Outpost of Freedom blog

Unlike any other Government

explaining where we came from; What happened along the way; and, What we need to do to get back to where we belong

by

Gary Hunt
July 4 (Independence Day
In the Year of our Lord 2009
and
In the Year of our Independence the 233rd

Preface

If you accept that we are currently governed by a government established under and by the authority of the Constitution, you may wish to stop reading, now. The intention of what follows is to bring to light only some of the many misdeeds of government. It also is intended to help the reader to understand what thought process the Founding Fathers used, when they created a government unlike any other government every before seen on Earth.

The Constitution was written as a set of guidelines for the operation of the government. As Thomas Jefferson said, “Let the Constitution be the chains that bind the Government”.

We will explore where government has gone astray by violating that very document which created it, and in violation of the sacred oath they took on assuming their office of public trust.

We will also enter the realm of Administrative Agencies, perhaps even more destructive of our Liberty and Freedom than the violations of the Constitution.

When I was young, I recall the many political cartoons in Life, Look and the Saturday Evening Post  magazines. There were some that ridiculed the Soviet Union, regarding its bureaucracy and hero worship. A cartoon might show a long line of people standing before an administrative building. A passer-by asks the woman at the end of the line, “what are you standing in line for?” To which the lady responds, “I don’t know, but with this many people in line, it must be something I need!” We now find ourselves standing in line, we know not what for, more often than ever before. Waiting for something to happen that will improve our condition.

The Soviets were very prompt to create heroes out of the multitude of government personnel. In honoring a “hero” for is work, the citation might read, “For rescuing a dead cat from a fallen tree.” The idea, quite simply, was to establish in the people the fact that all government employees are, somehow, superior because they just they do their jobs — those jobs which they applied for and were given, knowing that the everyday duties of those jobs included such risks that are now rewarded, by both government and press, with accolades of “Hero”. If a non-government person is the recipient of such an award, it is, most often, a child.

Firefighters who , fifty years ago, entered burning homes and brought family members and dogs out, alive, received only a paycheck on Friday. Today, we have entered that realm of hero worship.

This happened during the period of the McCarthy Hearings of the 1950s. Every effort was made to expose those who wanted to destroy the fabric of the self-governed nation, and replace it with Communistic, share the wealth, equality for all; to each based upon his needs, from each based upon his abilities.

Perhaps it was a form of Eugenics — to try to expel those who would tear down what the Founding Fathers sacrificed so much for to build. If so, it is one that I can agree with.

People who come to this country with the intention of ignoring, or even eliminating, its culture, heritage and way of government, do not belong here. They are, at best, misguided into thinking that what was earned so dearly will be abandoned so lightly. This is America; This nation used to be a beacon to the world. The government, by submitting to whatever evils which have swayed them from what was intended, have betrayed the people of this Great Nation. The Founding Fathers, in their foresight, have left us instructions on how to right that wrong. It is our obligation; It is our duty, to return to and preserve — the United States of America.

Gary Hunt
July 4th
In the Year of our Lord, 2009, and,
In the Year of our Independence, the 233rd.

Our Tumultuous Beginnings

First American Tyranny

Shortly after the close of the French and Indian Wars (1754-1763), the British, in order to pay the cost of the just ended war, decided to impose a tax on the colonies. The Parliament enacted tax laws that were only for the North American colonies, and did not even attempt to discuss the taxes with the lawful governments (colonial governments). Instead, without regard for the laws of England and the Rights of Englishmen, bypassed the established methods of taxation

Various efforts by the colonists to gain a voice and be heard occurred between 1765 (the Stamp Act) and 1773 (the Tea Act), and, although effective to some degree, never did achieve the desired goal of representation.

On April 19, 1775, Capt. John Parker, Commander of the Militia in Lexington, lined up forty to seventy Minute men on the Lexington Green. Standing ready, they faced a few hundred of the British under the direct command of Major Pitcairn. Pitcairn ordered the Minutemen to put down their arms and disperse. As some of the minutemen began to move away, a shot was fired. Moments later, eight colonists lay dead on the Green. According to John Adams, this was the end of the revolution and the beginning of the War for Independence.

During those early years, a revolution was taking place in America. As John Adams said in a letter to Thomas Jefferson (August 24, 1815):

“…As to the history of the revolution, my ideas may be peculiar, perhaps singular. What do we mean by revolution? The war? That was no part of the revolution, it was only an effect and consequence of it. The revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected from 1760 to 1775, in the course of fifteen years, before a drop of blood was drawn at Lexington. The records of the thirteen legislatures, the pamphlets, newspapers in all the colonies ought to be consulted during that period, to ascertain the steps by which the public opinion was enlightened and informed concerning the authority of parliament over the colonies, …

Perhaps Mr. Adams was correct in that the revolution was the change of ideas rather than the war, itself.

The acts of tyranny transcend the mere concern over taxes. Governors were removed and replaced with Royal appointees; Assemblies were suspended; Writs of Assistance (warrants without affidavits or knowledge of a crime — fishing expeditions) were issued,  without judicial scrutiny; Accused individuals were transported to England for trial (where they were denied the benefit of witnesses and evidence); soldiers were quartered in homes and private property ransacked; guns, cannon, ball and powder were seized; and, the Rights of Englishmen were trampled in the dust.

During the course of these events, the colonists did not stand idle. Sons of Liberty organizations sprang up through most of the colonies. The Sons of Liberty, most often, took their orders from the Committees of Safety (an English tradition dating back to the 17th century, in the colonies), which were rapidly establishing themselves throughout the colonies.

Committees of Safety and Militia

Prior to the War for Independence, Committees of Safety were being organized throughout the colonies. Committees (an English tradition and right), made their appearance in the colonies in the 17th century. In 1692, a Committee of Safety jailed and expelled a Royal Governor (Andros) of New England. Prior to the revolution, Committees formed their militia, primarily to protect from Indian attack and provide night watchmen to give alarm in emergencies, such as fire or raids.

As the events that lead to the War continued, Committees made a return, in every colony, so that local government could deal with local problems, regardless of the ability, or inability of the Crown’s government to deal with necessary functions. In 1774, Committees appointed delegates to the First Continental Congress (the Stamp Act Congress).

Militia were, by custom, subordinate to the Royal governor, should he call for them. Otherwise, they were subordinate to the Committee of Safety. The condition of subordination of the militia (military) to civil authority has roots back to the Magna Carta (1215).

This relationship would serve, though to a lesser degree as time went by, through the War, and would provide the foundation for the subsequent Articles of Confederation and the state constitutions.

The Magna Carta

The authority for bearings arms, in the Magna Carta, is a common sense interpretation of the document. Item #1 provides that “all of the underwritten liberties” are retained. Though the Charter does not say, “the right to keep and bear arms”, it does show that even those who were tenements on the land were able to posses the weapons of the day. Their obligation was to the next master in line (next higher level of government), which, in a present sense, would be the equivalent of the community, since serfdom is no longer practiced.

1. In the first place we have granted to God, and by this our present charter confirmed for us and our heirs forever that the English Church shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate; and we will that it be thus observed; which is apparent from this that the freedom of elections, which is reckoned most important and very essential to the English Church, we, of our pure and unconstrained will, did grant, and did by our charter confirm and did obtain the ratification of the same from our lord, Pope Innocent III, before the quarrel arose between us and our barons: and this we will observe, and our will is that it be observed in good faith by our heirs forever. We have also granted to all freemen of our kingdom, for us and our heirs forever, all the underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs forever.

37. If anyone holds of us by fee-farm, either by socage or by burage, or of any other land by knight’s service, we will not (by reason of that fee-farm, socage, or burgage), have the wardship of the heir, or of such land of his as if of the fief of that other; nor shall we have wardship of that fee-farm, socage, or burgage, unless such fee-farm owes knight’s service. We will not by reason of any small serjeancy which anyone may hold of us by the service of rendering to us knives, arrows, or the like, have wardship of his heir or of the land which he holds of another lord by knight’s service. [Note: serjeancy, as used herein, is the obligation to provide either service to the Crown, or to provide material, such as knives, arrows, a bow or lance, or other implements of war – Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition]

What way to go?

Though John Adams perceived the revolution to be over by April 19, 1775, others were less inclined to separate from the Crown.

Though violence had preceded the events at Lexington and Concord, it had been isolated events, seldom with significant loss of life. From that day forward, the violence escalated, drastically. Fort Ticonderoga; Bunker Hill; Ninety-Six; South Carolina; Montreal. Canada; Norfolk, Virginia; Great Canebreak, South Carolina; Quebec City, Canada; Moore’s Creek Bridge, North Carolina; Providence Island, Bahamas; Three Rivers, Canada; Sullivan’s Island, South Carolina; Fort Moultrie, South Carolina; and hundreds of lesser contests between loyalists and patriots, throughout the colonies. All of these fought with the intention of convincing the Crown that the Rights of Englishmen belonged to the Colonists, and seeking that recognition from Parliament. All of these battles fought to demonstrate the sincerity of the colonists with their demand for change.

Thousands of lives lost, while committed only to a resolution of the grievances that had been repeatedly sent to the government to be addressed. Constant prayer that resolution would be found and arms set aside — returning to the warm arms of Mother England.

Though there were few colonists who believed that there was no recourse but to separate, forever, from English rule, it wasn’t until nearly fifteen months after the beginning of the war that the colonial government realized that too much had occurred to every believe that reconciliation could ever be achieved.

Declaration of Independence

On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was formally signed. This magnificent document provides an insight into the thinking of the Founding Fathers. For example, it provides their explanation of the purpose of government: “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” Those rights therein mentioned are enumerated as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Clearly, they have provided us an understanding the government was instituted to serve the interests of the people, not to serve the interests of the ruler, which concept was so prevalent in Europe.

They also provide us the reason that they had taken on the formidable task of separating from England, “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 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.”

They also explain the difficulty in coming to the point of separation with the explanation that “ 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.”

Next, they explain the obligation that they impose upon the future, should events demonstrate that the government has deviated from its proper purpose.

“But when long trains 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 for new guards for their future security.”

They then proceed with a list of grievances to reveal how the government of England has failed to serve the people, amongst which are:

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance…

He has obstructed the administration of justice…

He has made judges dependent on his will alone

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and acknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts or pretended legislation:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For imposing taxes upon us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of a trial by jury:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

Perhaps we can see some parallels, here:

State enacted laws are superseded by federal enactments

Congress has established FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) courts

The independent judiciary, on many levels, has succumbed to administrative handouts funded by the federal government

The established bureaucracy (alphabet agencies) have become burdensome both in their imposition on our lives, and the costs of their maintenance.

Most every federal agency has been authorized to carry firearms, and some agencies have resorted to military equipment (tanks) to conduct their investigative duties.

Military forces have served in combat roles without declaration of war by the Congress, and have been directed to serve under the command of foreign officers.

Administrative agencies have been provided rule-making powers that are clearly imposed upon us outside of the protections of the Constitution.

Federal and state enforcement agencies have committed murder, with impunity, including the murder of women and children and the burning of churches and homes.

The government has, arbitrarily, determined that it can spend itself out of debt, that debt being imposed not only on us, but also on our posterity, for many generations to come.

By denying us the fundamental right to jury nullification, which had been prevalent throughout our history.

State laws and state initiatives have been made moot by federal agencies ignoring state law and punishing people who were acting totally within the laws within their respective state.

Thoughts of the Founding Fathers

The thought process of the Founding Fathers was unconventional, for the times. Monarchy was the form of government, with few exceptions, in Europe. Never before had such a group of people been in a situation where what was being cast off did not have a replacement in the wings.

Political theory had abounded, the century before the revolution, but there had never been an opportunity to put such theory into practice.

One of the major theorists was John Locke. Locke was one of the Enlightenment philosophers, venturing into ideological arenas seldom entered before, by man. He challenged Sir Robert Filmer’s Patriarcha, which had become the primary justification for the continuation of monarchal rule in Europe. Filmer explained the monarchy as rule by descendancy to the eldest son — from Adam to the then present monarch (George I), as the authority by which the sovereign right came.

Locke argued to the contrary. He felt that man could establish government and govern, not rule, himself. The above-mentioned quotations on government contained in the Declaration of Independence are a paraphrase of portions of Locke’s Second Treatise on Government. A more extensive presentation of Locke’s theory will be included, after some other considerations.

The First governments of the United States

The Articles of Confederation

During the early days of the War for Independence from British Tyranny, the colonists realized the need for a common entity; a consolidation of the colonial effort was necessary. Each state, large and small in both area and population, had to find an expedient means that allowed them to, jealously, protect their newfound ‘state’ governments. The result, hastily prepared and entered into, was the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (March 1, 1781). Though the term “united States of America” had been used in previous documents, the first document to create such an entity was the Articles of Confederation.

Each state, regardless of size or population, was given one vote in the Congress of the Confederation. States were not allowed to raise their own standing armies (though militias were allowed). The Articles also provided that it was created , ” … for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them…”

The problem with the Articles

The Articles provided that the debt incurred for the War would be acknowledged, and would be the obligation of the United States of America, though there was no provision that could force compliance of the states to contribute their share for the payment of such debt. Similarly, there were no means to force any state to contribute funds necessary for the obligations of government, or of manpower to continue the War.

After the War was concluded, a dilemma was created by the inability of the Congress to obtain sufficient support for other purposes of government. The government was foundering; unable to pay its debts; unable to sustain order within it realm; and, a multitude of other obstacles which kept it from performing its intended function. It was in a crisis.

The Articles, when formed, were done so hastily. It was an experiment that had no models, only theory, to follow. Through its first six years, the problems became apparent — to a point that amendment was necessary, if the United States of America were to survive. It was with this in mind that the states came together with the intention of making amendments to address the problems that had been exposed by practice

The Constitution

As with almost any creative enterprise, or product, there is seldom success with the first venture. One of the major disparities in the Articles was that of representation. The states with larger populations felt that each man should have his vote. This idea found support in those colonies that were not so established, but had land areas sufficient to allow substantial growth to their respective populations. On the other side, smaller states, very dense in population, argued that since the government was a Union, each state should to be equally heard in Congress. After all, this was what composed the existing government — created by the Articles, with equal representation to each state. The final solution was attendant to both arguments. The House of Representatives would be based upon the number of people within a state; this was the Republican form of government. The Senate would give each state equal say in the operations of that body; this was the democratic form of government. However, within each state a subsequent article in the Constitution guaranteed the Republican form of government

Next came the Executive. Many proposals were set forth, and finally a single executive, with the authority to carry out the will of the Congress, and to make recommendations to that Congress in an annual State of the Union address.

The judiciary was intended to remain impartial by not making the judges subject to changes in compensation, during their tenure.

The extent of the authority of the federal government was limited. Article I, Section 8 laid out the limits of authority granted by the people, for the government.

When the details had been ironed out, the Constitution was sent to each state for ratification, or rejection. A few states refused to ratify unless a Bill of Rights were adopted as a part of the Constitution. Eventually, the required nine states ratified the Constitution (June 21, 1788).

The Bill of Rights was submitted to the states for ratification, and was ratified on December 15, 1791.

The new government of the United States, which evolved from the Articles of Confederation was now the law of the land.

Though a brief explanation is provided, above, it is necessary to understand that a Preamble in a document is as much a part of the document as the text. The Preamble to the Constitution reads:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The purpose is clearly laid out, and is consistent with what was discussed, earlier, that the purpose of government is to protect Life, Property, and Liberty. Justice serves to that end; domestic Tranquility also serves to that end; providing for the common defense, serves that purpose no less; and, Promoting (not providing) the general Welfare is the final purpose, toward that same end.

Further, it should be noted that, for the first time in the history of the world, the People, even though done through representation at Constitutional ratification conventions, were the authority that created this new government. It was not created by the Articles of Confederation, nor was it based upon the descendancy from Adam, or a grant from God. It was the sovereign authority of the People (which was considered a grant from God) which created this government and to soon be a great nation, as described above.

Seldom acknowledged is that the Bill of Rights was also ratified with a Preamble. The Preamble anticipated that some of the concerns not addressed in the Constitution should be addressed to assure that the proper role of government be observed. It read:

The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.

There can be little doubt, especially upon reading this Preamble (purpose) of the Bill of Rights, and Articles in Amendment number 9 and 10 that the authority of government is limited only to those powers enumerated therein.

Article 9

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

These two articles are instrumental in tying the Constitution to the Declaration of Independence.

Sacrifices Betrayed?

Violations of the Constitution

During the course of the history of the United States of America, operating under the authority of the Constitution, there have been many violations of the Constitutions and unlawful usurpations of authority, which were not granted by the Constitution.

Though not intended to list all such violations, some significant ones will be addressed here:

West Virginia

Article IV, Section. 3 of the Constitution provides that: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Virginia seceded from the Union on April 17, 1861.

West Virginia was comprised of lands within the existing state of Virginia. It was made a state on June 20, 1863

The legislature of Virginia never gave the Consent, as required by the Constitution

Lincoln, as President, and in his proclaimed ‘desire to uphold the Constitution and retain the Union’, allowed the Congress to circumvent the Constitution in order to provide a Constitutional quorum in the legislature. A bit of a contradiction, which was never resolved by obtaining the “Consent” of Virginia, even after the Civil War was concluded.

The 14th Amendment

The Congress proposed the 14th Amendment to the Constitution on June 13, 1866.

The ratification 3/4ths of the states, or 28 of the then 37 states), by states, is as follows:

Connecticut (June 25, 1866)

New Hampshire (July 6, 1866)

Tennessee (July 19, 1866)

New Jersey (September 11, 1866)*

Oregon (September 19, 1866)

Vermont (October 30, 1866)

Ohio (January 4, 1867)*

New York (January 10, 1867)

Kansas (January 11, 1867)

Illinois (January 15, 1867)

West Virginia (January 16, 1867)

Michigan (January 16, 1867)

Minnesota (January 16, 1867)

Maine (January 19, 1867)

Nevada (January 22, 1867)

Indiana (January 23, 1867)

Missouri (January 25, 1867)

Rhode Island (February 7, 1867)

Wisconsin (February 7, 1867)

Pennsylvania (February 12, 1867)

Massachusetts (March 20, 1867)

Nebraska (June 15, 1867)

Iowa (March 16, 1868)

Arkansas (April 6, 1868)

Florida (June 9, 1868)

North Carolina (July 4, 1868, after having rejected it on December 14, 1866)

Louisiana (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on February 6, 1867)

South Carolina (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on December 20, 1866)

Throughout our history, this is the only instance where, when a state had rejected ratification, it was later allowed to withdraw that rejection. Similarly, when Ohio*, on January 15, 1868, attempted to withdraw its ratification, and, on February 28, 1868, New Jersey* attempted to withdraw its ratification, both were rejected in their withdrawals. Prior to, and since the 14th Amendment, once a state ratifies or rejects a proposed amendment, that action is unchangeable.

The Constitution is clear on the ratification process. It can be submitted through the Congress or through a Convention, convened by the State legislatures. That if proposed Amendments are submitted to the States for ratification, and “shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.”

It does not create a Turkey Shoot, where second shots can be had. The State Legislature, or the State Conventions, by “three-fourths vote”, determine if the Amendment is ratified as a part of the Constitution, or not.

Pressure was brought to bear on three states, and, subjecting themselves to that pressure, they changed their vote. Two other states, absent pressure (a voluntary act) had second thoughts about the consequences of the Amendment, chose to change their vote. The three were granted, the two were denied.

Though the Constitution does not make clear whether ratifications can be retracted, or, when rejected, whether that first decision can be changed. Therefore, we must look to common sense, and, common sense dictates that only one or the other can apply. Histories of ratifications prior and subsequent to the 14th Amendment have not allowed the practice of change of the first choice.

So, though not clear in the Constitution history, common sense must prevail, and we must consider what was done with the 14th Amendment to be as much a violation of the Constitution, due to the double-standard, as was the creation of West Virginia, as a state. That the 14th Amendment was not ratified in accordance with the Constitution.

The Federal Reserve

In 1913, the Congress enacted the Federal Reserve Act. Though there are many arguments respecting the unconstitutionality of the act, only one will be addressed here.

By establishing the Federal Reserve Bank, a consequence of the Federal Reserve Act, the authority to ‘coin’ money and ‘regulate the value thereof’ was granted to a private entity.

Article I, Section 8, clause 5 provides that congress has the power to:

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

It is clear that the Congress abrogated its responsibility, under the Constitution, “To coin Money”, by allowing a private entity to “coin” money and set “regulate” its value (by giving the Federal Reserve Note the same value as the Gold and Silver coin, and to remove the Congressional Responsibility and to pass it on to a private interest.

Congress abrogated its responsibility under the Constitution. Regardless of the arguments to the contrary, common sense, again dictates that the Constitution was violated.

Gold removed

In 1917, Congress passed the Trading with the Enemy Act to primarily, which, under conditions of war, gave extraordinary powers to the President. World War I ended on November 11, 1918.

On Sunday, March 5, 1933, Franklin Roosevelt called for Congress to “convene in extra session” on March 9, 1933 [Proclamation 2038]. On the next day, he declared, by proclamation, a “bank holiday” which ran from Monday, March 6 through Thursday, March 9, inclusive. In the proclamation, he makes some rather interesting claims. He states that “there have been heavy and unwarranted withdrawals of gold and currency . . . for the purpose of hoarding.” and this “has resulted in severe drains on the Nation’s stocks of gold : and” 

“WHEREAS these conditions have created a national emergency”

He then goes on to refer to “Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, (40 Stat. L, 411) as amended ‘That the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of license or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange and the export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency * * *’”

Further, “NOW, THEREFORE, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America in view of the national emergency and by virtue of the authority vested in me by said Act . . . ” (emphasis mine), and he declares the “holiday”.

The “national emergency” that he spoke of was the extension of lending authority granted to the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB, established by the Federal Reserve Act, see above) just twenty years before. The FRB was unable to provide, in gold, the deposits on hand. The system of fractional banking had allowed them to extend credit well beyond the available “value” held in trust by the banks. This is the definition of bankrupt: “The state or condition of one who is unable to pay his debts as they are, or become, due.”

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition]

Article I, Section 8, clause 5 provides that congress has the power to “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin”, and, Article I, Section 10, clause 1, reads, in part: “No State shall… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts…”

In 1933, Congress set the value of gold at 32 dollars per ounce. Since that time, the value of gold has fluctuated based upon worldwide demand. The dollar, at present, based upon the value established indirectly by the Federal Reserve Bank (purchasing power) is over $900 per ounce. Clearly, Congress has given up its responsibility to “regulate the value thereof, and has removed it from the public, prohibiting the states from fulfilling their obligation, under

Ashwander v. TVA

Article III, Sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution reads:

Section 1: The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.  

Section 2: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;…

All judicial power is vested in the supreme Court. That power extends to all Cases arising under this Constitution. Remaining provisions must be subordinate to those mentioned.

The protection of the People, and the assurance that the government acts in accordance with the Constitution, then, is clearly the responsibility of the Supreme Court.

In 1936, the Supreme Court ruled on a case, Ashwander vs. Tennessee Valley Authority. Judge Louis D. Brandeis, in an opinion concurring with the Court, provided us some insight into why we could no longer expect the Constitution to provide the restraints on government, as intended by the Founding Fathers. His opinion, in part:

The Court developed, for its own governance in the cases confessedly within its jurisdiction, a series of rules under which it has avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision. They are:

1. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of legislation in a friendly, nonadversary, proceeding, declining because to decide such questions is legitimate only in the last resort, and as a necessity in the determination of real, earnest and vital controversy between individuals…

2. The Court will not” anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it…It is not the habit of the Court to decide questions of a constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case

3. The Court will not “formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied

4. The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question, although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of. This rule has found most varied application. Thus, if a case can be decided on either of two grounds, one involving a constitutional question, the other a question of statutory construction or general law, the Court will decide only the latter

5. The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation. Among the many applications of this rule, none is more striking than the denial of the right of challenge to one who lacks a personal or property right. Thus, the challenge by a public official interested only in the performance of his official duty will not be entertained.

6. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.

