NEW PRODUCTS! .... 625+ Page
Reprint of Blacks & Pomeroy on Water Rights 1897 !!! - Learn Validity
of Common Law Water Right Laws Prior to, During Transition and Relevance as
States Begin to Arrogate Powers over Water Rights and Private Property. Cites
Historical Common Law Cases. Color Page Separation for Easy Reference; A
MUST READ!!!.
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.
Our endorsement for 2012 is again Ron Paul.
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; Further, the
Supremacy Clause was limited to those delegated powers and restricted the
federal government from arrogating ANY new power. The federal
legislature - federal government cannot create laws outside those very
limiteddelegated powers, nor can they "arrogate"
ANY new powers.
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>
Why waste your time and money with modern publications, ignorant authors,
organizations, talk show hosts and others, that distort the Founders documents,
our rights, laws and Constitution; When access to the true and factual
documents are right here...
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.
Organization
of State Parties
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.
CONSTITUTIONAL
COFFEE
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.
This was warned by Patrick Henry.
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 with your state and thereby WREST CONTROL of local taxation and
LOCAL REGULATIONS!!!
The FairTax allows the NEW FEDERAL oversight bureaucracy to DEFINE "what
is and what is not" a business; It invites the federal government not
only into your business, but into your HOME to determine if what you do outside
your business, is a business. The Fair Tax is in reality a BUY, SELL or TRADE
TAX.
The FairTax simply "changes the name" of the IRS to the new TAX bureaucracy
name; The FairTax proponents attempt to proclaim they get rid of the
IRS, this is FALSE;
There are other ways of
direct taxationthat will remove
regulation and insure oversight and local control over taxation and stay within
the original Constitutional limits; See Anonymity Tax.
>>>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!
Radio talk shows
rant about Debt and High income Taxes when the first issue should be How
to make the Federal Government stay within it's limited delegated powers which
would remove the income tax and restrain the federal governments spending
AND Borrowing powers, under a republic, it must not step from the Delegated
Powers under which the Republic was first created as indicated
by the founders;
Not even by one step, NOR ARROGATE "ANY" new powers.
The issues that should be discussed by Radio Talk show hosts and all media
are:
1.) Forcing the
Federal Government to stay within the limited Delegated powers as defined
and established in the Ratifying Conventions and Original
Delegated powers
of the Constitution.
2.) Returning to Enumerated taxation as established in the Original
Constitution; Changing from Enumerated Taxation to Unenumerated taxation IS
an ARROGATION of a NEW POWER and is EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.
So long as the
Federal Government continues to receive unlimited money through Flat Percentage,
Unenumerated Taxation, the federal government will continue to use that
Financial Power against the people.
When you hear talk show hosts avoid these foundation issues, ...
call them on it.
If they still do not understand, send them to this web site.
-------------
"INDEPENDENT BUSINESS" VS "JOBS"
Another topic
that needs to be noted, is the constant selling of the need for "jobs" as
if "jobs" just appear on their own; This is a "PLOY" to increase government
employment and dependency;
The real topic should be on "BUSINESS"; In particular, "INDEPENDENT BUSINESS".
The rule that increases CORRUPTION and Dependency, is that when the
governments are in the business of "creating" "JOBS", they will "create jobs"
that are either "DEPENDENT" upon GOVERNMENT JOBS; which will burden
society in one way;
Or will grant "PRIVILEGES" to or in the form of CORPORATIONS, UNIONS or
Tax Supported SPECIAL INTERESTS (COLLECTIVE TITLE to PROPERTY), so that citizens
will be "DEPENDENT" upon those "State Born Exclusive
Privileges";
The rule that
promotes a true Free
Market Economy and Independence, is that when government removes REGULATIONS
so that small "INDEPENDENT" "BUSINESSES" which have "INDIVIDUALLY OWNED TITLE"
to their "PROPERTY and BUSINESS", Then it creates "INDEPENDENCE".
So the subject should NOT be "JOBS" singular;
But FIRST "INDEPENDENT BUSINESS" and "REMOVAL OF REGULATIONS"
so that "FREE ENTERPRISE" for those with independent title will prosper;
and create in "THAT WAKE", "JOBS" and TRUE independence which will
follow.
APP
The Purpose of Government
is to Protect Private Property
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.
RON PAUL SWEEPS UP THE DELEGATES
in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, Louisiana, Washington, Missouri!!! Next...
Keep up to Date at "The Daily Paul .Com"
Follow the Delegate Count on this REAL TIME MAP
WHILE the other
three republican presidential candidates swing from first to last place -
blindly loved or hated - the media plays with the peoples ignorance
of who these fake republican candidates really are.
Rick
Santorum, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich - All Big Government Liberals
proven by their records!
RINO's!
Republicans
In Name Only!
All three of these candidates have
voted for:
a.) Gun control
b.) Big Government programs
c.) Big Government contracts
d.) Federal Regulations against private property
And there are actually
republicans out there that would vote for any of these three?????!!!
WAKE UP
PEOPLE!!!
Look!Don't be blinded
by big government media, corporations and unions; or those talk show hosts
who blather in their favor, when those talk show hosts are supported by
those very same corporations!
