Archive
The Most Unconstitutional Law in American History…..
…..Your smartphone’s GPS will even share your exact location so the government will know whether you’ve joined one of those “domestic terrorist” groups.
And on top of that, the bill furnishes these private companies with immunity from lawsuits. CISPA typifies a disturbing form of corporatism, where companies surrender all obligations to protect your privacy in exchange for litigation protection.
Companies can now be held harmless, irrespective of the hurt caused by divulging information to the government.
Forget Guns…How About More ‘Congress Control’? Part 2… (Gunny G: “Return to our First Constitution !!!!! No more executive, judicial, congress; no more alphabet=soup fedederal oppressive agencies, etc.”) | American Clarion
Part 1 – A Look Behind the Curtain
Part 2 – We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Oaths!
The ruling class doesn’t care about public safety. Having made it very difficult for States and localities to police themselves, having left ordinary citizens with no choice but to protect themselves as best they can, they now try to take our guns away. In fact they blame us and our guns for crime.
This is so wrong that it cannot be an honest mistake. — Sen. Malcolm Wallop, Wyoming
Romney and Obama: ‘anti-Founders’
By Alan Keyes
This week, I read a surprising piece by WND‘s David Kupelian in which he asserted that people willing to accept the choice of evils in this year’s presidential election are following the example of America’s founders (“Beware the ‘lesser-of-two-evils‘ trap”). Kupelian notes that in order to secure approval of the U.S. Constitution, the founders compromised with the existence of slavery. He then asserts that “the Founding Fathers, by drafting, ratifying, and implementing the Constitution of the United States, engaged in the most monumental example in American history of deliberately choosing the lesser of two evils.”
I found the article surprising because its premise is a fallacy that I’ve had to deal with all my adult life. The founders did not choose the evil of slavery when they drafted the Constitution. To the contrary, they chose to plant, as the seed of American government, an understanding that acknowledges the true principle of right and justice for all human beings, which principle is the will of the sovereign God who created us. The founders then persuaded those who advocated slavery to accept a Constitution predicated upon this principle of justice, knowing that it would ultimately require the abolition of slavery. So, far from choosing the evil of slavery for blacks, they framed the Constitution with respect for the principle of government that recognized slavery as evil for all mankind.
The founders’ choice of true principle and the subsequent success of the American republic proved that successful government could be based on it. Before that, the protest against slavery came mainly from those forced to submit to it. They protested in vain. The right of government based on proven superior power (i.e., conquest) was considered unquestionable. Indeed, it was said to reflect the will of God (or in ancient times, the gods), who ordained and controlled the forces of nature and man’s fate.
Thus Mr. Kupelian appears to ignore the historically exceptional, even unique, nature of America’s founding. Until the founding of the United States, people who were themselves under the yoke of slavery had sometimes asserted and successfully battled to reclaim the good of freedom for themselves. But what people who had never been enslaved, and who had already won the war to preserve their own freedom, had ever gone on to establish a form government based on the principle of liberty for all mankind?
Supremes asked: Who is ‘natural born citizen?’
An announcement is expected sometime in the fall on whether the U.S. Supreme Court will decide just exactly who is a “natural born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution for all those who would be president.
Devvy Kidd: US~Observer – Is it treason and who will stop it?
DARE WE CALL IT TREASON?
Treason is defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war. “The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance; or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power.” What else do we call a detailed plan to merge America with Canada and Mexico as part of regional government under a “one world government“?
What else do we call agendas being implemented, via treaties and agreements, that totally erase the sovereignty of this country and replace our constitutional republic with communism? What do we call the actions of Congress after Congress for decades, with the blessing of president after president, who continue to dismantle the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights?
Devvy Kidd — It’s the People vs. the Government
…..The warnings have been placed right in front of our faces regarding how the shadow government intends to deal with we the people taking back our government:
“1987: Then U.S. Attorney General William French Smith blew the whistle on a fairly low ranking Marine officer by the name of Oliver North. According to Smith, Lt. Col. Oliver North directly helped draft a plan in 1984 to impose martial law in the United States in the event of an emergency. This secret plan would suspend the U.S. Constitution and turn over control of the government to the little known agency at that time: FEMA. This plan would appoint military commanders to run state and local governments. Implementation of this plan would have been triggered by violent and wise spread internal dissent, disagreement with government policy or national opposition to any U.S. military invasion abroad. Essentially, it amounted to a complete and total suspension of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
“Investigators who uncovered this plan believe that between 1983 – 1986, North’s office was the ‘central command center’ for this informal secret structure which involved more than the illegal sale of arms to Iran and illegal funding of the underground war in Nicaragua under President Ronald Reagan. “Lifers” in the military were shocked, saying at the time that no Lt. Colonel is ever given the kind of power North was apparently given within this secret structure.
