Opine Time

"General Welfare Clause" abuse

2011-05-16T19:38:00.000-05:00

The Government and government apologists try to say the "General Welfare Clause" gives government the power to do things like implement Social Security, Medicare, etc. FauxNews tried to blast Ron Paul with this assertion (see link above). The argument is a complete and absolute falsehood. Here is what the Founders stated about the "General Welfare Clause"... including James Madison, the Constitution's author.

"With respect to the two words general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." – James Madison in letter to James Robertson

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

Even the Monarchist jerk himself (Alexander Hamilton) understood this:
"No legislative act … contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

"Let there be no change [in the Constitution] by usurpation. For though this, in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." - George Washington, from his farewell address

So, the next time someone gives increased power to the Government via the "General Welfare Clause", print out this post and staple it to their forehead.

Glenn Beck: Wolf in Shepherd's clothing

2011-02-26T01:51:00.000-06:00

Refer to link above...

Alex Jones shows how Glenn Beck takes his (Jones') information, and then distorts, or underplays elements of it, etc. in order to lead the stray sheep back to the herd.

This is something I have long accused Beck of... His job is to take those sheep that begin to wipe the wool from their eyes; and then to hand them chunks of truth dipped in lies and deception in order to keep them under control. The slowly awakening sheep then believe they are actually on the "cutting edge" of truth, when in reality they are having the wool pulled back over their eyes.

Kind of like the "Tea Party" movement... it began as a Ron Paul style liberty movement, and was quickly hijacked by Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck; who then turned the Tea Party into just another extension of Republican politics. This is why we get so-called "liberty" candidates like Michelle Bachmann who claims to want smaller government, adherence to the Constitution, and increased liberty... and then turns around and votes to extend the so-called "Patriot Act", which is nothing more than a nullification of the fourth and fifth amendment to the Constitution.

There Oughta Be A Law...

2011-01-03T15:57:00.000-06:00

(See Link Above) Note: In the following rant, I am being "semi" sarcastic.

I think the most productive Legislature we could ever have would be one that did NOT do a damn thing all year... An even better one would NOT write any new laws, but would begin REPEALING as many as it could get its hands on.

Better yet, we could just wipe out ALL the laws and start fresh. After getting Thou Shall Not Kill, Steal, Kidnap, Rape, etc. out of the way, how about we pass the following law in every State in the Union:

"Any government agent, while in the official capacity of his office, that knowingly and willingly violates his oath of office, the Constitution of his State, or the Constitution of the United States, is guilty of a Felony and shall face a fine of no less than $1000 and no more than $5000, AS WELL AS no less than 1 and no more than 5 years in prison."

...maybe after a second, possibly third, conviction for a similar offense, they should just be publicly hung; their body displayed for no less than a week before being cut down, burned, and the ashes put in an urn and given as a gift and a warning to their successor.

I have a feeling that would give the "powers that be" a much needed attitude adjustment.

We could kick the new law off with a National Holiday ("Usurper's Day")... I'll write the first holiday song:

545 bodies swinging in the wind.
"They're for us" they did pretend.
Now their lies have come to an end,
Hanging from a rope is the new trend
545 bodies dancing with the wind.

Each holiday the people could take to the streets with their choice of "a hangman's noose and a gun", "torches and pitchforks", or "tar and feathers", and as they march, they could sing the holiday song. The march could end at the office of our local Representative, and he could join in the festivities... giving speeches, answering to the people, reading the Constitution, reviewing Natural Law and Natural Rights, reinforcing his oath of office... stuff like that. We could end the festivities with a Barbecue and a hanging, shooting, stabbing, tarring, feathering, and then burning of a Tyrant in effigy... It would be fun for the whole family.

Ah yes, a nice yearly reminder of who serves who... and the consequences of forgetting it.

We have been warned, and warned, and warned... but we refuse to listen

2010-04-18T15:09:00.001-05:00

In 1963, Democratic Congressman Albert S. Herlong, Jr. of Florida, inspired by the book "The Naked Communist" (by Cleon Skousen) read into the Congressional Record a list of 45 ways by which the Communists would seek to undermine the US. Some of the list of 45 somewhat died away with the Cold War, but the rest are not only very, very relevant, but have already come to pass.

It take very little reading and effort to understand the methods and goals of Marxists, Communists, and "Progressives" (but I repeat myself) as they tell you exactly what they intend to do in the things they say, write, and do. This is how the book, "The Naked Communist" came to be. Mister Skousen went through the books, statements, etc. of Marxists, Communists, and "Progressives" (again, I repeat myself) removing the double-speak, propaganda, etc. to expose the raw or "Naked" philosophy of the Communist.

Here is a link to the full list of 45 items: http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

Here are some of the items from the list that should make you skin sufficiently crawl, as they have already come to pass and have entrenched themselves in our society.

From the List:
Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.

Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

Gain control of all student newspapers.

Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions

Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."

Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

[Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

For further contemplation, I suggest you read this post as well... What is Marxism?

Today, "Obama Care"... Tomorrow, Unfettered Sodomy of the Citizen Without Apology

2010-03-22T00:45:00.001-05:00

Today with the passage of Obama Care, "Amerika" has again lurched hard away from liberty. What will the people do? Nothing. Oh, they'll whine and bitch, and then they'll vote overwhelmingly Republican in the next election cycle or two; and then they will settle down and swallow what they have been force-fed, being the neutered sheep they are.

What will the Republicans do? Nothing. They will stomp around talking about the evils of Obama's administration and the Democratic stranglehold on power, but then won't do one f-in thing to repeal, stop, or end anything that was put in place. They'll look around, holding their hands out pleadingly saying things like "well, we don't have enough votes for that", or "Its hard to just up and undo something that massive", or "the damage is done, we'll have to ween the people off of it... someday", and so on until the people... like hamsters hitting the feeder bar... will again vote the Democrats back in power.