LOOK
AT RICK SANTORUM'S CORRUPT RECORD!!!:
*** Padding
his own wallet as a corporate lobbyist at the expense of taxpayers;
***
Voting to RAISE the debt ceiling five times;
***
Voting to DOUBLE the federal
Department of Education;
***
Voting with liberals like Ted Kennedy on multiple occasions in support of
Big Labor's radical agenda;
***
Urging more federal involvement in housing with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac;
***
Voting to create a brand
new, unfunded entitlement, Medicare Part D, the largest expansion of entitlement
spending since President Lyndon Johnson - creating $16 TRILLION in unfunded
liabilities;
***
Endorsing liberal Big
Government RINOs like Arlen Specter over conservatives. Of course,
Specter later became a Democrat and worked hand-in-glove with President Obama
to pass his radical agenda;
*** Voting for Sarbanes-Oxley, which imposed
dramatic new job-killing accounting regulations on businesses;
***
Supporting raising taxes
on oil companies, which directly costs Americans more money out of their
pockets at the gas pump;
***
Voting
for gun control;
***
Voting to give Social Security
benefits to illegal aliens, while voting against an additional 1,000 border
patrol agents;
***
Voting to give $25 million in foreign aid to North Korea;
*** Voting to send hundreds of millions of
taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood - the nation's largest provider of
abortion and to hand out hundreds of billions of dollars in
foreign aid to enemies of Israel
But unlike many of my other establishment opponents, Rick Santorum isn't
even trying to sweep his Big Government record under the rug.
WAKE UP
PEOPLE!
WIPE THE SLEEP FROM YOUR EYES!!!
Rick Santorum, as with Mitt Romney
and Newt Gingrich, are
VERIFIABLE
SOCIALISTS!!!
---------------
How
about Mitt Romney?
Mitt Romney would allow the Canadian
Pipeline to lower gas prices...
But would Mitt Romney
take away federal regulations, so to allow any land owner in the United
States to drop an oil well on their own small 50' x 50' lot?
..... NO!
That is because he is
a progressive environmental fanatic and Corporate patsy;
He will only allow oil exploration and production that can be easily
controlled and monitored by the federal government and that can be profited
by large corporations.
He does not want
true free trade any more than the oil companies, as that would
mean TRUE COMPETITION and lower profits for the Corporations.
How about Taxes?
Mitt Romney says he would lower taxes, But would he work get rid of the
income tax altogether?
...NO!
Because that would take away the
federal powers that the income tax is used to force MANDATES on the States!;
...as well as take away
financing big government CONTRACTS to Big Corporations.
How about GUN CONTROL?
Mitt Romney LOVES GUN CONTROL
and advocated GUN CONTROL in his own state!
Mitt Romney loves
the United Nations.
Mitt Romney loves international treaties even if they invade our sovereignty.
Mitt Romney is a Typical Socialist!
Two steps forward, one step back.
How
about Newt Gingrich?
House speaker and Bill Clinton's
buddy, he allowed liberal, environmental and regulations to prosper throughout
the Clinton administration and encouraged Clinton's WAR on the WEST.
Newt Gingrich raised taxes.
Newt Gingrich loves the income tax. Newt Gingrich loves
expanding federal bureaucracies. Newt Gingrich loves
using mandates on
the states
Newt Gingrich loves national monuments.
Newt Gingrich loves using federal power.
Newt Gingrich loves GUN CONTROL.
Newt Gingrich loves Government Unions.
Newt Gingrich loves Corporate Contracts.
Newt Gingrich loves international treaties even if they invade
our sovereignty.
Newt Gingrich loves using federal police in the states. Newt Gingrich loves
bargaining with your rights.
Congress even kicked him out for his corrupt practices!
Is there any
invasion upon your rights that these three would not impose if they "felt"
it "necessary" to benefit their own will or political position?
WAKE
UP!!!
The news media is selling you and your rights down the road!
------------
There is only one true republican conservative running for president that
will protect your rights and obey the Constitution
Congressman Ron Paul
won the poll with 52% percent of the vote. Paul won in both
online and total statewide votes. There was more than 3,600 votes,
which far surpassed the number of voters in such large states as Ohio, Florida
and California that held straw polls earlier this year. Over 2000
of which voted for Ron Paul as their choice for president!
*WINNERAnnual Values Voter Summit
Straw Poll in Washington, D.C.; By aHUGE MARGIN!!!
Ron Paul 37% Herman Cain 23%
Rick Santorum 16%
Rick Perry 8%
Michele Bachmann 8%
Mitt Romney 4%
Gingrich 3%
Huntsman 0%
*WINNERFlorida Fox News
Poll - Fox News Pulls it's
OWN Poll Chart to hide Ron Paul leading Mitt
Romney by 11,000 Votes!!!;(Fox News Screen Shot Source
- Infowars): We would be willing to
change this declaration to 2nd place, if Fox News will post the unchanged
poll numbers AND Chart. Until then, here is the poll screen shot:
Florida Fox News Republican Presidential Debate Poll Results, Showing Ron
Paul the Debate National Opinion Winner;
Results Corresponding with Fox News Graph:
Mitt Romney 22.89% - 16,073 Votes
Rick Perry 12.8% - 8,989 Votes
Newt Gingrich 6.99% - 4,906 Votes Ron Paul 39.27%
- 27,573 Votes!!! Rick Santorium 1.44% - 1,014 Votes
Gary Johnson 1.95% - 1,366 Votes
Herman Cain 10.81% - 7, 592 Votes
Jon Huntsman 1.59% - 1,118 Votes
Info Wars Links to Articles and the full
size screen shot of Fox News Florida Republican Debate Poll:
Herman Cain's (Hermy ObamaCain) win in the Florida Republican Party Straw
Poll can hardly be considered a win for conservative Republicans;
It looks like there is a group of 983 Dependent Republican Government
Union Floridians that love Cain's proposed OBAMACAIN
Buy, Sell and Trade Tax policy; A UNENUMERATED
FLAT PERCENTAGE TAXATION that will guarantee money to government, Unions,
Wasteful corporate contracts, tax supported special interest groups, and undelegated
state and federal mandated bureaucracies.....
I would say not just a few good 'ol Union, government employee and government
corporate contract recipient boys and girls worked their way into that vote....
.
So much for federal limitations set out in the Original Constitution.
---------------
Ron Paul National
Polls Winner!
By just looking at the numbers in
the major national opinion polls; Ron Paul is the overall polls and opinion
winner by a wide margin in numbers of votes cast across the United States.
