered Republican or Democrat and an American Patriot Party Member at the same time.
Even
after we have enough registered members, you may still wish to retain your
current political party membership and vote the American Patriot Party Platform.
This is entirely acceptable, as substance will always exceed titles in the
American Patriot Party.
Your membership is very important to the party.
Its fast, easy and free. All information is kept strictly confidential and
will never be sold or traded.
Mission Statement
The
American Patriot Party and Oregon Patriot Party are for the education and
strengthening of the meanings, rights and powers originally drafted in the
Declaration of Independence and by the founding fathers of this country.
That the states shall be free and independent respectfully, wherein the 39th Grievance of the Declaration of Independence clearly states:
"...
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."
The Declaration of Independence we believe is the defining document which bears a free peoples First Right and Duty.
All those who fought and died for the cause of freedom fought and died for the words in this document alone.
That "first right and duty" is clearly defined where in it states if "any form of government" oversteps its bounds, this includes the Constitution, the Federal government, or "any form" of government, it is the peoples right and duty to "correct it" or "throw it out";
This is the first Right and Duty of a true Patriot of Freedom, Wherein it states clearly:
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.
Such has been the patient suffering of these colonies, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government."
Our mission is to make America the free America that it was intended and outlined in the Declaration of Independence.
More complete National stands on issues will be be posted on an ongoing basis.
To Join:
To Join the American Patriot Party or Oregon Patriot Party see our JOIN Page. To start a New American Patriot Party State Party or an American Patriot Party States County Party, Contact Richard Taylor, Chair, or Matt Thiring, Co-Chair
Welcome People for the USA!
FREEDOM 101
1.) Republics, once created, cannot change and are LIMITED to the "ORIGINAL" COMPACT(S).
Samuel Adams: "When Men enter into Society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of "suchconditions", And "previous limitations" as form an equitable "ORIGINAL""COMPACT."
EVERY natural Right not expressly given up or from the nature of a Social "Compact" necessarily ceded "REMAINS"."
2.) Changes in the Federal Government are LIMITED to changes ONLY WITHIN the DELEGATED powers ORIGINALLY granted in the "ORIGINAL" COMPACT; They CANNOT ARROGATE ANY NEW POWERS;NOR
can the states "ratify" new powers upon them through the amendment process
which is limited to changes WITHIN the limited DELEGATED powers .
Edmund Pendleton, VIRGINIA RATIFYING CONVENTION 6-16-1788: "With respect to the necessity of the ten miles square being superseded by the subsequent clause, which gives them power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers VESTED by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in ANY department or officer thereof (Article VI), 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,
(N)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."
3.)The
federal government and all departments, except for forts in undeveloped territories
not developed into states (which now all lands are) are limited in AREA to the 10 miles square of Washington DC:
James Madison, VIRGINIA RATIFYING CONVENTION 6-16-1788:"
Mr. Chairman: I did conceive, sir, that the clause under consideration was
one of those parts which would speak its own praise. It is hardly necessary
to say any thing concerning it. Strike it out of the system, and let me ask
whether there would not be much larger scope for those dangers. I cannot comprehend that the power of legislating over a "SMALL district", which >>>CANNOT EXCEEDTEN MILES SQUARE, and >>>MAY NOT BE MORE THAN "ONE MILE", will involve the dangers which he apprehends. If there be any knowledge in my mind of the nature of man, I should think it would be the last thing that would enter into the mind of any man to grant exclusive advantages, in a VERY "CIRCUMSCRIBED DISTRICT" to the prejudice of the community at large.
4.)
The federal government cannot govern any police force within the states outside
the Ten Miles Square of Washington DC; Actually, by James Madison's terms,
only 1 mile:
GEORGE MASON: "...then observed that he would willingly give them(The federal government) exclusive power, as far as respected the police and good governmentof >>>THE "PLACE" (APP: THE "PLACE" i.e the 10 miles square of Washington DC); but he would give them >>>"NO MORE", because he thought it unnecessary."
Mr. GREYSTON: "...It was often in contemplation of Congress to have power of regulating the police of the seat of government; but they >>>"NEVER" had an idea of exclusive legislation in all cases. The power of regulating the police and good government of >>>"it" (APP: THE "PLACE" i.e the 10 miles square of Washington DC) will secure Congress against insults.
"What originated the IDEA" of the "exclusive legislation" was, some
insurrection in Pennsylvania, whereby Congress was insulted, on account
of which, it is supposed, they left the state. It is answered that
the CONSENT of the STATE MUST be required, or else they CANNOT have such a district, "OR" places for the erecting of forts..."
(APP
Note: the Civil War was begun by the federal government exceeding this limitation
of federal power in attempting to refuse a state's Constitutional Right of power of consent to allow or disallow federal forces to keep or occupy a fort within their state - FORT SUMTER)
Mr. PENDLETON. Mr. Chairman, this clause does "NOT" give Congress power to impede the operation of "ANY PART"of the Constitution, (N)or to make >>>"ANY" "REGULATION" that may affect the interests of the citizens of the Union >>>AT LARGE. But it gives them power over the "local" "police of THE >>>PLACE" (APP: THE "PLACE" i.e the 10 miles square of Washington DC),
so as to be secured from any interruption in their proceedings. Notwithstanding
the violent attack upon it, I believe, sir, this is the >>>"fair construction of the clause". It gives them power of exclusive legislation in any case within >>>THAT district.
What
is the meaning of this? What is it opposed to? Is it opposed to the general
powers of the federal legislature, or to those of the state legislatures?
I understand it as opposed to the legislative power of that state where it shall BE. What, then, is the power? It is, that Congress shall exclusively legislate there, in order to preserve {440} serve the "police" OF THE >>>"PLACE" and their OWN
personal independence, that they may not be overawed or insulted, and
of course to preserve them in opposition to any attempt by the state where
it shall BE this is the >>>"fair construction"."
-----------------
PEACE IS NO EXCUSE FOR SLAVERY
The greatest danger to our freedoms is an ignorant and systematic police and military forcethat does not know or care of the meaning and limits of our government's powers or the extent of our rights.
This condition allows for these forces to be misguided by the PRETENSE of AUTHORITY from those who direct them.
The
result will be, to easily use these forces as a tool of force against the
rights, liberty, freedoms and property of the citizens.
The ARROGATED POWERS far outside the limited original delegated powers, now used of the federal government, in which they are EXPRESSLY prohibited from arrogating outside the very limited delegated powers in the Ratifying Conventions that define the Constitution, are presently accepted by police and military without question;
The ignorance of police or military enforcing "ANY LAW" approved by state and federal legislatures is a real and actual danger.
This
is even though they have sworn to uphold the Constitution(s) which have already
long ago defined the laws we are to be under and no other;
The blind
adherence by military and police forces to obey unconstitutional laws and
directives of federal and state governments; which have so clearly detached
themselves from the people and Constitutional laws and limitations, has long
placed the military and police existence potentially at odds with the people
they are suppose to serve as with their own oath to office.
To keep from acting without authoritywhich is to assume the same status as criminal or enemy,
those in positions of police and military command need to set limits in policy
and act politically to reverse the present situation of this steady invasion
of rights and use of power through the Pretense of Authority.
If something is known to be a unconstitutional law they are called out to enforce, they need to learn to say NO.
Even if it means that peace will be ignored.
This is founded in Civil Law and clearly presented by John Locke on Civil Government.
Here
John Locke was Clear as to when "the Legislative" of any government or anyone
who revolts against its own country's laws put there by the consent and grant
of authority given by the people who created the legislative and the laws:
Locke #226. "Thirdly: I answer, that this power in the people of providing for their safety anew by a new legislative "when their legislators have acted contrary to their trust" by invading their property, is the best fence against rebellion, and the probable means to hinder it.
For rebellion being an opposition, not to persons, "but authority", which is "founded only in the constitutions and laws of the government": those, "whoever they be", who, by force, break through, and, by force, "justify their violation of them", are "truly and properly rebels".
For when men, by entering into society and civil government, have excluded force, and introduced laws for the preservation of property, peace, and unity amongst themselves, those who set up force again in opposition to the laws, "do rebellare" -- that is, "bring back again the state of war", and are "properly rebels",
>>>which "they who are in power", "by the >>>"PRETENSE THEY HAVE TO AUTHORITY", the temptation of force they have in their hands, and the "flattery of those about them" being likeliest to do,
>>>the proper way to prevent the evil is to "show them the danger" and "injustice of it" who are under the "greatest temptation to run into it".
APP Note: Thomas Jefferson did this quite well in the KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS when he warned the federal government of further bloodshed if they attempted to grant themselves powers to prosecute crimes that they were not delegated to prosecute.
Locke #227. In both the forementioned cases, when either the legislative is changed, OR the legislators act contrary to the end for which they were constituted,"those who are" guilty are guilty of rebellion.