This will continue over and over again until "Amerika" is complete, and the sheep are rightfully ruled by an absolute totalitarian government who will sheer and slaughter them without reservation.

The 10 Principles of Freedom

2010-01-06T14:04:00.003-06:00

In order for a people or civilization to truly be free, they must be willing to abide by the 10 Principles of Freedom:

Law, Rights, Morality, Sovereignty, Prudence, Family, Civility, Justice, Charity, and Diligence.

Law (Natural Law): Not the whim of Man. Natural Law is the law written into the hearts and minds of just and reasonable men from which the norms of all human law must be derived.

The Foundation of Natural Law:
Natural Law is grounded upon this premise... You have a right to your Life, Liberty, and Property... but you also have a Legal Obligation to do the following:

Act:
To discharge your duties, engaging in the activities that you are reasonably obligated. In other words, pay your debts; return lost, stolen, or borrowed property; and so on.

Abstain:
To refrain from participating in activities that brings harm to an individual or society. In other words, to refrain from killing, raping, stealing, etc.

Duty:
An innate moral compulsion for ethical action. A binding social force. In other words, your Moral Obligation. Duty is a bit different than the other three items in this list. Duty is a MORAL OBLIGATION, and no one can legitimately legislate or legally hold to account a moral standard. However, there are some Moral Obligations that are also Legal Obligations.

Examples:
Parents not only have a Duty (or Moral Obligation) to feed their children, they are obligated by Natural Law (i.e. Legally Obligated) to do so.

Lying is immoral, but not illegal... unless you commit Fraud, Perjury, Forgery, etc. even if that Fraud caused no harm. You must understand and remember, Laws exist as a means to give recourse.

Accountability:
An obligation to be held to answer for one's action or inaction or immorality. Even though Immorality is not Illegal, you are still held to account for your immoral actions via the scorn of society. Morality should not be legislated, but it most assuredly MUST be taught and held to account societally.

Note: The Law can be extended by Common Law (Law based upon the custom, tradition, and practices of a society) so long that it adheres to the principles of Natural Law.
Rights (Natural Rights): Those inalienable rights, freedoms, and privileges granted to us by God. These rights are so intertwined with our Humanity that they cannot be traded, given away, or stolen from us. The only way that we can be denied our Natural Rights is by being held accountable via due process of a just and fair law... Natural Law.

The Fundamental Rights are:
Life: Without life, nothing else matters. Existence is the foundation of all things.

Liberty: The foundation of Man's ability to control his own life and strive to shape his own destiny.

Property: The basis of human happiness, stability, prosperity, advancement, and freedom of contract. The foundation of a free society.

...and the all important Right to Defend our Rights.

So long as a person is sane, and capable of logical, reasonable, judgment and self-control he may do as he pleases so long as he does not tread upon the Natural Rights of another.

Note: This is not to be confused with Artificial Rights, which are not rights at all.

Artificial Rights:
As opposed to a Natural Right, an Artificial Right is an imagined or falsely perceived right to something (often based on a goal or aspiration) that requires the imposed action of the State to provide.

Examples of Artificial Rights include, but are not limited to:
A right to housing.
A right to health care.
A right to an education.
A right to not be discriminated against.
A right to welfare.
A right to a job.
A right to a minimum wage.
A right to a standard of living.
Morality: Ethical behavior, Self-restraint, Self-Control; virtuous people must require virtuous leaders.
Sovereignty: Self-determination and self-governance.
Prudence: Careful, sensible, reasonable, discretion and sound judgment.
Family: The foundation of a Civilization.
Civility: Includes a prevention of Anarchy via a Minarchistic, Republican form of government.
Justice: Equitableness, fairness, and accountability. Due process.
Charity: Empathy, generosity, and kindness for others, assist those in need, have a lenient attitude toward your fellow man.
Diligence: A zealous, persevering determination to maintain liberty and hold the government to account.

Ten simple principles that can make the difference between Tyranny and Liberty... make them a part of who you are, and what you stand for.

*Portions above culled from my Treatise on Natural Order

Marriage

2009-08-03T16:21:00.001-05:00

Marriage, as traditionally defined is a legal and spiritual union of a man and wife as the foundation of a family. Some believe that Marriage is simply a religious institution, however Marriage is more than a religious institution, it is also a societal institution. Furthermore, Marriage is the foundation of a family, and family is the foundation of a civilization. To practice and promote marriage as defined above, is to promote the growth, advancement, and propagation of a civilization.

There are many misunderstandings and incorrect assumptions as to what Marriage is and what it means. Over the last couple of decades, persons and groups prompted by political ideologies and attempts at social engineering have tried to blur and redefine the nature, law, and purpose of Marriage. Below is, by law and tradition what Marriage is and has meant in Western civilization.

Every human society practices Marriage in one form or another existing as a public legal act. It is a universal human idea sanctioned by society, as stated before, to promote the growth, advancement, and propagation of a civilization.

By Law, Marriage is a special civil contract between a Man and a Woman.

The participants in the contract must be willing and able to enter into the contract. If the marriage is entered into by one or more unwilling parties; or parties who were not able to (due to age, disability, law, etc.) enter into contract, the Marriage is rendered null and void, as if it had not occurred in the first place.

The Marriage contract must be enacted before witnesses presided over by a Judge, Justice, Administrator of a Religious Faith (Minister, Rabbi, etc.), or other sanctioned entity.

A marriage contract is then sealed by consummation. Any marriage that has not been consummated may be annulled, treating it as if it had not occurred.

A marriage that has been consummated may only be dissolved by the death of the spouse, or by divorce.

Divorce may (until the birth of the “No Fault” Divorce) only be granted for reasons of wanton cruelty and/or neglect, adultery, or abandonment (as detailed by law).