7. When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided.

It would appear that a public servant, who felt that his duties violated the Constitution, could not get the Court to make a determination as to the Constitutionality of that duty. For example, if one of Hitler’s SS troops felt that he was being told to do something that he perceived as a violation of the Constitution, he would have no standing to ask the Court for a determination. He would be compelled, by law, to “just do his job”. (Number 5)

Once a person seeks a benefit from an agency (Social Security, Internal Revenue Service, Department of Motor Vehicles, Welfare, Child Protective Services, etc.), he is no longer protected by the Constitution, for the supreme Court will rule that, since he has availed himself of its benefits, he is bound by that agency’s rules (number 6)

The First Amendment, Bill of Rights: “Congress shall make no law respecting … the right of the people peaceably … to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In effect, the Court has removed itself as a means of ‘redress of grievances, by allowing itself to ‘rule’ that they will not answer questions regarding the Constitutionality of laws, enactments, or rules promulgated by agencies (whether in violation of the Constitution, or not).

The supreme Court has, throughout our history, been the last resort for the determination of the Constitutionality of any law or enactment. The distinction between legal and lawful has, historically, hinged upon that final determination by the Court.

When the Court, by itself, can subordinate that important function, based upon rules promulgated by themselves, the Court has removed the common people from the protections of the Constitution.

They have provided a superiority to the administrative agencies of government, and an inferiority to the Supreme Law of the Land.

Vietnam

Korea came and went, at the tail end and under the emotions of World War II. It is often referred to as “the Forgotten War”, so we will leave it forgotten, for the purpose of this current work, though it does fall into a category similar to Vietnam.

Article I, Section 8, clause 11 provides that Congress shall have the power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Nowhere else in the Constitution is there any provision for the declaration of war. The Founding Fathers felt that the power to declare war was too awesome a power to give to one man (the President). There can be little doubt as to their intentions, and we can look back, historically, and see that whenever war was declared, the reasons why the war was declared, and who the enemy was, were clearly stated.

Some will try to compare what Thomas Jefferson did when he sent the Marines to the Barbary Coast to deal with the Barbary Pirates, and their supporters. Jefferson, however, was acting under a true emergency. He declared his objectives and sent forth the powers of the United States to release those taken prisoner; to retrieve the lost cargoes, if possible; to recover the American ships seized by the Pirates; and, to set forth to the world that the United States of America was not to be messed with. He went in, did the job and moved out. The Barbary affair was over.

In Vietnam, we saw an advisory venture — an effort to train the native Vietnamese to control their own destiny. There was no defined enemy, as the enemy, for the most part, was South Vietnamese citizens, with aid coming from their allies in the North. We did not enter (until much later) the territory of the perceived enemy of North Vietnam, nor did Congress ever declare war and state the cause and the enemy.

After gradual escalations in forces, and after a rather controversial ‘attack’ on American military surveillance ships in the Gulf of Tonkin, Congress enacted “the Southeast Asia Resolution”, Public Law 88-408. This law authorized President Lyndon Baines Johnson, without a declaration of war, to use military force in Southeast Asia. Congress had abrogated its responsibility, under the Constitution, to provide that safeguard against the power of one man.

There was no legally defined enemy. We were fighting insurgents who were simply in rebellion against their own government (involved in a civil war of another nation), and we were fighting well outside of the authority granted by the Constitution,

Eight years later, after spending billions of dollars and sacrificing the lives of over 58 thousand young American men, we withdrew, in defeat, from a war that was unlawful and unwinnable.

The Congress abrogated its responsibility, under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution, by allowing the President to have the effect, by his commitment of millions of soldiers to foreign soil, where tens of thousands of them died, of conducting a war on foreign soil, without the requisite declaration of war.

This is a violation of the Constitution by both Congress and the President, and denied the protection of the Constitution to those who fought and/or died in Vietnam.

 

Silver removed

After a one year notice, requested by the United States Treasury Department, on June 24, 1968, the Treasury Department, and banks across the nation would no longer redeem Silver Certificates for silver coin. Silver had gone the way of Gold, in violation of the requirements of the Constitution, and without amendment thereto.

Just as with Gold, the Congress had allowed the value of coin to be established by a private entity, though in this instance, there was no longer any coin of the realm to compare values to.

The last means of paying debt, in accordance with the Constitution were completely removed by this act.

Again, the Constitution was twice violated.

Proliferation of bureaucracy

We have frequently heard that our Constitutional Rights are being violated. Ironically, it has nothing to do with Constitutional Rights. It has to do with Bureaucracy — A proliferation of Bureaucracy.

Ashwander v. TVA lays out for us just how this next step in creating a Police State occurs. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits you from contracting. In fact, Article I, Section 10 sates: “No State shall… pass any… Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” So, if you contract for anything (privilege of driving, entering into marriage, build a house, open a business, receive anything from the government, etc.), you are bound by the contract. Moreover, since you receive something in return, your contract has the requisite ‘consideration for consideration’, which means that you have not gone into involuntary servitude. You are just plain stuck with the government as the overseer of all that you do.

Somewhere, the talons of Ashwander have ripped into your chest, and you cannot remove them. The result is what amounts to no less a Police State than Hitler had in 1930s Germany. In fact, the art has been so perfected by the existing government that it may be more powerful than that of Germany.

It is an insidious form of control, for the deception is such that you are lead to believe that it has nothing to do with Constitutional Rights (“don’t bring that Constitution into my courtroom”), when, in fact, it has everything to do with the subtle destruction of those rights. Do we lose our rights just because the government says that they are there, but don’t apply, in this case? Or, is it the obligation of government to “secure” those tights, and protect us from encroachment of them? If it was intended by the Founding Fathers that the latter is the case, then the police state that has evolved in this country is as much a violation of the Constitution as those mentioned above.

Some examples, though there are many more, follow.

Police state

Prohibition

In 1917, the Congress proposed an amendment to the Constitution. The Amendment was ratified 2 years later and became known as the 18th Amendment, or, “Prohibition”. The Amendment reads as follows:

Section. 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section. 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section. 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

It should be noted that the Amendment did not prohibit consumption of alcohol, it only made it difficult to obtain. Congress, back then, knew that they could not pass a law that worked directly on the people — only on the commerce. The Amendment was needed because there was no other means, under the Constitution, to deny free men access to alcohol, except by an amendment to the Constitution. Meanwhile, cocaine and marijuana were dispensed at the corner drug store, without the need for a prescription from a doctor. Your health was in your own hands.

The Amendment was repealed, in its entirety, by the 21st Amendment on December 5, 1933. During its tenure, a number of things happened in the country that are significant. First was that juries would nullify the law by refusing, in many locations, to convict those who had been charged with alcohol related crimes. This right of “jury nullification” was fundamental to our sense of justice and that the people are the final arbiter of all laws. Just as had occurred after the supreme Court had decided, in the Dred Scott vs. Sandford case (that a slave must be returned to its legal owner), where juries failed to convict those who ran underground railroads. Ultimately, the unpopularity of the Amendment, as attested by the jury nullification resulted in repeal.

During Prohibition, the groundwork was laid for the extraordinary growth of organized crime. The demand for ‘illegal’ alcohol was such that control of the trade yielded millions of dollars of profit. What had been small business had become so large that it covered most of the country and into parts of Canada. The diminishing remains of organized crime are still with us, today, many years after the end of Prohibition.

It also provided groundwork for the proliferation of administrative agencies, and the granting of extraordinary (extra constitutional) powers to these them.

The Great Depression, just a few years later, provided even more means for agencies to begin controlling our lives. Social Security began in 1935, though it was limited, then, only to people who worked for a corporation that had contracts with the government.

Ashwander v. TVA (above) provided the nexus for the proliferation of the police state that has evolved with those agencies.

Prohibition demonstrated that: it would require a Constitutional Amendment to control commercial production, sale, or transportation of a drug; that even with an Amendment, the government could not prohibit you using that drug; and, that an Amendment was required to grant the states the power to enforce federal laws.

With the advent of the police state, and supported by the refusal of the supreme Court to rule on Constitutionality, agencies can now promulgate rules which we are bound by, without recourse to the Constitution.

Local agencies, by virtue of receiving federal funds (yes, your dollars) have been ‘greenmailed’ into obedience to federal law, regardless of the Constitutionality of that law (Ashwander, #5).

Your ability to question a law would require that you first prove that you have not sought a benefit from the agency whose rules you have violated (a very expensive process, to go to the supreme Court).

Because of the foundation laid by Ashwander, we have become subject to bureaucratic rule. Following are just a very few of the inflictions imposed upon us by this police state:

Waco, Texas – February 28 – April 19, 1993

During the morning press conference in Waco, Texas, during the siege of the Branch Davidian Church, Louis Beam asked a question. He asked, “Is what is happening here, in Waco, indicative of the coming police state? The speakers at the press conference (FBI and BATF) never responded to Mr. Beam’s question, though after some whispering, we saw the Waco Police Department remove Mr. Beam from the press conference, at the point of a gun.

Again, at Waco, after the final reports were presented, we found that, perhaps, the BATF was a bit overzealous in conducting the raid that resulted in the deaths of more than a hundred men, women, and children. Yet, no federal agents were ever tried for a crime that cost so many lives.

In Waco, Texas, April 19, 1993, the FBI was armed with tanks, grenade launchers, fully automatic weapons and has its own team of snipers. This would appear to be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of the military against the people, but instead is merely the providing of military uniforms, fully automatic rifles, grenade launchers, sniper teams, tanks, and other military equipment to both tax collectors (BATF) and investigators (FBI).

It needs to be understood, also, that the police state provides protection for its agents.

After the Boston Massacre, Captain Preston and seven soldiers were charged with Manslaughter. Preston and five others were acquitted, because they acted to defend their lives. The other two were found guilty, but, through benefit of clergy, were branded and released.

So, the King’s soldiers stood trial for killing civilians. They were acquitted because they had a right to defend their lives. They did not have immunity from prosecution, but they did have a right to defend themselves (a very fundamental right, without which, any other right has no meaning).

Eight of the Branch Davidians stood trial for numerous charges. Though there is no doubt that they were defending their lives, since all, except Paul Fatta, who was not in Mt. Carmel at the time, were charged with use of firearms on February 28, 1993, the day of the initial raid. All of them were convicted of the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime. They were not, however, convicted of a crime in which they used the firearm in the commission of.

The ‘soldiers (BATF and FBI agents) were never tried to determine, by a jury, whether they had committed any crimes.

Clearly, the police state that exists in this country, today, is far more protective of those who support it (agencies and agents), and far less protective of the people within the country, who were protecting their very lives from an assault by tax collectors (BATF).

Ruby Ridge, Idaho – August 21 – August 31, 1992

Months earlier, 14-year-old Sammy Weaver was shot in the back, and killed by US Marshals who were trespassing on the Weaver property at Ruby Ridge, Idaho. Later, his mother, Vicki Weaver, was assassinated by FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi. Vicki was unarmed and holding her newborn child in her arms. No federal agents were charged with a crime by federal authorities. Later, however, an Idaho Grand Jury indicted Horiuchi for involuntary manslaughter. Horiuchi petitioned to have the case transferred to federal court. US District Judge Edward Lodge ruled that, since Horiuchi was a federal officer acting in his official capacity, he was exempt from prosecution under the supremacy clause of the Constitution.

The supremacy clause (Article VI, paragraph 2) reads:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Further, during the siege, the Hostage Rescue Team Commander, Richard Rogers, amended the FBI standard rules of engagement to:

1. If any adult male is observed with a weapon prior to the announcement, deadly force can and should be employed, if the shot can be taken without endangering any children.
2. If any adult in the compound is observed with a weapon after the surrender announcement is made, and is not attempting to surrender, deadly force can and should be employed to neutralize the individual.
3. If compromised by any animal, particularly the dogs, that animal should be eliminated.
4. Any subjects other than Randall Weaver, Vicki Weaver, Kevin Harris, presenting threats of death or grievous bodily harm, the FBI rules of deadly force are in effect. Deadly force can be utilized to prevent the death or grievous bodily injury to oneself or that of another.

This was not an enactment of law by the Congress of the United States; it was made by a field commander of a bureaucratic agency of government. He authorized his people to KILL Americans for having a firearm on their own property. It does not require that a subject be pointing his weapon in their direction, nor that the agent would have to feel that there was a direct and immediate threat to his life. It was all a charade to give justification, in writing, to kill the Weavers and Kevin Harris, if the opportunity arose.

Weaver and Harris stood trial, but were acquitted of any charges related to the incident at Ruby Ridge. Two of the Sate Attorneys were fined for falsifying evidence (since the case could have had capital consequence, they were actually trying to kill Weaver and Harris, again). Moreover, none of the agents who killed Sammy or Vicki Weaver was brought to trial. They were protected by the same agencies for which they work.

Malibu, Californian – October 2, 1992

Donald P. Scott, age 61, owned and lived on a 200-acre property known as the Trails End Ranch in the Ventura County portion of Malibu, California. Based upon a sworn affidavit by Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Gary R. Spencer, stating that with aerial surveillance it was determined that there were between 50 and 100 marijuana plants growing on the property, a search warrant was issued.

On Friday, August 2, 1992, 30 law enforcement officers (13 from Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, 5 from Los Angeles Police Department. 3 from the National Guard. 3 from the National Park Service. 2 from U.S. Forest Service. 2 from California Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement, and 2 from the federal Drug Enforcement Agency) gathered at the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Malibu Station for briefing.

About 8:30 AM, the team forced entry into the home of Scott. Scott, who was awakened by the commotion, did not have time to dress before the entry was made. Frances Plante, who was already up, was hustled outside to other officers. Scott, responding to the commotion, came to the doorway to the living room with a gun. As described in the official report, “Scott was holding a gun in his right hand, with his palm and fingers around the cylinder rather than the butt. Scott’s elbow was at his side with his forearm straight out or slightly up, his hand turned up with the barrel of the gun pointing at a 45-degree angle toward the ceiling. Scot was holding the gun with the barrel upward, as if he were going to hit someone rather than shoot it.”

Spencer, then fearing for his life, he and another deputy fired three shots, at point blank range, killing Donald Scott in his own home. No evidence of marijuana or any other drugs were found in the home or on the property.

Ventura County, although they were never notified of a raid within their jurisdiction, did conduct the final report on the shooting. In their conclusions, the report states that:

… Because it cannot be proven that Spencer knowingly lied in the affidavit, there is an insufficient basis for a perjury prosecution,

It is the District Attorney’s opinion that the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to seize and forfeit the ranch for the government. …. This search warrant became Donald Scott’s death warrant.

The evidence does not establish that Donald Scott intended a shoot out with the deputies. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that the deputies went to the ranch with the hope of killing Scott. When Deputy Spencer ordered Scott to lower his gun, Scott did so in a way that Spencer says caused him to fear for his life. …The invalidity of the warrant does not form a sufficient legal or evidentiary basis for a homicide prosecution.

It becomes apparent that the police state mentality, asset forfeiture, and nearly absolute impunity for law enforcement officers has become detrimental to not only our property, but our lives, as well.

Nobody was charged, to be tested by a jury of people, to determine if Donald Scott’s life was taken as the result of criminal activity.

Agency State

Children

Child Protective Services is known by different names in some parts of the country, but there is little difference in the policies and activities of these insidious government agencies.

One event, which occurred about 1986 involved, separated parents. The mother, living with a child from the current marriage and two from a former marriage, lived on Ocala, Florida. The father lived in Orlando. One day, the father received a phone call from the hysterical mother. “They came in the house and told me to go to a room, and they took the children and terrorized them”, she said. The father told her that he would be there, shortly, to see what he could do.

When he arrived, the mother explained that Child Protective Services had come to her door and said that they wanted to speak with the children; they said that they had received a report that the mother had abused the children. They demanded that she go into a bedroom and close the door while they asked the children some questions, and looked for signs of child abuse. They would not answer any questions, and they continued their ‘examination’ of the children for over half an hour. Finally, they allowed her to come out of the room and informed her that they found no evidence of child abuse. Again, they would answer no questions, though they did leave a business card.

The children were frightened, even after the CPS people had left. The oldest, a girl asked her mother if they were going to take her away from her mother. The mother had no idea what the answer to the question was.

The father arrived and the mother told him what had happened. He was irate, and took the business card and drove to the offices of the CPS. He demanded to see a supervisor, and, after repeated demands, was finally led to a room occupied by a woman who appeared to be a director. He explained what had occurred and insisted on seeing the report that had been filed. She denied his request, and the conversation continued. He explained that he was not going to leave the office until he was able to see the report. Finally, the women relented, left the office, and returned with a Xerox of the report that was filed. The father read the report and noted that there were a couple of items ‘blacked out with a marker’. The obscured items was the name of the person filing the report and their address and phone number. The report, however, made clear that the report was called in over the telephone.

The father then insisted that,” in accordance with the Constitution, we have a right to meet the accuser. You have provided nothing along the lines of what I requested. I want to see the report that caused your people to terrorize my family.” After a very heated discussion, the women, again, left and returned, this time with a complete copy of the report. On this copy, which claimed that the person had personal knowledge that the mother abused the children, was blank in both the address and the phone number, however, in the box for the name of the person filing the report was written “anonymous”.

Florida, when they adopted the child abuse database, determined that if ever anyone’s name were entered in the database, it would never be removed. Consequently, the mother’s name will, forever, be listed as a possible child abuser.

The father informed the CPS that if they were ever an investigation, again, into that family, that he be notified and be allowed to be present. The woman made some notes and assured him that he would be notified. Thus ends this story, but not the knowledge that someone who was an excellent mother will, forever, have her name on the rolls of those who have abused their children

There are many occurrences of CPS taking children away from their parents. Usually, when this occurs, any court proceedings come after the children are taken. The children have become the property of the state, which is provided substantial funds by the federal government, leaving families destroyed. Very few have had such a fortunate outcome as described above.

Administrative agencies have managed to, somehow, bring the children into their web. In most cases, welfare, or some other program advertised to help parents with their children, are the means by which the ‘benefit’ is sought, thereby binding the parents to the rules of the agency.

Property Forfeiture

There are so many cases of property seizure and forfeiture that it difficult to know where to start. We have all read accounts of someone travelling with large amounts of cash in their car, or their purse or pocket. They are stopped by local law enforcement. They are asked to give permission to search the vehicle. Most often, the unwary driver says “yes”.

The officer then searches the vehicle and finds a large amount of cash. He will probably let the person go, perhaps with a ticket, though sometimes with a simple, “you are free to go”. The cash, however, is confiscated by the officer as “presumed to be the byproduct of criminal activity”.

The cash is turned over to the court and a proceeding takes place, styled along the lines of “Acme County v. $9,378 dollars in cash”. Then, if the owner of the cash has the wherewithal to pay an attorney to represent the “cash” in the suit, they start watching the value of the cash reduced proportionate to the cost of the legal proceedings.

The ‘court” is operating under the premise that the cash is a byproduct of criminal activity, therefore, the due process required by the Fifth Amendment is moot. Here, we come to a matter of interpretation of our contract with the government. The court assumes that the owner of the property has not been deprived of the property, even though the due process had been preceded by the confiscation of the property.

The Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So the complex legal question of whether you are deprived of your property when the officer takes it from you, or you are deprived of your property, which the officer deprived you of, only after the court finalizes the theft of your property. Thank God for attorneys because this is such a difficult  interpretation of the wording of the Fifth Amendment.

However, maybe there is another “presumed right”, of which we have all been told the existence of. That being you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If that is true within the American judicial system, then the presumption of innocence applies both to you and to your cash. How can “byproduct of criminal activity” be assumed if there is no crime with which to associate the activity?

Finally, in what country in the world have we ever heard that you can be presumed to be criminal if you have lawful, or legal, coin of the realm in your pocket?

Motor Vehicles

Did you ever wonder why the lender (lien holder) can reposes someone’s car, without a court order? Quite simply, the person who thinks he owns the car doesn’t really own it.

It starts when the car is bought. You fill out a neat little package of forms so that the dealer can take the package down to the Motor Vehicle Department (DMV) and get a temporary tag until the real tag arrives in your mailbox.

One, or more of the little cards that you fill out is called a “Power of Attorney”. The Dealer takes the Power of Attorney and a piece of paper that he got when the car was delivered from the manufacture. That piece of paper is known as the Manufacture’s Statement of Origin (MSO). You could say that it is the “birth certificate” for the automobile. When the dealer takes your Power of Attorney and the MSO, and, of course, some of your money, to the DMV, he asks them, under the authority of the Power of Attorney , to make the automobile a motor vehicle. The DMV will then issue a Certificate of Title. Now, this is where it begins to get interesting.

Let’s go to Black’s Law Dictionary (5th Edition) to see how your car becomes a vehicle:

“Certificate of title. See Insurance (Title insurance)” [page 206]

It seems rather strange to have to look under ” insurance” for ” certificate of title” , but, let’s try it:

Insurance **** {page 721][deep into the many paragraphs, we find:]

Title insurance. Insurance against loss or damage resulting from defects or failure of title to a particular parcel of reality, or from enforcement of liens existing against it at the time of insurance. This form of insurance is taken out by the purchaser of the property or one loaning money on mortgage, and is furnished by companies specially organized for the purpose, and which keep complete sets of abstracts or duplicates of the records, employ expert title-examiners, and prepare conveyances and transfers of all sorts. A ” certificate of title” furnished by such a company is merely the formally expressed professional opinion of the company’s examiner that the title is complete and perfect (or otherwise, as stated), and the company is only liable for want of care, skill, or diligence on the part of its examiner.

So, what does that say? It says that the state, through the DMV, insures that the one loaning money is insured as to the title of the car. That is the lien holder, not you. Until the lien holder is removed from the title, it is their car. It also makes it commercial, it is being insured as a “motor vehicle”.

So, what is a “motor vehicle”?  For this, we have to go to the US Code, TITLE 18 – CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Section 31. Definitions. There, we find:

” Motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo

and,

” Used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit

So, by getting a Certificate of Title, in exchange for a Manufacture’s Statement of Origin, you end up with a commercial vehicle that belongs to the lien holder, not you. And, you paid for it.

Since it belongs to them, they can take it, if you have breached the contract.

To make this charade as effective as possible, everybody keeps very quiet about it. So, unless you pay cash for a new car, and, ask for the MSO, you can expect to drive a commercial “motor vehicle” rather than a car.

Home  Building Permits

Did you ever wonder why, in a free country, you had to get a building permit to build a home? Even if you want to add a room, you must get a building permit.

Imagine, if you will, a covered wagon travelling across the vast plains of the Midwest, venturing out to California or Oregon, in search of a new life. They arrive as the winter snows begin to fall. They have been living out of their wagon for the past eight months, and are anxious to begin their new home.

As the father is cutting down trees, preparing them for cabin logs, a stranger walks up and says, “Sir, where is your building permit? You will need to have plans prepared by an architect. You will, if you want indoor plumbing, the work will have to be performed by a licensed plumber. Then, you will need a septic tank, so you will have to get a soil engineer’s certificate of suitability of the soil for the septic tank. Thank God, there was no electricity, then.

Surely, they would have repacked their wagon and reversed their trek.

Under the guise of “for your own protection”, agencies have grown out of the woodwork to assure that you don’t endanger yourself by building a home of sod, logs, dirt, or even bricks.

Back in 1968, a Vietnam Veteran found an old house, in the hills south of Watsonville, California. The “Condemned” sign was still hanging on the door. He looked in the tax assessor’s roll and found the owner, who lived in Southern California. He called them, made an appointment, visited them and left with an agreement to buy the house and property.

Back at the house, he replaced fallen plaster with sheetrock, dozens of broken windows, water heater, submersible well pump, cleaned the cistern for water storage, sanded and varnished floors, painted or papered walls, and rewired some of the electrical system, which had been installed in the house long after it was first built in 1929.

Being otherwise self-sufficient, he needed only to get the electricity turn on to make the now restored house a home.

He called the electric company and told them that he needed to get the electricity turned on. When the man arrived to turn the electricity on, he asked for the building permit. The Veteran said, “I don’t have a building permit. I’ve only restored that which was.”

“Well, do you have anything from the electrician who did the work?”

“I’m not an electrician, but I did the work.”

‘Well, you are supposed to have a building permit and it is supposed to be signed off by a certified electrician.” As the electric company man was saying this, he was looking in the master electric panel. He then said, “Well, the work looks good, and, since you are going to be living here, I’ll go ahead and turn the electricity on.” which he did.

It seemed that there was a commercial tie to getting electricity in a house. Building permit, certified electrician, all of this just so he could turn his lights on? Would the government rather he live without electricity — for his own safety?