For if any one by force takes away the established legislative of any society,
and the laws by them made, pursuant to their trust, he thereby takes away
the umpirage which every one had consented to for a peaceable decision of
all their controversies, and a bar to the state of war amongst them. They
who remove or CHANGE the legislative take away this decisive power, which
nobody can have but by the appointment and consent of the people, and so
destroying the authority which the people did, and nobody else can, set up,
and introducing a power which "the people" hath "NOT authorised", actually
introduce a state of war, which is that of "force without authority";
and thus by removing the legislative established by the society, in whose
decisions the people acquiesced and united as to that of their own will,
they untie the knot, and expose the people anew to the state of war.
And if those, who by force take away the legislative, are rebels, the LEGISLATORS THEMSELVES, as has been shown, can be NO LESS esteemed so, when they who were set up for the protection and preservation of the people, their liberties and propertiesshall by force invade and "endeavour to take them away"; and so they (the LEGISLATORS)putting "THEMSELVES" into a "state of war" with those (the people) who made them the protectors and guardians of their peace, are (the LEGISLATORS) properly, and with the GREATEST AGGRAVATION, rebellantes, rebels.
Locke #228.
But if they who say it lays a foundation for rebellion mean that it may occasion
civil wars or intestine broils to tell the people they are absolved from
obedience when illegal attempts are made upon their liberties or properties, and may oppose the "unlawful violence" of those who were their magistrates when they invade their properties, contrary to the trust put in them, and that, therefore, this doctrine is not to be allowed, being 'so destructive to the "peace" of the world';
>>> they may as well say, upon the same ground, that honest men may not oppose robbers or pirates
, because this may occasion disorder or bloodshed. If any mischief come in such cases, >>> it is not to be charged upon him who defends his own right, but "on him" that "invades his neighbour's".
If the innocent honest man must quietly quit all he has for peace sake to him who will lay violent hands upon it, I desire it may be considered what kind of a peace there will be in the world which consists only in violence and rapine,
and which is to be maintained only for the benefit of robbers and oppressors.
Who
would not think it an admirable peace betwixt the mighty and the mean, when
the lamb, without resistance, yielded his throat to be torn by the imperious
wolf?
Polyphemus's den gives us a perfect pattern of such a peace.
Such a government
wherein Ulysses and his companions had nothing to do but quietly to suffer
themselves to be devoured. And no doubt Ulysses, who was a prudent man, preached
up passive obedience, and exhorted them to a quiet submission by representing
to them of what concernment peace was to mankind, and by showing [what] inconveniencies
might happen if they should offer to resist Polyphemus, who had now the power
over them."
Locke #229. The end of government is the
good of mankind; and which is best for mankind, that the people should be
always exposed to the boundless will of tyranny, OR
that the rulers should be sometimes liable to be opposed when they grow exorbitant
in the use of their power, and employ it for the destruction, and not the
preservation, of the properties of their people?
Locke #230. Nor let any one say that mischief can arise from hence as often as it shall please a busy head or turbulent spirit to desire the alteration of the government. It is true such men may stir whenever they please, but it will be only to their own just ruin and perdition. For till the mischief be grown general, and the ill designs of the rulers become visible, or their attempts sensible to the greater part, the people, who are more disposed to suffer than right themselves by resistance, are not apt to stir. (Note: Review the Declaration of Independence for these exact words and or meaning)The examples of particular injustice or oppression of here and there an unfortunate man moves them not. But if they universally have a persuasion grounded upon manifest evidence that designs are carrying on against their liberties,
and the general course and tendency of things cannot but give them strong
suspicions of the evil intention of their governors, who is to be blamed
for it? Who can help it if they, who might avoid it, bring themselves into this suspicion?
Are the people to be blamed if they have the sense of rational creatures,
and can think of things no otherwise than as they find and feel them? And
is it not rather their fault who put things in such a posture that they would
not have them thought as they are? I grant that the pride,
ambition, and turbulency of private men have sometimes caused great disorders
in commonwealths, and factions have been fatal to states and kingdoms. But
whether the mischief hath oftener begun in the people's wantonness, and a
desire to cast off the lawful authority of their rulers, or in the rulers' insolence and endeavours to get and exercise an arbitrary power over their people, whether oppression or disobedience gave the first rise to the disorder, I leave it to impartial history to determine. This I am sure, whoever, either ruler or subject, by force goes about to invade the rights of either prince or people, and lays the foundation for overturning the "constitution" and "FRAME" of any just government, he is guilty of the greatest crime I think a man is capable of,
being to answer for all those mischiefs of blood, rapine, and desolation,
which the breaking to pieces of governments bring on a country; and he who
does it is justly to be esteemed the common enemy and pest of mankind, and is to be "treated accordingly"."
One has only to read the Ratifying Conventions to know without doubt that both federal and state governments have far exceeded their limited powers;
and have, in areas too numerous to count, invaded the rights, liberties and
properties of the people they are supposed to serve;
Their propensity of granting Exclusive Privileges has corrupted the very foundations of our governments.
The corruption has grown so obvious and "general" that it is necessary that the police and military deny the legislative, executive and judicial any consideration of any use of their force outside the limited delegated powers of the original compacts; and to yield and side with the citizenry respective of those limitations.
Become educated in the REAL ORIGINAL LAWS of our states and country; Make your choices now as to side; as neither ignorance or voluntary adherence to law without true authority granted by those original compacts will be given any consideration when the time comes to remove all arbitrary burdens.
Wish PEACE?
Show it by educating yourself and others and by making serious changes in your government, laws, practice and policies to RETURN and abide by the original intent of our constitutions;
Remove and or refuse to enforce laws that are clearly unconstitutional;
SHUN
State Born Exclusive Privileges such as corporations, Unions, tax supported
special interests, federal mandates, undelegated federal and state bureaucracies;
Remove ZONING laws that create "exclusive privileges between citizens"
and any other restrictions or regulations on free enterprise and use of property.
-------------------
US Military Armed Forces Base Directory:
Army
Major Commands, Army Major Commands AMC U.S.
Army Material Command located in Fort Belvior, VA. The official web
site is www.amc.army.mil AMC is the Army's premier provider of materiel
readiness to the total force across the spectrum of joint military operations.
If a soldier shoots it, drives it, flies it, wears it or eats it, AMC provides
it.
MTMC U.S. Army Military Traffic Management Command located
on Alexandria, VA. The official website is www.mtmc.army.mil
MTMC is the Department of Defense's heavy-equipment mover for contingency,
training and humanitarian operations.
MEDCOM U.S. Army Medical
Command located at Fort Sam Houston, Texas. The official website is
www.armymedicine.army.mil MEDCOM projects and sustains a healthy and
medically protected force; trains, equips, and deploys the medical force;
and manages and promotes the health of soldiers and military families.
USARPAC
U.S. Army Pacific located at Fort Shafter, Hawaii. The official
website is www.usarpac.army.mil USARPAC provides trained and ready
forces in support of military and peacetime operations in the Asia-Pacific
area in order to contribute to regional stability, crisis response and decisive
victory.
FORSCOM U.S. Army Forces Command located at Fort McPherson,
Georgia. The official website is www.forscom.army.mil The Army
component of U.S. Joint Forces Command, FORSCOM trains, mobilizes, deploys
and sustains active and reserve component forces capable of operating in
joint and combined environments to meet worldwide operational commitments.
USASOC
U.S. Army Special Operations Command located at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
The official website is www.soc.mil USASOC organizes, trains, educates,
mans, equips, funds, administers, mobilizes, deploys and sustains Army special
operations forces to successfully conduct worldwide special operations across
the range of military operations, in support of regional combatant commanders,
American ambassadors and other agencies, as directed.
USARSO
U.S. Army, South located at Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico. The official
website is www.usarso.army.mil USARSO commands and controls Army forces
in the U.S. Southern Command area of responsibility and provides theater
support for Army forces and headquarters as directed by the USSSOUTHCOM commander
in chief. USARSO will become a major subordinate command of FORSCOM
and move to Fort Sam Houston, Texas, during fiscal year 2003.
TRADOC
U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command located at Fort Monroe, Virginia.
The official website is www.tradoc.army.mil TRADOC shapes the 21st-century
Army by training and educating its soldiers and leaders while sustaining
the shared vision of how the Army operates as a member of joint service,
combined arms and multinational teams.
CID U.S. Army Criminal
Investigation Command located at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The official
website is www.cid.army.mil CID is the Army's criminal investigative
organization and conducts investigations in which the Army is or may be a
party of interest. CID provides senior leader protective-services and
forensic laboratory support to investigations; maintains the Army's criminal
records; provides logistical security from factory to foxhole; conducts computer
network intrusion investigations; and develops countermeasures to criminal
and subversive activity.
INSCOM U.S. Army Intelligence and Security
Command located at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The official website is
www.inscom.army.mil INSCOM conducts dominant intelligence, security
and information operations for commanders and national decision-makers, and
provides warfighters with the seamless intelligence needed to understand
and dominate the battlefield.
SMDC U.S. Space and Missile Defense
Command located in Arlington, Virginia. The official website is www.smdc.army.mil
SDMC develops and provides space and missile-defense capabilities for the
Army and the nation.