By law, upon Marriage, the Man and Woman become one person, as the legal existence of the woman is suspended for the period of Marriage; being consolidated into that of the Husband, under whose protection and influence she performs everything. This condition of marriage is called “Coverture” and the wife is a “feme-covert” [married woman].

Under the rules of coverture, the following applies:
1.Because a Man cannot contract with himself, a Man and Wife may not contract with one another, and aside from the contract of marriage, any covenants made between them while single become void upon their marriage. A will and any inheritance is in force, because it does not take affect until the death of the spouse, which ends the marriage.
2.A Man is required to assume the debts of his wife and maintain her as he would himself; providing her all necessaries (food, clothing, shelter, etc.). All debts transfer to the Wife if the Husband precedes her in death.
3.A Wife may not enter into contracts, or seek redress in the courts (aside from petition for divorce) without the Husband's consent, thereby having it done in his name; unless the husband is debilitated and unable to act for his wife or give his consent. Any contracts a Wife has made prior to her marriage may be voided by her Husband when he becomes aware of their existence.
4.A Wife cannot be sued without making the Husband a defendant.
5.The Husband and Wife face criminal charges separately when the penalty is more than a fine, but they may not be witness in evidence for or against the other. If a Wife commits a crime acting solely under the direction, guidance, and/or command of her Husband, it is the Husband that shall face the criminal charges.
6.The Husband has the right to give his Wife moderate correction in the same manner as he is allowed to correct his children.

The Rights and Obligations of Marriage:
1.The marriage creates affinal ties to the spouses family.
2.Each spouse has control over their partner's sexual services.
3.The Wife has control over her Husband's affairs if he is incapacitated.
4.Each spouse is allowed access to the other during periods of incarceration or infirmary.
5.Each spouse is legal guardian of their children.
6.Each spouse has a joint property fund and right to inheritance.

The above may seem “shocking” to some of you... but again, it is because the reality of what Marriage is and what it means has been blurred, distorted, and changed by political ideologies and attempts at social engineering.

Before “No-Fault” divorce, Political Correctness, and Social Engineering, it was not uncommon for a lot of thought and consideration to take place prior to making a commitment to Marriage. Marriage was a life-long commitment that has/had far reaching legal and social ramifications... not, as many today seem to believe, as a means to get new blenders, tax relief, and insurance benefits.

References include:

William Blackstone's Commentary on the Laws of England (the sourcebook behind the American legal system).

Encyclopedia Britannica

Canon Law of Marriage of the Roman Catholic Church, which was the force of law and practice of Marriage in the West before the reformation of the Sixteenth Century.

See also: http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/What%20is%20Marriage%20For.pdf

The Right of Secession

2009-07-28T16:38:00.002-05:00

Lately there has been a lot of talk about secession. Even the Governor of Texas spoke of it, setting off a firestorm of controversy... particularly among the Status Quo that erroneously believes that the States do not have the right to secede.

Too many people mistakenly believe that “the 'Civil War' settled that matter”, when in reality, all the 'Civil War' did was prove that a tyrannical government with enough guns and manpower can oppress the rights of not only the people, but the States as well.

Some of you may be thinking... “what are you talking about? Secession is treason! It's ILLEGAL!” If you are thinking that, you are absolutely wrong, as I shall demonstrate.

In 1776 the Colonies seceded from British rule with the Declaration of Independence. In that document, the “secessionists” made clear their right to do so.

From the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — 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.”

These secessionists then formed a new government... a confederation of independent States.

Note: The term State at this time, and in the mind of the Founder's was interchangeable with “Country”. The definition of a State as a Country still holds true to this day.

From The Articles of Confederation:
ARTICLE I The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".

ARTICLE II Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

ARTICLE III The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, 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, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.

Those who do NOT believe in the right of secession often speak of the phrase in ARTICLE XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which state:

“...the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual...” and the title of the “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union between the States of...”

However, this is because the detractors do not understand the meaning of a “perpetual contract”. A “perpetual contract” means that the contract has no end date and that the terms of that contract will continue in force until one or both sides breaks that contract and/or desire to end it. The meaning of the term “perpetual union” is that the States were to be held together in a union until such time as the contract is broken, or the States in question desired to break away from that union.

The principal players in the formation of the united States agrees with this... as the quotes below shall show.

James Madison:
“the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their Government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.” – While introducing the Bill of Rights

Thomas Jefferson:
“If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.” – First inaugural address

Thomas Jefferson:
“If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate'.” – in response to New England Federalist desiring to secede

Alexander Hamilton:
“[As to joining the union] the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States.” – Federalist 32

Though the new Constitution for the united States did not specifically speak on the matter of secession, it did specifically give the people and the State the right to do as they please while specifically limiting the power of the Federal Government.

James Madison, the author of the Constitution, says so plainly:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” – Federalist 45

This theme is spelled out clearly in the Bill of Rights:
Ninth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States:
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.

No State would have ratified the Constitution had they believed that they were to be bound as a slave to the central government. To illustrate my point, and to further show the right of Secession... each and every State Constitution has wording in it similar to that which is found below.

Texas Constitution of 1845:
All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit and they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may think expedient; and, therefore, no government or authority can exist or exercise power within the State of Texas, without the consent of the people thereof previously given; nor after that consent be withdrawn.

It is with these words that the Republic of Texas joined the united States, and in 1861 they utilized their right and seceded, joining the Confederacy. After the end of the War for Southern Independence, when Texas was forcibly returned, at the end of a bayonet, back into the union, similar words remained in its new Constitution... the one that Texas adheres to today.

Texas Constitution of 1876 (current Texas Constitution):
Article 1, Section 2:
“All political power is inherent in the people and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.”

Furthermore, Texas stated in no uncertain terms that it is a Sovereign State, stating in the Constitution...