A Time for Choosing, Part IV| The Post & Email ~ “DO WE HAVE A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT?”
DO WE HAVE A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT?
by Steven Wayne Pattison, ©2011
Does the U.S. Constitution define a “national” or “federal” government formed by the states?
(Dec. 25, 2011) — Is this the really issue? If it is, the current Government located in DC is still de facto.
This presentation is hopefully going to help you connect the dots and provide evidence of the deeds done that changed what our Founding Fathers first guaranteed to every State in this Union, a “Republican Form of Government,” as Section. 4 of Article IV declares:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
Please note for the record that the Organic Constitution posted here does not have either of the terms ‘national’ or federal’. Therefore, all we have to rest our beliefs on is “A LAW DICTIONARY ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION” by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856 posted on the Internet. The term “Federal” is defined within this Law Dictionary as:
FEDERAL, government. This term is commonly used to express a league or compact between two or more states.
A Declaration to Restore the Constitutional Republic| The Post & Email
An undisclosed number of American Veterans and former service members have come together to prepare and present this Call-to-Action on behalf of the U.S. Constitution, the Republic, the Rule of Law and equal justice for all freedom loving citizens of the United States of America. Acting together as one, via The Veteran Defenders of America, co-sponsored by civilian patriot group The Unites States Patriots Union, LLC – we issue the following CALL for peaceful disobedience.
We CALL upon every member of federal, state and local government, legislative, judicial, law enforcement and military, who have taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitutional Republic from all enemies, foreign and domestic, to act upon those oaths for the stated purpose of restoring the Constitutional Republic.
We CALL upon ALL veterans and veteran organizations in America, who still believe in their oath to protect and defend, to unite with us at once – in this Declaration to Restore the Constitutional Republic.
We CALL for ALL citizens who still desire freedom and liberty, to stand with us in peaceful protest, and carry our demands to right the wrongs against our nation in the preservation of freedom, liberty, justice and the rule of law.
This is a NATIONWIDE Call-to-Action!
“We are Facing a Battle That Will Decide our Fate as a Nation!” – Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely (Ret.)…………………….
MORE…..
*****
via A Declaration to Restore the Constitutional Republic| The Post & Email.
2012 Presidential Candidates – One Question Only| The Post & Email
“AN OVERT ACT OF TREASON”
by JB Williams
Will any of the candidates for President face the eligibility matter, or will they all pretend it doesn’t exist?
(Sep. 20, 2011) — As the 2012 election cycle heats up, the most pressing issue facing our nation today is the reinstatement of the U.S. Constitution as the Law of this Land, and the survival of our constitutional republic, complete with sovereign borders, the rule of law, states rights and a republican form of government guaranteed every citizen by the Constitution. There is no more pressing issue in America today…
As reinstating the U.S. Constitution is the highest priority of the 2012 election, and the fact that reinstating Article II requirements for the office of president is first and foremost in the effort to reinstate the constitution as the supreme law of this land, all presidential candidates must face the most vital question of the day.
Before being entrusted with the most powerful political office in our land and the world for that matter, I have only ONE question for every candidate seeking the office of President of the United States……………………
MORE…..
via 2012 Presidential Candidates – One Question Only| The Post & Email.
America at the abyss
There is a direct correlation between America’s downward spiral and the nation’s departure from adherence to the U.S. Constitution. During the first hundred years, America experienced growth and prosperity never before imagined by people who never knew what freedom was. It was a rough and tumble century; not everyone prospered. Many people were victimized by profit-hungry capitalists. The answer to this inequity, according to some of the 19th century philosophers, was government management of the affairs of people and their business activities. Proponents of these ideas claimed the name “Progressives.”
Progressives prevailed at the dawn of the 20th century when Woodrow Wilson won the presidency, guided by Master Progressive, Colonel Edward Mandell House. With few notable exceptions, Progressives have dominated government since the Wilson era.