So, how does this work? Well, if you contract any portion of the house to be built by someone else, the state has ‘regulated’ their trade — for your safety. In that regulation, they have told him that he will lose his license if he does work without the proper permits.

Then, they tell all of the utility companies that they have to ascertain that there was a building permit and that any work performed under the permit has to have been done, and signed off by a licensed professional, or the utility services cannot be turned on — or, the utility company will lose its license.

As with Prohibition, the government cannot act on us, but can act on commercial entities. Once you have submitted an application for the building permit (remember Ashwander), you are bound by the rules of that agency. You have ‘volunteered’ to seek a benefit. And, you have been force to volunteer because the commercial enterprises have been coerced into participation of the game that denies you their services unless you have the permit.

To add insult to injury, once the Building Permit is completed and signed off, the agency acknowledges that you have improved your property, and increases, based upon your ‘admission’, the value of the property tax assessment.

Borders

What is an illegal immigrant?

The Immigration and Nationality Act prohibits non-nationals from entering, or attempting to enter the United States at any time or place that has not been designated by an immigration officer. It also prohibits non-nationals from eluding immigration officers. Inspection and/or authorization are required for entry.

The U. S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, and its mobile division, The U. S. Border Patrol are responsible for apprehending individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally.

Even with these laws and agencies, it is estimated that over one-half million illegals enter the United States, each year.

There are three types of illegal immigrants: 1) entering without authorization and inspection; 2) staying beyond the authorized period for entry; and, 3) violating the requirements for legal entry. The first type accounts for over half of the illegal immigrants in this country.

Who enforces immigration laws?

Illegal immigration is classed as a misdemeanor and subjects the person to extradition.

Under The United States Code, Title 8, Section 1103, the Powers and Duties of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General of the United States have the authority to extradite illegal immigrants

There are an estimated 13 million illegal immigrants

Since the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has over 60 agencies within its department, with over 179 thousand employees and a budget in excess of $28 billion, it is difficult to understand why the growth in numbers of illegal immigrants in this country continues to climb.

It has become apparent that the DHS is not interested in supporting local law enforcement in attempting to stem the flow of illegals or to identify them for extradition. In fact, there are a number of large cities in the United States that have enacted laws protecting illegal immigrants within their boundaries (Haven Cites).

Not only illegal immigrants, who flood the job market, even though they are criminals by being here, but drugs, weapons and possible terrorists, with intentions of death and destruction, are nearly guaranteed entry because of the negligence of the DHS and other responsible agencies.

The abrogation of their responsibility, under the law, creates risk to the citizens of this country, and provides a welcome mat for the continuation of illegal border crossings.

Often, employers are charged with a crime for employing illegal immigrants. The government and the agencies assigned to protect the borders, however, are immune from consideration of their failure to enforce the law of the land.

Though there are many causes for concern over what is happening in this country, only a few have been addressed, here. Surely, your concerns would fit into the above descriptions as nicely as those that have been included.

The Nature of Government

Returning to John Locke, and his philosophy of self-government, that which the Founding Fathers modeled much of the founding of this nation after, is worthy of understanding, if we are to know enough about our government to understand what is necessary to return it to its proper role.

Dissolution of government

We begin with the question, can government be dissolved?

Governments can be dissolved by a number of means. What history shows us, as the most common, was forceful encroachment by a conquering Army. The effect was dissolution of the government and subsequent dissolution of the society, for every nation is composed of both government and society. Generally, under these circumstances, society was disrupted and scattered to the winds. This form of dissolution has not existed for quite some time.

Another form is when an enemy force dissolves government, and replaces that government with a government of their own choosing. The result, in this instance, is dissolution of government by non-violent means, and subsequent dissolution of the society, which is replaced, through a slow transitional process, by a society unlike the one that was the source of the original government. We must not assume, in this circumstance, that the dissolution of government will, necessarily, take a forceful effort. The likelihood, in modern times, is that the dissolution of the government and subsequent dissolution of society will go unnoticed until history is revised and the transition is lost from existence, without a notice of its demise.

If the form of government within a nation has any form of representative capacity, the means by which dissolution may occur will take one of three forms. First, the executive may begin to arbitrarily impose his will on the elected representatives and the people. Slowly the rule of law deviates from its original intent, and slowly the dissolution process occurs.

There is also dissolution of government by delivery of the people to the influence of a foreign power. Eventually, the legislative body finds themselves subjected to a set of rules not of their making, but to which they must adhere, which, again, results in the demise of the government, as was originally intended, and the society as it becomes subject to that foreign power.

Finally, there is dissolution when the trust bestowed upon the existing government is betrayed, by whatever means. That trust, generally in the form of a constitution, forms a set of rules by which the government is empowered, with the belief that it will abide by such contract. Faith is necessary because there is a need to pass power to government so that it can conduct its business thus the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution). When that power is directed in violation of the trust, ultimately it will be used to dissolve the society. The question here is, is the government dissolved as well? That answer shall be forthcoming.

How is a government dissolved?

Governments, of the nature of legislative authority, are created by, and subject to the will of the people. They are creatures of the will of the people, and their purpose for existence is only to protect the rights of the people, to the extent delegated, for the preservation of property and the protection of the life and liberty of the people. There is no other purpose for government whose authority is from the people, than the preservation and protection of the People’s lives, rights and property.

Once it is recognized that government has begun to deviate from its intended purpose, and the delivery to a foreign power is apparent, the people are more likely to presume that there is nothing that can be done to change that course. Many will accept that those chosen to legislate and administer are far wiser than they are, and willingly subject themselves to the change that results in the conversion and dissolution.

Within any society, it is far easier, especially so long as there is sufficient bread on the table, to allow the trend to continue, accepting that this is the evolution of government as it should be. Little do they recognize that what they are experiencing is tyranny in the same form that has imposed itself upon people throughout history. The despotic nature of government will advise them that they are freemen while they are, at the same time, wrapping the chains of slavery gently around their lives. This is a form of mockery that is little understood by most. What is understood even less is that they not only have the right to get out of it, but to prevent it.

The protection of property being the most significant purpose of government, the power given to government must be limited to preclude any theft of property. When government, in an artful and crafty manner, begins the slow and meticulous theft of the property of the people, it has violated the sacred trust granted to it at its inception. Regardless of whether that theft is direct, or indirect, the outcome will be the same.

Government, then, when it does begin this process of conversion (dissolution of the intended government), has breached the trust of the people. The people, however, have not lost their right to the fundamental liberties, for the preservation of which the government was first formed. Instead, they have a responsibility to revise that form of government, to correct the errors and to rewrite the contract to provide for the protection of the property and the rights of the people to be secured.

Government imposed  dissolution?

What can be done to prevent this form of dissolution? Surely, a resort to the force of arms against those who have been granted the authority to use force of arms in the preservation of property is not an easily undertaken measure. What would rouse the people to return their government to that place and to those ends for which it was first erected?

Rebellion is the term that applies to those who seek to dissolve government, and society, from within. The determination of who the rebels, the usurpers, truly are is the question that must first be asked. If the government has drifted from the course first intended, and, after due notice, continues to deviate even further therefrom, and in that process imposes force of arms against the very people it was created to protect — then that government, and all within it, have become the rebels, they are the ones that have sought to undo that which was first intended, and they are the ones that have resorted to armed force to impose their will upon the people. It is they who are guilty of rebellion. It is they who have created a state of war.

Who is it that would suggest to the populace that any who would denounce the actions of government, under the circumstances presented, as being the rebels? Those very people who had been selected as our representatives for the purpose of protection of property would proclaim that those who have found the need to protect their own fortunes are the usurpers, the “rebels”. They would denounce them and accuse them of crimes against the state and against the people themselves. They would argue that these rebels must be subdued. Yet, who are the pirates, the robbers, and the thieves?

If the innocent, honest man must quietly quit all he has for the sake of peace — to those that would impose violence upon him for protecting his own property, what kind of peace will we be subjecting ourselves to? Violence would be maintained only for the protection of the robbers and oppressors.

The end of government is for the good of mankind, and what is best for mankind is that they not be subjected to this form of tyranny. The duty of government is to resist these evils, and protect the people from them. The exorbitant use of government’s power, when used for the destruction of that very society, and not for the preservation of the property of the people, is the worst form of tyranny that can befall mankind, for it came of trust, and results in slavery.

When does one act to stop the tyranny?

Most of the people will not be willing to believe all accusations made by those who proclaim the evils of government. Those who first recognize the tyranny will be scorned. When only a few stir against this tyranny, they are looked upon as mischievous, and, likely to seek their own ruin.

Until the design of the despots has become apparent to a sufficient number, the greater numbers will be content to suffer rather than to right themselves by resistance to tyranny. Who, then, assumes responsibility to correct the problem before the goal of dissolution of both government and society has been achieved?

That determination is not one for earthly consideration. Simply, if the matter were cast before a court of the government, the ruling, without question, would be that those who support the dissolution are mistaken in their thoughts, and criminal in their nature. Under these circumstances, the course is set, and the goal of tyranny will be achieved. Those who oppose the course of government are incarcerated, or killed.

The only recourse that can allow a just consideration of action is the ruler of the universe, who speaks to each individually, but sets no mandate from which we can seek guidance. The judgment will come, not in our lifetimes, but when the final determination as to our destiny is made. History will tell a story and the evidence of the actions must stand on the merit of the arguments presented and to the actions taken.

History is as likely to condemn those who sat idly by as to look favorably upon those who sought to restore the institutions for which they have cast their lot for the protection of their property. Each of us must make his own decision as to what course must be taken, though we must remember that those who would usurp the faith and trust granted them are the worst criminals that can exist on the face of the earth, and should be treated accordingly — punishment for crimes committed not only serves as a deterrent for future occurrence, but is just reward for those that commit those crimes.

Whoever uses force without right, who does so without true law, puts himself in a state of war against those against whom he so uses it — and in this circumstance all former conditions of consideration cease to exist, all ties are canceled, all rights cease and each retains the right to defend himself as he sees fit, and to resist the aggressor. Moreover, he who resists, by the very nature of resistance, must be allowed to strike. Resistance only when backed into a corner is as cowardly as it is unsuccessful.

We all understand that an inferior cannot punish a superior, at least so long as he is the superior. When the state of war comes into existence, all former relations are canceled, and all respects and reverence for the superior ceases to exist. Since the original superior was the citizen who provided for the existence of government — for the preservation of property — that condition returns, and it is the superior who now comes forward to subdue the inferior, the usurper.

What then may happen that the people may, of right, and of their own authority, take up arms and set upon the government? Nothing can ever justify this form of action, for then, truly, the aggressor would be the rebel. Not, at least, so long as the government remains the government. The people can never come by power over the government unless the government ceases to be a government and divests itself of its authority. Only when the people must revert to the state of private man, and bear the responsibility for the protection of his own property can they become free and superior.

Each must judge for himself whether government continues to serve as government, or ceases to be that government to which his allegiance is owed. Each must resolve — in his own mind — in his own heart — and seek advice from heaven. Those who gave it can never remove the authority that each person gave as his share of the collective authority of government. It is the nature of community that requires that we all abide by that shared authority. Without that trust, that commitment, there can be no society, no commonwealth, no community, for that would be contrary to the original agreement, and a violation of the trust of our neighbors. The government can never revert to the people while the government lasts, nor should it divest itself of that authority. It is assumed that government will last forever, for that is the purpose for which it was first created.

When the miscarriages of those in authority have achieved a point so far removed from the original purpose, the government has forfeited its existence, and upon forfeiture, divests itself, and returns to each of us his respective share of the cumulative authority. Government reverts to society and the people have the right to act as the supreme, to continue to legislate as they see fit — to erect a new form, or to repair the old, assuring that what has been learned has also been corrected. It is that state that we are currently in.

What can we do to restore the Constitution

Disobey the Constitution – as Lincoln did

Abraham Lincoln felt no compunction when he decided to ignore the Constitution to save the Union. Perhaps we need to enter our venture to restore the Constitution with the same sense of necessity. The Constitution sets out safeguards to protect us from government. The government has failed to abide by the Constitution, The Constitution sets forth what the government is. It is that portion of the Constitution that we need to consider, in its present administration. Is it complying with the dictates of the Constitution in the performance of its duties?

If not, are we bound to recognize it as the lawful government of the United States of America? Though it may be the legal (de facto) government, is it the lawful (de jure) government? If it is the latter, then there is nothing that can be done, it is in compliance with the Constitution. However, if it is the former, then it is, without doubt, the usurper of power that was never intended to be within its authority.

The Constitution still stands, but absent the government instituted by the Constitution, we have little choice but to regress to the Declaration of Independence, and regain the lawful government by the means outlined by the Founding Fathers — to regain the rights of Englishmen (Americans).

Suspend judicial process

How can this be accomplished when we realize that the judicial system has become a major player in the commandeering of power beyond the scope envisioned by the Founding Fathers?

We must consider the judicial process as suspended. That no judicial action regarding any and all efforts to regain a Constitutional government is valid and of force. This would mean that any who attempt to enforce judicial actions is outside of the law (constitutional), because the Court is acting outside of the law. During the War of Independence, all civil matters were suspended and only criminal actions heard, if conditions allowed. Those with enmity toward the cause were jailed, and had their arms taken from them. Their property could become forfeit, if their actions were such as to be destructive of the cause.

Committees of Safety were empowered by their communities to deal with judicial matters, when necessary. There is no reason to believe that this expedient could not be restored.

The circumstances as they existed then, and as they exist, now.

We need to look at the playing field that exists, today. It is not like that which the Founding Fathers played upon.

Then. there were spies and informants. Dr. Benjamin Church was a member of the Massachusetts Committee of Safety and on the examining board for surgeons, for the army. He was also a spy for General Gage of the British Army. He was found out and removed to Connecticut, and later released to sail for the West Indies.

Other spies roamed the countryside gathering information for the Crown.

Messages, back then, had to be transmitted with paper and ink. Even with code and disappearing ink, evidence was usually easily found, once suspicions were aroused.

Today, with electronic bugs, cell phones, and countless other electronic devices, transmission of information was considerably easier, and safer, then.

Informants that have infiltrated groups have been known to be the prime motivator of illegal activity; entrapping their fellow members and testifying against them (consider the suspension of judicial process, above).

Long-range eavesdropping equipment and long range visual capabilities provide even greater risk to endeavors that might have been easier for the colonists.

Though acts of violence, some resulting in deaths, and acts of destruction of property, were not uncommon, they were not looked upon with distain, as they are now.

We need to look at the playing field and determine that it cannot be allowed to defeat us, by its nature. Improvising and adapting are necessary to be able to play on the field.

Where does this all lead to?

The Process

A question was raised, the other day, in a conversation. The question was, “Could a Revolution be conducted in the modern world considering modern technology, extensive government troops, and battle field weapons?” At first thought, the task seems so ominous, so daunting and against such odds, that it would be impractical, if not impossible.

Upon reflecting on what must have been equally daunting to the Founding Fathers, it is not, as first anticipated, such an ominous task,

The Founding Fathers faced British forces — the best-trained and most successful military in the then world. Its navies were masters of the seas; its land forces had recently defeated the French and had forced colonization around the world. It controlled the local government, and had enacted laws that gave it nearly arbitrary control over the colonies. The colonies had few things working for them. They had a lack of experience, except those who had recently fought alongside the British in the French-Indian Wars; They had to defend themselves against hostile Indians, and thus learned certain tactics used by the Indians; They had local knowledge of the topography; and, They had the fortitude and persistence that had helped their forefathers, and themselves, overcome the obstacles of taming a land which had been little changed from its natural state.

Against them were: numbers of highly trained soldiers; unlimited supplies and resources, although many of them were located across the ocean and had to be transported; a multitude of locations, bases, within and around the colonies, mastery of the waterways; and, many of the leaders had experience both with fighting Indians and working alongside the colonists.

In those first eventful days of April, May and June 1775, the colonists learned what their weaknesses were and what some of their strengths were. They learned that they were not trained, nor were they inclined to fight face to face on the battlefield. They learned that the tactics of the Indians, ambush by surprise and hit and run tactics would damage both morale and manpower of the British. They learned that living to fight another day was more important than victory in a battle. One of the major drawbacks in their efforts was that of selecting officers who were astute enough to challenge the ways of traditional warfare.

But, they did, with the persistence and their faith in God, prevail — not by might, rather by tactics and fortitude.

Just how would they fight, today? Perhaps they learned that politics should have less to do with officer selection than the competence of the man who would be chosen to lead them into harm’s way. Surely, they would adapt their tactics to the ‘battlefield’ and would realize the political necessity of securing faith and assistance from the non-combatants. There are many other generalities that can be addressed, but of greater importance will be the actual circumstances of today’s world and the necessity to develop new tactics in order to overcome obstacles that present themselves, as the battle begins

The Beginning

Open confrontation would be out of the question. A degree of psychological warfare would probably serve best at the onset. Small teams composed of people who have known each other for years and who have never been charged with a crime would provide the best security. — since plea agreements would be a logical means to force infiltration or of gaining an informant — Communication between various teams should be limited and comparable to the information of those within a single team. The more you know, the more you can give up, if caught.

Joint operations can be conducted with two or more teams participating, and can lead to bigger, better and more successful operations.

Each team should have at least one person whose job includes dissemination of information about targets. Targets can be objects or individuals, though any target should have obvious and describable characteristics, which can be publicized.

Developing sympathetic focal points within the press is very important and information should be provided as soon as possible following an event, substantiating the necessity of the action taken. This would result in minimizing the government/press’ ability to demonize your cause; For example, a police officer know to abuse people, whether prisoners, or civilian, is a likely target and one which sympathy for the action can be developed; A building that is used primarily for government communication can be disruptive of the government’s efforts to conduct unconstitutional operations.

However, there will never be a single target that can develop sympathetic reactions from all of the public, there are thousands of targets that can result in a neutral if not a positive effect on a portion thereof. In target justification, your actions can never be random, nor can they be indiscriminant. Always maintaining a higher moral ground than that of the government will enhance your ability to sway people to the cause.

As styles and tactics are developed, they can be shared with others — to enhance their operations. As public knowledge of what is occurring grows, more people who have concerns about government will realize that they will soon have to decide which side they are on.

What characteristics should a target have to be justified? Many people in positions of power or authority are among those who support the continuation toward tyranny in this country. If allegations exist that demonstrate a possible pattern to the actions of someone, then there is potential for that person to be targeted. If a person holds a position that is among those that will be utilized to ‘enforce’ the edicts of government, they are front line soldiers in the war against the New Patriots. However, attacking them without some ‘dirt’ that can be exploited carries a risk of disenfranchisement of some of the people. If these people are targeted, it is best to catch them in an act that demonstrates the need to deal with them — such as making an unwarranted or ridiculous arrest of, or seizing property without a warrant.

What structures are potential targets? Many insurance companies have reneged on their obligation to compensate policyholders for losses. This is especially true of homeowners insurance companies that have failed to make whole the people who suffered from natural disasters, or opted out of their responsibility and encouraged the government to take the responsibility off their backs. There are communications facilities (long lines systems; microwave communications, etc.) that are targets that will have disruptive effects on the governments communications. Though this will also impact the public to some degree, the effect on government will be substantial and may be well worth the effort, if properly targeted.

Power is a necessary element for all of our lives, but even more so for the operation of government. Hospitals have back up power generations systems, as do most government facilities. If a power system that supports a government facility is to be targeted, it is probably more effective to take out their emergency system, first. When targeting power systems, the most desirable target is the transformer stations. Generating plants have standby generators, and can be readily replaced. Transformers are much more difficult to replace; each incident will reduce the availability of replacement transformers. Transformer sub-stations can be targeted based upon them providing service to government or other targeted operations, minimizing the effect on the public. At this point, transformer stations are relatively unsecured. Because they generate massive amounts of heat, they are set in arrays and enclosed, usually, only by security fencing.

Buildings, themselves, if they are headquarters for agencies, corporations are other entities that can be identified as oppressive, are good targets. Take heed from the misunderstandings in Oklahoma City, that they should be targeted for minimal loss of life.

Other possible targets would be those who have questionable practices that have been accepted as American for over a hundred years and have filed lawsuits to remove crosses, the Ten Commandments, Nativity displays and other Americana from public places.

Advocates of immorality, contrary to the morality that has been recognized by this country for nearly two centuries, might also be targeted.

What will be the effects of this Beginning effort?

Many who have jobs solely because they pay well, provide great benefits, give them authority to assert themselves, or are just plain immoral to begin with, are peopled by individuals that are inclined to take any job which provides them a comfortable existence and a regular paycheck. Generally, those jobs are either without risk, or the odds are stacked in their favor, if elements of risk might arise. What happens if all of a sudden unanticipated risk creeps in to be a part of the job description? The greater the degree of risk, the sooner that person will find another place to work. If those positions cannot be readily filled, they begin having an impact on the reliance on that part of the system by the government.

The same is true in many of the businesses that are supportive of government actions, or otherwise potential targets. Even if there was no risk to life, the fact that the ‘office’ is no longer there will cause the employees to reconsider the benefits of working for that company. What if, the next time, the building isn’t empty, they ask themselves. As the risk increases, the availability of workers diminishes. It will not take long before that business is not operating as usual.

During this entire phase, the Beginning, operations should continue, as practicality and safety allow. Every event should have information disseminated so that the explanation behind each target can be justified, at least to some degree, in the eyes of the public. The government, in outrage over what is happening, is more likely to assert brutality, whenever they think that they have captured a person or people they believe are ‘perpetrators’.

As public anxiety over events increases, the media coverage will also increase. It will be necessary for both targeting events and retaliations by government to be disseminated, as widely as possible. Find your line of communication, and keep it flowing. Those in the communications lines should follow how the information goes out into the mainstream. If it is twisted toward the unfavorable, the line that is being fed the information should be reconsidered. What you get out of what you do is totally under your control. Make the best if it.

Some Obstacles in the Beginning

In most cases, there are things that must be dealt with before any activity takes place. One obstacle will be knowledge as to where the tens of thousands of cameras are located. If your people are properly disguised, and identification of vehicles is obscured this may not pose a problem. It doesn’t hurt to begin anticipating being tracked, even in a disguised vehicle, by those many cameras. Some cameras can be destroyed, or temporarily disabled with a red laser. The problem is, you have to be in the line of sight of the camera to be able to have an effect on the electronics. Another option is a well-sighted 22-caliber rifle. A long rifle bullet may be sufficient, in most cases, though magnum loads might be more reliable for the desired destruction of the camera. This can be done from any position where a clear view of the camera can be had. In normal daytime activity, chances of the shot being heard and identified as a rifle shot are very slim. Since most of the cameras are now radio operated, destruction of the camera is the only solution. There are no wires to cut.

There is always the possibility that someone will be identified during an operation. Or, there may be something in his past that has made him a “person of interest” and subject to ‘detention’. If you are aware of the possibility of one of these occurrences, it might be wise to take advantage of the situation, even if it means spending weeks in an ambush mode. If you can anticipate their avenue of approach, where they would be likely to set up a command area, where they would be likely to store equipment and park vehicles, you might have the upper hand. You need to understand, as in all military tactics, that they may anticipate such an action. Your planning has to be made with that in consideration. When one side thinks that it is superior to the other side, it is more prone to mistakes than the side that recognizes that it needs to make itself superior.

If the SWAT team cannot get out of their truck (alive), they cannot be an opposing force.

Expansion of the effort

As the New Patriot organizations increase in size and competence, they will increase their ability to conduct larger operations. Small armies of New Patriots can encircle and force surrender of government bodies of armed men (police, sheriffs, National Guard, and military bases), forcing surrender, and then administering loyalty oaths or incarceration.

Over time, the ease of operation will become greater and greater. Still larger operations can be planned and carried out. Like a transfusion, new lifeblood will flow into the Constitution and the Great Experiment, which began in 1788.

Nationalizing the effort

As the first phase continues, a network of active New Patriots will communicate over broader areas, bringing communication into a larger network, as time goes on. During these early stages, many who are not in complete sympathy with the Rebel cause will expose themselves and be removed from the system. As the New Patriot successes blossom, more will join the cause. Eventually, semblances of state governments (Committees of Safety) will appear in the underground level. Current politicians sympathetic to the cause, will leave their government positions and adhere themselves to the New Patriot side. Similarly, members of the establishment press will see the writing on the wall, and opt out of their current obligations to promote the cause of the New Patriots.