Texas Constitution of 1876 (current Texas Constitution):
Article 1, Section 1:
“Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States; and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government unimpaired to all the States. ”

So, if Texas does decide to secede, it is not illegal, treasonous, or “crazy”... it is our God-Given Right!

Thomas Jefferson summed it up best:
“Rebellion to Tyrants is obedience to God.” – motto on Thomas Jefferson's personal seal

Thoughts on Tiller the Baby Killer

2009-06-05T13:06:00.001-05:00

Feminists, Liberals, and Marxists (but I repeat myself) are still railing against Pro-Lifers as being "violent radicals" due to the "murder" of Dr. Tiller the Killer of 60,000 babies... The sad irony is that since Roe v Wade passed, a total of 5 abortion doctors have been killed; meanwhile, almost 50,000,000 babies have been murdered in the womb.

This makes Feminists the greatest mass murderers in all the history of all the world.

Feminists retort... well, abortion is legal. So what... Genocide was legal in NAZI Germany, but that doesn't make it right.

The Common Law Grand Jury

2009-03-31T15:23:00.003-05:00

The people of Georgia have done something VERY interesting. They convened a citizen's Grand Jury under the Common Law. This Grand Jury has indicted Obama for fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud, which... if (and I stress "IF") they can get any prosecutor in Georgia to pay attention to the law, President Obama will have to face his day in court.

For those of you who do not know, Grand Juries have come a long way from what they originally were...

Grand Juries are supposed to be chosen by lot, much like regular jurors. The only difference is that Grand Jurors are not sifted based on biases. The jurors are chosen and seated.

A typical Grand Jury has 23 members to serve every 3000 populace (a town of 6000 people would have 2 Grand Juries). A Grand Jury is supposed to hear the evidence a prosecutor has, and then judge whether or not he has a case for indictment. A mere majority vote of the Grand Jury grants indictment. There typically is no judge in the proceedings.

Grand Juries are allowed to deliberate, ask questions and hear additional witnesses if they desire, however, they are not there to try the case... simply to judge whether or not there IS a case to be tried. If a Grand Jury votes against indictment, the Prosecutor should NOT be allowed to try again with the same case and a different Grand Jury.

A Grand Jury typically sits for a week (5 business days) and hears several cases; however, it is not uncommon to have a Grand Jury sit for Months, meeting once or twice a week during those months. The proceedings are typically secret.

Example:
You get a jury summons. You show up at court, and they say they are seating a Grand Jury. Aside from being excused for medical/personal reasons, you should be placed without question.

Let's say that the Grand Jury you are on is being seated for 6 months, meeting every Monday and Wednesday during that time. You might hear 4 cases 1 week, 1 case the next week, 6 cases the next week, and 1 case that consumes 2 weeks, and so on. After your 6 months is over, the Grand Jury is dismissed, and another one is seated.

Grand Juries seem inclined to side with a prosecutor as far as indictment goes... however, Grand Juries (when properly applied) can exclude the prosecutor from an inquisition and can subpoena witnesses and issue indictments themselves if necessary. This typically happens when a Grand Jury feels that the prosecutor is corrupt, or part of a corrupt system.

According to the Common Law (upheld by the Supreme Court) a Grand Jury acts as a protector of the citizen against "arbitrary and oppressive government action" and that Grand Juries may "deliberate in secret and may determine alone the course of its inquiry" (US vs Calandra, 414 US 338 (1974)).

A Grand Jury is independent and is “a body with powers of investigation and inquisition, the scope of whose inquiries is not to be limited narrowly by questions of propriety or forecasts of the probable result of the investigation” (Branzburg vs Hayes, 408 US 665 (1972)). It has been ruled that “Without thorough and effective investigation, the grand jury would be unable either to ferret out crimes deserving of prosecution, or to screen out charges not warranting prosecution.” (US vs Sells Engineering, 463 US 418 (1983)).

Grand Juries are a right protected under the 5th amendment to the Constitution, however, most people today believe that a Prosecutor or Court has to assign a Grand Jury, but the reality is, under the Common Law the community may assign a Grand Jury, and the Grand Jury has considerable power.

Under Common Law, Grand Juries can be have between 12 and 23 members, with an indictment allowed upon a majority vote, with no less than 12 jurors voting to indict (in other words, a GJ of 12 would have to be unanimous, but a GJ of 13 to 23 would only need 12). They are not governed by the Prosecutor or Court, and (as stated above) may even by-pass or exclude the Prosecutor, Judge, etc. and issue its own subpoenas, indictments, etc. Especially if the GJ has reason to believe the system or persons involved are corrupt or misapplying the law. Grand Juries also have the power to investigate public officials without interference from the government. Historically it has always been their JOB to pin government corruption to the mat.

In US vs Williams, 504 US 36 at 48 (1992) the Supreme Court decided:
"'[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history," Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It "`is a constitutional fixture in its own right.'" United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). '"

...and...

"In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm's length. Judges' direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a). [504 U.S. 36, 48]"

Historically, and under the Common Law, Grand Juries have the right to be assembled by the community, to investigate and independently determine a case should not proceed to trial, or hand out indictments; and to act as a balance of power against a corrupt government that tries to usurp their Constitutionally limited powers or otherwise circumvent the law.

Many will try to dismiss this indictment as "frivolous", or that it has no legal merit... but anyone who still has an understanding of Natural Law, the Common Law, and the the beliefs and aims of the Founding Fathers to which this entire system of government was founded, knows better.

Human Livestock

2009-03-25T13:02:00.003-05:00

There is a section of a film that is fairly well done, and it spoke many truths... however it also had some things in it that I thought took away from the message; was antagonistic to faith; and had some other “problems”. There was too much good in the film to discard it, and too many “issues” for me to embrace it fully.