Ron Paul
(374 - 44.9%) Rick Perry (244, 29.3%)
Mitt Romney (74, 8.8%)
Michele Bachmann (64, 7.7%)
Jon Huntsman (17, 2.0%)
Herman Cain (15, 1.8%)
Newt Gingrich (14, 1.7%)
Thad McCotter (7, 0.8%)
Rick Santorum (7, 0.8%)
Gary Johnson (2, 0.2%)
Fred Karger (1, 0.1%)
Write-ins (15, 1.8%)
*WINNER of CNBC Televised
California Republican Presidential Debate Poll by 75% of 7000+ votes in two hours before CNBC pulled
down the poll to keep it from being seen!!!
*WINNER
2011 Conservatives Choice at CPAC (two consecutive years)
*WINNER 2011 New Hampshire
Young Republicans Straw Pole!46%
for Ron Paul and only 10% for 2nd place Mitt
Romney.
MEDIA ATTEMPTS
RON PAUL BLACKOUT!
Other News: Left wing
and Corporate Right Wing (Fox and others) media, is avoiding mention
of Ron Paul who is the clear front runner, for fear of fanning the flames
Ron Paul has ignited in the people who understand that the Constitution is
the only answer to bind down the federal government, stop their wasteful practices
and remove burdensome regulations that keep communities and free enterprise
from prospering.
Ron Paul's obvious momentum is unquestionable and his understanding of Constitutional
matters unmatched; This worries the status quo of big spending Democrats and
Republicans.
The Media is making a clearly transparent attempt to prop up the weakest
and least experienced candidates to lessen the danger to Obama, or
if necessary, establish a patsy; Their invented news reports skip from
Bachman to Perry and Romney without so much as a mention of Ron Paul's name
who split the Votes almost evenly in the Ames Iowa Straw Poll;
This is a clear tactic where the media purposely play to the elbow rubbing
Democrats and Republicans to promote those who are the most ignorant to true
constitutional matters; such as Romney, Perry, Bachman who will be the easiest
to manipulate if they make it to the White House.
Ron Paul, clearly the front runner in the battle for freedom and limited
government, is the only real candidate with a unquestionable track record
as the champion of the Constitution. The people would be well served in giving
their support to his campaign.
BLACK OUT THIS.
APP
LOOK OUT!
for the Liberal Plants!
Rick Perry's long past in the
Democratic Party and past campaigning for Al Gore, causes republicans
to back away; as the truth be known!.
Rick Perry's life
time Democrat and liberal leaning and "sudden" finding of "Constitutional
religion" and change to the Republican Party just before running for
president smells of a "Plant" by the left.
Mitt Romney's Global
Warming speeches drop his poll numbers drastically.
Rick Gore, Mitt Gore
and Al Gore....
The three liberal Stooges!
And Now, BuySell&Trade
Flat Tax Everything for bigger government... Hermy ObamaCain!
And can you believe peoples memories are so short?!..... Gingrich are you
serious?!!!
Least we forget the "intelligent
idiot", Newt Gingrich, who rubbed elbows with Bill Clinton for years and
accomplished NOTHING in either protecting or returning our lost
rights from the federal government. Speaker for how long?! Clinton
Raked the west with Newt and his spineless buddies kissing up to the Democrats.
All Newt knows how to do is talk well, he doesn't "do" anything. His
speeches are full of meaningless babble and double talk. "If", "maybe" "we
could", "would be nice"...on and on and on..." Newt is a STATUS QUO politician
and nothing will change with such an "intelligent" idiot in the White House.
Every idea he comes up with has the federal government tied tightly to it
and to you. Just another Democrat in a Republican t-shirt.
Don't be deceived
by the Status Quo good'ol boys club in Washington; They want a yes
man, and Newt Gingrich has the word YES branded on his forehead.
Conservatism
means nothing without Constitutionalism, and only one candidate promotes
the Constitution;
That candidate is Ron Paul.
-------
Rasmussen
Poll Says 76% of Tea Party members will vote for RON PAUL!!!;
Ron Paul,
The TRUE Tea Party Favorite!
-------
Orlando, Florida,
Republican Party Presidential Debate 9-22-2011 Review
Ron Paul was the true winner, because
his message was clear and concise.
By limiting the federal
government to only it's limited DELEGATED powers, it would not be
able to grant exclusive privileges that would hinder or suppress free trade,
or stand in the way of true independent business.
The economy would
grow because government would not be where it was never meant to be.
The issue is not "JOBS"; the Issue
is unhindered independent free "BUSINESS"; "Jobs" will simply be the result.
When you hear "jobs" by the status quo Republicans and Democrats, it is
because they want to maintain peoples dependency on large collectives (collective
title) whether it is government & Unions or state born exclusive privileged
corporations (which are "fictitious" individuals in law - but are large social
collectives in fact);
The last thing collectives want is true free (actual) independent (title)
trade as that would compete with them. An example is that Oil Companies have
always hated competition from "Wild Cat" private oil companies.... nothing
has changed.
Perry and Romney are just status quo politicians that love collectivism
and the corruption that follows...Romney makes global Warming Speeches and
Perry actually campaigned for Gore as a democrat; They only use catch phrases
that "hint" of Ron Paul's stands to confuse voters so that they can get their
vote... If any of the others get in, it will be status quo, all over
again.
Let's not let that
happen....
We have the RARE Opportunity
to vote for a true Constitutionalist.
Promote and VOTE:
RON PAUL for President!