The single most apparent characteristic of Progressive influence is a complete disregard for the U.S. Constitution. The Founders designed the government of the United States to share and balance sovereign power between the states and the new federal government. The new Senate was chosen by state legislatures to ensure that the states would have a decisive voice in the federal government. No legislation could become law, nor could any treaty be ratified, nor could any Supreme Court Judge or Cabinet level official be appointed, without approval of the states. This state-held power in the new federal government held the new government in check for the first century.
So effective was this check and balance,
via America at the abyss.
The U.S. Constitution: The 18th Century Patriot Act (via ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984+ ~ (BLOG & EMAIL))
The U.S. Constitution: The 18th Century Patriot Act
It was not Thomas Jefferson or Patrick Henry that led the effort to call the Constitutional Convention, which neither even attended. It was Hamilton and his Federalists that wanted it. As superbly documented in his book, Hamilton’s Curse, Thomas Dilorenzo reminds us that Hamilton actually wanted even more power for the central government than he eventually got into the Constitution.
“At the convention, Hamilton proposed a permanent president and senate, with all political power in the national government, as far away as possible from the people, and centered in the executive. He also wanted “all laws of the particular states, contrary to the constitution or the laws of the United States [government], to be utterly void,” and he proposed that “the governor…of each state shall be appointed by the general government, and shall have a negative [i.e., a veto] upon the laws about to be passed in the state of which he is governor.”[2]
Hamilton did not succeed in getting all of the power he wanted for the central government, but he succeeded in increasing that power quite a bit. This too should seem familiar. At every point in American history that interested parties have tried to expand the power of government, they have attempted at expansive powers and settled for something less than they sought but more than they previously had. With each “compromise,” Americans have lost a little more of their liberty.
When viewed objectively, the very words of the Constitution reveal its true purpose. Constitutionalists often cite Article I Section 8 as proof of the limits on the powers granted to the federal government, but let’s not forget what that section actually says. It begins,
“The Congress shall have the power to…”
What follows is a long………………..
via The U.S. Constitution: The 18th Century Patriot Act.
**********************
Col SELLIN: THE BIG CON “MUST BE DEALT WITH BEFORE 2012 ELECTION”
Prison Planet.com » The Elite Are Not Even Trying To Hide How Much They Hate The U.S. Constitution Anymore
In the United States today, it is becoming increasingly fashionable to openly trash the U.S. Constitution. Many among the elite are not even trying to hide how much they hate the U.S. Constitution anymore. As the Patriot movement and the Tea Party movement call for a return to the principles that this nation was founded upon, many among the elite and in the mainstream media are responding by publicly dumping on the U.S. Constitution. The level of vitriol that we are seeing for our founding fathers and for our Constitution is unprecedented. It turns out that the U.S. Constitution does not fit very well with the benevolent futuristic “Big Brother” totalitarianism that they want to impose on all of us. All of that talk about “freedom” and “liberty” in the Constitution does not exactly square with thecentralized global planning that the elite have in mind. The ruling elite believe that the “rights of the individual” must be greatly restricted for the “good of society” and for the “good of the environment”. Right now the “constitutional revival” that is happening in the United States is a direct threat to what the elite are trying to accomplish, so they are responding by openly attacking the Constitution.
In Defense Of Our Constitution
Richard Stengel is lauded by the political left as a smart and knowlegeable reporter, and is well thought of as Editor of Time Magazine.
After this week’s edition, one has to wonder why.
Time’s headline story is titled, “Does It Still Matter?’. It refers to the U.S. Constitution. And in large part, Stengel’s answer is “No”. In fact, he basically argues that it never mattered.
Stengel points to the irrelevancy of the Constitution is pointing to war powers. He goes on:
Stengel’s most relevant passage states the following:
“We can pat ourselves on the back about the past 223 years, but we cannot led the Constitution become an obstacle to the U.S.’s moving into the future with a sensible health care system, a globalized economy, an evolving sense of civil and political rights…
…The Constitution does not protect our spirit of liberty; our spirit of liberty protects the Constitution. The Constitution serves the nation; the nation does not serve the Constitution.”
These passages, more than any other, show Stengel’s bias, and in the end, his ultimate stupidity. The Constitution does protect our spirit of liberty, in so far that without such a document, what would we define as liberty? Would we, for example, simply inherently understand that free speech is a right, without such a declaration as the first amendment? The Constitution serves our nation, to be sure; but a nation which does not serve the Constitution is abiding by what law, exactly?