I thought long and hard about it, and would revisit it from time to time; and then I realized that I needed to get this information out. I had several choices, I could simply send the link to the film and add “disclaimers”; I could write my own take on the subject; or I could edit the pertinent portion of the transcript of the film.

After careful consideration, I decided that there were too many things that were phrased too well in the film to allow it to go to waste. So what I have decided to do is to take the pertinent portion of the transcript of the film, edit it, and add some of my own words to smooth out the editing and strengthen some of the concepts. I am also going to give the link to the original film so that anyone who is so inclined can watch it (it is worth watching).

True News 13: Statism is Dead – Part 3 – The Matrix
The video can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P772Eb63qIY

It is just over 16 minutes long. (the edited transcript below is very reduced, taking maybe two typed pages)

I give full credit to Stefan Molyneux (the filmmaker), and I want to thank him for much (but not all) of what the film has to say. With that in mind, I now present the edited (and "revised") version of the transcript.

Human Livestock:
The Matrix is one of the greatest metaphors ever. Machines invented to make human life easier end up enslaving humanity - this is the most common theme in dystopian science fiction.

Why is this fear so universal - so compelling? Is it because we really believe that our toaster and our notebook will end up as our mechanical overlords?

Of course not.

This is not a future that we fear, but a past that we are already living.

Supposedly, governments were invented to make human life easier and safer, but governments always end up enslaving humanity.

That which we create to "serve" us ends up ruling us.

The US government "by and for the people" now imprisons millions, takes half the national income by force, over-regulates, punishes, tortures, slaughters foreigners, invades countries, overthrows governments, imposes 700 imperialistic bases overseas, inflates the currency, and crushes future generations with massive debts.

That which we create to "serve" us ends up ruling us.

We, the people, end up as slaves to the Government that was put in place to serve us. We act as nothing more than livestock upon a State-run farm. To the State we are nothing more than cattle.

Just as owning cows is advantageous because they provide surplus milk, meat, and other goods, having “slaves” upon Human “farms” is looked upon by the elite as being advantageous. However, simply caging an animal and “milking” it for all it is worth can have great disadvantages.

For example, when cows are placed in very confining stalls, they beat their heads against the walls, resulting in injuries and infections. Thus farmers now give them more room -- not because they want to set their cows free, but rather because they want greater productivity and lower costs.

The next stop after "free range" is not "freedom."

Similarly, it is advantageous to grant additional liberties to the human livestock… not with the goal of setting them free, but rather with the goal of increasing their productivity.

The great problem of modern human livestock ownership is the challenge of "enthusiasm."

State capitalism only works when the entrepreneurial spirit drives creativity and productivity in the economy.

Without enthusiasm depression and despair begins to spread, as the reality of being owned sets in for the general population.

The solution to this is the need for propaganda, “medication”, superstition, wars, the creation of "enemies", the inculcation of patriotism, collective fears, the promotion of hedonism, paranoia, and so on.

It is essential to understand the reality of the world.

When you look at a map of the world, you are not looking at countries, but farms.

You are allowed certain liberties - limited property ownership, movement rights, freedom of association and occupation - not because your government approves of these rights in principle - since it constantly violates them - but rather because "free range livestock" is so much cheaper to own and so much more productive.

It is important to understand the reality of ideologies.

State capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism, democracy - these are all livestock management approaches.

The recent growth of "freedom" in China, India and other parts of Asia is occurring because the local state farmers have upgraded their livestock management practices. They have recognized that putting the cows in a larger stall provides the rulers more milk and meat.

Rulers have also recognized that if they prevent you from fleeing the farm, you will become depressed, inert and unproductive. A serf is the most productive when he imagines he is free. Thus your rulers must provide you the illusion of freedom in order to harvest you most effectively.

Thus you are "allowed" to leave - but never to real freedom, only to another farm, because the whole world is a farm. They will prevent you from taking a lot of money, they will bury you in endless paperwork, they will restrict your right to work -- but you are "free" to leave. Due to these difficulties, very few people do leave, but the illusion of mobility is maintained. If only 1 out of 1,000 cows escapes, but the illusion of escaping significantly raises the productivity of the remaining 999, it remains a net gain for the farmer.

You are also kept on the farm through licensing. The most productive livestock are the professionals, so the rulers fit them with an electronic dog collar called a "license," which only allows them to practice their trade on their own farm.

To further create the illusion of freedom, in certain farms, the livestock are allowed to choose between a few farmers that the investors present. At best, they are given minor choices in how they are managed. They are never given the choice to shut down the farm, and be truly free.

Government schools are indoctrination pens for livestock. They train children to "love" the farm, and to fear true freedom and independence, and to attack anyone who questions the brutal reality of human ownership. Furthermore, they create jobs for the intellectuals that state propaganda so relies on.

The illusion of freedom, enabling willful slavery can only be sustained through endless propaganda inflicted upon helpless children.

Through the children, the “livestock” learns to love the farmer, and embraces the farm… all the while chanting that they are free.

Reason and courage will set us free.

You do not have to be livestock.

Take the red pill.

Wake up.

Violence and Race: A Lecture to the Politically Correct

2009-02-25T15:52:00.002-06:00

I am directing this post squarely in the face of all of the Marxists, Liberals, Race-Baiters, Politically Correct, and the Misguided; to be used by the intelligent of any race, creed, or color that chooses to do so.

It is my hope that the era of "White Guilt", "Liberal Guilt", and "Black Victimhood" will END sometime in the near future.

Note: All statistics taken from the US Census Bureau and the Department of Justice.

As of 2005 in the "White/Black" paradigm there was a total of:

72% of population = White, 12.9% of population = Black
Total population in US in 2005 = 295,160,302

212,515,418 = White
38,075,679 = Black
44,569,205 = Other

Victims of Violent Crime:
3,201,320 reported victims who were White. (1.5% of White population)
507,210 reported victims who were Black. (1.3% of Black population)

Per Capita, the numbers are pretty much the same regardless of race.