EUSA Eight U.S. Army located in Yongsan,
Korea. The official website is http://8tharmy.korea.army.mil
EUSA supports deterrence of North Korean aggression against the Republic
of Korea and, should deterrence fail, supports noncombatant-evacuation operations
and transitions to hostilities as it generates combat power to support the
United Nations Command and Combined Forces Command response.
USAREUR
U.S. Army, Europe located at Heidelberg, Germany. The official
website is www.hqusareur.army.mil As America's Army in Europe, USAREUR
is structured and trained as a versatile and agile power-projection force,
ready for joint and multinational operations, and committed to providing
for the readiness and well being of its soldiers, civilians and families.
USASCE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers located in Washington, D.C. The
official website is www.usace.army.mil USACE provides quality, responsive
engineering services to the Army, Department of Defense and the nation.
MDW
U.S. Army Military District of Washington located at Fort McNair, Washington,
D.C. The official website is www.mdw.army.mil MDW responds to
crisis, disaster or security requirements in the National Capital Region;
provides base operations support for defense organizations throughout the
NCR, including operation of Arlington National Cemetery; and conducts official
ceremonies on behalf of the nation's civilian and military leaders.
Provided by MilitaryDial.Com - home of Discount Long Distance, Cellular
Accessories, Printer Ink and Satellite TV for Military Members.
Pacific Command - U.S. Army Pacific 8th U.S. Army - 25th Infantry Division (Light) - 6th Cavalry Brigade - U.S. Army Japan - 17th Aviation Brigade - U.S. Army Alaska - 164th ATS Group - 18th Medical Command - 19th Theater Support Command - 2nd Infantry Division (Light)
Unit
Type
Base Barracks Pacific Command (PACOM) HQ Honolulu,HI Camp Smith
U.S. Army Pacific (USARPAC) HQ Bat Honolulu,HI Fort Shafter 45.SuppGr Wahiawa/Oahu,HI Schofield Bks 68.MedCo (AA)/524.SB UH-60A Wahiawa/Oahu,HI Wheeler AAF B.Co/214.Av(M)/524.SB CH-47D Wahiawa/Oahu,HI Wheeler AAF
U.S. Army Japan (USARJ) HQ Co Sagamihara,Japan Camp Zama 9.TSC Sagamihara,Japan Camp Zama 78.AvBat (CMD) Sagamihara,Japan Camp Zama/Kastner AAF 78.AvBat/A.Co C-12F, UH-60A Sagamihara,Japan Camp Zama/Kastner AAF 78.AvBat/D.Co Sagamihara,Japan Camp Zama/Kastner AAF
U.S. Army Alaska (USARAK) HQ Anchorage,AK Fort Richardson ArcticSuppBrig Anchorage,AK Fort Richardson 4.Bat/123.Av (TA) Fairbanks,AK Fort Wainwright/Ladd AAF 4.Bat/123.Av/B.Co (MHC) CH-47D Fairbanks,AK Fort Wainwright/Ladd AAF 4.Bat/123.Av/D.Co (AHC) UH-60A Fairbanks,AK Fort Wainwright/Ladd AAF C.Co/123.Av (AVIM) UH-60A, CH-47D Fairbanks,AK Fort Wainwright/Ladd AAF 68.MedDet (AA) UH-60A Fairbanks,AK Fort Wainwright/Ladd AAF 129.MedDet (AA) UH-1V Anchorage,AK Fort Richardson/Bryant AAF USAG Fort Greely/AvDet UH-1H Delta Junction,AK Fort Greely/Allen AAF
Back to Top
8th U.S. Army (EUSA) HQ Yongsan,RoK Yongsan Main Post 1 6.CavBrig (Air) Pyongtaek,RoK Camp Humphreys/Desiderio AAF 1.Sq/6.Cav (ATK) AH-64A Hoengsong,RoK Camp Eagle 3.Sq/6.Cav (ATK) AH-64D Pyongtaek,RoK Camp Humphreys/Desiderio AAF
17.AvBrig (TA) Yongsan,RoK Yongsan Main Post 1 1.Bat/52.Av (CMD) Songnam,RoK Seoul AB 1.Bat/52.Av/A.Co (CS) UH-60A Songnam,RoK Seoul AB 1.Bat/52.Av/B.Co (CS) UH-60A Songnam,RoK Seoul AB 1.Bat/52.Av/C.Co (CS) UH-60A Songnam,RoK Seoul AB 1.Bat/52.Av/D.Co (AVUM) Songnam,RoK Seoul AB 2.Bat/52.Av (MHB) Pyongtaek,RoK Camp Humphreys/Desiderio AAF 2.Bat/52.Av/A.Co (M) CH-47D Pyongtaek,RoK Camp Humphreys/Desiderio AAF 2.Bat/52.Av/B.Co (M) CH-47D Pyongtaek,RoK Camp Humphreys/Desiderio AAF 6.Bat/52.Av/A.Co (TA) C-12F Songnam,RoK Seoul AB
ACT = Air Cavalry Troop AE = Aerial Exploitation AHC = Assault helicopter company ATK = Attack ATS = Air traffic service AvSuppBat = Aviation support battalion AVUM = Aviation unit maintenance AVIM = Aviation intermediate maintenance Bks = Barracks CAC = Command and control CMD = Command Evac = Evacuation GSAB = General support aviation battalion M = Medium helicopter MI = Military intelligence RC = Reserve component SAC = Support aviation company
United States Army Pacific Command (USARPAC). The
U. S. Army, Pacific serves as the Army Component Command to the Commander
in Chief U. S. Pacific Command (USCINCPAC), less the geographic area of Korea.
USARPAC commands active U. S. Army and U. S. Army Reserve forces in Alaska,
Hawaii, Japan, and in possessions and trust territories administered by the
United States in US Pacific command.
In October 2000, USARPAC became
a Multi-Component Unit (MCU) and Army Service Component Command (ASCC) as
part of the US Army transformation to meet the emerging security needs of
the United States in which USARPAC continues to be a key strategic player.
The whole idea of the multi-component unit is to give active army units additional
resources to accomplish the mission. The multi-component integration is important
in the overall picture of the Army's success going into the 21st century.
With the Reserve and National Guard assuming a more active role in total
Army operations and the "One Team, One Fight, One Future" concept, multi-component
integration provides for a better understanding of each component's role
in achieving victory.
USARPAC trains Army Forces for support of military
operations and peacetime engagements in order to contribute to decisive victory
and promote regional stability. USARPAC solicits, awards, and administers
contracts in support of mission-related requirements, including administrative
supplies and services, waste disposal, food services, minor construction,
facilities, maintenance and repair, grounds maintenance, ADP equipment and
services, and laundry services.
Following World War II, numerous
Army headquarters in the central Pacific were consolidated with the goal
of forming a single Army command based in Hawaii. In 1957, the U.S. Army,
Pacific (USARPAC) was established at Fort Shafter, following inactivation
of the Far East Command. As Army component of the unified command led by
the U.S. Commander in Chief Pacific, USARPAC was assigned a threefold mission:
Provide necessary ground Army combat forces; Support those forces administratively
and logistically; and Provide reserves and contingency plans to meet any
ground threat to United States interests in the Pacific.
On March
23, 1979, The Department of the Army announced the establishment of the U.S.
Army Western Command (WESTCOM). Then, a decade later, U.S. Army forces in
the Pacific were further consolidated. Army units in Alaska and in Japan
were placed under the command of the Fort Shafter headquarters, which was
once again designated U.S. Army, Pacific. The new command was formally reestablished
on August 30, 1990.
In the years since the end of the Vietnam War,
Army forces in the Pacific have participated in major peacekeeping operations
in the Sinai Desert, and have provided humanitarian and disaster relief missions
in Bangladesh, the Philippines, Guam, and the island of Kauai.
Although
fully trained for warfare, USARPAC soldiers are also skilled in conducting
operations other than war. Whether it is assuring order among refugees at
Guantanamo, providing flood relief in the deltas of South Asia, or maintaining
a cease fire in the Middle East, USARPAC personnel operate far and wide in
peacekeeping and humanitarian missions. In late 1994, fully one half of the
25th Infantry Division deployed to Haiti as the United States and other governments
worked to restore democracy to that unfortunate nation. Two years later,
USARPAC peacekeepers went to Bosnia to help restore hope to that warshattered
land.
Joint Rear Area Coordination (JRAC)
The United
States Army Pacific (USARPAC), in partnership with local, state and federal
authorities, have developed a plan of preparedness for the state of Hawaii.
The Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command, has identified the USARPAC as the
executive agent for joint rear area coordination (JRAC). This task is normally
accomplished in a wartime theater of operation, but in this case, it is being
accomplished for the state of Hawaii. Teaming with local and state civil
organizations and federal agencies, JRAC-Hawaii (HI) has accomplished a significant
amount in the short time since Sept. 11.