VIDEOS
Ron Paul Florida Debate Highlights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsrxdF5byQM
Review on Ron Paul http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWiCY5FaA0U&feature=p
yv
Alex Jones Ron
Paul tipping Point http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=hnqMovlETmk
Michael Savage Interviews
Ron Paul: http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=dqw5nEmvnho
Ron Paul Straw Poll for President
of the United States
Straw Poll Results Summary
The ones the media hasn't
told you about:
2nd Ron Paul New Hampshire GOP 2012 Straw Poll (1/22/11) 1st Ron Paul
WINNER! DC CPAC Straw
Poll (2/10-12/11) 1st Ron Paul
WINNER! Online Phoenix
Arizona Tea Party Straw Poll (2/27/11) 1st Ron Paul
WINNER! Combined Phoenix
Arizona Tea Party Straw Poll (2/27/11) 3rd Ron Paul
Onsite Phoenix Arizona Tea Party Straw Poll (2/27/11) 1st Ron Paul
WINNER! Republican
Liberty Caucus of California Presidential Straw Poll (3/20/11) 1st Ron Paul
WINNER! New Orleans
Republican Leadership Conference Straw Poll (6/16-18/11) 1st Ron Paul
WINNER! Clay County
Iowa Republican Party Straw Poll (6/19/11) 2nd Ron Paul
Statistical Tie for First Place!
Ames Iowa Straw Poll (8/13/11) 1st Ron Paul
WINNER! New Hampshire
Young Republicans Straw Poll (8/20/11) 2nd Ron Paul
Georgia State GOP Straw Poll (8/27/11) 3rd Ron Paul
Maryland GOP Straw Poll (9/9/11) 1st Ron Paul
WINNER! Pre-Debate
Cincinnati Tea Party Straw Poll (9/12/11) 1st Ron Paul
WINNER! Post-Debate
Cincinnati Tea Party Straw Poll (9/12/11) 1st Ron Paul
WINNER! California
GOP Straw Poll (9/17/11) 1st Ron Paul
WINNER! DC Values Voter
Straw Poll (10/7/11-10/9/11) 1st Ron Paul
WINNER! LA County RPLAC
Straw Poll (10/13/11) 1st Ron Paul
WINNER! Charleston
County Republican Party (10/18/11) 1st Ron Paul
WINNER! Ohio GOP Swing
State Straw Poll (10/22/11) 1st Ron Paul
Des Moines Iowa Voters NFRA Presidential Straw Poll (10/29/11) 1st Ron Paul -WINNER!
Des Moines Non-Iowa Voters
NFRA Presidential Straw Poll (10/29/11) 2nd Ron Paul
West Alabama Straw Poll (10/29/11) 1st Ron Paul
WINNER! Illinois GOP
Straw Poll (11/5/11)
As reported on ronpaulforums.
American Patriot Party.CC
----------
DANGERS AND
STATUS QUO CANDIDATES
Regarding the folly of following
candidates that intend to continue the status quo of maintaining the size
and invasiveness of the federal government, such as Herman Cain, Mitt Romney
and others;
The problem with Herman Cain, is that he works within the (UNconstitutional)
system;
His history shows that he would treat government as a "business" and not
as a "servitude";
This is the exact problem we have now, because when you operate a "business",
you will naturally protect the "business" first (i.e. the government bureaucracy),
not necessarily the consumer (the citizens);
Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan proves this intent.
When you operate a "servitude" under a "free republic", which is the correct
way to run a free government, first you must obey the principles and limitations
established in the "ORIGINAL COMPACT" that the republic was first formed:
136. Secondly, the legislative or supreme authority cannot assume to itself
a power to rule by extemporary arbitrary decrees, but is bound to dispense
justice and decide the rights of the subject by promulgated standing laws,
11 (APP Note: See
these exact words in the Rights of the Colonists)
137. Absolute
arbitrary power, or governing without settled standing laws, can neither of
them consist with the ends of society and government...
138. Thirdly, the supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his
property without his own consent. (APP Note: See these exact
words in the Rights of the Colonists) For the >>>>preservation
of property being the "end of government" (i.e. the PURPOSE of Government)
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".
194. Their persons are free by a native right, and their properties, be
they more or less, are their own, and at their own dispose, and not at his;
or else it is no property. Supposing the conqueror gives to one man a thousand
acres, to him and his heirs for ever; to another he lets a thousand acres,
for his life, under the rent of L50 or L500 per annum. Has not the one of
these a right to his thousand acres for ever, and the other during his life,
paying the said rent? And hath not the tenant for life a property in all that
he gets over and above his rent, by his labour and industry, during the said
term, supposing it be double the rent? Can any one say, the king, or conqueror,
after his grant, may, by his power of conqueror, take away all, or part of
the land, from the heirs of one, or from the other during his life, he paying
the rent? Or, can he take away from either the goods or money they have got
upon the said land at his pleasure? If he can, then all free and voluntary
contracts cease, and are void in the world; there needs nothing but power
enough to dissolve them at any time, and all the grants and promises of men
in power are but mockery and collusion. For can there be anything more ridiculous
than to say, I give you and yours this for ever, and that in the surest and
most solemn way of conveyance can be devised, and yet it is to be understood
that I have right, if I please, to take it away from you again to-morrow
...." Relate this
to US Land Patents absolute granting of properties and the Attempt of the
Federal Government to condemn such land (or water by common law attached
to the land) later, or the state to condemn such property after giving consent
to adjudicate such transfer by authority of the United States by which it
was a party, or to create new regulations upon it after granting it with
none; To encircle that land in national monument and control the inroads
and water, or to regulate limits to anything with regard to it, or to arbitrarily
tax it into debt and thereby rendering the land not owned but rented, when
no taxes were in established at the receiving of it, or to tax it without
consent, or tax without consent for things built upon that property to improve
its value, or raised upon it to derive sustenance and earnings from his labors,
or derive any such without consent from those he wills it to. And you will
find the neither the federal government, nor the state government has no
power to do so, nor has any power of such been delegated to it by the original
compact(s). For once property is possessed of a person, it is any governments
duty to protect it, and not to devise a design to wrest it away after all
rights had been released ; As this clearly established by Locke that the
protection of property is the "purpose of government" and the "reason" that
the person enters into society.