In those cases of violence, if you take out the "attempts" and leave only the completed crime there was a total of:

916,130 victims who were White (.04% of White population)
192,040 victims who were Black (.05% of Black population)

...again, Per Capita, the numbers are pretty much the same regardless of race.

Of those victims of a completed violent crime:

Black committing the crime against White: 18% [+ 11.5% (Other Race)]
White committing the crime against Black: 4.7%

Here is the first disparity... it seems Blacks are 3.8 times more likely to be the perpetrator against someone of another race than Whites are.

White committing the crime against White: 66%
Black committing the crime against Black: 78.9%

Here it shows that there is a higher predatory rate with Blacks among their own race.

Of the Black victims of violent crime:
100% of rapes were Black vs Black
100% of robberies with injuries were Black vs Black
The percentages of the other key crimes are in the 80 percentile Black vs Black

This shows that when there is a Black victim of a violent crime, there is an overwhelmingly high chance the perpetrator was also Black.

Of the White victims of violent crime:
53.2% were raped by non-whites (33.6% of total attackers were Black)
54.5% were robbed by non-whites (36.3% of total attackers were Black)
57.8% were injured during theft by a Black attacker
The percentages of the other key crimes are in the 50 to 70 percentile committed by Non-White (Blacks being at least half that total)

This shows that when there is a White victim of violent crime, there is a majority chance the perpetrator is Non-White... with the odds in favor of the perpetrator being Black.

Murder:
Of all the murders in the US, 50.9% of the victims are White, 46.9% of the victims are Black
Blacks are 7 times more likely to be murdered than Whites
94% of the Black victims of murder were killed by Blacks.

These statistics show a high propensity of violent crime being perpetrated by Blacks, with Blacks being the most likely to cross racial lines.

"What is the point of all this?" you may be asking... the answer is simple.

The next time you hear someone whining about how a majority of the prison population is "non-white"; or how the racist Whites go around committing "Hate Crimes", etc. just pull out these stats and tell them:

1. The reason why 35.4% of the prison population is comprised of Black males is because there is a disproportionate amount of crime committed by Black males.

2. White's are almost 4 times more likely to be the victim of a Black criminal than the other way around, even though White's outnumber Blacks 6 to 1.

3. If you truly want to do something for the "so-called" Black Community, you can start by stop enabling their victimization; tell them to pull the Government IV out of their arm; stop listening to the race-baiting prostitutes that try to herd them; and to understand that educating yourself, speaking clearly and intelligently, wearing clothes that fit, and not acting like an animal are NOT signs of being "too White"... they are signs you are a Human Being. Act like one.

If anyone thinks that these statements of fact are racist, then by all means think so... as for the Intelligent, they know better.

The Founding Father's View on Immigration

2008-09-17T17:37:00.001-05:00

I can safely say they were not advocates of "Open Borders".

Overall, the Founding Fathers believed that we should be selective about who we allow in our Country; citizenship should not come easy; the immigrant should assimilate; and that land ownership should be reserved to citizens or those immigrants that have established a legal, reasonable length of residency in the Country. Furthermore, the Founding Fathers believed that immigrants who wish to be citizens should leave their ties to their former Country's form of government behind and learn, understand, and cherish America's unique form of government.

Federalists and Anti-Federalists were mostly in agreement on the subject, with minor debates occurring over a few issues, such as land ownership (some wanting immigrants to have NO ownership rights), length of residency required, preferential treatment given to scholars and skilled tradesmen, and so on.

Here are some of their own words on the matter:

From Federalist #2:
"...Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs..." -- John Jay

From a letter from George Washington to John Adams:
[Immigrants should be slowly integrated into the United States so that] "by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people." -- George Washington

From a 1790 speech to Congress:
"welcome every person of good fame who really means to incorporate himself into our society, but repel all who will not be a real addition to the wealth and strength of the United States." -- James Madison

From "Notes on Virginia":
"Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours...is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural rights and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of government they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and tender it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass." -- Thomas Jefferson

"To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens, the moment they foot in our country would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty." [Instead we must gradually acclimate newcomers] "to enable aliens to get rid of foreign and acquire American attachments; to learn the principles and imbibe the spirit of our government; and to admit of a philosophy, at least, of their feeling a real interest in our affairs." -- Alexander Hamilton

From the 1790 Congressional Debate on the rules of Naturalization:
"…it was intended by the Convention, who framed the Constitution, that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order to prevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner." -- Roger Sherman - Connecticut

From the 1790 Congressional Debate on the rules of Naturalization:
"…It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of." -- James Madison - Virginia

From the 1790 Congressional Debate on the rules of Naturalization:
"I would let the term of residence be long enough to accomplish two objects, before I would consent to admit a foreigner to have any thing to do with the politics of this country. First, that he should have an opportunity of knowing the circumstances of our Government, and in consequence thereof, shall have admitted the truth of the principles we hold. Second, that he shall have acquired a taste for this kind of Government." -- Michael Stone - Maryland

From the 1790 Congressional Debate on the rules of Naturalization:
"I think, before a man is admitted to enjoy the high and inestimable privileges of a citizen of America, that something more than a mere residence amongst us is necessary. I think he ought to pass some time in a state of probation, and at the end of the term, be able to bring testimonials of a proper and decent behavior; no man, who would be a credit to the community, could think such terms difficult or indelicate: if bad men should be dissatisfied on this account, and should decline to emigrate, the regulation will have a beneficial effect; for we had better keep such out of the country than admit them into it." -- James Jackson - Georgia

Did the South try to reconcile before Seceding?