JRAC-HI is protecting its
military installations by reducing and restricting entry points using roving
patrols. Guard duties have completely changed. Guards must now understand
the changing dynamics of a more dangerous world, and must learn to expect
the unexpected. Military installations worldwide are now on the front lines
and are the subject of surveillance and probes more than ever before. Guards
must be more alert to activities both on and off the installations, and they
must constantly vary security procedure patterns to eliminate predictability.
They must also be linked to local law enforcement and must be the beneficiaries
— and target audience — of a regular joint and interagency intelligence summary.
Because of these changing conditions, JRAC-HI reinstituted more formalized
guard mounts and instructions — tailored to the current operational environment.
JRAC-HI has identified mission essential or vulnerable areas
(MEVAs) both on and off the installations. MEVAs are facilities and capabilities
essential to accomplishing the military mission. These MEVAs have been thoroughly
assessed and security needs addressed. Tailored after general defense plan
(GDP) battle books from the Cold War in Europe, MEVA folders detail every
aspect relevant to the defense of these critical sites. Local civil authorities
have done the same with over 150 of their own MEVAs and both the civil and
military authorities regularly conduct site surveys.
JRAC-HI has
fine-tuned procedures for providing military support to civil authorities
(MSCA) in the event of a natural or man-made disaster. As the executive agent
for MSCA in Hawaii, American Samoa, and neighboring islands, JRAC-HI provides
a defense-coordinating officer to coordinate military support of civilian
consequence management operations. Even before Sept. 11, JRAC-HI maintained
a close relationship with local and state government leaders, who can leverage
many standing MSCA concepts and plans as the JRAC operation comes together.
JRAC-HI's participation in steering committees and plenary groups, such as
the Hawaii Emergency Preparedness Executive Committee, the Hawaii Energy
Council and the Joint Armed Services/State of Hawaii Civil Defense Coordinating
Committee, is instrumental in sharing information and developing joint and
civil-military solutions to emerging challenges.
JRAC-HI has established
quick reaction forces (QRFs) drawn from both U.S. Marine Corps and Army units.
These QRFs are capable of moving on short notice by air or road to any place
in the state to provide additional security or to assist in any other way.
While awaiting adjudication at the national level on the procedures for employing
those forces in domestic situations, JRAC-HI is regularly conducting joint
training with civil authorities.
JRAC-HI has worked to identify seams
in its collective efforts to secure Hawaii's soil and people. This coordination
is taking place with all the military services in Hawaii, state and local
civil defense (CD), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), National Guard (NG), Honolulu
Police Department (HPD), fire departments, and a host of other local and
federal government agencies such as the state health and transportation departments.
Also included in this effort are the FBI, Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS), U.S. Customs Service (USCS) and the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), as well as selected private firms and enterprises involved in supporting
Hawaii's critical infrastructure. The Joint Interagency Planning Group, established
by USARPAC within days of the attacks, has been the principal driver behind
this effort.
SPECIAL REPORT #1
European Union News
Socialists Start Takeover of EU
Raisingpolitical groupThresholdstatus before rival political parties will be recognized;
Watch these videos closely and more than once, so that you can understand what is taking place!
Watch as the "socialist party"(the smug and arrogant little instigator in the Red Tie and his counter part) has seduced the councils to ignore and defy European Union rules and procedure to pass for the "second time" a raise in the number of support states that will be necessary before a political party will even be recognized there.
Listen as he attempts to quell their fears by stating that it would not endanger "those parties""already" "in the Union"... and what about those who are not yet recognized but wish to be!
"Or"
if those parties already in the union are caused to fraction to their destruction,
that is, loosing the required number of states in which to be recognized,
then loosing representation of all those states!
This "threshold limit" purpose is only there to limit the competition and descent that may rise up against the will of the larger parties. This is made clear by those opposing the measure.
There is no other purpose but to destroy the voice and independence of the smaller republics;
What they should have asked this "little socialist" and his little Comrade, is why he saw raising the threshold for a SECOND TIME or even a first timeNECESSARY!
There being NO NECESSITY!
They need to find out who is filling his pockets and make ready the TAR and FEATHERS; Stocks and prison.
This steady corruption is a sure thing to start a war;
This is as the other European nations are alreadygranting themselves advantages in trade over Britain and others.
If you do not think so, look at the next video below"after" reviewing this one thoroughly!
SIMILARITY IN THE UNITED STATES
This removal of political competition exists in our country as well with the very same dangers:
Our country does this much of the same by causing a new party to gather thousands of votes before being recognized by a state as "a party"; And as the population and voters increase, so does the threshold to be recognized!
The Corruption is the same!
This is why all limitations to parties to be recognized should be removed as well as removal of any government funding for candidates.
It should not even be necessary to be recognized by anyone;
Nor should the state be involved with limiting or granting anything based on parties at all.
Simply proclaiming to be a party should be enough;
Then let the people decide at the voting booth on what party they will wish to support.
The result of party recognition policies is the establishment of:
"EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES"
The corruption shown by limiting recognition to only certain parties, is a "Exclusive Privilege" of "Advantage"granted by the state to existing parties; and no where granted in the Constitution(s) as a power.
It is against the freedom of expression, it is also a branch of corruption through the existence of unconstitutional income tax.
It
is no excuse to Create a Bar that well financed can can reach, then state,
"Well, if you are good enough to reach the bar, then you too can can have
your party printed on the voters ballot. " as if a list of party names
would use too much ink or paper.
This limits the competition to only the larger and better financed parties who are supported by other "exclusive privileged" organizations and collectives such as Corporations, Unions and Special interests such as Banks and national/international organizations.
Exclusive Privileges were warned by the founders never to exist in a free country.
IV :: That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community,
but in consideration of public services; which, not being descendible, neither
ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge be hereditary.
Constitutional Debates:
James Madison: "If there be any knowledge in my mind of the nature of man, I should think it would be the last thing that would enter into the mind of any man to grant exclusive advantages, in a very circumscribed district, to the prejudice of the community at large."
Warning by Greyston in the same debate indicating the granting of exclusive privileges is an abuse of power:
Mr. Greyston: "They may grant "exclusive privileges"
to any particular part of which they have the possession. But it may be observed
that those extensive countries will be formed into independent states, and
that their CONSENT will be NECESSARY. To this I answer, that they may still grant such "privileges"
as, in that country, are already granted to Congress by the states. The grants
of Virginia, South Carolina, and other states, will be subservient to Congress
in this respect. Of course, it results from the whole, that requiring the
consent of the states will be "NO GUARD" against this "ABUSE of POWER".
"...Adverting
to the clause investing Congress with the power of exclusive legislation
in a district not exceeding ten miles square, he said he had before expressed
his doubts that this {431} district would be the favorite of the generality,
and that it would be possible for them to give"exclusive privileges" of commerce to those residing within it. He had illustrated what he said by "European examples". It might be said to be impracticable to exercise this power in this manner. Among the various laws and customs which pervaded Europe, there were exclusive privileges and immunities enjoyed in many places.
He thought that this ought to be guardedAGAINST; for should such "exclusiveprivilegesbe granted to merchants" residing within the ten miles square, it would be HIGHLY injuriousto the inhabitants of OTHER PLACES."
This is a lesson told over and over in history;
Adequate Representation Needs Small Independent Republics
Relate this statement by George Mason in the Constitutional Debates to what is clearly happening in these videos of the European Union:
Mr. GEORGE MASON:"thought
that there were few clauses in the Constitution so dangerous as that which
gave Congress "exclusive power of legislation" within "ten miles square".
Implication, he observed, was capable of "any extension", and would probably be extended to augment the congressional powers."
"But
here there was no need of implication. This clause gave them an unlimited
authority, in every possible case, within that district. This ten miles square, says Mr. Mason, "may set at defiance the laws of the surrounding states",(which has already occurred in the US and in the EU) and may, like the custom of the superstitious days of our ancestors, become the sanctuary of the blackest crimes. Here the federal courts are to sit. We have heard a good deal said of justice."
The protections defined by the Founders to this danger, was that of the limitation of our federal government to "delegated powers";
Which our federal government has begun stepping beyond to allow the corruption we see taking place in "our" country and states from our design of "union"; It has taken 200 years for the peak of corruption to begin in our country because of our state constitutions and jealous protections of them have restrained the progress;
Early Corruption in Europe's Union
But look how quickly the corruption has taken hold of the European Union in just a few years;
Those who have bided their time, have found the vehicle in the European Unionto
disarm the nations and strip what very few freedoms the people there do have
(see lower video of removing their rights to even the simplest weapons).
Where the only hopethey have to retain their sovereignties from being taken over completely by the banking and corporate elite,...
Would beto immediatelycast down the Union altogether, or be chained hand and foot to it until their destruction.
And to deny those, if they are not the same in heritage,
who would find victory in enslaving their past enemies through the means
of finance, debt and dependency; To enslave countries who had in earlier
times had defeated them in a justly fought and won, open war.
George Mason gave another warning relating to "this type" of take over; and further about giving too much power to a "central group"such as our US congress, which is suppose to be highly limited to the 10 miles square of Washington DC
except for forts in the unclaimed territory until the land was constructed
into states who would then take full control and management.