(Excerpt) Read more at neoavatara.com …
The U.S. Constitution: The 18th Century Patriot Act
The U.S. Constitution: The 18th Century Patriot Act
The U.S. Constitution: The 18th Century Patriot Act:
“At some point in the past, the American ethos was centered on suspicion of government –whether liberal, conservative, or otherwise.
For most of America’s first two centuries, Americans were taxed less, regulated less, and left more alone by their government than any other people in the world. These conditions resulted in an explosion of innovation, wealth, and culture unsurpassed at any time in human history.
As that trend seems to have reversed, Americans look to their past to try to establish where we have gone wrong and what we can do to solve our problems.
Increasingly, some Americans point to the U.S. Constitution and our abandonment of its “limits on government” as the reason for our downfall.
It is generally argued by “strict constitutionalists” that the purpose of the U.S. Constitution was to limit the power of the government.
Nothing could be further from the truth.”
***
SEE ALSO: GUNNY G: THE CONSTITUTION ISN’T WHAT IT USED TO BE ~ PERHAPS IT NEVER WAS!
http://gunnyg.blogspot.com/2011/06/gunny-g-u-s-constitution-apparently-not.html#links
*****
via BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984(+): The U.S. Constitution: The 18th Century Patriot Act.
The U.S. Constitution: The 18th Century Patriot Act
The U.S. Constitution: The 18th Century Patriot Act
The U.S. Constitution: The 18th Century Patriot Act:
“Remember that there was already a federal government of the United States prior to the U.S. Constitution. It was defined in a document called the Articles of Confederation and had been in existence since 1778.
Under the Articles, the young nation had defeated the mightiest military empire in human history to win its independence. Acknowledging the true meaning of the words “federation” and “federal,” the document defined the relationship between the states as “a firm league of friendship with each other.”
There was no implication that the United States was one nation and the several states merely subdivisions within it. There was no president to usurp power. There was no Supreme Court to legally sanction tyranny.
There was no IRS. While the federal government would pay for any war fought by the federation out of a common treasury, the Articles left the actual act of taxation to the States.”
Posted by Gunny G at Sunday, June 05, 2011
via BLOGGER.1984.GUNNY.G: The U.S. Constitution: The 18th Century Patriot Act.
Montana, where real America still lives
Montana, America’s last best place, is looking to legislate three very common sense initiatives that point the entire country in the right direction. With its Democratic Governor and two Democratic U.S. Senators, Montana’s Republican legislature plans to introduce a broad state nullification act that will block any federal law considered by Montanans to be unconstitutional.
House Bill No. 382 sponsored by Rep. Derek Skees is titled “An act prohibiting infringement of the state of Montana’s constitutional right to nullification of any federal statute, mandate, or executive order considered unconstitutional by the state.” The bill even provides for a retroactive date for its application.
This bill is being championed by MG Paul Vallely (ret.) a Bigfork native, heads up the Patriots Union which has distributed this bill model to 30 state legislatures through a large patriots network of conservatives. MT Bill No. 382 is based on the format of the Model State Nullification Reaffirmation Act of Wyoming.
A notion of a well regulated militia as covered by our U.S. Constitution also is taking shape in Montana’s halls of state governance. House Bill No. 278, sponsored by Rep. Wendy Warburton of Havre, calls for “home guards” of legally authorized law abiding Montanans to answer to the governor and sheriffs during emergencies.
Citing the Katrina debacle of un-preparedness, Warbuton says the “slow response and poor organization” during major disasters prompted her to sponsor this bill. “Really the bill is just about local volunteers being prepared in case of emergency to support the National Guard, support the sheriff, support the governor as needed.” she said. ….
The wonderful Code of the West is the third……. Living each day with courage, taking pride in your daily work, and always finishing what you start seem like a plan to me.
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com …
IT’S THE PEOPLE vs. THE GOVERNMENT By: Devvy
IT’S THE PEOPLE vs. THE GOVERNMENT
By: Devvy
July 5, 2007
© 2007 – NewsWithViews.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd284.htm
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.” –Marcus Tullius Cicero 42B.C.
The title of this column is a caption from a recent CNN poll news item which contained some extraordinary comments from poltroons like Jon Kyl of Arizona, a counterfeit U.S. Senator who sold out the people of Arizona and these united states of America with his solid support of lawlessness and the recently defeated amnesty bill. Kyl is quoted in the aforementioned: “It is a sad commentary in America today that many Americans have lost faith in their government,” Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Arizona, said. He added, “Americans don’t believe that their government is representing them, is acting on their behalf. The polls show it.”