222: "...whenever
the legislators endeavour 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. Whensoever, therefore, the legislative
shall transgress this fundamental rule of society, and either by ambition,
fear, folly, or corruption, (APP Note: See this in Samuel Adams
Statement within the 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.") ....endeavour to grasp themselves,
or put into the hands of any other, (Such as under undelegated/ mandated federal
powers or the United Nations) an absolute power over the lives, liberties,
and estates of the people, by this "BREACH of TRUST" they forfeit the power
the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves
to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and by the
establishment of a new legislative (such as they shall think fit), provide
for their own safety and security, (APP Note: See this in the Declaration
of Independence) which is the end for which they
are in society.
243. To conclude. The power that every individual gave the society when
he entered into it can never revert to the individuals again, as long as
the society lasts, but will always remain in the community; because without
this there can be no community -- no commonwealth, which is contrary
to the ORIGINAL agreement;
When Men enter into Society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a
right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions, And previous
LIMITATIONS as form an equitable "ORIGINAL COMPACT".--
Under our COMPACT, all taxes must
be enumerated and consensually accepted before being collected, and only after
taking a consensus of the population so everyone knows how much will need
to be collected from TARIFFS.
No Capitation,
or OTHER direct, Tax shall be laid, UNLESS in "Proportion to the Census" or
"Enumeration" herein >>>>>>"BEFORE"
directed to be taken.
Since the income tax is an arrogated
power exceeding the limits of the delegated power of enumerated taxation,
it remains unconstitutional because the federal government is expressly prohibited
from arrogating any new power and the amendment and ratifying process (i.e.
a MEANS to make changes) was limited to making changes only WITHIN
the DELEGATED powers; and can "NOT take ONE STEP" beyond.
Amendment XVI(Compare to Article 1 Section
9 of the ORIGINAL COMPACT)
The Congress
shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source
derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard
to any census of enumeration.
Now lets look at the two things
the federal government can collect taxes for:
George Nicholas: > 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 contained "NO new grant of power" ......If I understand
it right, NO "new" power can be exercised.
Edmund 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(i.e. Very LIMITED and DELEGATED)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".
Also, government employees cannot "seek what they please" .....Union involvement
however allows government employees to "seek what they please";
....."In the state of nature men may as the Patriarchs did, employ hired
servants for the defence of their lives, liberty and property: and they should
pay them reasonable wages. Government was instituted for the purposes of common
defence; and those who hold the reins of government have an equitable natural
right to an honourable support from the same principle "that the labourer
is worthy of his hire" but then the same community which they serve,
ought to be assessors of their pay: Governors have NO RIGHT to
SEEK WHAT THEY PLEASE; by this, instead of being content
with the station assigned them, that of honourable servants of the society,
they would
soon become Absolute masters, Despots, and Tyrants. Hence as a
private man has a right to say, what wages he will give in his private affairs,
so has a Community to
determine what they will give and grant of their Substance, for the Administration
of publick affairs. And in both cases more are ready generally to offer their
Service at the "proposed and stipulated
price", than are "able and willing" to perform their duty.--
Under a free government, corporations
cannot exist because they cannot exist without the state granting them the
privilege of "cartel"; And in a free government exclusive privileges granted
by government are prohibited;
Virginia Declaration
of Rights: 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.
This would not exclude contracts,
but would remove the government from granting privileges of one or more people
over another, which would provide true free trade, and not exclusive privileged
trade;
Cain, as with Romney and others are "well versed" in Corporations, and will
have the mindset of promoting corporations, which are in fact state born exclusive
privileged trade, as free trade, which they are "NOT".
What needs to be asked,
is NOT if one can run a successful "business";
But if one can "obey
the limitations" set down in a free LIMITED republic as it
was "originally intended" so that our freedoms are maintained;
....and can they maintain a LIMITED"SERVITUDE"; within those
limitations. so that the people are not impoverished, enslaved or have their
properties placed in jeopardy;
John Locke -
201:
"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 properties is applied to "OTHER ends", and made use
of to IMPOVERISH, HARASS, or SUBDUE
them to the ARBITRARY and IRREGULAR commands of those 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."
Cain's 9-9-9 tax (another BUY,
SELL and TRADE tax system) shows conclusively that he wants to maintain
the wasteful government as it is; at the expense of the people and their freedoms.
The 9-9-9 plan Cain promotes as with other flat percentage tax systems (such
as the FairTax and Flat Tax) establish taxes in which the government "SEEKS
WHAT THEY PLEASE".
There is no sign that he wishes to reduce the already exceeded powers taken
by the federal government;
But to EXPAND THOSE POWERS;
and by this he is VERY dangerous;
As are all those candidates wishing to maintain the Status Quo;.
The only candidate showing
the will to LIMIT the federal government to it's Original Delegated
powers is Ron
Paul.
Ron Paul's Plan?
The 0-0-0 Plan that
will limit federal taxes to tarriffs; Remove the income tax, prohibit federal
sales tax, etc. and remove the IRS.
Richard Taylor
Chair
American Patriot Party.CC
American Patriot Party of Oregon
"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;forWHEREVER 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 and 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,
ratification, amendment 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 enslave 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 (i.e. Trust established in
the LIMITS set out in the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTIONAL COMPACT that establish the
extent of the Grant of AUTHORITY) put in him that does so,
>>>is
a State of WAR with the people ..."
"....In "ALL"
states and conditions
the TRUE REMEDY of "FORCEWITHOUT AUTHORITY" is to oppose
force "TO" it.
The use of "FORCEWITHOUT 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"."
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"
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 Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788
See Pendleton and Nicholas establishes this limitation
on the federal government by clearly stating that the federal government
"CANNOT ARROGATE ANY NEW
POWER"; That
any changes in the constitution are limited to the DELEGATED powers and "CANNOT TAKE
ONE STEP BEYOND THEM"
The Welfare Clause is limited to collecting taxes for ONLY TWO (2) purposes;
Paying the Debts and National Defense.