George Mason:"The objection was, that too much power was given to Congresspowerthat wouldfinally destroy the "state governments""more effectually" by >>>insidious, "underhanded means", >>>than such as could be openly practiced.
This, said he, is the opinion of many worthy men, not only in this Convention, but in all parts of America."
Now let us view the Second video of the forces within the European Union granting Exclusive Privileges in trade to some states and not others, listen to the complaint of the British spokesman:
John Locke: 155. "It may be demanded here, what if the executive power, being possessed of the force of the commonwealth, shall make use of that force to hinder the meeting and acting of the legislative, when the "original constitution" or the public exigencies require it? I say, using force upon "the people", "without authority", and contrary to the trust put in him that does so, >>>is a state of war with "the people", who have a right to reinstate their legislative in the exercise of their power.
For having erected a legislative with an intent they should exercise the
power of making laws, either at certain set times, or when there is need
of it, when they are hindered by any force from what is so necessary to the
society, and wherein the safety and preservation of the people consists,
the people have a RIGHT to remove it BY FORCE.
In ALL states and conditions the true remedy of force without authority
is to oppose force TO it.
The use of force "without authority"ALWAYS puts him that uses it into a state of war as the aggressor, and renders him liable to be "treated accordingly"."
John Locke#201:
"...For exceeding the bounds of authority is no more a right in a great than
a petty officer, no more justifiable in a king than a constable."
John Locke #221: There is, therefore, secondly, another way whereby governments are dissolved, and that is, when the legislative, or the prince, either of them "act contrary to their trust".
For the legislative acts against the trust reposed in them when they endeavour to invade the property of the subject, and to make >>>themselves, >>>OR ANY PART of the COMMUNITY, masters or arbitrary disposers of the lives, liberties, or fortunes of "the people".
John Locke #222: The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property; and the end while they choose and authorise a legislative is that there may be laws made, and rules set,
as guards and fences to the properties of all the society, to limit the power
and moderate the dominion of every part and member of the society. For since it can never be supposed
to be the will of the society that the legislative should have a power to
destroy that which every one designs to secure by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making:
WHENEVER the >>> legislatorsendeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a "state of war" with "the people", who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence...."
James Madison - Virginia Resolutions:
"...That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the "powers" of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as LIMITED by the >>>"plain sense and intention" of the instrumentconstituting the "compact"; as "no further valid" that they are >>>authorized by the grants "enumerated" in "THAT"compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous "exercise" of "OTHER powers", "NOT granted" by the said "compact",
the states who are parties thereto, have the RIGHT, and are in DUTY BOUND, to interpose for arresting the progress of the EVIL, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them."
SPECIAL REPORT #2
EXPOUNDING on GENERAL PHRASES
SUPREME LAW OF THE "LAND"? DEFINE "LAND".
The Founders defined the term "Land" and the "Supremacy of it, often referring "ONLY" to the 10 miles square of Washington DC.
a.) Cannot serve police outside the 10 miles square of Washington DC.
b.) Nor can they prosecute crimes other than the few crimes allowed to be prosecuted by them by the delegated powers and cannot create any new laws or crimes in which they would even have the power to prosecute. i.e. Could Not ArrogateANY NEW POWERS
c.)
Lands in undeveloped territories were not to be used to the prejudice of
any existing state; But when any territory became a state, that state was
to take full management of all lands within it's borders for distribution
to the people who chose to settle within it.
d.) The federal government and "departments" were limited to the 10 miles square, except for needful forts in undeveloped territories, only where states gave permission when developed into states.
Problems occur as warned by the Founders, when the Constitution is taken by its single face value and not related the Ratifying Conventions that define the meaning of the words written in the Constitution; And as warned, governments begin to EXPOUND on "GENERAL PHRASES" without stopping to consider the LIMITATIONSof those
>>>"GENERAL PHRASES":
------------
The PHRASE and Extent of the word "LAND"
When the PHRASE in the Constitution "Supreme Lawof the Land" is used, when correctly defined through the Ratifying Conventions, that "LAND" was limited in most places to the 10 miles square of Washington DC when describing supreme powers within the states, and NOT to be interpreted as a "unlimited power" of Congress over or within all states;
That "Supremacy" was thereby limited to a SMALL AREA in most cases (see James Madison below);
And limited to delegated powers in all others.
-----------------
The Declaration and Intent:
Thomas Jefferson Declaration of Independence 1776:
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;
39.) 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.
"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."
-----------------
The "Limited" Constitutional Compact:
Constitution 1788: 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 >>>"supremeLaw "of the Land" ...."
----------------
AUTHORITY
"Authority" and "Supremacy are "limited" to the "VeryLimited DELEGATED" powers; and the words "of the Land" is limited in most cases to meanONLY within the 10 miles square of Washington DC, and ONLY elsewhere within the"DELEGATED" powers.
It is NOT a "sweeping power", but a exclusive, defined and "very limited" power. It is a >>>"GENERAL PHRASE" NOT to be distorted or "EXPOUNDED" upon to grant unlimited powers:
-----------------
MISUSE of GENERAL PHRASES
This misuse of "GENERAL PHRASES" in the Constitution was first stopped by the authors of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution - Thomas Jefferson and James Madison when they wrote the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions in response to the John Adams administration passing the Alien and Sedition acts.
James Madison:" ....That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the "federal government", to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the >>>constitutional charter "which >>>defines them"; and that implications have appeared of a "design" to
>>>>>>>"EXPOUND" certain "GENERAL" "PHRASES"
(which having been copied from the "very limited" grant of power, in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the "particular" "enumeration" which>>>"necessarily" explains and >>>limits" the "GENERAL" "PHRASES"; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into one sovereignty (i.e. ONE NATION - clearly here establishing something never intended), the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at best a >>>mixed MONARCHY".
A wake up call from James Madison's testimony and others, 10 years prior:
JAMES MADISON. Mr. Chairman: "...I cannot comprehend that the power of legislating over a "small district", which >>>"CANNOT EXCEED" >>>ten miles square, and may >>>"NOT be" more than "ONE" mile, will involve the dangers which he apprehends.
If there be any knowledge in my mind of the nature of man, I should think it would be the last thing that would enter into the mind of any man to grant exclusive advantages, in a "VERY" circumscribed district, to the prejudice of the community at large.
...... Let me remark, if not already remarked, that there must be a cession, by particular states, of the district to Congress, and that the states may settle the terms of the cession.
The states may make what stipulation they please in it, and, if they apprehend
>>>"ANY" danger,
they >>>"MAY"
>>>REFUSE it >>>ALTOGETHER."
Mr. LEE "... Gentlemen had suggested that the seat of government would become a sanctuary for state villains, and that, in a short time, ten miles square would subjugate a country of eight hundred miles square.
(APP: This statement shows that the federalists had no idea of how power corrupts - the federal government has subjugated not only the state but all the states today)
This appeared to him a most improbable possibility; nay, he might call it "impossibility".
Were the place crowded with rogues, he asked if it would be an agreeable
place of residence for, the members of the general government, who
were freely chosen by the people and the state governments. Would the
people be so lost to honor and virtue, as to select men who would willingly
{436} associate with the most abandoned characters? He thought the honorable
gentleman's objections against remote possibility of abuse went to prove
that government of no sort was eligible, but that a state of nature was preferable
to a state of civilization. He apprehended no danger; and thought that persons
bound to labor, and felons, could not take refuge in the ten miles square,
or other places exclusively governed by Congress, because it would be contrary to the Constitution, and a palpable usurpation, to protect them.
Mr. PENDLETON. "...With respect to the necessity of the ten miles square being superseded by the subsequent clause, which gives them power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers VESTED by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof, 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,
(N)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"."
(APP: Note that state's federal representatives (house and senate) "ratifying" laws outside the "delegated" powers is an "ARROGATED" power. The income tax is an "ARROGATED" power; Printing paper money and not using gold and silver as currency is a "ARROGATED" power; Mandates on states is an "ARROGATED" power;
The "ratifying or amendment" process was for correcting and limiting existing delegated federal powers, NOT to be used as a means of states or federal governments to ARROGATE NEW POWERS "outside" the original DELEGATED POWERS, which clearly the federal and state governments are PROHIBITED from doing (or allowing to be done) by "ANY" "MEANS". As Edmund Pendleton establishes)
"Suppose it was contrary to the sense of their constituents to grant exclusive privileges to citizens residing"within >>>THAT place"
(APP Note: Today's corruption does not limit this to that area and extends far beyond - Corporations, Unions, Tax supported Special Interests, Undelegated - Under the Original Compact - state and federal bureaucracies as well as Zoning grants & restrictions are ALL examples of "exclusive privileges" granted by the state);
the effect would be directly in opposition to what he says. It could have NO operation without the LIMITS of >>>"THAT" district. Were Congress to make a law granting them an exclusive privilege of trading to the East Indies, it could have >>>NO effect the moment it would go without >>>>>>>"THAT" PLACE;
for their >>>>>"exclusive power" is>>>>>"CONFINED" to
>>>>>>>>>>>"THAT" district.