Lucifer’s Architect’s of Anarchy
President Obama and the Secular Left – just alone the last two years – have sought every opportunity to transform, undermine, eradicate, rewrite, slander, bulldoze, and undo what is left of our sacred Constitution, our Judeo/Christian heritage, our national security, our free markets, liberties and republic ideals.
The rise of the Left and godless Liberalism in America has been slowly but ever rising since the 1920’s until today, where it is at a fever pitch. The Left has always sought to make war with America’s Judeo/ Christian values moral and spiritual by imposing their secular and godless immorality on the American culture.
They are Constitutional apostates and, like a parasite, they have twisted the U.S. Constitution in support of their Machiavellian agenda. They have been relentless in their pursuit to totally secularize our American Culture and heritage.”The Left has always sought to make war with America’s Judeo/ Christian values moral and spiritual by imposing their secular and godless immorality on the American culture”Iconic leftist leaders such as Margaret Sanger, Roger Baldwin, John Dewey, Madeline Murry O’Hara, Saul Alinsky, and George Soros – to name a few – have been instrumental in the aggressive anti-America leftist movement, and their radical ideals have slowly transformed this once great nation into a lawless and decadent pig pen. -link ‘
The Left’s godless agencies and vehicles such as the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, MoveOn.org, ACORN, the Liberal Socialist media and press, Leftist activist blogs and groups, communist environmentalist groups, Hollywood, Porno-wood, the music industry, Leftist politicians, rogue activist judges, leftist academia, teachers unions, and liberal college faculties etc., have been combined into a massive wrecking ball battering and demolishing our very foundation, our laws both natural and spiritual, our Judeo/Christian heritage, our values and morality, all logic and common sense, and all personal accountability and responsibility.”
They the Left are Constitutional apostates and, like a parasite, they have twisted the U.S. Constitution in support of their Machiavellian agenda. They have been relentless in their pursuit to totally secularize our American Culture and heritage”
Wrong Court ruled on Arizona Law
In a stunning development that could potentially send the nation into a Constitutional crisis, an astute attorney who is well-versed in Constitutional law states that the ruling against the State of Arizona by Judge Susan Bolton concerning its new immigration law is illegal.
The attorney in question submitted her assertion in a special article in the Canada Free Press. Her argument states in part, “Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don’t read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder.But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution which is as plain as the nose on your face.
“Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction.”
In other words, the Judge in the Arizona case has absolutely no Constitutional jurisdiction over the matter upon which she ruled. As the Constitution makes abundantly clear, only the U.S. Supreme Court can issue rulings that involve a state. This means that neither Judge Bolton nor the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco , to which the case is being appealed, have any legal standing whatsoever to rule on the issue.
Thus, U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder filed the federal government’s lawsuit against the state of Arizona in a court that has no authority to hear the case.
Excerpt
A FAILED EXPERIMENT GIVES OCCASION TO RESTORE FREEDOM ~ By Timothy N. Baldwin, JD.
By Timothy N. Baldwin, JD.
July 17, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
There is no question that the United States Constitution was considered to be an EXPERIMENT. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike admitted it was an experiment, and it has been described as such ever since. Evidently, Americans use the term not knowing what it actually means or implies. So, what was it that made this form of government experimental? Before answering the question, let us initially identify what was NOT unique about the U.S. Constitution–aspects that many probably consider to exhibit the unique and singular greatness of the U.S. Constitution, but in reality, are not unique at all and were in fact borrowed.
First, the separation of powers in the federal government was not new. That element of government had been around literally since Moses governed Israel in Canaan. Great Britain exercised a separation of powers as well: executive power in the Monarch, legislative power in Parliament and judicial power in the courts.
Second, that the form was a democratic-republic was not new. The European states and countries had exercised self-government to a greater degree than just about any other people in the history of the world. Thirdly, the experiment was not in having a bill of rights. Such an acknowledgement of people’s rights had existed in the European countries since the Magna Charta in 1215. Neither did the experiment lie in such components as term limits, voting, limited government authority, a two-house congress and the like. All of these had been well established throughout the governments of the world. All of those aspects were a given, but were only debated in terms of preference and compromise.




















Recent Comments