As the network enlarges, the means of conducting even larger operations will present itself. Slowly, as did during the American Revolution, the balance of power will shift away from the usurpers and pass to the New Patriots. They will be able to operate more openly, and will be able to convene for conducting the common business.

The will also be able to reach out to other countries in the world and seek assistance in the form of financing and equipment, perhaps even soldiers, navies and air force capabilities. Can you imagine how many countries would love to see the current US government displaced? France and Spain sure were desirous of seeing the British government displaced in 18th century America.

As local groups reach out and communicate with other groups, a form of underground government will evolve. A network will establish itself much as the Founding Fathers did, and each state will re-establish itself with a true (not corporate) government of the people.

It is quite possible that fear, by those who have usurped authority, unwarranted by the people or the Constitution, will flee, as Tories did during the Revolution. Eventually, they will be displaced, whether by flight, or by indictment for crimes committed and trial by a jury comprised of people who have taken an oath of loyalty to the true United States of America.

The strength of the effort, as it grows in popular support and acceptance by true Americans, will begin a scourge of those who had held power. Once displaced, their positions will be filled by those chosen by the people, and not filtered through political party structures.

The future of the United States of America, is in your hands

Given the understanding of the real circumstances of the country that we live in, today; can there be any doubt that something needs to be done to correct the problem?

Consideration should always be given to peaceful means of resolution. However, when those means are effectively removed from the means of achieving results, are we forever committed to beat our heads against an impenetrable wall?

We can continue to demonstrate our displeasure with government by marching in the streets. This will give us a sense of doing something, but, as we can see by the past, it will effect no change in the course that the government has set.

We can support candidates of our choice, but if they are of one of the two political parties, they have earned their position by obedience to the party, not to the people.

If it is a candidate of another nature, then there is hope, though the odds are against election, However, if he were to succeed in getting elected, he would be just one voice screaming in the darkness of that pit called Congress. And, though you might hear him screaming, those in Washington will not even flinch for the noise that he makes.

What choice do we have that has any chance, whatsoever, of success? Is there anything that can be proposed which might have even a slight chance of success?

The Tea Party of Boston was an element in the revolution. It is time to understand that the revolution is over, and, that the time has come for the action that follows that change in thought. That is the action that brings about change. It is not irresolution; rather, it is an absolute commitment to do our duty, in accordance, not with the Constitution, but with the Declaration of Independence.

Mice? or Men?

The Boston Committee of Correspondence met at Faneuil Hall on the evening of June 27, 1774. Samuel Adams was elected moderator, but stood down from his position after a Tory announced that Boston should censure the committee. The British had begun raising their complement in Boston, and the Committee, just a few weeks earlier, had approved sending a delegation to what would become known as the First Continental Congress.

“A Grecian philosopher,” Adams said, “who was lying asleep upon the grass, was aroused by the bite of some animal upon the palm of his hand. He closed his hand suddenly as he woke and found that he had caught a field mouse. As he was examining the little animal who dared to attack him, it unexpectedly bit him a second time, and made its escape.”

“Now, fellow citizens,” he continued, “what think you was the reflection he made upon this trifling circumstance? It was this: that there is no animal, however weak and contemptible, which cannot defend its own liberty,

if it will only fight for it.

 

Download a PDF version of this article: Unlike any other Government (PDF)

 

Finding Freedom Again

Gary Hunt
March 23, 2010

[Note: I wish to gratefully acknowledge the assistance provided by Trey Tasker in ordering the information contained herein in a manner much more conducive to the purpose of the article.. G.H.)

Freedom!  What a wonderful word.  It brings forth visions of flags, eagles, and other inspiring symbols, and it is something that we have heard, all of our lives.  However, can we tie it down?  Can we fully comprehend that which made so many, over nearly two and a half centuries, willing to lay down their lives to defend?

We have all watched as a newborn baby went through the first stages of life.  We watch him grow, every day of his life.  We look, again, at the child, after a few years, and realize that he has changed.  He no longer wears diapers, he walks quite well, speaks very good English, writes, sings, and so many other things.  During the course of the years, we have not noticed the subtle changes, daily occurring, that have moved this once helpless infant into, of all things, a grown man.

There is another side of life, as well.  We have watched our parents, since our infancy, and only occasionally do we take a moment to notice how they have grown old and feeble, their bodies slowly wasting away from the youth that we remember, and achieving the stature of the aged.

Only when we take the time to sit and contemplate, do we realize that, with the passage of time, things do change.  Those changes are gradual, and, nearly imperceptible, on a day-to-day basis.  However, they do occur, and, they do accumulate — eventually, to the point that they would be almost unrecognizable, except for minor characteristics that are simply vestiges of the past. 

As it is with aging, it is also the case with the erosion of our freedoms.  It is quite probable that our founding fathers would examine the circumstance of our freedoms today and conclude that we have, indeed, given them up, and that we are immersed too far in the trees to see the forest.

The remainder of this discussion offers numerous examples of ways in which our freedoms have been eroded with the passage of time.  Since we cannot regain what we fail to see as lost, it is my sincerest hope that this discussion provides the reader a sense of what has been lost so that we can commit ourselves to finding freedom again.

The Meaning of Freedom

Perhaps a dozen years ago, I asked my son, then a teenager at the time, what ‘freedom’ was.  He responded that it was the ‘freedom’ to go down to the convenience store, at any time, to hang out with his friends.

This is the same son who, many years ago, I promised to myself that I would seek a life for him that was as full of freedom as my juvenile years were.  However, somewhere, during the course of making a family, moving myself upward to my career, acquiring management skills, and, finally, operating my own business, I had lost sight of that promise that I had made to us both, for my son and to myself. 

Since that rude awakening, I have endeavored to deliver on that promise.  In fact, in the course of study of what happened to those freedoms that were so common in my youth, but have since become nearly as extinct as the dinosaurs, I learned not only that they had been lost, but also that there were many that were lost long before I was even born.

The foundation required for understanding freedom must first be put into the perspective of the proper role of government.

Government’s purpose is to provide such services that we could provide to ourselves, though, as a community, makes more sense to be provided by our government. These services, for example, would include roadways. There is no doubt that our own driveway is our responsibility — to be built and maintained at our own expense or effort. But, what of the roadway that connects our driveway to the other driveways of the community? It, obviously, should not be the responsibility of one, but rather, of those who benefit by its existence. So, the community builds and maintains the roadways that connect the driveways.

Now, each community would be isolated from other communities if there were not even more roadways connecting this community to the other communities. Beyond that, there are others areas and regions which need be connected, until there is  national network of roadways whereby one from any community is able to travel on roadways to any other home in any other community. Each higher level of government only necessary for the construction and maintenance of those roadways that are necessary to connect the roads of the next lower entity.

Though roads are used in this example, there are many other aspects which fall into such necessity. Commerce, for example, must be provided for, and controlled, only to the extent necessary to assure that goods which are not locally available can be made available to members of any of the communities within the nation. It is the availability, not the prohibition of, that the Founding Fathers addressed when they granted to authority to the national government to “regulate commerce”. This provision was never intended to restrict or prohibit the availability of goods from one part of the country to another, for, to do so would surely be a restriction of the rights of those who were denied access, where they were, to goods that were produced elsewhere.

Common Defense and Foreign Relations, too, are the responsibility of higher government, though they should not be a restriction on our freedoms, except to protect us, and our freedoms, from assault by foreign powers.

Fundamentally, when “We the People” created the national (and state’s) government, we granted to them what authority we had, individually and collectively, to perform duties, in that collective capacity, that we had every right to perform on our own. We could not give to government that which we did not possess ourselves, for we had not that to grant. Since we have no ability to create rights for others, they government, likewise, cannot create rights which would impinge upon those rights that we do possess. Once a “right” (or freedom) is given to one, such that it has the effect of a detriment to another, it cannot be classified as a right (or freedom) that could be granted by us, or by the government that we brought into being.

To understand Freedom, we must first understand what Freedom means, and which, if more than one definition is appropriate, is the one that those, so long ago, were first willing to give their lives for.

From Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, we find:

Freedom: The state of the exemption from the power or control of another; liberty; exemption from slavery, servitude or confinement.  Freedom is personal, civil, political, and religious.

Since “liberty” is included in the definition, here is what the same source provides for that term:

Liberty: freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind.  The body is at liberty, when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty, when not checked or controlled.  A man enjoys his liberty, when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions.

Natural liberty, consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature.  It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life.  This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government.

Civil liberty, is the liberty of man in a state of society, or natural liberty, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation.  A restraint of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression.  Civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another.  Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty.

One other source worthy of inclusion is from Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition:

Freedom: The state of being free; liberty; self-determination; absence of restraint; the opposite of slavery.

The power of acting, in the character of a moral personality, according to the dictates of the will, without other check, hindrance, or probation than such as may be imposed by a just and necessary law and the duties of social life.

The prevalence, in the government and constitution of a country, of such a system of laws and institutions as secure civil liberty to the individual citizen.

Here, again, “liberty” is made a part of the definition:

Liberty: freedoms; exemption from extraneous control.  Freedom from all restraints except such as are justly imposed by law.  Freedom from restraint, under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same rights by others; freedom regulated by law.  The absence of arbitrary restraint, not immunity from reasonable regulations and prohibitions imposed in the interest of the community.

“The power of the will to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external facts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons.”  See Booth v. Illinois, 184 US 425 (1902)

From these definitions, we can get an idea of what, in the past, was considered to be the inalienable right (freedom or liberty) that is protected by the Constitution.  In fact, it would appear that Freedom and Liberty are nearly synonymous, and will be used in that context throughout this discussion.

Now, the entire quotation from Booth v. Illinois:

“[T]hat … liberty … ‘means, not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation, and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary, and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned.’ “

The effect of the decision was to overturn a law that had been passed, in the State of Illinois, which forbade options in the grain market.

Was a state law overturned in favor of the individual right to offer to buy, at a future date, grain, at a certain price?  Absolutely.  State law cannot deny rights, or liberties, of its citizens, even if enacted by the Legislature (this, too, would apply to federal legislation).

This decision clearly sets the distinction between what is “legal” and what is “lawful” The Court determined that though “legal” under Illinois’s laws, was “unlawful” in that it was a constraint upon the liberties of the people.

This leads us to another definition:

From Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition

Lawful.  Legal; warranted or authorized by the law; having the qualifications prescribed by law; not contrary to or forbidden by the law.

The principal distinction between the terms “lawful” and “legal” is that the former contemplates the substance of law, the latter the form of law.  To say of an act that it is “lawful” implies that it is authorized, sanctioned, or at any rate not forbidden, by law.  To say that it is “legal” implies that it is done or performed in accordance with the forms and usages of law, or in a technical manner.  In this sense “illegal” approaches the meaning of “invalid.”  For example, a contract or will, executed without the required formalities, might be said to be invalid or illegal, but could not be described as unlawful.  Further, the word “lawful” more clearly implies an ethical content than does “legal.”  The latter goes no further than to denote compliance, with positive, technical, or formal rules; while the former usually imports a moral substance or ethical permissibility.  A further distinction is that the word “legal” is used as the synonym of “constructive,” which “lawful” is not.  Thus “legal fraud” is fraud implied or inferred by law, or made out by construction.  “Lawful fraud” would be a contradiction in terms.  Again, “legal” is used as the antithesis of “equitable.”  Thus, we speak of “legal assets,” “legal estate,” etc., but not of “lawful assets,” or “lawful estate.”  But there are some connections in which the two words are used as exact equivalents.  Thus, a “lawful” writ, warrant, or process is the same as a “legal” writ, warrant, or process.

As you proceed through the rest of this discussion, keep in mind that there is a subtle difference between “lawful”, being the substance of law; moral or ethical permissibility, and, “legal”, being the form of law; compliance, with positive, technical, or formal rules.  Consider whether laws (rules) have not been used to undermine the intentions of the Constitution (moral and ethical).

What it boils down to is “no harm, no foul”, or, probably more properly put, that there is no crime unless another party is injured.

How Checks and Balances Protect Freedom 

The Constitution was written very carefully, with checks and balances to prevent our freedoms from being eroded.  First, we will consider a freedom that was lost by a legal amendment to the Constitution and later was restored in two steps, first by the jury system and later by repeal of the amendment.  Second, we will consider an unlawful arrest and how the appeals process restored one man’s freedom.  Finally, we will review how our protections to unlawful arrest have eroded.

Suppose the government wanted to pass a law making a crime out of an activity that caused no direct harm to others.  Well, first, since that activity would be considered lawful, absent a law to the contrary, and, since the Constitution prohibits denial of those rights, or liberties, it would require a change in the Constitution.

This very situation has indeed occurred.  In 1919, and Amendment to the Constitution (18th Amendment – Prohibition), which  provided that “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.”

This was the only means of imposing such a law on the people; however, if you will note, it does not apply to individual possession, which would be an extension of federal authority that acted on the people, themselves.  That would be beyond the accepted scope of federal authority.

States, however, bound by the Constitution, were obliged to allow the federal government to run, roughshod, over the states, and their citizens, in the federal effort to achieve a degree of social engineering (telling us what was acceptable, and, what was not acceptable), which contradicted the concepts of liberty before this time.

Until Prohibition, each county was able to determine what the will of its citizens was, and to pass moral laws that those citizens were desirous of having so that the community supported their collective morality.

So, what happened to Prohibition?  Well, fortunately, our system of government has many safeguards against abuse by the government.  Probably the most significant is the fact that juries are the final arbiters of the will of the people.  Their inherent right to judge both fact (what happened, based upon the evidence) and law (is this law one which we, the people, believe to be consistent with our will?) came in to play.  Many juries refused to convict those charged with violating laws enacted under the authority of the 18th Amendment.  As time went on, more and more juries followed this approach.  Finally, in 1933, the 18th Amendment was repealed by the ratification of the 21st Amendment to the Constitution.

One more noteworthy case warrants our consideration, if we are to understand what Liberty truly is.  That case evolved from an incident that occurred in 1899 [John Bad Elk v. US, 177 U.S. 529 (1900)], but, let us let the Court tell us what happened (emphasis, mine):

That John Bad Elk, “while out of doors, fired a couple of shots from his gun at or near the place where he resided.  Soon after the firing, one Captain Gleason, …asked him if he had done that shooting, and he said that he had; that ‘he had shot into the air for fun;’ to which Gleason responded by saying to him, ‘Come around to the office in a little while, and we will talk the matter over.’  Thereupon they separated.  As he [John Bad Elk] did not come to the office, Gleason, after waiting several days, gave verbal orders to three … policemen to go and arrest [John Bad Elk] … No reason for making the arrest was given, nor any charge made against him.  The policemen, one of whom was the deceased, went to the house where the [John Bad Elk] was stopping, and came back and reported to Gleason that he was not there, and they were then ordered to return and wait for him and to arrest him.  They returned to the house, but came back again and reported that the [John Bad Elk] said that he would go with them … in the morning; that it was too late to go with them that night.  Gleason then told them to watch him and see that he did not go away, and in the morning to [arrest him].

The policemen then again went back to the house where [John Bad Elk] was staying … He [John Bad Elk] went into the house, and one of their number followed him; found him smoking, and told him that they had come to take him to [arrest him].  [John Bad Elk] refused to go, and the policeman went outside.  Another of them then went into the house, and in a few minutes both he and [John Bad Elk] came out, and the latter saddled his horse and went over to the house of a friend, and they followed him.  It was getting dark when he came back to his mother’s house, still followed by them, and while following [John Bad Elk] to his house on this last occasion they were joined by others, so that when he went into the house there were four or five men standing about it.  In a short time [John Bad Elk] came out, and asked of those outside, ‘What are you here bothering me for?’  The deceased said: ‘Cousin, you are a policeman, and know what the rules and orders are.’  To [John Bad Elk] replied: ‘Yes; I know what the rules and orders are, but I told you I would go with you … in the morning.‘  Then, according to the evidence for the prosecution, [John Bad Elk], without further provocation, shot the deceased, who died within a few minutes.

There is an entire absence of any evidence of a complaint having been made before any magistrate or officer charging an offense against [John Bad Elk], and there is no proof that he had been guilty of any criminal offense, or that he had even violated any rule or … or that any warrant had been issued for his arrest.  On the contrary, Gleason swears that his orders to arrest [John Bad Elk] were not in writing, but given orally.  Indeed, it does not appear that Gleason had any authority even to entertain a complaint or to issue a warrant in any event.

At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant and who had no right to arrest him, and if in the course of that resistance the officer was killed, the offense of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder if the officer had had the right to arrest, to manslaughter.  What would be murder if the officer had the right to arrest might be reduced to manslaughter by the very fact that he had no such right.  So an officer, at common law, was not authorized to make an arrest without a warrant, for a mere misdemeanor not committed in his presence.

The Court further ruled that the error of the charge to the jury was material and prejudicial, saying:

…  And yet the charge presented [John Bad Elk] to the jury as one having no right to make any resistance to an arrest by these officers, although he had been guilty of no offense, and it gave the jury to understand that the officers, in making the attempt, had the right to use all necessary force to overcome any and all opposition that might be made to the arrest, even to the extent of killing the individual whom they desired to take into their custody.  Instead of saying that plaintiff in error had the right to use such force as was absolutely necessary to resist an attempted illegal arrest, the jury were informed that the policemen had the right to use all necessary force to arrest him, and that he had no right to resist.  He, of course, had no right to unnecessarily injure, much less to kill, his assailant; but where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no such right.  What might be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.

Before I comment on the ramifications of this case, I would like to point to a Texas State Law (Texas Penal Code) which clearly supports this conclusion.  Texas, understanding what the rights to liberty were, enacted a law, which reads:

§9.3.1(C) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer’s (or other person’s) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

So, clearly, both the Court, in the John Bad Elk case, and, the Texas Legislature, in the enactment of Section 9.3.1(C), realized that government could err — and, that we had an absolute RIGHT to protect both our property and our Liberty.

Perhaps this is demonstrative of Article V, Bill of Rights: “No person shall be held [arrested] to answer [go to court on the matter] for any capital [death penalty], or infamous [where sentence would be one year, or more, year in jail] crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury [made up of fellow citizens]…”

This also demonstrates that, as in the case of John Bad Elf, whether written (into law) or oral (judge’s instructions to the jury), if apparently “legal” still must also be “lawful”  And, is clearly set out in Texas Penal Code, which insists on the lawfulness of an arrest.

As shown above, in the past, we were not subject to immediate arrest, at the will of an officer.  Rather, only other citizens, performing their constitutional responsibility to sit as a Grand Jury, could authorize that arrest.

How does this comport with what we have been led to believe, today?  By various means, including, but not limited to, unlawful enactments, abuse of even presumed authority by law enforcement, arming of National Park Service, other agencies which have no reason to be armed, and, perhaps, with a high degree of participation of Hollywood, we have been led to believe that the police have an ultimate power, contrary to the supreme Court, to do whatever is necessary, even using force, or threat of force, to compel us to submit to what would appear to be unlawful (though, perhaps, legal) arrests — even to the point of killing unarmed people.

If we are to fully understand that our freedoms are not only in jeopardy, but we have been reduced to fright for even participating in a life that is alleged to be free.  This is best explained with a simple example:  Suppose you are driving down the street, and you know that you are not violating any laws.  Then, you notice that a police car has pulled in behind you, and is following you down the road.  What do you feel?  If you are like most of the people I have asked, their reaction is one of concern.  They will first look at their speedometer, then, start thinking, is there a light out on my car, or has my license plate fallen off?  Regardless, the significant emotion is one of impending consequences, unless and until the police car discontinues his course, following YOU down the street.

This is perhaps best described as a police state mentality.  It is not much different, though to a much lesser degree, than what was felt by those who lived in East Berlin, prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall.  It is, without a doubt, a feeling that should never even be experienced in a free country.

Incremental Erosion of Freedom

The ways in which our freedoms have been eroded over time are so numerous that there is no way to count them all.  For most of the remainder of this narrative, observations of eroded freedoms are grouped by the type of freedom being impinged – private activities, business activities, childhood activities, licensing of our rights, loss of the meaning of public, and corporate seizure of our rights.  At the end of this section, we will consider a true life example of the incrementalism that slowly bleeds our freedoms.

PRIVATE ACTIVITIES

It seems that the government has become the arbiter of how we buy and sell land, how we socialize, and how we raise our children.  How did this happen?

Private Contracts.  We will start with the right to dispose of our private property, in any way that we choose.  Historically, Covenants and Restrictions were, and continue to be, a part of the purchase of land.  In the past, they were the will of the seller, and were made, as he say most suitable, to create an environment that was conducive to the property.  The buyer, then, acknowledged, by purchasing the property, an agreement with the provisions of that contract (Covenants and Restrictions).  These might include no animals to be raised on the property; no abandoned vehicles to be stored on the property; only homes of over a defined square-footage may be constructed on the property; no property shall be resold to anyone other than the Caucasian race, etc.  These were binding, and they were enforceable, until around 1950.  Why?  Let’s look at Article I, Section 10, clause 1: “No State shall… pass any… Law impairing the Obligations of Contract”.  Our right to contract is, in fact, one of those freedoms.

Now, Covenants and Restrictions are, most often, required to contain certain provisions mandated by the government, rather than what the seller decides is most conducive to the property.  And, the race-related provision that was common to the older Covenants and Restrictions was deemed ‘unconstitutional’.  So, what stood for centuries is removed.  A right that you had, which would also be considered a right of association, was reduced to history, without a Constitutional Amendment to remove it.

Private Associations.  This encroachment of freedom has been expanded to affect your very right of association (with whom you please and without whom you don’t please) through private organizations and associations. The PGA Masters is a private association with private membership and engages in “invitation only” golf tournaments. The government has seen fit to enact laws and then intimidate the Masters to force them into opening their membership, effectively denying the members the right of association (a very basic freedom).

Whether you agree the right of association (race restrictions), you have to accept that it is a fundamental right. Though you may not think that those who wished to preserve those rights have the freedom to do so, any acceptance of the government’s authority to diminish, or remove, those freedoms is the authority, also, to begin removing your freedoms, when they can model them as unfair to someone else.  In order to put this in perspective, you need to understand that the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), after all of these years, has still denied membership to Caucasian applicants.  What other freedoms do you cherish that may be unpopular with others?

Parenting.  Discipline was a matter for parents to deal dispense.  Spanking was a known detriment to many activities that we partook practiced, knowing that they were, not necessarily against the law, but against the rules laid down by those same parents.  Nobody was surprised when this corporal punishment was administered.  It was expected, if we were caught.  Society chose not to involve itself in the business of family and child rearing.  After all, the parents are, in God’s eyes, responsible for progeny.  And, I am sure that, as I reflect back, those who were subject to such discipline faired far better in life than those who were not, though there are many admirable exceptions.  The duty and the consequences were upon the parent, not the “village”.

Through legislation at both state and federal levels, the child is now free from discipline by the parents, though the parents are still held responsible for the actions of the child.  If the child manages to secure credit, the parent is responsible for the debt.  If the parent disciplines the child, the parent can be held legally accountable for such action.  If the child wants certain ‘medical’ procedures, then the child can secure such procedure, and the law does not even allow that the parent can be notified.  The parent’s rights have been abridged to “responsibility, without commensurate authority”.  And, in the long term, many parents will have to suffer over the product of their procreation, in some cases with anguish, and will have do so knowing that they had so little to do restrictions on the upbringing of their own child.

Another loss of freedom, regarding your children, is the concept the child belongs to the parents.  Regardless of whether you agree with how another person raises their child, or not, God left that part of procreation to the parents of the child.  The early history of this country demonstrates a respect for that relationship.  The “age of majority” was the point in life when a child was able to leave the care of his parents and move out into the world, on his own.  He was able to contract and was considered as much a part of society as any other person.  However, prior to that point in life, the parents were totally responsible for the actions of their child.

The Crime of Fraud.  Let us look at what used to be a crime and what is now an accepted and approved practice.  However, first, some definitions:

From Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

Fraud n. : Deceit; deception; trick; artifice by which the right or interest of another is injured; a stratagem intended to obtain some undue advantage; and attempt to gain or the obtaining of an advantage over another by imposition or immoral means; particularly deception in contracts.  Or bargain and sale, either by stating falsehoods, or suppressing truth.

From Black’s Law Dictionary (5th Edition):

Fraud. An intentional perversion of the truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal tight.  A representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.