Were they to pass such a law, it would be NUGATORY; and "EVERY" member of the community at large could trade to the East Indies as well as the citizens of that district. This "exclusive" power is "LIMITED" to>>>>>>>"THAT" PLACE "SOLELY", for their >>>OWN preservation, which all gentlemen allow to be necessary. "
Federal Police powersinside the United States are LIMITED to THAT area within the 10 miles square:
GEORGE MASON: "...then observed that he would willingly give them exclusive power, as far as respected the police and good governmentof >>>THE "PLACE"; but he would give them
>>>"NO MORE", because he thought it unnecessary."
Mr. GREYSTON: "...It was often in contemplation of Congress to have power of regulating the police of the seat of government; but they >>>>>>>"NEVER" had an idea of exclusive legislation in all cases. The power of regulating the police and good government of >>>"it" (APP: THE "PLACE") will secure Congress against insults.
"What originated the IDEA" of the "exclusive legislation" was, some
insurrection in Pennsylvania, whereby Congress was insulted, on account
of which, it is supposed, they left the state. It is answered that
the CONSENT of the STATE MUST be required, or else they CANNOT have such a district,
"OR" places for the erecting of forts..."
(APP
Note: the Civil War was begun by the federal government exceeding this limitation
of federal power in attempting to refuse a state's Constitutional Right of power of consent to allow or disallow federal forces to keep or occupy a fort within their state - FORT SUMTER)
Mr. PENDLETON. Mr. Chairman, this clause does "NOT" give Congress power to impede the operation of "ANY PART"of the Constitution, (N)or to make >>>"ANY" "REGULATION" that may affect the interests of the citizens of the Union >>>AT LARGE.
But it gives them power over the "local" "police of THE >>>PLACE",
so as to be secured from any interruption in their proceedings. Notwithstanding the violent attack upon it,
I believe, sir, this is the "fair construction of the clause".
It gives them power of exclusive legislation in any case within >>>>>>>THAT district.
What
is the meaning of this? What is it opposed to? Is it opposed to the general
powers of the federal legislature, or to those of the state legislatures?
I understand it as opposed to the legislative power of that state where it shall BE. What, then, is the power? It is, that Congress shall exclusively legislate there,
in order to preserve {440} serve the "police" OF THE >>>>>>>"PLACE" and their OWN
personal independence, that they may not be overawed or insulted, and
of course to preserve them in opposition to any attempt by the state where
it shall be this is the
>>>>>>>"fair construction".
POWER TO PROSECUTE CRIME "LIMITED" to the DELEGATED POWERS ONLY
The powers of "prosecuting crimes" are limited to "ONLY THOSE CRIMES listed in the delegated powers granted the federal government under the >>>ORIGINAL COMPACT - i.e. the >>>ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION:
"#2. Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to:
a.) punish treason, b.) counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, c.) piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and d.) offenses against the law of nations, and
>>>>>>>"NO OTHER" CRIMES,
>>>>>>>"WHATSOEVER";"
FBI,
CIA, DEA, ATF etc. are all undelegated federal powers within the states;
and all "other" "crimes" which the federal government now prosecute outside
these limited delegated powers are the true responsibility of the individual state's within their own territory.
(illegal aliens etc. are a states responsibility)
"and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,"therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," as also the act passed by them on the day of June, 1798, intituled "An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States," (and "ALL" their OTHER acts which >>>ASSUME to >>>create, >>>define, or >>>punish crimes, OTHER than those SO ENUMERATED in the Constitution,)
are >>>"ALTOGETHER" >>>"VOID", and of >>>"NO FORCE";
and that the power to create, define, and punish such OTHER crimes is RESERVED, and, of right, appertainssolely and exclusively to the respective States,
>>>>>>>each within its OWN territory."
THE ORIGINAL INTENT:
Declaration of Independence 1776:
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."
The original "General Welfare" or purpose of the Constitution was to provide defense against obvious foreign aggression and the setting of standards between states for orderly commerce, limited within the "delegated" powers.
ALL other powers were reserved by the states and no less to the people;
PARTY COMPARISON
We are often asked why patriotic parties are so fractured.
To illustrate, we will compare probably the closest party to our own, the Constitution Party.
The
major difference between our party and the Constitution party, as well other
"patriotic" parties, is that the Constitution party still seems to start
from the Constitution at face value without referring to the Ratification Conventions that quite necessarilydefine the meaning of the GENERAL PHRASES in the Constitution and LIMITATIONSset by the Founders of and written in that constitution.
We have not seen much in the way of any other party presenting the limitations established both in historical Common Law that are still in effect as preexisting claim to rights; or those limitations to the Constitution defined in the Ratifying Conventions;
George Nicholas: 6-16-1788: "....But the "COMMON LAW" is "NOT EXCLUDED". There is "NOTHING" in "that paper"(APP Note: referring to the US Constitution being considered) to warrant the assertion. ....A bill of rights is only an acknowledgment of the preexisting claim to rights in the people.
>>>They belong to us as much as if they had been inserted in the Constitution."
It
seems that though the Constitution Party promotes that they are for states
rights, they tend to lean toward still enacting laws from congress outside the delegated powers over all the states;Rather than giving it to states and counties to decide so enforcing state and county laws to NULLIFY undelegated powers both federal and state; or to leave states, counties and people to empower themselves;
The Constitution Party also still seems to promote the Federal Constitution as unlimited in power often quoting "supreme law of the land" as an absolute power, which it is not in the way they present it; Or as a means to promote goals in the states through the constitution or federal legislative not delegated to them in some areas of >>>their interest.
We
are unconvinced, though the Constitution Party has many good features, that
the Constitution Party (or other party) would simply remove the federal hand
from the states to such the extent as was clearly intended by the Founders(though some of CP's state parties might follow others lead to do so).
Expecting the federal government to act on undelegated powers, empowers the federal government to act outside the delegated powers;
The Constitution Party, as with other parties, by expecting a "national" decision, create their own opposition!
Instead
of removing undelegated federal powers and presence from the states, so that
local communities can enforce their own laws without national opposition and interference!
Manipulation by State Exclusive Privileged Groups.
Nor are we convinced that if in power that the Constitution Party or other party except our own would act to remove "exclusive privileges" that the founders insisted should never exist in the states.
Corporations; Unions; Tax supported Special Interests; Undelegated - Under the Original Compact - state and federal bureaucracies; as well as Zoning grants & restrictions; are ALL examples of "exclusive privileges" granted by the state;
If you have to ask the government to do something, someone else is prohibited unless they too ask, it is an exclusive privilege;
Stating
that someone else can have an exclusive privilege if they ask the state,
or are fortunate enough to acquire from the state, as may be an argument,
is no excuse for allowing that which should not exist.
Yet
another of our many goals we do not believe any other party would even
consider, but is critical in strengthening and empowering local representation
and local control;
Ultimate Solution
Nullification by the states of ALLundelegated federal powers, bureaucracies and federally mandated state bureaucracies within their state borders, as well as relinquishing their own state powers by granting all counties within their state, full statehood for adequate local representation; as well as federal acknowledgment by each state's federal representation as directed by the Constitution for new states.
We hope to have these and other comparisons when we complete our Compare page as well as discuss the misuses of the term "Freedom of Contract" and free trade when "exclusive privileges" are allowed to exist.
Education
Directing others to learn the true intent of the founders by having them read the Ratifying Conventions of 1788 (full day debate 6-16-1788 with a link at bottom of page into all the conventions at constitution.org) which define the meaning and intent of both the Constitution and Federalist papers, is the first step to regaining control of this country.
Voluntary ignorance of those who simply refuse to read these documentsis our greatest enemy.
Fractured Patriotism
The reason many so called "patriotic" parties are so "splintered" is much from this ignorance and confusion brought about by "blind undefined nationalistic patriotism"; Instead of knowledgeable, historically correct and "factually based patriotism" which is clearly defined in the documents.
These issues need to be remedied before so called patriotic parties can support one another.
So long as parties:
a.) try to place the pulpit or other undelegated issues in a federal position, where NO power to do so was ever delegated;
b.) attempt to make "one nation" out of nation of independent states; Which was never intended;
c.) or refuse to simply empower the states and local communities were the power was reserved and best served;
...then they will continue
to allow all the combined states, and general national and international
opinions to dictate over the individual states and communities and continue
a power over us, which was never delegated to them, or to congress to do so.
NULLIFICATION THE RIGHTFUL REMEDY
Nullificationby State or CountyResolution or Local JudicialJudgment of ALL undelegated federal and state powers and bureaucracies not listed under the Original Compactby any and every local county or state judge,or county or state legislature, is the first step:
<> ...that this "general welfare" was united, "NOT" to "the general power of legislation", but to the <>particular power<> of laying and collecting taxes, imposts, and excises,
>>>FOR THE PURPOSE of paying the debts and providing for the "common defence",
that is, that they could raise as much money as would pay the debts and provide for the "common defence", in "consequence of this power". The clause which was affectedly called the sweeping clause (Article VI) contained "NO new grant of power".