Nothing More. No Social
Programs, No Welfare Checks, No National Health Care, Nothing Else.
The 16th Amendmentremainsunconstitutional
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.
It is further unconstitutional because the Ratifying and
Amendment "Process" was meant to make changes ONLY "WITHIN"
the DELEGATED powers;
The Ratifying and Amendment
"Process" was NEVERMEANT to be used as a means to ARROGATE
new powers upon the federal government; In FACT the federal government is EXPRESSLY
PROHIBITED from ARROGATING ANY new powers by
ANY MEANS;
This prohibits the states from bestowing such undelegated powers upon the
federal government:
" Pendleton
Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788: 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"."
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, if
the delegated limits to their powers are simply disobeyed by our own state
legislatures and federal representatives.
And this has been the case.
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!
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.
Isn't
it Amazing
Isn't it amazing, that three liberals
posing as republicans are actually
getting any votes at all from other republicans?
... As though their obvious past big government luggage does
not exist; and that their present proposals if elected, do not promise
to increase even more the
already bloated and invasive federal government and to further empower privileged collectives;
Their statements showing clearly a willingness for costly foreign wars and
continuation of federal & state mandates on individual business
& liberties.
The irony of Patrick Henry's statement over 200 years ago
is ringing true today:
"Who has enslaved the people of Germany, France and
Spain? They have been enslaved by
their OWN PEOPLE; If it happens here, it will only
be as it has beeneverywhere else."
In that same Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788it was stated that the reason
that this occurred in those countries was because the peoples "Lack of knowledge"
and ignorance that produced their own slavery.
Here we have a rare opportunity
to vote for someone, Ron Paul, who actually understands
the Constitution and the limits it has upon the federal
government. Who from his past record, we can trust he will do what he says
and work to reign in the wasteful spending and remove unconstitutional
bureaucracies and wasteful spending.
Why would anyone vote for someone
else? Willful or pure ignorance? So sad.
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 they have with their own oath to
office.
To keep from acting without authority,which 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" (APP:
which must follow the limitations of the CONSTITUTION)": 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 (which see) 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.
-------------------
Without the Constitution and Common Law, the practice of Capitolism will
lead to corruption of Conservatism which will be gutted of it's meaning..
"Some Cautious" (see Caution Below)
GOOD NEWS IN BRITAIN: UK SCRAPS NATIONAL ID and DESTROYS RECORDS
KEPT ON CITIZENS.
Not often is there a glimpse of
hope for change in such socialist government policies;
But here is a good lesson in the expensive cost and invasiveness of the
National ID card that Britain
has tried and then thrown out.
And NOTICE that when
people in government put their minds on the correct limitations to government
and act, that complete bureaucracies can
be "shut down";
Though the british people are still
under the thumb of their government in far too many other areas that invade
their rights, (See bottom video on citizen's
guns being destroyed) this "particular instance" was
a pleasant surprise:
A "CAUTION" to this news
is that other less obvious "departments" can be used to house
the "same or similar" personal information under a different "Title".
Finances my have made them reverse, but a "socialist mindset" and arbitrary
power can re-implement or work toward greater invasions upon personal liberties
later... Keep one eye open when you sleep.
--------
DANGER ON HORIZON!
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.
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 convention 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, Mr. Nigel Farage of the United Kingdom
Indepenent Party (UKIP):
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 REPORTS
#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 REPORTS
#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,..."
-----------------
SPECIAL REPORTS
#4
Federal
Reserve
Private Bankers
Corruption
SPECIAL REPORTS
#5
TAX BURDEN
Understand this.
This is a Lesson.
1.) FAIR = JEALOUSY
2.) It is NOT about WHO pays the tax;
.... But it is WHAT the tax is paid FOR.
To illustrate why any tax that uses
fairness i.e. Jealousy to tax the
wealthy, simply taxes the POOR harder
and keeps them poor;
as well as eventually financially
enslaves them.
First you need to recognize
your ENEMY, and that enemy is "YOU".
1.) Ignorance
2.) Jealousy
Now to recognize it in yourself,
I will make you not only jealous of me, I will make you hate me.
First I will tell you I am rich, filthy rich (I am not, but that is what
I'm using to make you recognize jealousy i.e. your worst enemy which is YOU).
Next, I will make you hate me: "You miserable pathetic poor person! I have
everything I want! EVERYTHING! More Money, Cars, big house(S), boats, I'm
always on vacation because I never need to work! I make so much money! HA
HA but YOU! You pathetic little poor person, you will always be poor! Working
for little to nothing! What is more, you will never get my money! Because
I am RICH! HA HA RICH! And I will keep you poor by being so RICH! I will pay
you nothing just so to KEEP YOU POOR!"
Feel that little enemy called
"Jealousy"? good.
Now let us examine why taxing
because of jealousy of the wealthy will never work, and why taxes need
to be directed at what a tax is FOR; and
Why taxing the wealthy only taxes
the poor by passing on the "BURDEN" of the TAX:
Let's say I am a wealthy shoe maker,
and there is no income tax; I make a shoe for .50 and sell it for $1.00 for
a .50 profit.
Now lets say a Jealousy tax (income
tax, sales tax, Flattax, Fairtax or other) is created on my shoe of .25;
As a good business man, I will look
to maintain my .50 profit;
A good business man will attempt to absorb override ANY expenses by
including them in the selling price,this INCLUDES "TAXES".
Below illustrates what happens when
you attempt to tax the wealthy harder because of JEALOUSY i.e. fairness.
Cost of Manufacture:
.50
Profit: .50
Tax: .25 then .55
Final Cost of product: 1.25 then 1.50
Who pays the tax via "tax form": Shoe Company
Who pays the actual BURDEN of the tax: You the Consumer.