What this means is that if I sell you something, and if I know that I cannot deliver, if you have created reliance upon that sale, and if you have even tendered payment for it, and if I fail to deliver, then I have committed a fraud.  This may be mitigated if I return your money, but it is still a crime.

So, if I sell you an airline ticket for a flight, at a specific time (or flight number), and to a specific destination, and take your money (credit card charge), then you should fully expect that I will deliver (especially, since the government has a degree of regulation through the FAA), as promised.  You, then, make plans based upon that reliance, though when you arrive to board, you find that all of the seats are taken, and you will not be able to achieve your goal of arriving at the destination in even close proximity to the time that you had planned. 

That constitutes what has always been regarded as a crime, though now, the airlines simply offer you another flight, or return your money.  They make no effort to offset any costs that you might incur because of their failure to provide what they had sold.  You have been deprived of your property, since your time is your property, and whether it is exchanged for money or set aside for pleasure, it is no less your property than your other physical possessions.  However, they have not committed a crime, and you have been the victim of a crime that was not committed.  This leaves you no legal remedy, which is a denial of justice as well as a loss of freedom.

BUSINESS ACTIVITY

Now that we have considered an example of fraud by a business that is somehow legal, it probably will not surprise you to learn business owners have been on the receiving end as well.

Who To Serve.  If many years ago you owned a business, you had every right to determine with whom you would, and, whom you would not, do business.  A very common sign of that same period read, “We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone.”  That was the prerogative of the owner of the business, and had nothing to do with any authority granted to the federal or state government.  However, about the same time, the government decided that this, too, was unconstitutional on several fronts.  Who you do business with is now up to the state, not up to the owner who acquired the capital, provided the idea and the sweat, and made a functioning business, based upon the model that he had established, for himself.

Now, it might be understandable if the business was operated by a corporation, which is created by a grant from the state, and it would definitely be understandable in any government owned building, but, surely, it was never intended by the Constitution to allow that you, as the owner of the business, did not have the right to conduct the business, as you saw fit.  This “restriction” on the rights of an individual business owner, which they should have the right (freedom) to operate, as they see fit, has, after years of acceptance, been expanded even further.

Americans With Disabilities Act.  It was not enough restriction for the government to dictate clientele of the business, so they had to go one step further.  They had to find some way of you having to actually spend thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars, because they said you had to so that people who have developed handicaps can have all for the rights that you have.  On top of that, they are, creatively, though not very practicably, ‘inventing’ new requirements for handicap access, every year.  The types of handicaps keep growing and the accommodations that are expected in the workplace are growing too.  The latest example of a “handicap” was an employee in Detroit who had a scent-sensitivity.  She asked her employer for an accommodation in her workspace, and after suing successfully, she was awarded $100,000.

Smoking Laws.  Not only has the government taken the freedom away from the business owner, with regard to refusing service, it has, also, gone to a greater extend to decide what activity, which for years was associated with that business, or, at least allowed by it.  For instance, government has mandated that smoking cannot be allowed in a restaurant, or a bar, or any other business that is open to the public, and even those businesses that are not open to the public.  They have decided that only they can determine, for the owner, the employees, and, the customer, that, whether they smoke, or not, or want to smoke, they can no longer do so in those locales where, for over two centuries, the Constitution recognized the freedom of that choice, by each of the parties involved.

They have taken this freedom in a rather deceptive manner.  It is easier to dispose of one’s freedom (rights) by a slight infringement, getting them used to, accepting the government’s authority, by less unreasonable imposition, e.g. separate designations for smoking areas and non-smoking areas.  After people have acquiesced, as a courtesy, they let their guards down.  Then, the government came in and said that there could be no smoking, period.  And, that freedom, to smoke where I choose, so long as the owner of the property has no objection, to one where the smokers is made into a criminal, while violating nobody’s rights in the process.

Second Chances.  Another aspect of the losses that have been incurred, with regard to our freedoms, is that of mobility and recovery, and, this also applies to children who have left the hearth and ventured out on their own.  In days past, as this country was growing from infancy to the greatest nation on earth, the mobility that was necessary to provide for that growth was accommodated by “room and board” facilities, and even people who would provide “room and board” in their own homes, for charge, or as just plain charity.  There were no laws restricting who could live under one’s own roof, and there were no health laws that required certified personnel and certified kitchens and equipment in order to feed those tenants.  This approach allowed someone new in town, someone who had gone through hard times and wished to get back on his feet, families, and those who had left their homes, to get a foothold and begin to build a life.  They did so by paying very reasonable rates for room and board, and paid daily, weekly, or even with additional work, or credit.  This would provide a means by which they could save for the future, eventually able to secure their own home, or, would provide a permanent and comfortable home for those who had no need for their own home.

Government, in their effort to care for us from cradle to coffin, decided that food could not be served in such facilities, and, in many places, even prohibited someone not of the family from living under the same roof.  Thus, someone living under the circumstances explained above is now placed in a position where he has must live somewhere else (or nowhere?) until he has secured first and last month’s rent, deposits for utilities, etc., usually amounting to thousands of dollars before he can have a place to live.  This government intrusion was created, under the guise of protecting us (though we know not from whom?).

CHILDHOOD ACTIVITIES

Let’s look at what it was like to be a child, or a teenager, just fifty years ago, when parents were our protectors, not the government.  Today, the government takes our freedom under the guise of keeping us safe from ourselves… how ridiculous.

I suppose that my fondest recollection is of water.  If there was water, we could play in it.  If it was deep enough, we could swim in it.  Often, if a neighbor was on vacation, that deep water was a swimming pool, usually enclosed by a privacy fence, though not secure, by any means.  If someone drowned, the rest of us were reminded of the dangers, a lesson was heeded, though this did nothing to discourage future escapades.  It was a different time with a different value system regarding who was responsible for our actions – WE WERE, not the government – even though we were children. 

Safer Cement.  We also put together plastic model airplanes, boats, cars, and, whatever else might find its way to the hobby store shelf.  The ‘glue’ of choice was “Plastic Model Cement”, which contained “toluene”.  It worked quite well, and it welded the parts together in such a way that the bond was probably stronger than the parts from which it was created.  In the meantime, some young people, who were not satisfied with getting into their parent’s liquor cabinet, or getting someone else to buy beer for them, found that putting the cement in a paper bag would, well, ‘weld’ their brains.  As a result (of the actions of a few — who probably deserved what they had wrought), the Plastic Model Cement makers were required to include additives in the cement.  The result was slower drying, far less bonding, and, consequently, the near destruction of a very useful, educational, and constructive hobby.  I know that I stopped making models, when the recipe for the cement changed to be barely functional.

Safer Bike Riding.  Bicycles are a boy’s best friend, well, at certain ages, anyway.  We knew our bicycles, inside and out.  We could change the tires, adjust the Bendix brakes, attach playing cards to make it sound like a motorcycle, when pedaled, and go anywhere, including roads, yards, fields, and even steep hills.  We had a hill that was fairly steep, behind our house.  On our side was the baseball field, which was a leveled area perhaps ten feet higher than the bottom of the gully.  We would tear down the hill, hit the gully, climb the short distance to the leveled ground, and fly into the air.  No insurance, no helmets or safety gear, no soft landing — and, occasionally, someone would fly over the handlebars and land in a heap, cut, bruised and dirty, or, worse yet, slide off of the seat and be jammed down on the bar between seat and handlebar post.  Even if any medical attention were warranted, it would be a mother’s sympathy, a washcloth and, perhaps, some Merthiolate and bandages.  Nobody ever considered that the blame lay elsewhere, nor was there any consideration of imposing laws, rules, or safety measures to assure that we would be protected against all of the evils of such an enterprise.

Safer Without Knives.  We also had knives.  Almost every boy had a pocketknife, either Cub Scout, Boy Scout or simply a pocketknife, most with blades at least three inches long.  Many of us also had sheath knives with blades six inches, or more, in length.  We could take them to school, though the sheath knives were frowned upon, and pull them out to show, or to use to cut something.  We were, after all, proud to be grown up enough to enjoy the sense of responsibility that came with such “adult activity”, and properly applied learning with regard to safety.  Who would have thought that our own children would be removed from school (suspended, or expelled) simply for possessing such on school property?

Safer Without Guns.  We also had guns.  It started with cap guns (“Bang, you’re dead!), then evolved to BB guns and pellet guns.  Whether lever action (spring loaded air compression), multiple pump (which could build rather substantial pressure), or, gas powered (CO2 cartridges), they were quite capable of causing injury, and of killing rodents and birds.  We learned to be both hunter (provider) and protector, by these exercises.

The next step was to a 22-caliber rifle.  These, of course, could have deadly consequences; however, we had, in the earlier stages, learned safety, and care in the use of guns.  To acquire the earlier choices, no requirements existed, except having the money to pay for the BB gun, or buy the BB’s and pellets.  The 22, however, required that you be eighteen years old to purchase, though most of us had one long before that age, for if our parents felt that we were old enough and mature enough, their blessing was the only requirement to possession of such an instrument of destruction.  Moreover, for the life of me, I cannot recall one instance, among the hundreds of those who enjoyed such luxuries, of any dangerous use, serious injury, or death, as a consequence thereof.

Safer Without Explosives.  Speaking of guns, both powder and dynamite were available, to those who needed them, prior to World War II, and, to some degree, afterwards.  Dynamite was commonly used to uproot trees, blast rocks and dig ponds in hard soil.  It was one of the most useful, and inexpensive, tools for those who worked the land.  Seldom were these tools misused by those of the time.  And, if they did misuse them, say, to rob a bank or open a safe, then they were guilty of robbery or theft, regardless of whether they used dynamite, or not.  Nor, did the restrictions of the use of dynamite curtail such activity.  The only suffering was by those who now had to resort to very expensive machinery to do what could have been done relatively inexpensively, before the restrictions.  However, as so many other useful objects, the majority must suffer because of the abuse of a few.

Safer Without Matches.  We used to go to the General Store and buy a package of book matches.  We would take a CO2 tube (cartridge for seltzer bottles and pellet guns) and drill the plug out of the small end.  The match heads would be torn off and packed into the entire tube.  Once filled, a pipe with the inside diameter of the outside of the tube would be secured as the “bazooka”.  One would hold the pipe and aim while the other would touch a lit match to the expose matched protruding from the tube.

One day, we heard of a neighbor that had been killed when the tube exploded and tore a gushing wound into the side of his neck.  Nobody was blamed, no new laws were passed, and many of us went to his funeral.  Life, after all, must end, but the pleasures of life will go on.  So, we fired a few “rocket” tubes, in memory of Danny Reagan.

Safer Without Hitchhiking.  Hitchhiking was a means of transportation for those under sixteen, and, for those who did not have a car.  Of course, the bus went to the same school that my thumb took me, but the thumb was far more fun, and, generally, much quicker in traversing the nine miles and numerous different roads that had to be followed to get to the High School.  During the summer, people and surfboards could travel great distances to find the best waves.  Never, however, was there any concern for safety, or a fear of someone wishing to harm us, as we travelled our merry way.  You see, those who might pose a threat to us were probably already in prison, for a very long time.  And, if not, were not willing to take the risk of joining their comrades in the “cross bar hotel”.

SEAT BELTS:  A LESSON IN INCREMENTALISM

In the sixties, the law required that seat belts be installed on the front seats of every passenger car.  This made little sense to us, so this required safety provision served, as far as we were concerned, only to add a few bucks to the cost of the car.  Life, after all, was as much about enjoying it as anything else.

So, let us use seatbelts as a means of understanding what effect the government intervention (social engineering) has had on us, and how it has resulted in much harm, along the way.

Seat belts were required to be installed, simply so that they would be available, if the occupants wanted to wear them.  Once the availability became more than a novelty, and were simply sat upon, the government decided to devise a means to force the use of them.  Simple gimmicks, such as contacts requiring that the seatbelt be latched before starting the car (cut-off systems) resulted in injury or death to some, while to others, they were merely an inconvenience, by-passed by leaving the seatbelt coupled, and sitting on it.  The injuries and deaths resulted when, in an emergency, the driver ran to the car, attempting to escape from a predator (rape or robbery), jumped in the car, inserted the key in the ignition, turned the key and found that the car would not start, because the seatbelts were not connected.  Having exerted the energy in attempting to escape by driving away, the doors were not yet locked, and the predator was able to gain access to the compromised victim.

Then came automatic restraint system.  Once you sat in the car and closed the door, a “runner” would drag the shoulder belt across a track in the door, gently wrapping you in the warm and comfortable arms of “auto-restraint”.  These, too, had drawbacks.  Apparently, some people were actually entangled in the restraints, or even choked to death by such systems.  So, we move on to the next endeavor to protect us from ourselves (and, to stand up against the ridicule that many of these efforts to force compliance had brought on).

Systems that were more passive were developed which flashed lights and sent irritating sounds into all ears on board, should a wary passenger fail to “buckle up”.  However, it was usually a rather simple task to reach under the seats and disconnect the wiring that sensed an occupant and initiated the cacophony.  After a multitude of attempts to outsmart the witty citizens of this country, who chose to do what they wanted, those same citizens finally succumbed, after many years, nay, generations, of indoctrination, to the acceptance of laws that will punish you financially, if you are caught failing to heed that which has been imposed for your own “protection”.  Though you must, if you consider the circumstance, wonder why the government is so concerned over your safety, when you are suppose to have the right to your own life, liberty and property.

LICENSING OF OUR RIGHTS

While we are delving into transportation, we might also look at the aviation industry.  Pilots, by the way, are not licensed, though you are licensed as a driver.  Why would that be?  If this is truly a free country, don’t I have a right to get around by the common mode of transportation, as have all who have come before me?  In this section, we will discuss how the government uses licensing to restrict our freedoms, and, to raise revenue for itself.

Here, we might want to revisit some definitions:

From Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, we find:

License n.:  Leave; permission; authority or liberty given to do or forebear any act.  a license may be verbal or written; when written.  The paper containing the authority is called a license.

License v. t.: 
1. To permit by authority; to remove legal restraint by grant of permission.
2. To authorize to act in a particular character.

Certificate n.:  In a general sense, a written testimony not sworn to; a declaration in writing, signed by the party, and intended to verify a fact.

From Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, we find:

License.  The permission by competent authority to do an act which, without such permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort.

Certificate.  A written assurance, or official representation, that some act has been or has not been done, or some event occurred, or some legal formality has been complied with.

Now, forgive me for beginning with a question, but, why would a driver need a license when an airline pilot need only have a certificate?

Licensing Pilots.  If a pilot, (public or private) need only have a certificate to demonstrate that he has had the proper training and experience to “drive” airplanes, and then only have to retain “currency”: by flying so many hours, each year, to demonstrate maintained proficiency (no annual license required), then, why would someone who is only exercising his right to travel on the public roadways have his “right” subordinated to a “license” (permission to do what, without the license, would be illegal)?

I will leave you to ponder just why a “right” would be illegal if the government did not issue a “license”.

Licensing Cars.  When I was in high school, I had an accident.  I ran into the car in front of me, which had stopped for a stop sign.  I was at fault, without a doubt.  A cop was called and came to fill out an accident report.  The report recorded the fact that I was at fault (under the old form of mandatory auto insurance, not no-fault) for the accident, and so that the responsibility could be assigned to the proper party.  I did not receive a citation, fine, order for court appearance, or anything, except a copy of the accident report.  That was then …

Many years later, I had another accident.  I was in a strange city (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), and was trying to find an address.  I, inadvertently, turned the wrong way on a one-way street.  Coming the right way (in accordance with the Traffic Control Devices), was a garbage truck.  He didn’t hesitate to run into me, causing substantial damage to the car I was driving, but not to his massive truck.  Though he saw me, he chose not to attempt to avert the accident, through his own admission, however, that was inconsequential, since I had violated the rules of the road.  I received no citation for “driving the wrong way on a one way street”, for this instance, which would have made a minor offense, but interestingly the driver of the garbage truck received no citation for intentionally hitting my car.  This shows that the government objective is not always about protecting the citizens, as we might prefer to think.

Since then, it has occurred to me, many times, that, perhaps, it is not illegal to drive the wrong way on a one-way street, however, it is illegal (only to the extent of determination of fault) to have an accident while driving on a one-way street.  However, government has learned that there are substantial revenue resources in looking out for our safety (traffic fines) for violating those rules of the road.  Today, I would have received a citation, so the government could receive revenue.

Licensing Drugs.  Moving right along, let us look at medications and drugs.  Many years ago, when the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution (Prohibition) was ratified (1919), you could go to the local pharmacist, without a prescription from the doctor, and tell him what your ailments were.  He would then determine both what medication and what dosage you required, and provide them to you.  Pharmacists, then, and now, require the same amount of education and internship as do doctors.  They have, however, concentrated their study on medicine, its effects, etc., while the doctor prescribes new medications based upon information flyers, and, perhaps, gifts received from the manufacture of the drugs.  He is not, by a long shot, and expert on the medication, and, as time goes by, he is probably far less “current” on the drugs, side effects, dosages, etc., than the pharmacists — but he does have a bigger lobby in Congress.  Meanwhile, the pharmacist is denied information that might save your life, unless you give him the information you received from the doctor.  He is nothing more than a technician capable of reading a doctor’s handwriting and counting pills into a bottle.

Also, in the meantime, many of the drugs, herbs, and other medical remedies have been removed from the pharmacists’ shelves and reclassified as dangerous, denying us access, unless we pay our way into a prescription from a doctor, if that otherwise useful drug has not been completely outlawed.  In addition, the doctor is on a short string — not to provide too many painkillers, under penalty of having the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) remove his right to prescribe medicine (effectively barring him from practicing medicine under his state issued license).

This has pushed the people into resorting to other means to obtain both prescription and non-prescription drugs, by venturing to Canada or Mexican, the internet, or even the streets, to obtain what free people in a free country should be able to obtain without question.

What we must consider is that, in 1919, our right (freedom) to obtain drugs to treat ailments, and, yes, even for recreational purposes, was an unquestioned freedom.  Can there be any doubt that, if a Constitutional Amendment were required, not to give the authority to the government to outlaw a drug (alcohol), specifically, then the Constitution did not ever intend, nor did the Constitution allow, the extension of that authority to prohibit beyond one drug to cover impact any other drugs?

So, what happened to that freedom of choice — to address our own means of dealing with our own medical problems — which existed prior to and Amendment that was repealed just 14 years later (1933)?  As mentioned earlier, the repeal was a consequence of the jurors, in cases involving the laws passed in accordance with the Eighteenth Amendment, were asserting their rights (and responsibilities) as the final arbiter of any laws, by not convicting those charged with such crimes.  Eventually, the states caught up with the people and repealed that perversion of our freedoms known as Prohibition.

Have you noticed a pattern, yet?

There are some things that are banned, now, from our use.  They tend to be rather inexpensive, though cost is not, of necessity, a factor on their significance in our lives.  Those items that have a value for the producer (medicine, health, transportation, etc.) tend not to be outlawed, rather, they tend to be controlled by the government, so as to yield a higher return for the manufacturers, or a revenue for government, or both.  Those “freedoms” we are allowed to keep, though they have an unreasonable costs associated with them.  Here is another example of licensing to produce revenue.

Licensing of Housing.  Many of the earliest homes were void of conveniences such as running water, inside plumbing and toilet facilities, and even glass windows.  In fact, if we look back to the days in which the western regions of the country first being peopled by Europeans, who had to contend with many obstacles to settle the land, they began by building homes of readily available materials.  As the western expansion began, they became even more creative in the use of readily available materials.  Probably the crudest, though in many ways, the most practical home in the western plains was the “Soddy”, a house built of dirt, rock and sod from the prairie grasses, and, perhaps, a bit of wood.  These were exceptionally well insulated, with built in heating and cooling, by virtue of the soil maintaining more stable temperatures, and moderating of extreme.  They were not required to obtain building permits and inspections.

Years ago, I rented a house that had been condemned.  The plumbing was not functional, most of the windows were broken out, and plaster was falling from some of the walls.  I replaced windows, plaster with sheetrock, repaired the plumbing, installed a new pump, and called the electric company to turn the power on.  A man from the power company came out and asked where the building permit an inspection records were.  I told him that I had none, and he explained that the power company, under their license, could not turn on the electricity absent approval by the County.

So, I called the County and explained that I needed an inspection so that I could get the power turned on.  A Building Inspector arrived at the property an asked if I had a building permit.  I told him that I did not, and then explained all that I had done, and showed him the electric box.  He walked through the entire house, inspected the box, and said, “Well, since this is not for commercial use, and will not be open to the public, I’ll sign off on it.”  He did, and I got my power turned on.

That was about forty years ago.  However, even then, it was possible to build (or rebuild) your house and get the blessings of the County so that you could live as you chose to.  That time has passed, however, and, in today’s world you can be required to tear down improvements, be fined, or even spend time in jail, if all is not done according to the dictates of the County (and the payment of certain fees).

Right of Restitution.  Another freedom that has been lost is the right to restitution, if a crime of injury or loss has been perpetrated against you.  In the past, if someone stole something from you, damaged your property, or caused an injury, and if that person were found guilty of the crime, then restitution — making you whole — was a part of the punishment meted out by the court (and jury).  This assured you that, if the guilty person were found, tried, and convicted, that then you suffered no loss, as a result of the crime.  Over time, the courts have developed a schedule of fines that enhance their own revenue, but the concept of restitution has been lost.  If you have not provided for insurance, then you will never be made whole.  Recovery from crimes against you is for you to deal with, on your own.  The court will collect their due, and then turn the criminal back on the streets to prey on others.

LOSS OF THE MEANING OF PUBLIC

Let’s now look at a word that has been used, before, in this discussion:

From Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

Public n.: The general body of mankind or of a nation, state or community; the people, indefinitely.

Public a. :
1.  Pertaining to a nation, state or community; extending to a whole people; as a public law, which binds the people of a nation or state as opposed to a private statute or resolve which respects individuals or a corporation only.
3.  Open; notorious; exposed to all persons without restriction.
4.  Regarding a community; directed to the interests of a nation, state or community.
6.  Open to common use; as a public road.
7.  In general public expresses something common to mankind at large, to a nation, state, city or town, and is opposed to private, which denotes what belongs to an individual, to a family, to a company or corporation.

From Black’s Law Dictionary, fifth edition:

Public, n.  The whole body politic, or the aggregate of the citizens of a state, nation, or municipality.  The inhabitants of a state, county, or community.  In one sense, everybody, and accordingly the body of the people at large; the community at large, without reference to geographical limits of any corporation like a city, town, or county; the people.

Public a. : Pertaining to a state, nation, or whole community, proceeding from, relating to, or affecting the whole body of people or an entire community.  Open to all; notorious.  Common to all or many; general; open to common use, Belonging to the people at large; relating to affecting the whole people of a state, nation, or community; not limited or restricted to any particular class of the community.

Did you notice that the government was not once mentioned?  Well, if the government is not mentioned then a public building, a public roadway, a public park, public lands, or any other object defined as “public” does not belong to the government, rather, it belongs to “the body of the people at large“.  So, why is it that children are no longer able to camp (sleep out) on public land, or in a public park, when they were allowed to do so just fifty years ago?  Most states still allowed “open camping”, which meant that you could camp on any land owned by the people, collectively.  Can you imagine how many would have survived the Great Depression, as they moved west and sought jobs, if they had no recourse but to rent a room, or, well, is there even an alternative?  Why is it now that we are barred from public lands, except during certain hours, or with a certain permit, or, maybe, not at all?  Is this not a loss of our freedoms?

Speaking of public, let’s look at one of the mainstays of the inherent strength of this country — education.  Public schools date back to the sixteen hundreds, where the local community contributed both to build a schoolhouse and to hire an instructor.  The concept of the community being in charge of the schools was consistent with educating the students to become a betterment to the community.  “Ad valorem” (property) taxes were the means of funding, and the decisions of who to hire, what to build, the curriculum, which textbooks, etc., was left to the local school board — elected out from among the members of the community.  As time went on, state governments set standards, though they had little influence over other matters within the school.  The state involvement was directed at policy, not detail.

In 1953, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) was created in the United States government.  Over time, local revenues were replaced with federal funds, and not only [policy, but detail, regarding the education of our children, was transferred to the national government.  School boards were relegated to little more than where to purchase what the HEW mandated.  Control over content, curriculum, etc., was no longer in the hands of the parents.  The freedom to choose what education your child received in his first 12 years of education was completely removed from your control, and the determination of the foundation for the rest of the child’s life was laid in the hands of the government.