2008-07-11T15:29:00.002-05:00

From my "Confederate Handbook":

From There to Here:
In 1776 our Founding Fathers broke away from Tyranny and established a Democratic
Republic among a Confederation of States. These States assembled together UNITED in a cause; UNITED in their resolve; UNITED in their desire for liberty; but remained
independent and sovereign nevertheless. This is why the Declaration of Independence
and the Constitution of the United States both listed the whole of the States as the “united States of America”. Notice the little “u” in “united”. That is because the Founding Fathers believed in State Sovereignty, and they (aside from the plans of the
Hamiltonians) believed that the States should not be bound by a strong central
government.

Over the next 84 years, constant battle raged between the Anti-Federalists (Jeffersonians) and the Federalists (Hamiltonians), finally coming to a head in 1860 when the South seceded from the Federal Union. At the very moment the South seceded the North ceased to be the “united States of America”, a collection of Sovereign States; and instead became the “United States of America”, a single nation under a strong central government.

The Federal Union then invaded and militarily conquered the Confederate States of
America, conscripting her against her will as a part of the Federalist’s vision of America.To this day, the Federal Union has continued to grow unabated in its power and has stripped away the liberty of the individual, and the Sovereignty of the States.

It is the contention of “The Confederate Handbook” that the Confederate States of
America (CSA) is, and has been, a Sovereign Nation held in occupation by the Federal
Union of the United States of America. Furthermore, it is the contention of “The
Confederate Handbook” that the CSA is an extension of the country founded in 1776, and that the Federal Union of the United States of America has grown into what men like Thomas Jefferson fought to free themselves from.

Moving on from the pages of "The Confederate Handbook"...

Were there peaceful attempts to reconcile:
The answer is an unequivocal "YES". The South spent decades (or longer) trying to remain at peace in spite of the abuses of the North.

Fairly enough, I have been asked to give examples of peaceful attempts by the South to reconcile their differences with the North in order to avoid the need for secession.

In order to do this, I will have to go into a little history. Furthermore, I would like to reiterate the major areas of contention between the North and the South.

(Much of the following on the "points of contention" are from the Confederate Handbook)
Historical and Cultural Differences:

Those who settled in the North were primarily of English and Danish decent. Those that settled in the South were primarily of French, Scottish, and Irish decent. As you know, the English and the Danes had a long history of animosity with the French, the Scottish, and the Irish. That animosity continued during the settling of the United States.

The North has always been more “progressive” in terms of culture, while the South has always been more conservative.

There were, and still are, vast differences in cuisine, music, slang, etc.

Political and Philosophical Differences:

The North held a Federalists (Alexander Hamilton) view of government while the South held an Anti-federalist (Thomas Jefferson) view of government. The power of the Federal Beast was growing, much to the dismay of the South.

Religious Differences:

The North was primarily of a liberal theological belief; and Unitarianism thrived within the populace. The South was primarily of a conservative theological belief, and Unitarianism was primarily rejected.

The Economic Issues that Lead to Secession:

Here is where we get to the crux of what pushed the South over the edge; just like our forefathers in 1776.

There are a few facts you should know before we proceed in order for you to keep everything in perspective.

In 1861 the population of the North was about 20 million, while the population of the South was about 9 million.

The South had an agrarian economy which relied heavily on exports to Europe. The North, however, was heavily industrialized. Comparatively, the South only produced about 10% of all manufactured goods. Regardless of these facts, if the South of 1860 was assessed as its own Nation, it would have been the 4^th wealthiest Nation in the world with Southern exports accounting for over 70% of all exports from the United States up to the time of Secession.

Slavery:
Slavery was an important factor to the operations of large plantations. There had not yet been developed Tractors, Combines, and other machinery by which today's farms are run.

Though immoral, and to be quite honest, antithetical to Natural Law Theory (a topic best saved for another discussion), slavery was a very economically viable means by which large plantations could remain profitable and keep up with demand.

This is not to say that there was a Slave on every farm, because there wasn't. Only 6% to 9% of the population (including Black slave owners) owned slaves.

As the North began to industrialize, they began to sell their slaves to the South. As time progressed, much of the North then saw no real "need" for Slavery (Ironically though, the North used "sweatshop" employment tactics... moving from "Slavery" to "Indentured Servitude")

There are many myths, and a vast history about Slavery in the ENTIRE US... but that is for another discussion.

Tariffs:

Tariffs were in effect since the inception of the US Constitution of 1787; however they did not begin in earnest until after the War of 1812. The North had a “Protectionists” attitude when it came to tariffs which contradicted the South’s desire for “Free Trade”. With the South being the chief exporter of goods, high tariffs hurt them the most.

A tariff enacted in 1816 of 25 cent per yard of cheap cotton cloth (a major export of the South) was used to shelter New England mills from English competition by making Southern cotton so expensive to buy that it virtually removed it from the American marketplace.

The fierce opposition of New England shipping interests and Southern plantations led to the Tariff of 1828, called the “Tariff of Abominations”, which almost caused the South to secede at that time. The Tariff of 1828 forced the South to buy manufactured goods at inflated prices, while at the same time facing reduced income due to the loss of sale of raw goods.

In late 1832, South Carolina attempted a protest by enacting an Ordinance of Nullification stating that the States had a right to nullify a Federal law that the State found aberrant. The Order essentially made null the Tariffs imposed in 1828 and 1832.

President Andrew Jackson responded by sending seven naval vessels and a man-of-war to Charleston. He then issued a proclamation against the nullifiers stating they “stood on the brink of insurrection and treason”. President Jackson then appealed to the citizens to reassert their allegiance to the Union. Congress then passed a “Force Bill” authorizing the President to take whatever action he deemed fit to enforce the law.