Who benefits: Government-Unions-Corporations
Now lets say that this makes
you MAD, and you don't think that this is "FAIR" You
are so "JEALOUS" that you want to force them to pay taxes that will
reduce their profits; So you tax them harder! (brilliant) You tax them .75
on every shoe!
The Shoe manufacturer realizes that he cannot sell the shoe on the market
for 1.75, so to maintain his profit margin, he makes his shoes for less, either
by reducing quality, reducing number of workers i.e. "downsizing" or becoming
more efficient.
Cost of Manufacture: .25
Profit: .65
Tax: .75
Final Cost of product: 1.65
Who pays the tax via "tax form": Shoe Company
Who pays the actual BURDEN of the tax: You the Consumer.
Who benefits: Government-Unions-Corporations
Now your really MAD! (in more
ways than one - as in insanity); So you Tax them even harder!!! 1.00
a shoe!
The Shoe maker cannot manufacturer the shoe in the United States and maintain
his profit margin; So he fires his workers and produces his shoes in China
and also increases his profit margin.
Cost of Manufacture:
05
Profit: .70
Tax: 1.00
Final Cost of product: 1.75
Who pays the tax via "tax form": Shoe Company
Who pays the actual BURDEN of the tax: You the Consumer.
Who benefits: Government-Unions-Corporations
This makes you HATE the shoe
company; and in your Jealous insanity, you tax them 1.25 on every shoe!
The shoe maker closes shop, retires
or invests in something different that is taxed less. China makes the
shoe for .02 (manufactured in India) and is happy to make .73 per
shoe.
Cost of Manufacture: .02
Profit: .73
Tax: 1.25
Final Cost of product: 2.00
Who pays the tax via "tax form": Shoe Company
Who pays the actual BURDEN of the tax: You the Consumer.
Who benefits: Government-Unions-Corporations-China
Now the Consumer is stuck with
paying 2.00 a shoe and a tax and bloated government that continues to create
more BUREAUCRACIES that impose greater taxes to support their dependency on
tax money;
To support their job dependency,
they create more REGULATIONS that reduce free trade further.
This is how socialism advances.
Now you think the story ends here....
It gets MUCH better.
See all that FLAT PERCENTAGE,
"FAIR", UNENUMERATED tax money?
The Shoe maker creates a Corporation
(state born exclusive privilege
of cartel)
with a few Union officials and lobbies congress for a military shoe contract
using mostly India labor and produces a army boot for .05 and sells it to
the military for 49.95!!!
You might argue that a graduated income tax would make the company pay more
taxes, but that would only compound the problem by giving more money to
government, government contracts, Government Unions, Tax supported special
interests and undelegated state and federal bureaucracies;
A flat set percentage sales tax would
only guarantee increase to government with an increase in the private sector
with no oversight or enumeration before it is collected.
Cost of Manufacture: .05
Profit: 48.20
Tax: 1.75
Final Cost of product: 50.00
Who pays the tax via "tax form": Shoe Company
Who pays the actual BURDEN of the tax: You the Consumer.
Who benefits: Government-Unions-Corporations-India
Now do you understand why trying
to tax WHO is futile;
This is because it is NOT taxing for the REAL PURPOSE of what taxes are
"FOR";
The REAL PURPOSE of Taxes are "WHAT" the tax is paid "FOR" is for NECESSARY
SERVICES;
That means ENUMERATED for actual cost of those
services ONLY; ..... and "BEFORE""CONSENSUALY" (Very important) giving it to
government.
This LIMITS the amount everyone has
to pay.
NOT to throw a "flat" percentage
"arbitrary" "tax amount" from either sales, income or property that is collected
far in excess of that necessary for needful services, only to create more
and more government dependency upon it.
The Democrats use Jealousy to
increase Union government bureaucracies and tax supported Special Interest
groups;
and the Republican's (those that are corporate capitolists) use the
money derived from that jealousy to lobby for large government contracts as
well as Union Contracts (private or government).
1.) You cannot base taxation on
who pays taxes simply through a "tax form" given to the government, without
considering who will actually pay the "BURDEN" of the tax.
2.) Often income tax only creates the role of tax collector on the part
of who it collects taxes from, distorting who actually pays the "BURDEN"
of taxation.
3.) Where taxes are considered by a service provider, retailer or
manufacturer, which is almost considered by every business man, "EVERYONE" pays
taxes;
4.) This absolutely discredits
any reports that attempt to establish there is a percentage of people who
pay Most or ALL the taxes in the United States; as tax forms
are far from the exclusive determinator of who pays taxes.
5.) This also discredits any
reports that there is anyone who does not pay taxes simply because they do
not fill out a tax form;
6.) "ANYONE" who buys
a product, hires a service, rents, buys gas, or other, from anyone or
ANY entity who considers his own taxation so to establish a price he will
receive for that product or service so to be able to pay it, which ANY business
man does, PAYS TAXES;
7.) "ANYONE who does ANYTHING" to spend money within the United States "PAYS
TAXES";
8.) Those end users of the system
will pay the highest percentage of their earnings in this way, as they will
be unable to Write-off the tax or transfer it elsewhere onto the price of
products etc.
9.) This is why taxing "WHO"
pays the tax, instead of limiting to "WHAT" the tax is supposed to be collected
for, simply does not work;
10.) Regulation and FLAT percentage
taxes, on sales or income, guaranteeing a percentage to government without
oversight and consent BEFORE giving it, simply empowers Government and Exclusive
privileges and creates waste.
11.) It also flies in the face of those who "attempt to establish" that
all illegal aliens do not pay taxes, which "IN FACT THOSE THAT LIVE AND WORK
HERE DO";
If they rent, buy products, buy gas, by food or any liquid such as milk
or soft drinks or anything while they are here, >>>>THEY
ARE PAYING THE "BURDEN OF TAXATION" ATTACHED TO THOSE PRODUCTS OR SERVICES.