In might be said that the government has stolen from us that which is, rightfully, ours — Public.

CORPORATE SEIZURE OF OUR RIGHTS

We cannot discuss freedom without touching on one of the principle enumerated freedoms, as defined in the Bill of Rights.  This most important freedom is “Freedom of the Press”.  Exactly what Freedom of the press is has become rather muddled, over the years.  The courts have construed it as the right to keep a source’s identity secret, under the argument that to not allow such secrecy jeopardizes the reporter’s ability to gather information for stories.  However, is it possible that Freedom of the Press, that the means by which we are informed, might have other, and, much more significant meaning?

Let’s look at two aspects of that freedom that are worthy of considerations:

“The FREEDOM OF THE PRESS hath, in consequence thereof, been esteemed one of its safeguards.  That freedom gives the right, at all times, to every citizen to lay his sentiments, in a decent manner, before the people, If he will take that trouble upon himself, whether they are on point or not, his countrymen are obliged to him for so doing; for, at least, they lead to an examination of the subject upon which he writes.”

“John DeWitt,” Essay III, Nov. 5, 1787

And, as was clearly understood, in those days in which this Freedom was so highly regarded, there were many newspapers, each privately owned, and each having its own political views.  Therefore, each side of the arguments of the day could be heard.

Unfortunately, the laws promulgated by the Congress have allowed a consolidation of news sources to the point that three syndicates control over 90% of the news that is unleashed upon us, each day.  Those syndicates dictate (though through very subtle means), what can and what cannot be heard, or read.  This defies both of the above examples of what freedom for the press was intended to afford us.  This Freedom, by which we were to be informed, has become a means by which we have become misinformed, and, yes, propagandized and indoctrinated to the messages that are controlled by just a few.

Conclusion

As Benjamin Franklin said on his Memoir (1818), “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety“.  Moreover, we can see that the Congress, the government that was established to serve us, has determined to provide us the “safety” that they feel that we deserve — and, we have not objected.

However, as you can see in reading the above losses of freedom, there might well be other motives behind their actions.  They have become the source of redistribution of wealth and the grantors of economic favor.  And, they have done so at the expense of the Freedoms that so much blood has been shed to obtain and preserve.

Much like the process of aging, we have failed to notice these transgressions, though, if we simply stand back and observe, then it is quite evident that the loss of our freedoms, over decades, and even generations, has been a slow and meticulous process.  Whether by design, or by accident, it does not matter.  These lost freedoms (liberties) were enjoyed, well within the lifetime of many of us, but they are now gone.  Subordinated to the social engineering (and deprivation of freedom) that has been ongoing, in this country, for quite some time.  What truly matters, for ourselves and our posterity, is what we will do now that we are fully aware of the diminishment of that which was a gift from God, as well as our birthright.

Our opposition should be based upon principle, not upon comfort.  If this erosion of freedom makes you uncomfortable, that is a start, but it cannot stop there.  This travesty occurred because we were not outraged at the first loss of our freedom, the step that began the erosion.  If we were opposing government intrusions based on principle, rather than comfort, then the first lost of freedom would be the beacon to remind us that the next lost freedom might be our own favorite freedom. 

Do we owe any less to the task at hand as those who have come before us?  Their sacrifices were for their posterity, far more than for themselves, for they did not know just how much that they, individually, would lose in the process.  If the price of freedom is such that it is worthy of their commitment of their very lives, then can we expect no less of ourselves?  Or, has our complacency reduced us to simple beggars, begging for that which is rightfully ours, and unwilling to sacrifice our own safety to restore those freedoms, not only for ourselves, but, too, for our own posterity?

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

If someone wants to hurt my child, I care not what the reasons are; I care only about protecting that child, whatever the cost. 
If we ever are to prevail, we need that same clarity, borne of instinct, to protect that which cannot protect itself. 
Our constitution does not protect us, we protect it. 
Our liberties are not born in the Constitution, they are merely enshrined there.

E. Sutton

Download a PDF version of this article: Finding Freedom Again (PDF)

Let’s talk about the Constitution

Gary Hunt

March 17, 2010

Patriots have, for decades, challenged the assertion by the courts that the Constitution does not apply to you (the Defendant).  The Defendant’s reaction is that the court is ignoring the Constitution.  So, to begin with, let’s make one thing clear about the Constitution — It does not operate on you.

Now, most of you are probably scratching your head and wondering what I have been smoking.  Well, I have been smoking tobacco.  Tobacco was one of the principal means by which we were able to fund the Revolutionary War.  The use of that tobacco is my right, and is without the authority of government to intrude upon.

The government was given no authority, by the Constitution, to act upon the people, nor were the people in any way bound by the Constitution.

The Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America sets forth its (the Constitution’s) purpose:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Read very carefully that the purpose is to provide for certain things, especially “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity“. Now, how is that to be accomplished?  Quite simply, by framing a government that will achieve those ends.

As was so eloquently stated in the 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 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.

So, the Constitution set out to complete that which was proposed in the Declaration of Independence, “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”  So, clearly, the intention of both the Declaration and the Constitution is to provide a government — not a people, but a government — which purpose is to secure those blessings.

So, a government is created by that Constitution.  If you read it, carefully, it is instructions for the creation and management of the government.  It also provides for both authorities and limitations on what the government is allowed to do, even to the point of separating the national functions from the functions of the states.

Now, let us consider what we have given the government.  We have given it “authority” to do certain things, and, have withheld from it the authority to do other things.  We have not said what we could do, or what we could not do, with only a few exceptions (counterfeiting, treason, etc.).  And, absent those exceptions, there is nothing that is imposed upon us.

Going a bit further, it must be presumed that if we granted the authority, to the government, to do certain things, that we must have had the authority to make such grant.  After all, how can I grant to someone, or something, that which I do not have, myself.

But, that is what government is (at least under out Constitution), the transfer of authority that we hold to the collective instrument of government.  For example, I have the right to protect my property.  Though I do not give up that right, I have assigned a portion of my authority to protect my property to the government.  However, this does not preclude me from protecting my property in the absence, or failure, of government to do so.  However, once the government has interceded, by, say, apprehension of someone who stole from me, I relinquish my right to shoot him in the act of stealing, and subordinate my authority to the collective authority, by virtue of the right to a trial by jury.

Similarly, we have granted the government the authority to wage war on our behalf.  We have conditioned that grant of authority in the requisite that only the Congress can Declare War, since war is, by its nature, a community affair and.  If we go to war, the majority of the community must agree to it.  Otherwise, if only one member of a community is allowed to declare war on another community, he has, by his act, embroiled all of the other members of his community, and the other community, in a blood contest.  Quite clearly, the authors of the Constitution realized this relationship when they set forth the requisite that the Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate, concur on war, and did not give that authority to one man, even though he be the executive of that community.

So, we can see how the Constitution was a grant of collective authority, for the purpose of consolidating our individual authority into a government, for the purposes laid out in the preamble.

Now, if we look at the limitations and restrictions, we will see that they are not laid out to protect us.  Quite simply, they were laid out to limit the authority that we have granted.

So, the question arises as to whether that authority is only valid in the United States, or, even only applicable to citizens of the United States.

Well, the Constitution does not define where it is applicable, it only states that the government (the creation of the people) can, or cannot, do certain things.  It is the chains that bind the government.  It is the authority by which they exist.  The government cannot do what it is not authorized to do.

If you give someone a position of management in your company, and you set limitations on that management authority, the authority (under the laws of agency) extends only to what and where that authority is given.  The authority is a grant based upon what you have, and the limitations on location are, quite obviously, limited by what you own and have authority over.

So, do you have the right to kidnap someone?  If not, then you cannot grant that right to government.  In fact, the necessity of retraining someone is clearly defined, though as an afterthought (clarification) in Article V, Bill for Rights.  This was an assurance that the government could not presume to be able to do what we could not, deprive someone of their Liberty, without the consent of the people, via the Grand Jury.  Having not the power to kidnap, how can the government assume that we could give them that authority?

Punishment, likewise, is restricted to that which is not cruel, nor is unusual.  And, punishment is always a consequence of crime, that crime to have been determined to have been committed by the accused by a jury of his peers.

This, when coupled with the right not to be required (forced) to witness against yourself (again, an afterthought included in Article V. Bill of Rights), the right to be secure in your person, house, papers and effects (Article IV, Bill of Rights, again a prohibition on the government), together provide a prohibition on the government from forcing you to give up your secrets, incriminate yourself, or to any other form of duress, especially when that duress is imposed by physical means (torture).

In the final extreme, the government has withdrawn previous laws that prohibited assassination.  They have assumed that they have the authority to ‘impose capital punishment’, without benefit of a trial.

To presume that authority was granted to punish, without conviction, for the purpose of obtaining information, or to execute him without trial, is repugnant to the Constitution, and without any authority that was vested in the government by the people.

As Thomas Jefferson said, in his draft of the Kentucky Resolves (1798), “It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights…  Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism.  Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence.  It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power…  Our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go…  In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

If we assume that these limitations (restraints) upon the government are not to be imposed, when the person being subjected to such unauthorized actions is in another country, and we acquiesce to the government’s presumed authority to exceed its written authority, either by enactment, or simply by actions, we have also acquiesced to the government ignoring the contract which created that government.  Once ‘granted’ that authority by the people refusing to object to such violations, we have established the precedence that the Constitution is to be interpreted by those who exist only because of it, as they see fit.  Once the government realizes that it has circumvented the Constitution, without objection, what is to stop those encroachments from going contrary to the Constitution (which it has, as explained, already done) to a point of total submission to the omnipotent power of the government?

In consideration of a solution to the problem, let us reflect on the significance of what we have learned.

Authority comes from us.  We must assume, then, that either we, or the government, will define that which we authorized.  If it be us, then we must object, whenever any such abuse of authority exists, or, we must concur.  Ironically, if we object, and that objection is not heard, our recourse is what the Founders utilized in disposing of a government that did not adhere to its contract.

On the other hand, we might assume that, since we have allowed the government to decide what we have granted them, and, barring any justification that prevents us from exercising that same right, as in the case of defending our property, we must assume that we have the right to kidnap, torture and assassinate, as the government can have not authority which we do not possess.

Charity and General Welfare

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom

[Note: in all definitions, italics, underscoring, and bolding are mine, for emphasis]

Often, we think that we know what a word means.  Its meaning can be construed according to the rules by which the communication game is played.  If we all agree to the meaning, then we understand what the other means, when he uses that word in a discussion.

What happens, then, when there is a disagreement over the definition of a word?

Let’s suppose that I define, for the sake of explanation, the word “water” to mean only potable (drinkable) water.  By that singular act, I have excluded most of the water in the world.  Seawater, wastewater, ground water, bathing water, heck, even tears are excluded, along with a large percentage of your body.  I have tipped the conversation to a point where you must struggle in any effort to describe any H2O, unless it can be ingested.

Let’s look at another word that, if defined outside of the common usage, creates a different sort of dilemma.  To understand this phenomenon, we must look back to get a solid understanding of what the word means.  Note that I use a dictionary that defines words, as the Founding Fathers would have perceived them, at the time of the birth of this great nation.  The word is:

Charity [from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary] 1.  In a general sense, love, benevolence, good will; that disposition of heart which inclines men to think favorably of their fellow men, and to do them good.

2.  In a more particular sense, love, kindness, affection, tenderness, springing from natural relations; as the charities of father, son and brother.

3.  Liberality to the poor, consisting in alms giving or benefactions, or in gratuitous services, to relieve them in distress.

4.  Alms; whatever is bestowed gratuitously on the poor for their relief.

5.  Liberality in gifts and services to promote public objects of utility, as to found and support bible societies, societies, and others.

6.  Candor; liberality in judging of men and their actions; a disposition which inclines men to think and judge favorably, and to put the best construction on words and actions which the case will admit.

7.  Any act of kindness, or benevolence; and as the charities of life.

8.  A charitable institution.

Now, we can see that benevolence is synonymous with Charity.  We can also see that, with the exception of the sixth definition, all acts of charity are acts of individuals (italicized words), or, perhaps, groups of individuals.

So, let’s look at:

Benevolence [from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary]

1.  The disposition to do good; good will; kindness; charitableness; the love of mankind, accompanied with a desire to promote their happiness.

2.  An act of kindness; good done; charity given.

3.  A species of contribution or tax illegally exacted by arbitrary kings of England.

So, benevolence provides a bit more insight into what Charity might really mean.  We can look at “disposition to do good” and “act of kindness” to clearly be acts that cannot be done by government.  Government cannot have disposition, nor can it commit an act of kindness, for kindness is a feeling of emotion.

Government can, however, require a contribution (not alms, which are freely given) or tax.  As is indicated by the definition, the government referred to one form of benevolence as such.  But, then, that was arbitrary, and without free will.

Now, let’s look at what the Courts have determined Charity to consist of:

Charity [from Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition]

A gift for, or institution engaged in, public benevolent purposes.  A gift for benefit of indefinite numbers of persons under influence of religion or education, relief from disease, assisting people to establish themselves in life, or erecting or maintaining public works [Johnson v. South Blue Hill Cemetery Association].

A charity, in absence of legislative definition, is an attempt in good faith, spiritually, physically, intellectually, socially and economically to advance and benefit mankind in general, or those in need of advancement and benefit in particular, without regard to their ability to supply that need from other sources and without hope or expectation, if not with positive abnegation, of gain or profit by donor or by instrumentality of charity [Planned Parenthood Association v. Tax Commissioner].

Once again, we see that government cannot act in the capacity of giving charity, unless it sets a legal definition.  But, to do so would be to say that Charity (water) is what we want it to be, and must exclude whatever we do not want to be included.

Now, I realize that this last sentence might be difficult for some to swallow.  After all, the government, through the IRS, determines what acceptable charities are.  Well, yes, that is true.  At the same time, by not acknowledging something that you or I might deem charitable, if the government does not, they have made an uneven playing field.  They have allowed tax deductions for what they consider to be charitable, and, denied those deductions from those that they choose to exclude.

This, then, means that if you want a tax deduction for a contribution, you can only receive it if you contribute (not give alms) to the charities on the official government list.  In addition, by the way, the government has set rigid rules for those charities to abide by, or they will lose their status as charities.

Now, with this simple conversion of charity to what the government wants it to be, and, since they are essentially tied to those charities (by their arbitrary influence over them), it is a simple step to allow the government to “take out the middle man” and become a “Charity” (see Charity, #8, and Benevolence, #3) in themselves.  When they perceive a deficiency in availability of resources, they will, well, fill in the gap.

However, that gap is filled through forms such as welfare, unemployment compensation, and numerous (actually, hundreds of) other “entitlement” programs.

So, how did charity work, in the past?

Charity, which is what was recognized at the time as the means by which individuals might receive assistance, was carried out by Churches, towns, cities, counties and the state, as appropriate.  And, the decisions of what to provide were solely in the hands of the people who voted within that level of government.  County and state only provided for hospitals, mental hospitals, and orphanages.  Counties also provided for “poor farms”, but those partaking of this offering were expected to work by growing food and producing products.  Churches, towns, and cities would provide assistance, as well as encouragement, to provide for those in need.

We can go a bit further and, perhaps, begin to understand that the results, or, consequences, of Charity can have very different outcomes.  We all know the pleasure of gift giving, — The smile on a young child’s face, or the gratitude from one that you were able to help during a time of crisis.  It seems apparent that, when Charity was administered locally, you could see the benefits realized, and with that, also realize the sense of goodness that you had demonstrated.

If you were the recipient of that local Charity, you would forever feel indebted, and very appreciative of those who had helped you in your time of need.

Fast forward to the “charity” of our current time.  As the “contributor” to the charity, you don’t even have a sense of who your gift went to, where they live, or what form that charity took.  Quite frankly, you don’t even know if your “contribution” went to charity, or not.  There  are, after all, so many needs that exist outside of helping people: Interest; armament and grants to other countries; research grants to scientists, so that they could ‘prove’ that global warming is a reality; etc.  So, your sense of giving is lost, and never realized as a good thing, something to be proud of.  Nor can you ever realize that sense of pleasure — seeing the effect of the good that you have done.

Similarly, the recipient of that “charity” really has nobody to thank for what good they have received.  They know that the dole is generated by a table based upon their needs, and, often, they will manipulate their apparent need to receive a greater benefit.  There is nobody to thank, or to be grateful to, because the ‘benefactor’ is a cold government agency, with equally cold employees, administering the ‘investigation’ of your needs.  You see it as their obligation to you.  And, further, having nobody to direct your gratitude to, you begin to lose all sense of appreciation for what you have received.  Eventually, you begin to be scornful of that very agency that puts food in your mouth, and the only thing that stirs any sense of self-respect is that you know that if you scorn those who have given to you, then you just might intimidate them into giving you more.

If you have any doubts about the above, just ask yourself if those, who gave in the past, would have given if the person who appeared to have a need also had a color television and a cell phone, and managed to keep the monthly charges current, rather than risking having the cable or cell service cut off.  Would you really want to help them, after seeing that they simply did not have a grasp on what is most important in life?

So, this will lead us to the next step of our journey.  In the Preamble (purpose) to the Constitution, we find the phrase, “promote the general Welfare.”  Well, we simply look around us and see that we have moved, consistently, toward a “welfare state”, but, was that what was intended by the phrase?

Let’s return to 1828, and see what the Founding Fathers might have meant by that phrase:

Welfare [from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary]

Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the normal blessings of society and civil government; as applies to states

General [from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary]

The whole; the total; that which comprehends all or the chief part; opposed to particular.

So, we can see that the intention of the phrase, as can be surmised by the definitions of those times, was very general — to endeavor to create an environment that was conducive, to all of the citizens, of peace and prosperity.  Nothing in this description would even begin to suggest that the general welfare was selective, and that it could be applied only to some.  It was not a tangible application; rather, it was intangible, and was presumed to create a harmonious and equitable political foundation for all.

And again, as the courts perceive it (though take note that while case cites are provided when there is precedent in law to provide a definition, as in the definitions above, the following definitions are absent any citations):

Welfare [from Black’s Law Dictionary, 5^th Edition]

Well-doing or well-being in any respect; the enjoyment of health and common blessings of life; exemption from any evil or calamity; prosperity; happiness.  See also General welfare; Public welfare

General welfare [from Black’s Law Dictionary, 5^th Edition]

The general term used to describe the government’s concern for health, peace, morals, and safety of its citizens.

Public welfare [from Black’s Law Dictionary, 5^th Edition]

The prosperity, well being, or convenience of the public at large, or of a whole community, as distinguished from the advantage of an individual or limited class.  It embraces the primary social interests of safety, order, morals, economic interests, and non-material and political interests.  In the development of our civic life, the definition of “public welfare” has also developed until it has been held to bring within its purview regulations for the promotion of economic welfare and public convenience.

Though the definitions hold similar meaning with Webster’s, in the last sentence we see that the foundation is beginning to be laid for the expansion of what was clearly the limitation on government from the Preamble to the allowance of “regulations“ that would extend the authority to a realm in which the Founding Fathers did not anticipate.

There might be one more step that would assist us in understanding just what Charity is, or, at least, what it was intended by the Founding Fathers to be:

Hospital [from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary]

The building appropriated for the reception of sick, infirm and helpless paupers, who are supported and nursed by charity; also, a house for the reception of insane persons, whether paupers or not, or for seaman, soldiers, foundlings, &c. who are supported by the public, or by private charity, or for infected persons, &c.

Now, we can see that hospitals were charitable institutions.  Most people of means, at the time, would have the doctor call upon them for treatment.

As recently as sixty years ago, doctors made house calls.  However, the increases in population, the expansion of hospitals to meet the needs of the increased numbers, and, the increased demand on doctors, all conspired to pave the way for office visits, with visits to the hospital for surgical procedures, long term care, and contagious sequestration.

Now, what have the Courts said?  Although, once again, case cites are not provided here, you will nonetheless see that the definition reflects those changes just described:

Hospital [from Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition]

An institution for the treatment and care of sick, wounded, infirm, or aged persons; generally incorporated, and then of the class of corporations called “eleemosynary” [relating to, given as, or depending on charitable gifts] or “charitable.”  Also the building used for such purpose.  Hospitals may be either public or private, and may be limited in their functions or services, e.g., children’s hospital.

So, even though incorporated, the hospitals were charitable in nature.  They had not yet become the “profit centers” (medical, or health, centers) that we now see proliferating the landscape.

Charity, as I believe has been adequately demonstrated, is a voluntary contribution, by an individual or an organization, with the intent of providing a means of service or betterment for individuals who are otherwise unable to provide such benefit or service for themselves.

Over the last two centuries, there has been an “evolution” of the meaning of words as well as the intention of the Founding Fathers.  Though they made provision for Amendment of the Constitution, they made no provision for the redefinition of the words that they so meticulously selected to compose that document.

Let us look at the consequences of the changes, without lawful authority, to those definitions and intentions.  Government has removed the free choice of charitable contributions by selectively determining what constitutes a charity, and providing rewards (deductions) for contributing to those so chosen.  They have presumed an authority to act in the character of an individual or organization by becoming one of the most “benevolent” charities of all, via social security, welfare, and a multitude of other “programs” by which they have garnered the allegiance of the beneficiaries of those programs.  If I grant a gift, freely, that goes from me to you, it is charity.  If, however, you encourage, allow, or refuse to resist a burglar, or anyone else (government) from taking from me and giving to you, that is nothing less than theft (pillage), and you are an accessory to that theft by being the recipient of the benefit or service.  You cannot color it in any other way.

[on line at: http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/verbnd.htm]

When we look at the failure of the legislative and judicial branches of government, we must fully understand that though only few instances fully demonstrate the failure of the two branches, that the disease that those failures represent, and, that we can ‘expose,’ are demonstrative of the systemic failure of the government’s willingness to be responsible to both the Constitution and the People.

******************************

The 27th Amendment

 

Gary Hunt,
Outpost of Freedom
December 10, 2002

“This Constitution … shall be the supreme Law of the Land…”

Constitution, Article VI, clause 2

“… Amendments… shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States…”

Constitution, Article V

“No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.”

Constitution, 27th Article in Amendment

“The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States….”

Constitution, Article I, Section 6, clause 1

James Madison acknowledged (in Federalist Papers #62) the necessity that all laws be written such that they could be understood by all men. There can be little doubt that the Constitution is absent the legalese, which has become so common in the enactments and resultant bureaucrat’s interpretations, of the current proliferation of legislation. Can we, however, accept that what is written in such language as can leave no doubt in any normal mind does not mean what it appears to say?

As we all know and which is self-evident, any law is based upon intent. The legislative intent is often referred to, in court, so as to determine what was intended by the legislation. It would leave little to law if any set of words were left to the best argument. Instead, we must, as a nation of law, rely upon what was intended rather than that which someone would have us believe the words to mean.

When James Madison (yes, the very same one who wrote FP 62) submitted this amendment into the assortment of twelve, from which ten were selected to form the Bill of Rights, surely, he concerned himself with the thought that many who aspire to power also aspire to greed.

27th Article in Amendment “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.”

The 27th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on May 7, 1992. Isn’t it interesting that the states that blew the dust off of and ratified a two-hundred year old proposed amendment to the Constitution saw the necessity to do so? I suppose that they knew, or finally realized, what Madison knew then.

Even more interesting is the insight the politicians in Washington had. According to Judges Newman and Rader, in a Dissenting Opinion in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [Williams, et al v. United States – 99-1572, 00-1254,-1255], “Congress knew that ratification was imminent and that the amendment would prevent COLA [Cost of Living Allowance – 101 P.L. 194, 103 Stat. 1716, Title XI (2001)] provisions from taking effect during future congressional terms in which they became effective.” They, therefore, enacted a 25% pay raise and annual COLA raises before the Amendment could be ratified. You see, it is clear, at least in the eyes of these two judges, and, probably, the entire court, that there was intent to circumvent the upcoming ratification of the 27th Amendment.

The case, by the way, was decided that there was nobody with standing to bring the enforcement of the 27th Amendment before the court – including a member of Congress. The initial action was brought by a taxpayer, a state Senator who had voted to ratify and a Congressman. After the first appeal, only the Congressman was considered to have standing to bring suit. The final appeal left even him without standing. This makes it easy to understand why the COLA enactment also included federal judges. They didn’t want their COLA to be questioned along with that of Congress. So, we have a Statute which appears to be in conflict with a Constitutional Amendment, but, nobody can bring the matter before the Supreme Court.