To illustrate this position, he observed that, if it had been added at the
end of every one of the enumerated powers, instead of being inserted at the
end of all, it would be obvious to any one that it was "NO" augmentation of power.
If,
for instance, at the end of the clause granting power to lay and collect
taxes, it had been added that they should have power to make necessary and
proper laws to lay and collect taxes, who could suspect it to be an addition
of power? As it would grant "NO"new power if inserted at the end of each clause, it could not when subjoined to the whole.
He then proceeded thus: But, says he, who is to determine the extent of such powers?
I say, the same power which, in >>>>>>>ALL well-regulated communities, determines the "extent" of "legislative" powers.
If they exceed these powers, the "JUDICIARY" WILL declare it "VOID",
or else "the PEOPLE" will have a "RIGHT" to declare it "VOID".
Kentucky Resolution 1798
Thomas Jefferson:
".....that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is "NOT" for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this commonwealth is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powersin
>>>"NO""MAN", or "BODY of MEN"
on EARTH:
that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy;
>>>>>>>BUT, where powers are assumedwhich have NOT been delegated,
a >>>"NULLIFICATION" of the act is the "RIGHTFUL REMEDY"
thatevery State has a natural RIGHT in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to NULLIFY of their OWN AUTHORITY"ALL" assumptions of power by others within their limits:
thatwithout this "RIGHT", they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them:"
Local and StateJudges who do not Nullify on a regular basisany and all undelegated federal powers and bureaucracies are the first problem to be removed; and replaced with those who will.
SPECIAL REPORT #3
Federal Government and Socialists Demonizing that which should be exalted and Confusing that which was clearly written.
Speeches and Videos to Remind Us.
Dwight D. Eisenhower's Secretary of Agriculture, Ezra Taft Benson
Below are two subjects, The first is where the Executive organizes others in government to do his own bidding; and Second,
the practice past and present, to use such confusion as mentioned in the
above videos, to demonize those things that in freedom we should be exalting.
In this subject, the MILITIAS.
See the below VIDEO of Obama creating a special branch in government of his own making, and purposes; So to exceed his authority.
A Warning from John Locke about the Executiveverbally establishing his intentions to dictate powers not delegated to him:
John Locke 168: The old question will be asked in this matter of prerogative, "But who shall be judge when this power is made a right use of?" I answer: Between an executive power in being, with such a prerogative, and a legislative that depends upon his will for their convening, there can be no judge on earth.
As there can be none between the legislative and the people, should either the executive or the legislative, when they have got the power in their hands, design, or go about to enslave or destroy them, the people have no other remedy in this, as in "ALL other cases" where they have no judge on earth, but to >>> appeal to Heaven;(APP Note: This Appeal to Heaven is clearly written in the Declaration of Independence) for the rulers in such attempts, exercising a power the people NEVER put into their hands, who can NEVER be supposed to consent that anybody should rule over them for their harm, do that which they have NOT a right to do.
And where the >>>body of the people, or ANY SINGLE MAN, are deprived of their right, "or" are under the >>>"exercise of a power WITHOUT right", having no appeal on earth they have a liberty to appeal to Heavenwhenever THEY judge the cause of >>>"SUFFICIENT MOMENT"."
John Locke 222: "...He (the Executive) acts alsocontrary to his trustwhen he employs the force, treasure, and >>>offices of the society to corrupt the representatives and gain them to his purposes, when he openly pre-engages the electors, and prescribes, to their choice, such whom he has, by solicitation, threats, promises, or >>>otherwise, won to his "designs", and "employs them" to bring in such who have promised beforehand what to vote and >>>what to enact....
(APP: Relate this to below video Obama creating a new branch to incarcerate indefinitely those who "He or the legislative" deems dangerous)>>>
...To prepare such an assembly as this, and endeavour to set up the declared abettors of his own will, for the true representatives of the people, and the law-makers of the society, is certainly as >>>GREAT a BREACH OF TRUST, and as perfect a declaration of a "DESIGN" to SUBVERT the government, as is possible to be met with.
To which, if one shall add rewards and punishments visibly employed to the same end, and all the arts of perverted law made use of to take off and destroy all that stand in the way of such a >>"design", and will not comply and consent to betray the liberties of their country, it will be
>>>>past doubt what is doing.
What power they ought to have in the society who thus employ it contrary to the TRUST that along with it in its FIRST institution (Original Compact i.e. Constitution and limited delegated powers), is easy to determine; and one cannot but see that he who has once attempted any such thing as this >>>cannot any longer be trusted."
--------------------
See this in the 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"and compareLocke 223-226)
"#2. Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to:
a.) punish treason, b.) counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, c.) piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas (only), and d.) offenses against the law of nations, and
>>>>>>>"NO OTHER" CRIMES,
>>>>>>>"WHATSOEVER";"
---------------------
2.) Government Demonizing that which should be EXALTED.
LOCAL MILITIAS
George Mason ten years earlier warning of the demonizing of the militia by governments illustrated the dangers:
Mr. GEORGE MASON(Virginia Ratifying conventions 6-16-1788):"asked to what purpose the laws were read. The objection was, that >>>too much power was given to Congress powerthat would finally destroy the state governments more effectually by insidious, >>>underhanded means, than such as could be openly practiced.
This, said he, is the opinion of many worthy men, not only in this Convention, but in all parts of America.These laws could only show that the legislature of this state could pass such acts. He thought they militated against the cession of this power to Congress, because the state governments could call forth the militia when necessary, so as to compel a submission to the laws; and as they were competent to it,Congress ought not to have the power.
George Mason then Warns of the danger:
The meeting of three or four persons might be called an insurrection, (APP: by the federal government) and the militia (Now it would be standing army under control of congress)might be called out to disperse them.(i.e. against the people and their liberties for "the federal or state government's" own purposes)
He was not satisfied with {416} the explanation of the word "organization" by the gentleman in the military line, (Mr. Lee.)
He thought they were not confined to the technical explanation, but that Congress could inflict severe and ignominious punishments on the militia(APP: then, ALL the people), as a necessary incident to the power of organizing and disciplining them.
The gentleman had said there was no danger, because the laws respecting the
militia were less rigid in the other states than this. This was NO conclusive argument. His fears, as he had before expressed, were, that grievous punishments would be inflicted, in order to render the service disagreeable to the "militia themselves", and "induce them" to wish its abolition, >>>>>which would afford a >>>>"pretence" for establishing a "standing army".
(APP Note: This has already happened)
He was convinced the STATE GOVERNMENT"S" ought to have the control of the militia,except when they were absolutely necessary for general purposes. The gentleman had said that they would be "only subject to martial law when in "actual service".He demanded >>>>what was to hinder Congress from >>>inflicting it always, and making a >>>general law for the purpose.
(APP Note: This has already happened)
>>>>If so, said he, it must finally produce, most infallibly, the annihilation of the state governments. These were his apprehensions; but he prayed God they might be groundless."
---------------
RELATED VIDEO
The below video has poor audio due to the person creating it having recorded music for effects; Best if volume is lower to reduce static noise.
The presentation is however good and underscores the fact that government has created their own issues bystepping outside the limited delegated powers and have imposed upon the people burdensome taxes, caused by the creation and support of Exclusive Privileged organizations such as:
a.)Unions, with dictated maximumwages - salaries (prevailing wages) in and out of government forcing citizens to pay them through arbitrary, unconstitutional and unconsensual taxation;
b.)Corporations, and "exclusive privileged"
government contracts that limit competition by actual individuals under the
guise of free trade; Paid both exaggerated profits and also maximum wages &"professional" salaries(prevailing wages) through those contracts;
c.) Undelegated laws accepted by states in the form of "mandates" formed by Special Interests Groups created and paid through tax dollars assisted from a unconstitutional income tax
that allows tax write-offs when moneys are given to "so called" "Non Profits"
insuring steady flow of capital for support; Such "lawsplacing undo andarbitrary burdens upon the people and their properties;
Further aggravated by Corporate funds to establish environmental laws they can benefit by, that limits outside competition;
and "land trusts" taking land out of private ownership and placing it into government hands so that it can only be accessed through large corporate exclusive privileged contracts.
d.) Undelegated (under the original compact) federal and state bureaucracies
As a result, harsh and unconstitutional regulations have been establishedwithout constitutional authorityas a result of such laws and bureaucraciesnever delegated to any government through the constitution;
Therefor, as Thomas Jefferson has presented in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutionssuch laws and regulations are "VOID" and of "NO FORCE".
-----------------
Below VIDEO Includes:
CSpan Coverage of Special Congressional panel and conference with Militias
Obama's Unlimited Detention Plan for those who would oppose his will even BEFORE they commit a crime; Proclaiming rule of law and yet defying the rule of law in one breath:
Review again Thomas Jefferson's words in the Kentucky Resolutions - #2 limiting the federal government to prosecuting only those crimes delegated to it and: "No other crimes whatsoever"
Militias Training to Protect the Constitution as it was written and intended.