This is not to say that they
should be misusing our laws, it simply establishes a gross misstatement that
all aliens, or that anyone that does not pay taxes simply because they do
not make out a "income tax form" does not pay taxes. A complete lie;
12.) These type statements derail the American public as to the real problem;
and that is not abiding by the Constitutional way taxation is suppose to be;
DIRECT CONSENSUAL TAXATION FOR ONLY THOSE THINGS THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN DELEGATED
TO TAX THE PEOPLE FOR.
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".
Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS,: "....He
endeavored to show the committee that it only empowered Congress to make such
laws as would be necessary to enable them to >>>>pay
the public debts and >>>>provide for the common defence;
<> 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
(1) debts
and
provide for the
(2) "common
defence",
>>>>>"in "CONSEQUENCE"
of THIS power".
The clause which was affectedly called the "sweeping clause" 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...."
It was clear to the Founder's,
that FEDERAL TAXES CAN BE COLLECTED FOR TWO THINGS ONLY!!!!
Review the CONSTITUTIONAL way
to collect Taxes that removes costly REGULATION costs, LEGAL and INCARCERATION
costs and COMPLIANCE costs:
Georgia State Elections Division
Suite 1104, West Tower
2 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, SE
Atlanta, GA 30334-1505
(404) 656-2871 FAX (404) 651-9536 http://www.sos.state.ga.us/elections
Division of Elections
Office of the Attorney General
44 South Clinton Avenue, 7th Floor
P.O Box 304
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0304
(609) 292-3760 FAX (609)777-1280 http://www.njelections.org
Tennessee Secretary of State's Office
312 Eighth Avenue North
9th Floor
Nashville, TN 37243
(615) 741-7956 FAX (615) 741-1278 http://www.state.tn.us/sos/election.htm
TEXAS
Director of Elections, General Law Division
Secretary of State/ Election Division
Post Office Box 12060
Austin, TX 78711-2060
(512) 463-5650 FAX (512) 475-2811 http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/inde
x.shtml
UTAH
Utah State Elections Office
Utah State Capitol Complex
East Office Building, Suite E325
P.O. Box 142325
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-2325
(801) 538-1041 FAX (801) 538-1133 http://www.elections.utah.gov
VERMONT
Director of Elections and Campaign Finance
Office of Secretary of State
26 Terrace Street, Drawer 09
Montpelier, Vermont 05609-1101
(802) 828-2304 FAX (802) 828-5171 http://www.sec.state.vt.us/#elections
VIRGIN ISLANDS
Supervisor of Elections
Election System of the Virgin Islands
Post Office Box 1499, Kingshill
St. Croix, VI 00851-1499
(340) 773-1021 FAX (340) 773-4523 http://www.vivote.gov
VIRGINIA
Secretary of State, Board of Elections
200 North 9th Street, Room 101
Richmond, VA 23219
(800) 552-9745 or (804) 864-8901 FAX (804) 371-0194 http://www.sbe.state.va.us
WASHINGTON
Office of Secretary of State, Elections Division
Legislative Building, P.O. Box 40220
Olympia, WA 98504-0220
(360) 902-4180 FAX (360) 586-5629 http://www.vote.wa.gov
WEST VIRGINIA
Manager of Elections
West Virginia Secretary of State Elections Division
1900 Kanawha Blvd E.
State Capitol Room 157-K
Charleston, WV 25305-0770
(304) 558-6000 FAX (304) 558-0900 http://www.wvsos.com
WISCONSIN
Wisconsin State Elections Board
17 West Main Street, Suite 310
Madison, WI 53703-3305
P.O. Box 2973
Madison, WI 53701-2973
(608) 266-8087 FAX (608) 267-0500 http://elections.state.wi.us
Note: That although we quote some research articles from the Heritage
Foundation, we are opposed to the Heritage Foundation's
leadership that has promoted National ID and the Patriot Act.
This has been brought to our attention.
We suggest not donating to the Heritage Foundation until they
reverse their stand on this issue and other issues that promote invasion upon
individual Liberties, Rights and Privacy.
While reviewing any videos or information from the Heritage Foundation,
beware of the insertion of information not in line with true freedom as defined
by the founders or attempts by groups such as the Heritage Foundation
that promote "exclusive privileges" as "free trade"under
the "guise" of "Freedom of Contract".
Beware of "Exclusive Privileged"trade, i.e. State
born exclusive privileges such as Corporations, Unions,Tax supported Special Interests or Undelegated
(under the Original Compact) self perpetuatingfederal or state
bureaucracies; being "passed off" as "Free Trade".
They are Collectives; Cartels and Monopolies; Creating not free trade, but
"exclusive privileged trade".
When challenged, fiscal republicans scream "freedom of contract" ;
Which has been corrupted by the addition of the "exclusive
privilege" in the form of the corporation, which should not exist in a
free country; and should not be or have unlimited grant of contract; as it's
whole existence is subject to the general public;
That others can create corporations is no excuse to allow something that
"should not exist in the fist place"; Exclusive Privileged Collectives
eventually choke out true free enterprise; Where as independents are
crowded out, they tend to migrate to those collectives for survival which
worsens the situation.
Further, it allows foreign control, through stocks,
of American soil and businesses; These subvert the powers of the local
legislative, causing dependency of those it employs, to foreign interests;
who owe homage to a foreign legislature;
This is against the philosophy of freedom;
See John Locke regarding Toleration, where citizens owing homage to
another entity (power - Pope used as the example back then) gives way to granting
that entity soldiers against the local legislative (magistrate) to
be stationed within the borders of a Magistrates own Country;
This is opposed to the local legislative which is supposed to be supreme
(limited powers granted by the people), to be fully supported by the people
and in-turn for the legislative to be fully in defense of the people's local
interests and safety;