Now, many other government employees are also covered by the COLA enactment. Among them, the Government Printing Office, in their ‘publication’ on the 27th Amendment, they say, “Now that the provision is apparently a part of the Constitution, it will likely play a minor role. What it commands was already statutorily prescribed…”

So, what we have had the government (administrative, legislative and judicial branches) say to us is that a Cost of Living raise is not a raise in pay; that if it were, nobody could challenge, in court, the law that preceded the Amendment – even though in conflict; and, that Congress, unless they vote down (not voted down seven of the last twelve years) their annual raise, they will receive it, even though in obvious violation of the intent of the Amendment — an increase in compensation.

Even more interesting is the fact that changes in the cost of living are a result, in part, at least, of the ineptness of Congress in managing the country. It is also a result of their violation of another provision of the Constitution (Article I, Section 10, clause 1) which requires that the state may not “make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” Since we are no longer even allowed to own gold and silver to pay debts, we are subject to inflation which is a result of, and common to, any form of fiat currency (Federal Reserve Notes). The inflation, which is a result of disobedience of the Constitution, has resulted in the necessity to even consider Cost of Living as a factor in maintaining one’s purchasing power. They (Congress) and their employees are assured, at our expense, of not having their purchasing power diminished. Unfortunately, in our sustaining their coffers, we don’t have the means to offset inflation – resulting in a diminishing of our purchasing power.

Have you given your consent?
Or, have you been divested by the government?

http://www.committee.org

For a list of states that ratified the 27th Amendment, go to A table of the dates of ratification of the Constitution and various amendments and pay particular attention to New Jersey and Michigan.

 

 The
Outpost of Freedom
presents

MARTIAL LAW?

By
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom

For years we have heard that the United States

was in bankruptcy,

that we are under Martial Law.

For years we could only suppose this to be true.

Dr. Gene Schroder,

American Agricultural Movement,

has done extensive research into the matter.

The results of his research prove that

these claims are, absolutely, true.

Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been

operating under a declared

National Emergency

as a result of that bankruptcy.

The effect is an erosion of our Constitutional protections.

All information contained herein
is Copyright by Common Law.

Reproduction rights are granted,
so long as proper credit is given.

 

MARTIAL LAW

by
Gary Hunt
May 24, 1994

It seems that we have all heard that “martial law” had been declared and that we have been living under it for most, if not all, of our lives. I, like many others, looked at the circumstances and assumed that this could be true. I have not, however, been able to find the documentation of this matter and, therefore, have been reluctant to claim such.

Thanks to a very close fiend from Dallas, Texas, that I have never met (he was my “alarm clock” during the siege in Waco — by virtue of calling me every morning, to wake me up), I now have most of the paperwork that supports this contention. This paperwork comes from a Citizens for Legal Reform meeting, January 18, 1994, “Abolition of the United States Constitution Under the War Powers Act”, by Dr. Gene Schroder.

It is important, since we now know this to be true, to understand exactly how it was that we came under “Martial Law.” It is one thing to assume that it is true, another to know that is true and quite another to KNOW why it is true. I will give quotes and refer to the documents from which they are taken.

WORLD WAR I

World War I, the War to end all wars, allowed the Congress to pass the “Trading with the enemy Act”. [SIXTY-FIFTH CONGRESS, Session I, Chapter 106, “An Act To define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes”.] The Act was passed on October 6, 1917. Portions of said Act are presented below:

Section 2(c) contains the definition of “enemy”, to include, ‘”Such other individuals or body or class of individuals as may be natives, citizens, or subjects of any nation with which the United States is at war, other than citizens of the United States, . . . may, by Proclamation, include within the tern “enemy” (emphasis mine)

Section 5(a) gives the President the authority to suspend the Act with regard to any ally of the enemy, as he shall determine to be appropriate. An interesting assumption that the President may allow continuation of trade with an enemy, indirectly, based upon his determination!

Section 5(b), however, allows the President to “. . . regulate, or prohibit . . . any transactions in foreign exchange, export or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency . . . by any person within the United States; and he may require any such person engaged in any s such transaction to furnish, under oath, complete information relative thereto, including the production of any books of account, contracts, letters or other papers, in connection therewith in the custody or control of such person, . . .”

 Interesting that he has also made testimony compulsory. This appears to be a direct violation of that portion of Article V, Bill of Rights, which states, “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”, and is the beginning of the decimation of our Rights protected thereunder.

Section 6 provides for “officials to he known as ‘alien pi property custodians”, who will be empowered to receive all money or property owned by, or owed to, any enemy or ally of enemy.” Has this become the IRS?

Interesting that the authority granted the President allowed such a broad degree of discretion, and that the “gold and silver” mandated by the Constitution would be an object of this Act. My recollection was that Habeas Corpus may be suspended only, “when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the Public Safety, may require it.”

The Writ of Habeas Corpus provision provides that no one may be arrested by the government, unless the arrest is made pursuant to the Constitution. Article 5 of the Bill of Rights, says, “No person .shall he held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces; or in the Militia when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person he subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall he compelled in any criminal erase to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Perhaps the intended meaning of this provision has been lost. Does it mean, among other things, that the government may not arrest anyone unless the determination that an arrest is to be made is made by a group of peers? That government, of and by itself, has not the authority to arrest anyone? Except, of course, in those times where a national emergency is declared.

So, perhaps the meanings given to the words by the Founding Fathers has been lost. Law enforcement officers make arrests, without indictments by the Grand Jury, and property is “seized”, under property forfeiture laws, daily. Perhaps we have found why these sacred protections have slowly eroded into what we have been led to believe is good “crime control.” Perhaps we have been LIED to by the very people chosen to represent us.

So much for this, however, because the War ended and all returned to normal — except the fact that Congress had allowed this Act, which was a step in denial of Constitutional protection, to continue to exist.

Did these Acts of Congress continue to affect our daily lives? Or, were they discontinued at the end of hostilities? Go to your local law library and read 12 USC §95(b).

DEPRESSION

History makes quite clear the existence of the Great Depression. Exactly when it began is subject to debate. However, the fact that Franklin D. Roosevelt became President in March 4, 1933 is not.

On Sunday, March 5, 1933, Franklin Roosevelt called for Congress to “convene in extra session” on March 9, 1933 [Proclamation 2038]. On the very next day, he declared, by proclamation, a “bank holiday” which ran from Monday, March 6 through Thursday, March 9, inclusive. In the proclamation, he makes some rather interesting claims. He states that “there have been heavy and unwarranted withdrawals of gold and currency . . . for the purpose of hoarding.” and this “has resulted in severe a drains on the Nation’s stocks of gold : and” 

“WHEREAS these conditions have created a national emergency; and”

He then goes on to refer to “Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, (40 Stat. L, 411) as amended ‘That the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of license or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange and the export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency * * *’”

Further, “NOW, THEREFORE, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America in view (f the national emergency and by virtue of the authority vested in me by said Act . . . “ (emphasis mine), and declares the “holiday”.

The “national emergency” that he spoke of was the extension of lending authority granted to the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) just twenty years before. The FRB was unable to provide, in gold, the deposits on hand. The system of fractional banking had allowed them to extend credit well beyond the available “value” held in trust by the banks. This is the definition of bankrupt, “The state or condition of one who is unable to pay his debts as they are, or become, due.” (Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition)

Then curiously, on March 9, Roosevelt saw fit to continue the “bank holiday” [Proclamation No. 2040] until further “proclamation” by the President. Perhaps never to be rescinded by said proclamation.

Then, on March 9, 1933, Congress passed “AN ACT To provide relief in the existing national emergency in banking, and for other purposes”. [73^rd Congress, Public Law No. 1, March 9, 1933. (Title I, § 1, 48 Stat. I] (emphasis mine) “That the Congress declares that a serious emergency exists and that it is imperatively necessary speedily to put into effect remedies of uniform national application”. Congress, not to be outdone by the President, passed a joint resolutions which confirmed the existence of the emergency (March 9 Proclamation) and argued that the resolution was necessary; otherwise the payment in gold, of real debts, would “obstruct the power of Congress to regulate the value of the money of the United States.” That “every provision contained or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold [the Constitution] or a particular kind of coin or currency [gold certificates], or an amount in money of the United States measured thereby; is declared to be against public policy; . . . Every obligation, heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether any such provision is contained therein  or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar: in any coin or currency [Federal Reserve Notes] which at the time of payment is legal tender. . .” (emphasis mine)

Within the Act they rewrote Section 5(b) of the “Trading with the enemy Act” of 1917. The first sentence is provided, in it’s entirety, to give you an idea of the change of mood of the government:

1933, Section 5(b)

During time of war or any other period of national emergency declared by the President, That the President may , through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, export or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President, and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, in any form (other than credits relating solely to transactions to be executed wholly within the United States); and transfers of evidence of indebtedness or of ownership of property between the United States and any foreign country, whether enemy, ally of enemy or otherwise, or between residents of one or more foreign countries, by any person within the United States or any place  subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and he the President may require any such person engaged in any such transaction referred to in this subdivision to furnish, under oath, complete information relative thereto, including the production of any books of account, contracts, letters or other papers, in connection therewith in the custody or control of .such person, either before or after such transaction is completed…”

Let me repeat this as, it has read since 1933:

“During time of war or any other period of national emergency declared by the President, the President may, through  any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President, and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency by any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and the President may require  any person engaged in any transaction referred to in this subdivision to furnish under oath, complete information relative thereto, including the production of any books of account, contracts, letters or other papers in connection therewith in the custody or control of .such person, either before or after such transaction is completed “

Interestingly, it appears that all reference to “enemy” is deleted, and the law now acts on “any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof” Have WE become the ENEMY?

Note, also, that if the President were to issue a “license”, the trading would be condoned. Have we been given a “license” to conduct our everyday activities of commerce? Many businesses, along with driving, hunting, fishing, etc., have become “licensed” activities. I leave to you to find the correlation.

The question might arise as to whether Roosevelt thought this out by himself The answer is a resounding NO! In a letter and recommended Resolution that Herbert Hoover received from Eugene Meyers, Governor of the Federal Reserve Board, dated March 3, 1933, we find the exact wording incorporated in the Act.’ This “advice” was finally followed by Roosevelt just a few days later, just after he was sworn in to office.

It is even more interesting to understand just what happened to all of the gold, at this point. Remember, this was predicated on the fact that the Federal Reserve Banks were unable to pay out the gold for which “certificates” had been issued. But, what happened to the gold? In “The Hoover Policies”,’ in discussing the affects of the New Deal, “This first  contact of the ‘money changers’ with the few Deal twined those who removed then money from the country a profit of up to 60 per cent when the dollar was debased [gold was $20 per ounce before, and $32 per ounce after the banking act].” It appears, then, that those “in the know” were able to “remit” their “gold certificates” for gold prior to these Acts. The result was the reduction of assets in the banks to repair those with money on account and the transfer of the real “money”, gold, to those who fled the country to profit from the misfortune of most of working America, throwing these working people into a dependency on government that resulted, in 1934, in the establishment of the Social Security Act, the beginning of “The New Deal” and the beginning of the demise of the “Great Experiment.”

Let’s check the validity of what we have just said. From the Congressional Record [March 9, 1933, page 79, by Steagall], “Section 2 confers upon the President the powers bestowed under the act of October 6, 1917, regardless of whether or not the county is involved in war.” Later, in that same document [page 82] Mr. McGugin says, “Anyone knows that this Government cannot now collect enough taxes to meet their expenses . . . there is only one thing left for them, and that is to print money. “

In a report “Contracts payable in Gold” [Senate Report, Document No. 43, April 17, 1933, Page 9], we read the following statement, “The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so‑called ‘ownership’ is only by virtue of Government, i. e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.”

 Well, this appears to be consistent with much that we have learned lately, we own NOTHING, not even our children. To bad they didn’t teach this lesson in “government school” history class, after all, this is an official government document, and is obviously what government believes to be true ‑ do you wonder whatever happened to what used to be called a “freeman”?

Let’s go a bit further on this thread — the United States Supreme Court said, in United States v. Russell [13 Wall, 623, 627] “Private property, the Constitution provides, shall trot be taken for public use without just compensation. . . . Extraordinary and unforeseen occasions arise, however; beyond all doubt, in cases of extreme necessity in time of war or immediate and impending public danger, in which private property may be impressed into public  service, or may be seized or appropriated to the public use, or may even be destroyed without the consent of the owner. . . .”

It appears that it had taken the Money Merchants just twenty short years to evolve from their first introduction, along with the 16th and 17th amendments, of the Federal Reserve Bank, into the history of the United States, to a position whereby their “currency” (fiat money) was made the “coin of the realm.”

OTHER ACTS OF 1933

On May 17, 1933, Congress enacted additional legislation [Public Law No. 10, 1933 (HR 3835)] entitled, in part, “An Act To relieve the existing national economic emergency by increasing agricultural purchasing powers, to raise revenue for extraordinary expenses incurred by reason of .such emergency, . . . ” This Act allowed Government to purchase cotton to prop up prices; store the cotton and borrow against it. They would then sell it back to the producers, so long as the producer did not buy more than that which, when added to his production for a given year, did not exceed the production for the previous year, and allowed government to prohibit the producer from growing any other crop on the land previously used for cotton production. The “licensing” of the “right” to sell cotton to foreign powers was also “given” to Government.

Part 2 of this Act extended the above to any agricultural product the Government wanted to get involved in, thereby becoming “partners” with the farmers of America. Of course, a “Processing tax” was also included to cover the cost of the Government’s participation. The Act, however, was a very significant and substantial beginning to partnerships between Government and private sector ‑ that which has culminated in the controls now imposed upon nearly every aspect of business today.

Section 13 of this Act declares that, “This title shall cease to be in effect whenever the President finds and proclaims that the national economic emergency, in relation to agriculture has been ended . . .”

Then we come to Section 43, “Whenever the President finds, upon investigation, that (I) the foreign commerce of the United States is adversely affected by reason of the depreciation in the value of the currency of any other government or governments in relation to the present standard value of gold, or (2) action under this section is necessary in older to regulate and maintain the parity of currency issues of the United States, or (3) an economic emergency requires expansion of credit, or (4) an expansion of credit is necessary to secure by international agreement a stabilization at proper levels of the currency of various governments, the President is authorized, in his discretion‑‑” then continues, under these criterion, to authorize the “creation” of money, out of virtually nowhere. This, in and of itself seems to defy logic and place an inordinate degree of authority within the office of President — and remove it from the legislative body of our representatives.

The conclusion of this Act, however, is the epitome of the desecration of the concept handed down by the Founding Fathers. Section 46 amends the existing Section 19 of the Federal Reserve Act by adding, “Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this  section [Section 19], the Federal Reserve Board, upon the affirmative vote of not less than five of its members and with the approval of the President, may declare a that an emergency exists by reason of credit expansion, and may by regulation during such emergency increase ease or decrease from time to time, in its discretion, the reserve balances required to be maintained against either demand or time deposits.” So, what has been accomplished is an “emergency” that is self sustaining and has a life of it’s own. The Act has created a means by which it can be extinguished., yet provides further provisions, and the creation of permanent agencies, which preclude that from ever occurring.

IS IT REAL?

The question will surely arise as to whether this “state of emergency” still exists. Well, we can go to 1973 and review the report of the Senate “Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency.[93^rd Congress, Senate Report No. 93-549, November 19, 1973]” From the Forward of that report:

“Since March 9, 1933, the United Starters has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now four presidentially proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 6, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971.”

“These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. . . . . delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress . . . confer enough authority [to the President] to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes.”

REALITY

There you have it! The Senate of the United States, in committee, determined that, in fact, a national emergency exists today. As a result of the committee recommendations there: was a suspension of some of the executive orders relevant to national emergencies. However the significant ones still stand, in particular, those of 1933. Perhaps there is a reason that the Senate saw fit NOT to discontinue the national emergencies back in 1973. The perpetuation of this act is absolutely necessary to sustain the fraud that we have been under, for most of us, our entire lives. Anyone born before 1933 probably doesn’t even realize what has happened to our country, our government, our laws and our Constitution There is no doubt, however, that at this time we are under a national emergency, and that we now understand why the system of laws and protections that we read about cannot be practiced. A foreign (Federal Reserve Board and Bank) enemy has descended upon us, and has acquired control of our government. That control would not be released until we demand, by whatever means necessary, Congress to return of our Constitution and the Great Experiment that the Founding Fathers granted us.

About Ashwander v. TVA

 

Gary Hunt

Outpost of Freedom

January 9, 2006

 

There has been s lot of discussion about Agencies, immunity, privilege, etc., and much of each argument has merit. So far, however, I haven’t seen any discussion on how the nature of the person and the court is established, and then, by what rules that relationship proceeds.

 

Many years ago, I became aware of what I believe to be the most damning of the Supreme Court decisions – at least, with regard to our liberties (rights, too!). In fact, a few of us coined a term to reflect what had happened when you found yourself without recourse. “Ashwanderized” was the term, and how we got to be Ashwanderized became the subject of study.

 

Before I continue, I will mention an instance where I had forgotten all about this aspect (due to the urgency of the situation, I think) and found myself, and others, beaten by this omission. The Court (Judge Walter Smith) ruled that we “had not exhausted all administrative remedies”, therefore he was denying our Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Unfortunately, the Bar attorney, acting in a non-bar capacity, was not versed on this matter and it did not occur to me. We pondered what remedies we had failed to pursue, and it wasn’t until it was too late that it occurred to me that we had not taken precautions against this eventuality.

 

I have, however, understanding Ashwander, managed to use Habeas Corpus to remove myself from jurisdiction. This came to me one evening, facing court the next morning, while pondering the question, “How do I get myself into Common Law jurisdiction? I realized that it was not Common Law that I wanted to get into, rather it was Common Law that I wanted to get out of.

 

That aside, for now, below are the seven (7) rules developed by the Supreme Court in dealing with Ashwander v. T.V.A. [297 U.S. 288 (1936)]. Though all are damning, to a degree, with regard to the current subject, pay particular attention to #4 and #6.

 * * *

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, concurring.

“The Court developed, for its own governance in the cases confessedly within its jurisdiction, a series of rules under which it has avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision.

 

They are:

 

“1. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of legislation in a friendly, nonadversary, proceeding, declining because to decide such questions ‘is legitimate only in the last resort, and as a necessity in the determination of real, earnest, and vital controversy between individuals…

 

“2. The Court will not ‘anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it… ‘It is not the habit of the court to decide questions of a constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case…

 

“3. The Court will not formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied….

 

“4. The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of. This rule has found most varied application. Thus, if a case can be decided on either of two grounds, one involving a constitutional question, the other a question of statutory construction or general law, the Court will decide only the latter… Appeals from the highest court of a state challenging its decision of a question under the Federal Constitution are frequently dismissed because the judgment can be sustained on an independent state ground…

 

“5. The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation… Among the many applications of this rule, none is more striking than the denial of the right of challenge to one who lacks a personal or property right…

 

“6. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits…

 

“7. ‘When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided…

* * *

 

It would appear that a public servant, who felt that his duties violated the Constitution, could not get the Court to make a determination as to the Constitutionality of that duty. For example, if one of Hitler’s SS troops felt that he was being told to do something that he perceived as a violation of the Constitution, he would have no standing to ask the Court for a determination. He would be compelled, by law, to “just do his job”. (Number 5)

 

Once a person seeks a benefit from an agency (Social Security, Internal Revenue Service, Department of Motor Vehicles, Welfare, Child Protective Services, etc.), he is no longer protected by the Constitution, for the supreme Court will rule that, since he has availed himself of its benefits, he is bound by that agency’s rules (number 6)

 

The First Amendment, Bill of Rights: “Congress shall make no law respecting … the right of the people peaceably … to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In effect, the Court has removed itself as a means of ‘redress of grievances, by allowing itself to ‘rule’ that they will not answer questions regarding the Constitutionality of laws, enactments, or rules promulgated by agencies (whether in violation of the Constitution, or not).

 

 

If you read the entire case, you will see that it hinges on Administrative Agencies. Basically, if anybody has sought a benefit from an Administrative Agency, they have developed a relationship with the agency. In so doing, it has accepted the rules (statutory construction or general law, see #4) that the agency has adopted. This allows the court to sidestep reviewing the Constitutionality of the matter (see #6).

It should be easy, after reading the above, to begin to understand what has happened to “privileges and immunities.” They are still there, though they are difficult to find.

 

Gary Hunt,

Outpost of Freedom

http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

post referred to at:

 

http://www.Thedailybell.com/1234/Ron-Holland-Back-To-the-Articles.html

 * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Divide and Conquer

Gary Hunt
August 16, 2009

In War — in battlefield combat, one of the most important strategies, especially if the enemy has superior numbers, is ‘divide and conquer’. Very briefly, it can be explained that if you have a force of 3,000 and the enemy has a force of 4,000, you will probably be defeated in combat. However, if you can cause him to divide his forces into 2 groups, each having about 2,000 men, is beneficial. You have gone from 25% less men, against his entire force, to a 50% advantage over one of the split units. Once the first unit is defeated, the second unit can be attacked, with much better odds than if an attack was made on the entire force, at the onset.

The same is true of the psychological warfare America is embroiled in, today, and the political warfare that has begun to divide the country.

Each unit that advocates an idea, solution, or objective is limited to the number of people in that unit against the joined forces of the Congress; the Executive administration; and, the multitude of Administrative Agencies. The effectiveness of our side is usually diminished further by forces in different states not coordinating their effort; units with the same objective or goal, not working in unison; and, variations of methods of achieving the objective sought.

I have compiled a list of singular objectives that are commonly pursued, today. Bear with me as we look at these issues, and discuss what they will achieve, in the end, if the groups are successful in their pursuit. The items presented are in no logical order, but the primary issues, I hope, are all included.

911 Truth Seekers – the truth seekers – The goal here is to prove that the government was involved in the planning and execution of the events, which destroyed the World Trade Center, and resulted in our involvement in war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Though the issues brought up by the group are ambiguous rather than tangible, let us suppose that they convince the majority of the people in this country that the government was involved. What happens then? Will it end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or, have they established a totally separate identity from the World Trade Center? If the government does acknowledge culpability, they will throw out a few dogs to be devoured by the press and public, and go on with their evil ways — planning better, in the future.

Problem: Administrative Agencies have too much authority, often independent of the legislative and executive branches of government.

Birth Certificate pursuers – Suppose irrefutable proof of the bastard president’s birth elsewhere (disqualifying him from office) is brought forward. What will Congress and the Courts do? They have a dilemma. Every enactment or document signed by the President becomes void, nunc pro tunc (from the beginning), or, since the task of, say, recovery of the stimulus money approaches impossible, and the undoing of the troop allocations to Afghanistan cannot be undone, what is Congress to do. Nothing –is what they can do. It may cost the President his job. He may be charged with high crimes, and convicted and imprisoned. Who will take his place? The successor would be Joe Biden, as Vice-President, or, John McCain, as runner up in the election. So, you, at best, get a Republican President. Was Bush that much better than the bastard president? Or, are both parties in bed to bring this country to its knees. Remember, the first stimulus package was under Bush

Problem: The Congress has not ventured into qualifying Presidential aspirants, and the Court refuses to look at the matter. There is a qualification in the Constitution, but no direction as to who is to act as the qualifier. Congress has not, as was intended by the Founding Fathers, sought to fill the gap of omission in the Constitution. Congress has let us down.

Audit the Federal Reserve – Suppose there is an audit of the Federal Reserve. What audit standard would apply to an entity as unique as the Federal Reserve? So, first, a standard would have to be developed to assure that the audit provided the desired results. I would suggest that this would first be given to the Treasury Department to propose the standard. I can see Treasury taking a year or two to develop their proposal for a standard. Then, it would go to the Congress who would assign it to committee, and it would be in Congressional committees for at least two years. Once the standard was determined, the audit would be conducted. Most assuredly, at least some of the auditors would be people well versed in the practices and procedures of the Federal Reserve (inside men). Even if the audit, when (if ever) completed showed massive fraud, the result would be to enact laws to prohibit that sort of fraud in the future, and, at best, begin the process of looking for an alternative to the Federal Reserve Act.