Remember, that the correct definition for militia are those local citizens, individuals or groups, defined by James Madison: "Officered by men chosen among themselves";
If not, it is not a militia. All other definitions are fabrications. If chosen by government, they are a standing army.
George Masonon the definition of militia:Warns of the now present dangers if they change from being what they were; That is that: "They are the whole people."
Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia,if they benot "the people"of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, by OUR representation?I ask, Who are the militia?They consist now of the "whole people", except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and {426} rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject to militia duty (APP: "Local").Under such a full and equal representation as "OURS", there can be no ignominious punishment inflicted.But under this "national", or rather "consolidated government", the case will be different.The representation being so "small and inadequate", they will have NO fellow-feeling for the people.
They may discriminate people in their own predicament, and exempt from duty
all the officers and lowest creatures of the "national government".If
there were a more "particular definition of their powers", and a clause exempting
the militia from martial law except when in actual service, and from fines
and punishments of an unusual nature, then we might expect that the militia
would be what they are.
But, if this be not the case, we cannot say how long all classes of people will be included in the militia.There willnot be the same reason to expect it,because the government will be administered by "different people".We know what they are now, but know not how soon they may be altered.(for more see full day debate)
Mr. JOHN MARSHALL
asked if gentlemen were serious when they asserted that, if the state governments
had power to interfere with the militia, it was by implication. If they were,
he asked the committee whether the least attention would not show that they were mistaken.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 notbe 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."
-------------------
James Madison: ".....He says that one ground of complaint, at the beginning of the revolution, was, that a standing army was quartered upon us. This was not the whole complaint.We complained because it was done without the "LOCAL Authority" of this country without the CONSENT of the people of America.
As to the exclusion of standing armies in the bill of rights of the states,
we shall find that though, in one or two of them, there is something like
a prohibition, yet, in most of them, it is only provided that no armies shall
be kept without the legislative authority; that is, without the CONSENT of the "community itself".
Where is the impropriety of saying that we shall have all army, if necessary?
Does not the notoriety of this constitute security? If inimical nations were
to fall upon us when defenceless, what would be the consequence? Would it
be wise to say, that we should have no defence? Give me leave to say, that the only possible way to provide against standing armies is to make them unnecessary.
The way to do this is to organize and discipline our militia, so as to render "them" "capable" of defending the country against external invasions and internal insurrections.
This organizing, was not to create a new form of organized militia, or a standing army, but to organize and arm ALL the people to empower themselves.
-------------------
Lets review other words of James Madison with regards to militias and standing armies; The purpose and the power ratio between them:
James Madison who wrote the Constitution together the Bill of Rights:
"The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth (1/25th) part of the number able to bear arms.
This portion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.
To "these"would be opposed
(APP: indicating that the "militia" is to be a "opposing force" to the "standing army"as well as that of "foreign enemies")
a militia amounting to near half a million CITIZENS with arms in their HANDS,
"officered by men chosen from "among themselves",
(not by government or the standing army)
fighting for "their"(the citizen / militia's) common liberties and united and conducted by government"S" possessing their(the citizen / militia's) affections and confidence.
It may well be doubted whether a militiathus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a "proportion" of "regular troops";
(i.e. standing army: - i.e. Idiots proclaiming "ours is not to reason why" as some kind of worship to a mindless metaphor, or simply those who do not read what it is they should be fighting for, and don't ask;
Can you just imagine any of the Founders making a statement "ours it not to "reason why"??? Of course not.
Thereby through voluntary ignorance such blind soldiers become the Tyrants ultimate weapon,
and his expendable fodder to be consumed for his arbitrary will as they fight
against what they think they are fighting for; Feeling powerless having
given oath to something that has been so completely corrupted, to do anything
else but to "obey orders"; or fearful of retribution through it, falling
prey to the "false notion" in believing anyone has a power of casting off his own consent; and must simply "comply". See John Locke - consent: 16, 17,138, 139, 168, 172, 175, 179, >>>186, ...)
Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the "enterprises of ambition", more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms.
If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did.
Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrarypower would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors."
---------------------------
Below is a video giving you a lesson of what "debased subjects of an arbitrary government" are;
Britons lose their gun rights by not fighting: Need a better excuse to fight for yours?
The below was forwarded
to us from one of our state chairs and is circulating the internet; Having
some good quotes we thought you may enjoy them. A few points, additional
quotes and founders references we have added.
More Founders quotes on the Right to Bear Armscan be found atfar left column, bottom.
Remember "arms" are not simply guns; They are any form of power that maintains the "power ratio" of 25 to 1civilians over the standing army.
During the revolution, citizens and privateers owned powder and cannon
on ships and on land that could sink ships and level seaside forts and cities;
and in war they did; They asked "permission" from no one.
The Right is to secure freedom absolutely; To possess freely whatever tools necessary so to accomplish and to maintain that end.
FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
1. "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." - Thomas Jefferson
2. Those who trade liberty for security have neither. - John Adams
3. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
4. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
5. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
6. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control. (Power)
7. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
8. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
9. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive. (and stay free)
10. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
11. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
12.
The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved. Common Law,
all rights reserved. States Rights, all Rights Reserved.
13. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
14. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you NOT understand?
15. Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians.
16. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
17. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
18. APP: A historical fact; Peaceable law abiding citizens can kill tyrants and their armies a thousand fold and still be Peaceable law abiding citizens.
Samuel Adams, during Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention in 1788:
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
Thomas Jefferson:"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government."
Part of the proposed Virginia Constitution, in 1776: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
------------------
John Locke 228:"But if they who say
it lays a foundation for rebellion mean that it may occasion civil wars or
intestine broils to tell the people they are absolved from obedience when illegal attempts are made upon their liberties or properties, and may oppose the unlawful violence of those who were their magistrates when they invade their properties, "contrary to the trust"
(i.e.
relate the limited delegated authorities granted to the federal government
in the Original Compact - the Constitution as this "TRUST")
put in them, and that, therefore, this doctrine is not to be allowed, being 'so destructive to the "peace" of the world';
>>> they may as well say, upon the same ground, that honest men may not oppose robbers or pirates,
because this may occasion disorder or bloodshed. If any mischief come in such cases, >>> it is NOT to be charged upon him who defends his own right, BUT "on HIM" that >>>"invades his neighbour's".
If the innocent honest man must quietly quit all he has for "peace" sake to him who will lay violent hands upon it, I desire it may be considered what kind of a "peace" there will be in the world which consists only in violence and rapine,
and which is to be maintained only for the benefit of robbers and "oppressors".
Who would not think it an "admirable peace"betwixt the mighty and the mean, when the lamb, without resistance, yielded his throat to be torn by the imperious wolf?"
John Locke 238. "The other case is, when a king makes himself the "dependent of another", and subjects his kingdom, which his ancestors left him, and the people put free into his hands, to the dominion of another. For however, perhaps, it may not be his intention to prejudice the people, yet because he has hereby lost the principal part of regal dignity -- viz., to be next and immediately under God, supreme in his kingdom; and also because he
betrayed or forced his people, whose liberty he ought to have carefully preserved,
into the power and dominion of a foreign nation.
By this, as it were, alienation of his kingdom, he himself loses the power he had in it before, >>> without transferring any the least right to those on whom he would have bestowed it; and so by this act sets the people free, and leaves them at their own disposal. One example of this is to be found in the Scotch annals."
(APP
Note: Relate this to a national government (Locke also relates this to legislatures)
who places its people into the hands of a world government (or organization),
or under the control of foreign treaties - thenReview the APP news letter on the Constitutional Debates,
what must occur, and what are the protections of the states, with regard
to when a national government becomes disingenuous to its "original compact".)
Locke 239: In these cases Barclay, the great champion of absolute monarchy, is forced to allow that a king may be resisted, and ceases to be a king. That is in short -- not to multiply cases -- in "whatsoever" he has no authority, there he is no king,
(i.e. no president and no congress)
APP Note: This is easily related to powers that are not delegated; Read the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions re-establishing ALLundelegated (meaning "not authorized") powers, laws and acts are "VOID and of NO FORCE."
(Locke continued) and may be resisted: for "wheresoever" the "authority ceases", the king ceases too, and becomes like other men who have "NO AUTHORITY". And these two cases that he instances >>>differ little from "those above mentioned" (which see), to be destructive to "governments", only that he has omitted the principle from which his doctrine flows, and that is the "breach of TRUST"in not preserving the>>>"form of government agreed on", and in not intending the end of government itself, which is the public good and preservation of property. When a king has dethronedhimself, and put "himself" in a STATE OF WAR with his people,
what shall hinder them from prosecuting him "who is no king",
(i.e. relate: "who is no president", "no congress", "no legislature", "no military"; as they have not been delegated the powers they are presently exercising; Nor had been agreed to in the Original Compact or "Original Constitution""which defines them")
as they would any other man, who has put "himself" into a state of war with them,..."