Problem:  Congress was outside of its authority when it enacted the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. The effect of the subsequent years of entrenchment; loss of GOLD and silver as a means of paying debt; and, the enormous debt that has been created and mostly owed to the Federal Reserve makes a solution under the present system almost impossible. The Congress failed to adhere to the Constitution.

End the Federal Reserve – Even if ended abruptly, the effect on the economy, especially with regard to the National debt, would be devastating. What alternative to both dealing with circulating currency and payment of debt would be implemented to avoid such disaster?

Problem: The Congress abrogated their responsibility under the Constitution and allowed an Administrative Agency (Treasury Department) and a private (foreign) group of investors to control our economy.

Healthcare – Objections to national health care are late, and will do nothing to reduce costs. As has resulted from mandatory (in some cases) healthcare insurance, the costs have escalated because the marketplace was undermined. Once the captive audience (mandatory insurance) was implemented, costs could only go up. If healthcare were left in the free market, there would still be hospitals, doctors, and producers of prescription drugs. They would, however, have to provide their services at prices that were reasonable and manageable. Otherwise, they would have no customers. Absent customers, they would lower their prices, or look for new work. Supply and Demand is the best manager of costs. Supply and Demand allows us, the ”consumers”, to determine what appropriate and acceptable costs are. Once removed from our hands, the value of the service was also removed.

Problem: Congress usurped authority that was not granted by the Constitution, by adopting socialism as a means of buying votes. There is no Constitutional authority to require businesses to provide mandatory health insurance, not is there authority, now, to implement national healthcare.

Continental Congress – The First Continental Congress was called for by the New York Committees of Safety. The other colonies responded, in kind, by agreeing to the Congress. The primary result was the “Non-importation Agreement”, as well as some petitions, and, most importantly, they understanding that the colonies could work together for a common goal. The delegates were either existing members of the respective legislatures who were NOT on the side of the Royal Government, or delegates selected by the various Committees. This was true of the subsequent Continental Congresses. The Congresses were called for by the delegates, not the delegates being called for by the Congress. The current call for a Continental Congress is a small group (though, admittedly, growing) of people who have called for delegates to their Congress. This could never be construed to be an emulation of those first Congresses. Since their line of representation is downward and selective, anything that they do or ask for is nothing more than any other group could do or ask for. It bears no weight, and is not representative of the people or a constituency.

Problem: We have been denied Redress of Grievances, as guaranteed by the Constitution. In desperation, we are seeking ways to regain that right, but it will only come when the Rebel US government returns to its willingness to heed the will of the people.

Ron Paul – Ron Paul has come along and captured the hearts of many of those who believe that the Rebel US government has gone astray. He is right in much of what he says, and those who have adhered themselves to him, are also right in doing so. However, we must think, also, of what effect it would have if Ron Paul were elected President. What would change? The President cannot act without the consent of the Congress. If he does, he places himself in a position to be censured or overruled by the Congress. He has a multitude of administrative agencies to deal with (Over 1000), and most of them have already developed a mind of their own. Alone, or even with as many as one hundred members of Congress on his side, the changes on the nature of government, and the power of the political elite is such that there would be no substantial change in the operation of the government.

Problem: The nature of government has changed to the point that return to the confines of the limitations imposed by the Constitution is nearly impossible. Separation of powers has become ineffective because of the power of the political parties and the political elite.

FEMA Camps – Back in the nineties, a list of alleged FEMA prison camps surfaced and circulated via fax network and other methods that were common. That same list has resurfaced and circulated on the Internet. The list, at least part of it, was bogus. I personally investigated four of the sites and they were not what they were alleged to be. More recently, another list has begun to circulate. It is completely different, though it does mention locations near some of the older lists’ locations. This list may have more truth to it than the previous list. It appears that either bids have been taken, or even contracts let for restoration and/or construction on a number of World War II camps or internment centers. So, what if they are building these camps? What will we do about it? Can they be stopped? Yes, if the new construction is destroyed, but that will simply delay things. Will exposure to the public of the camps service any purpose? Yes, and NO People will be aware of them and maybe resentful that they are being built, but the government will, most assuredly, come up with a plausible explanation that will satisfy at least some, and nothing will be done to change the continuation of what they have already begun.

Problem: An Administrative Agency (FEMA) has been granted extraordinary power, authority and budget funds to ‘prepare for an emergency, whether man-made or natural’.

Codex Alimentarius & Genetically Modified Products (GMP) – The Food and Drug Administration has determined, without anymore than administrative consent from Congress, what is good, and what is bad in our food supply. Once those few people make the decision, regardless of the source or influence behind the idea, it becomes law — and, we have to eat it — unless we grow our own food. Some suggest that we will not be allowed to grow our own food, but that aside, we have lost quality food from retail sources (unless small and local) and, in most cases, cannot even find out, without extensive research, what they have been doing to that food supply. If we get rid of the agency, we still have thousands of food production companies that have implemented the programs, and will be reluctant to withdraw from what they have gotten used to.

Problem: An Administrative Agency (FDA) has been granted extraordinary power, authority and budget funds to decide what we eat, regardless of who benefits and who suffers because of their decisions.

Child Protective (sic) Services – Every state has, under suggestion or pressure from the Rebel US government, established a Child Protective Service, or equivalent. Though the name sounds good, in fact, the agency (with federal funding) has the right to determine whether you are a fit parent, or not. “Spare the Rod and Spoil the Child” has become criminal, when applied to disciplining your child. CPS can seize your children without due process of law, and then place them where they see fit. It is likely that some of these agencies have even found that putting children out for adoption can be profitable – beyond the already lucrative government funding. Were we to simply get rid of the agencies (an awesome task, in itself), that will not undo the damage, not the condition, of decades of these agencies affect.

Problem: The government, Congress and administrative agencies in Washington, D.C., have funded and encouraged the establishment of agencies within the states who are ‘legally’ qualified to determine if you are fit parent, or not. This has been destructive of traditional family values upheld in this country for centuries, and has put the state as parent, under color of law, of all children.

Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) – The Uniform Commercial Code was adopted by nearly every state, back in the fifties or sixties. Its purpose who to have a set of rules, easily understood and established, with the purpose that consumers would be able to understand their relationship to merchants, lenders, etc., and know where they stood and what their rights were in transactions. It was implemented by being enacted, in near pure form into the statutes of the respective states. There were a number of provisions that, definitely, benefitted the consumer. One was that when you made a payment, the postmark date of that payment had to be accepted as the date of payment by the lender. This has been overridden by the legislatures and now the lender can even hold your payment for a few days before recording it, which often throws the borrower into an overdue status and attaches the penalties that apply to overdue payments. Though beneficial, when implemented, it has become more of a tool for the commercial interests and means by which they can screw us out of penalties, add charges on top of charges, and, generally run the show. This, like CPS, is administered by the states. Congress tends to support the changes to credit cards, with a total disregard for the consumer.

Problem: The Congress had, at first, encouraged enactment and acceptance of the UCC. Then, they turned their backs on the intended purpose and allowed lobbyists to encourage changes that took away the protections and passed laws contrary to the UCC.

Stop the New World Order – This is an admirable goal. However, the question is whether it is achievable? And, if it were achievable, how would we achieve it? There is no doubt that certain identifiable organizations are major players in the effort to create a New World Order. I believe that some organizations, though often included, are not, at least in rank and file memberships, supporters of the effort. Once identified and exposed, do you think anything will change? They sit in their positions of power and influence (backed by their wealth) and dictate what they perceive as the solution to all of man’s problems on earth. We can touch, feel, taste and see the accomplishments that they are making, every day of our lives. The only conceivable way of stopping this effort is to dispose of those who are participants. Let them know that their lives have as little value, or less, than the lives that are lost, every day, because of their programs

Problem: Congress, the Executive, the Courts and all of the principle Ministers of administrative agencies are pawns in the game of world domination. This extends, largely, into the state and local governments. Where that influence is not direct, it is, at least, indirect. So long as there is no accountability for public officials, officers and agents, there is no solution.

Kick Them All Out – So, who will fill their vacancy? Another programmed member of their political party, or the programmed member of the other political party. In the event that you do manage to get a third party candidate in office, it will, more likely, be a lowly office that offers no threat to the establishment power scheme. Further, if against all odds, your third party candidate ascends to a higher and more influential position, you can rest assured that he will either succumb to “the way that it’s done” by trading votes to get some of his items passed, or, being but one or two who vote against bad legislation because they believe it to be bad (Note: many votes are cast against certain programs which already have assured votes for passage, for the sake of impressing their constitutions that they are “not party men”).

Problem: The legislative system in this country, at federal, state, county, and city levels has, with few exceptions, become corrupted and the office is sought for personal gain and influence.

Drug Wars; Medical Marijuana – Drug wars are nothing more than an attention getter and a tool used to demonstrate to the naive portions of the public that government is doing all that it can to get rid of ‘crime’. Of course, there is no victim to the crime, except the person who spends thousands for their lawyers, thousand more in fines, and, perhaps a few years of his life in prison.

Problem: Administrative Agencies have been granted, by the Congress, the authority to enact policies that, a Constitutional Amendment could, only impose less than a century ago. They have also ignored the guarantee of Republican Form of Government [Art IV, Sec 4, Constitution] in the states by allowing their policy to override state enactments and initiatives that have removed penalties for certain drugs and persecuting those who they have managed to license, by removing licenses of those who violate their administrative policies.

Confederate States of America – This group of sincere patriots have endeavored to arise from the past. They have taken the mantle of those who, many years ago, tried to stop them, then beginning to grow, element of Congressional and Presidential tyranny. Though secession was not considered unconstitutional when the New England States met in Hartford, Connecticut, in 1814-1815, to, among other things, discuss secession, it was those same states that supported Lincoln in his claim that secession was unconstitutional. Therefore, the most damaging war in our history was conducted to ‘prove’ that secession was unconstitutional. The precedence having been established, just how far do you think that you will get with the current effort?

Problem: Congress and the Executive have, in effect, revised the Constitution effectively outlawing any attempt to remove oneself from the compact. Once in, you are stuck. There is no way out of the corrupted influence of government by secession.

American Party; Constitutional Party; Libertarian Party; Christian Conservatives – In terms of any of these entities achieving any successful political advancement, they are little more than any social organization. Though it may feel good to be among people who think like you, the ability to effect any change within the current political structure with a new party is non-existent.

Problem: The Congress has managed to manipulate the electoral and election processes to remove, or reduce to insignificant, the possibility of a challenging third party to achieve even a modicum of success.

Show me the Law (IRS – income tax) – Though there are a number of reasons why the Income Tax, as applied, is illegal or unconstitutional, there are many who have ended up in prison, or dead, in their efforts to avoid this unlawful imposition on our lives. To their credit, probably millions do not pay Income Taxes. Will this change anything other than how much of what one earns they are allowed to retain? It absolutely will not. With all of those who have moved out of the system, there has still been no substantial change to the nature of imposition and collection of this tax. The government needs the tax, the benefits, and deductions so that they can ‘social engineer’ the society. It has nothing to do with the government’s need for the money, and everything to do with ‘teaching us that they control our very lives’.

Problem: Congress has given an Administrative Agency (IRS) power over our lives, without regard to the Constitutional restrictions on taxation.

Freedom Communities – Wonderful ideas, in concept. Live amongst those with like minds. They will only serve as indefensible enclaves, if the government ever chooses to crack down and arrest resistors. They are quite capable of becoming their own prisons.

Problem: Congress has extended its authority beyond the scope allowed by the Constitution, and encroached upon the domains that were preserved to the States.

State Sovereignty – In the nineties, 17 states adopted sovereignty resolutions. To my knowledge, they were never rescinded. Today, states, once again, are adopting sovereignty resolutions. Most of them were the same states that did so, back in the nineties. Though nice proclamations, they end up having no merit. Whether they were passed out of sincerity, or to ‘convince’ the citizens of the respective states that they would not succumb to federal pressure, they failed then, and they will, most likely, fail now. States have relinquished their authority, under the Constitution, for contributions of money from the federal agencies. They have sold us down the drain. When we object, they pass resolutions as pacification, but will still continue to take the greenmail that is offered by the Rebel US government. If these resolutions passed, and then are forgotten we cannot expect the states to be a viable part of our efforts to restore the government to its proper role.

Problem: The federal government usurped constitution powers to control the states, and then bought the states into submission.

State Citizen (National) – A valid exercise that, when completed, frees you from US citizenship. Once freed, however, you have to be vigilant and careful. A misstep may land you in jail, or worse. If you manage to establish your credential in your home community, you will have to repeat the education of law enforcement and judicial officers, when you leave you local area. This will be a perpetual battle for Rights retained by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. If millions were to adopt this status, what would change regarding the other evils of government?

Problem: The unconstitutional Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, allowed by the Congress, the Executive, and the Courts, created a fictional relationship between our public servants and ourselves. The effect was to make them master and us the servant.

North American Union – If we do not stop the North American Union, we will be like the European Union and we will have foreign trucks and drivers driving through our country. Yep! Even if you do manage to stop it, how long do you think it will be until the steam goes out and it gets started, again?

Problem: Congress has, many times before, relinquished or sovereignty in favor of foreign alliances that do not come under the heading of “Treaty’, as the Founding Fathers perceived it. NATO, SEATO, United National, NAU, all of them are just car on a train toward one world government.

H1N1 vaccine – This subject has generated a disproportionate amount of debate. The facts appear to suggest that the ‘outbreak’ and the ‘death rate’ are substantially lower than many other sources of disease/death. This brings in to question (suspicion) the insistence of a vaccine. Quite simply, take the vaccine, or don’t take the vaccine.

Problem: The Administrative Agencies, in conjunction with United Nations agencies have determined a course of action to be implemented (forced) upon the American people. This application seems to be inconsistent with the facts, but there is no recourse (Redress of Grievances), as provided for by the Constitution).

Illegal immigration/aliens; Border protection – Our borders, especially the southern border, have become sieves which allow illegal entry (invasion) into the United States sovereign lands. This breech of responsibility by the federal Administrative Agencies required by law to enforce immigration laws has allowed access, without the security that is required even for legal entry, to our country by workers, drug dealers, criminal elements, and very probably terrorists. In the meantime, for the first time in our history, American citizens are required to have a passport and go through extensive security to return to their own country, from visits to Mexico and Canada.

Problem: Administrative Agencies, by the policy and failure to enforce existing law, provide a fertile ground of activity that is in conflict with our professed Foreign Policy. Since both foreign policy and execution of the laws of the land fall in the Executive Branch of government, there is an apparent conflict within that branch which can be demonstrative of nothing less than contempt for the laws of the land.

Education – Public Education has its foundation in this country prior to the Revolution. It has been held that an educated citizenry would be watchful of abuses by government. The concept, as implemented and conducted for over a century was that local school boards: raised revenue through ad valorem taxes; determined curriculum based upon the needs of the community; provided facilities for the purpose of education; received all of Section 16 in the Western lands (the only participation by the federal government); and, hired instructors to provide the education to the students. As time went on, the federal government created a new cabinet position (Administrative Agency) for Health Education and Welfare. Over e few decades, nearly all of the authority for the above listed responsibilities evolved to absolute control by the federal government.

Problem: An Administrative Agency has displaced community, county, state, and family from the determination of what their children will be taught. They have controlled who may teach; what material can be used to teach; and extended their control to matters outside of the realm of education.

Homeschooling – Public education was, historically, ‘”made available”. This left the parents of children to decide whether they want to allow their children to attend public school,; be taught at home (homeschooling); or, receive no formal education, at all. The state stepped in, first, to make education mandatory (truant officers). Now, many states have imposed their guidelines on what qualifications, what material and what guidelines parents must adhere to, if they choose to educate their own children.

Problem: State and federal Administrative Agencies have remove much of the responsibility that God gave to the parents, with regard to the rearing of their children, so that they can be indoctrinated in the ways of the government’s choosing.

Abortion – Abortion is a moral issue. It is not a federal matter, but is, or was, in the purview of state and/or local government. That is the nature of the Constitution, as understood by the Founding Fathers. Federal crimes were limited to those enumerated in the Constitution, and, those that were passed in accordance with Article I, Section 8, clause 17, of the Constitution. In Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113]. Justice Rehnquist, dissenting, said, ” the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment… in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion… The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.”

Problem: The Supreme Court has become a legislative authority in their country. It has used its position of power to aid in the usurpation of both state and individual rights, reverting the people to the roll of subjects, as they were under British rule.

Eminent Domain – Eminent Domain has a long history in our English heritage. Eminent Domain was the means by which the entire community could be served with roads, canals, and other necessities for common use. It has been used for private gain, aided and abetted by city and county governments, since at least the 1960s. Its original intent is a benefit to the community, though the many of current applications are motivated by greed.

Problem: The courts, from local to supreme, have ignored the history and intent of the law by allowing ‘reinterpretations’ of previous cases (stare decisis). If the courts are allowed to change the meaning of a word or phrase top obtain their desired conclusion in a case, the will, by such action, remove Justice entirely from the courtroom.

Congress not reading the bills that the vote for – It has always astounded me the Congress seems to find more new need for legislation, every year. Over 3,000 pieces of legislation are enacted, every year. One would think that, if what Congress did to solve problems worked, there would be less need for new laws rather than more. Perhaps understanding, as they have recently admitted, that they do not read the laws that the pass, we can understand why things are getting worse rather than better.

Problem: Congress, whether a Senator or a Representative, is elected and paid to do a job for his constituency. That job is to represent our interests. Regardless of recent flagrant disregard with respect to spending, answering questions about why they support something, and, there general unwillingness to accept any responsibility for their action, it would seem that enacting laws because someone told them that they were good law (and, we don’t have any idea who told them), is as far away from “representation” as one could possibly imagine.

Balance the Budget – There has been for years an effort to force the federal government to ‘balance the budget’. Let’s just suppose that they did. The budget would of necessity, include debt service (payments on interest, and, hopefully, substantial amounts to reduce principal), along with the necessary expenses to conduct the business of government. Even if the operating expenses of the government were reduced to minimal, when added to the debt service, the amount required to continue the conducting of government would be well beyond the means of the current sources of revenue. This would require imposing a tax that would be unbelievable, and totally unacceptable to most Americans.

Problem: The debt is increasing at an alarming rate because Congress and the Executive have determined that if they want it, they will buy it. Consider that the debt, right now, is in excess of $38,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. Congress and the Executive have dug a hole so immense that it is nearly impossible to get out of it.

Militia (Civilian Defense) – Militia have been actively forming and then disbanding for the past 15 years. They generally participate in some combat training, establish a chain of command, and then get bored with their actions. There are some, however, who have retained their character. They, the ones that have stood the test of time, have also acknowledged that the Militia is subordinate to the civil authority. At this point in our history, that civil authority is the governor of the state in which the militia is formed. Similarly, the colonial militia were subordinate to the Royal Governor and to their local Committee of Safety, if they had one. The necessity was different, then. Indians were a major concern. The Committees would also establish night watchmen if the community might be subject to Indian attacks. Much of the activity of the militia was totally without knowledge of the Governor, and the right to bear arms, though unwritten, was without question.

Problem: The Rebel US government has done everything that they could to delegitimize the militia. Most states have followed suit, even to the point of trying to redefine militia as the National Guard. Most states, however, retain laws which make all able-bodied males between the ages of 15 and 45 (may vary from state to state) members of the militia, and require no registration.

Committee of Safety – There is an effort afoot that is attempting to build Committees of Safety from the top down, much like the Continental Congress (above). They claim that all of the Committees were composed of existing legislators. They have, however, put the cart before the horse. Their page refers to a book by Agnes Hunt about the Provincial Committees of Safety. These colony level Committees came long after the original Committees had called for and conducted the Continental Congresses. The Provincial Committees of Safety, for the most part, came after the Declaration of Independence. The foundation for organization, leadership, and, equipping of the militia came first from the local Committees of Safety. Relief for the people in Boston, during the embargo, was provided by the local Committees of Safety. They were, without a doubt, the foundation of the American Revolution. They were not supporters of candidates, nor did they support issues. They were a single focus group that was intent on providing guidance to the community for its own defense and well-being.

Problem: Through the educational process and the qualifying of text books, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare has managed to relegate, nearly to oblivion, the role played by the Committees of Safety. They have attempted to destroy any understand of true Grass Roots Activism, by so doing. The problem is — we do not have any Committees of Safety upon which we can depend for lawful guidance of our activities, should the need arise.

In reviewing the above issues, and realizing what the outcome of each will provide as a result, we can see that we are facing myriad task, none, or few of which will result in more than a very singular accomplishment — which might easily lead us down another path to pursue.

If the particular objective is reached and the results are adequate, this leaves us only to join another battle.

If, after years of effort, a battle, which has been waged, is won, leaving no residual to encumber us into a continuation of that battle, we can choose another battle to pursue.

However, who is to believe that if a battle is won, finally and decidedly, that another objective will not appear to take its place.

If a New World Order, dominated by a few, against the many, is truly being waged, the tactic of ‘divide and conquer’ will surely be continued. It will drain our resources from now to eternity, if we choose to pursue our goal, one issue at a time.

The division of our forces is inherent in the struggle that we are pursuing. Each, due to his personal ideology, has chosen one, or another, of the objectives, and is willing to give 100%, not realizing the futility of success, once the battle is completed.

If our forces are so divided as to assure the success of the New World Order, we are only passing time until, battle completed, or not, we realize that failure is the only course that we have pursued.

Is there an alternative course that can achieve all of the objectives?

If we were in a battlefield where an effort was made to divide the forces, giving advantage to the enemy, we would, if our objective was to win and we had superior forces, refuse to divide our force. The enemy would have anticipated being successful in creating the division (as they most certainly believe to be the case), and would not anticipate an all out attack on their main base, leaving them divided simply by believing that we were divided.

In this psychological, or, political war that we are engaged in, what strategy would overcome the division that has given such an advantage to the enemy? Could it be to concentrate our forces in a single issue (of those above mentioned)? Most assuredly, it would be unsuccessful, since even though that battle may be won, it would only lead us to the next battle. Each battle fatiguing us even more, as we trudge through dozens of issues, and leaving the door open for the creation of even more issues to string along our forces until exhaustion and frustration finally lead us to accept defeat.

Where could we concentrate our efforts to expect that we could ‘attack their headquarters’ and achieve success on all fronts?

Unfortunately, in this world of rapid and advanced communication, their headquarters are spread all over the world. There are, however, many identifiable ‘sub-headquarters’ where their leaders work, meet, relax, or live.

If we were to begin an effort to attack them on terms that were advantageous to us, rather than them, we would begin by going to these locations and finding the culprits. We would tar and feather them, and we would destroy the buildings that they used to enjoy that which they have reaped from our toil.

Yes, they will arrest us for doing such things. They have established a support base (police, courts, etc.) to protect them, since they realize that the Founding Fathers did not face such protection for the taxmen and politicians of the day. However, arrest is a small price to pay for the goal that we seek. And, if the juries are fully informed, there will be no convictions.

Create such discomfort and generate fear in their hearts, and, perhaps, they will find another country to plunder. It is for us to take back our country, and, in so doing, all of the problems enumerated above, along with the dozens unmentioned, will be capable of solution by We the People.

If we take to heart the last two mentioned items (Committees of Safety and Militia), we can begin forming a substitute government (as did the Founding Fathers), which, once installed as the true Government of the United States, we can dispense with the problems, one after another.

Would we rather pay lip service to George Washington? Or, would we rather do that which is necessary to achieve the removal of a despotic government? He was willing to do what was necessary to expel those who resisted allowing freedom and liberty to prevail in the land. He supported those peaceful efforts, when there was hope for them to succeed. When peaceful methods had convinced the Founding Fathers that they would be of no avail, the efforts were stepped up, as necessary, to force the hand of the despotic government. Retreat was not in the dictionary. How extensive an effort would be required was unknown, and every effort was made to escalate only to the extent necessary. The desire of the despots to retain control was the force that was needed to compel the colonists to risk all, when all else had failed.

We have tried petitions. We have tried demonstration. We have been ignored by those in power for every effort we have exerted. Perhaps, now is the time to extend our efforts into a minimal physical effort. Create displeasure and discomfort of those in power, and those who support them. In addition, we must be sincere and thorough, for if we fail in this effort, there remain but two choices – Victory by force of arms, or, defeat by failure to be willing to commit to the cause.

view Divide and Conquer on line

download a PDF of this article Divide and Conquer (PDF)