The situation was defused in early 1833 by Senator Henry Clay (a protectionists and rival of Jackson’s, and who would serve as a mentor to Abraham Lincoln) who pushed through a compromise measure. The compromise stated that the Tariffs would be steadily reduced over the course of 10 years to the level of the 1816 Tariff.

The conflict in 1832 and 1833 showed the South that any attempts to avert economic tyranny would result in physical tyranny; however, it also showed the South that they did not have to put up with the Federal Government, which planted the seed of secession.

In 1857 the biggest of many “Panics” occurred when Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Co. collapsed due to embezzlement. On top of this event, there was a series of other setbacks, including British investors removing money from the US Banks, the fall of grain prices, Russia’s re-entry into the global markets after the Crimean War, the stockpiling of manufactured goods causing layoffs, and widespread railroad failures; all of which contributed to severe economic setbacks which primarily impacted the North.

In 1857 a new, lower tariff was put in place to allow the South better income, however, the North then instituted higher interest rates on the South; essentially burdening the South with the task of pulling the North from its economic problems. Tensions between the North and South began to increase dramatically.

By 1860, the South was paying 87% of all tariffs, 83% of federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen; as well as payments totaling $35 million to Northern shippers who had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports (keep in mind, the Federal Government controlled Trade). The South was essentially paying all of the bills.

In 1860, the final straw was placed on the camel’s back… the Republican Lincoln was elected President. Among the Republican platform was a call for higher tariffs; which was enacted as the Morris Tariff in 1861, signed by President Buchannan prior to Lincoln taking the oath of office.

The Morris Tariff was the highest tariff in US history, imposing a 50% duty on iron, 25% on clothing, with other rates averaging about 47%.

What did the South do to try and fix it?
Dating back as far as the birth of the US, the South has tried to work with the North from within "the system" to keep at peace.

In 1787 a Constitutional Convention was called (pushed primarily by Northern "Federalists") in order to "amend" the Articles of Confederation. However, a brand new document emerged.

The subject of Slavery was a hot-button issue from the days of the Declaration of Independence, and the Founders avoided, as best they could, the mention of it by name in official documents.

As the idea of representation began to be debated, the controversy arose in which the South wanted Slaves to be counted in the census as "people" so that representation in the Federal Government would reflect how many people actually resided in the South. The North rejected that idea as they believed that this would give the South too much power.

Eventually the 3/5ths Compromise took place in which everyone would count... except for slaves, who would only count as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of representation.

From the Constitution:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

"Other Persons", of course, meaning "Slaves".

Another compromise was the idea of Electing 2 Senators to represent the States, so that the States would be on equal footing, while allowing the House to reflect population (to which the North would prevail).

To further deal with the Slave issue, the South agreed to various "Compromises" in order to keep the balance of power "even" in the Federal Government.

Examples include the Compromise of 1850, and the Missouri Compromise... though most Southerners thought the Compromises were not particularly in their favor.

The South often believed the North would not abide by those compromises... and they were right.

For example:
In 1847 a vote was held on whether or not to continue to adhere to the line set in the "Missouri Compromise"... the entire South voted to adhere to the agreement, the entire North voted not to. The North Won.

Jefferson Davis, a Congressman at the time (in which the "Line" was being "nudged" Southward by the North) stated "Pacification had been the fruit borne by the tree, and it should not have been recklessly hewn down and cast in the fire."

Note: the "Line" was the geographical division through the "Louisiana Purchase" to prohibiting slavery north of 36 degrees 30 minutes (essentially, any State North of that line would come in as a "Free" State, South of that line would be a "Slave" State).

Northern control of the Federal Government allowed very divisive legislation to pass, such as the Kansas-Nebraska Act (which shattered the Missouri Compromise, and almost caused secession in 1854).

Note: Even after a compromise was struck regarding the admission of Kansas, the North managed to block (via the Congress) the entrance of Kansas as a slave state.

Note 2: The determination of the balance of "Free" and "Slave" States was important to the "balance" of power between North and South.

Note 3: Ironically, and little discussed, there was a Convention in Worcester, MA in 1857 to discuss the disunion of the US along the North/South border... essentially what happened after the South seceded. However, it was NORTHERNERS that called this Convention.

The South tried, in vain, to work out legislation and compromise in regards to the high Tariffs and unfair Trade practices, but the North held predominant control of the Federal Government blocking the South every chance they had.

(Think of it like a Democratically controlled Congress of today with the likes of Ron Paul trying to get things passed).

The Southern Congressmen and Senators attempted with all their might to avert sectional aggressions that were being legislated; however, the North maintained control.

Several political parties were formed, protests and petitions were filed, all in an attempt to get the North's foot off the South's throat. The last hope the South believed they had was the election of a friendly President.

With the election of Lincoln the final straw was laid, and the South seceded.

Immediately upon voting to secede, Mississippi sent word to their Senator, Jefferson Davis, that he was to vacate his seat in DC.

Upon getting word, Jefferson Davis immediately addressed the US Senate for the final time stating:

"I do think she [Mississippi] has justifiable cause, and I approve of her act. I conferred with her people before that act was taken, counseled them that if the state of things which they apprehended should exist when their convention met, they should take the action which they have now adopted.

I find in myself perhaps a type of the general feeling of my constituents toward yours. I am sure I feel no hostility toward you, Senators of the North. I am sure there is not one of you, whatever sharp discussion there may have been between us, to whom I cannot say in the presence of my God, I wish you well, and such I am sure is the feeling of the people whom I represent toward those whom you represent.

I carry with me no hostile remembrance. Whatever offense I have given which has not been redressed or for which satisfaction has not been demanded. I have, Senators, in this hour of our parting, to offer you my apology for any pain which in the heat of discussion I have inflicted.

I go hence unencumbered by the remembrance of any injury received, and having discharged the duty of making the only reparation in my power for any injury offered, Mr. President and Senators, having made the announcement which the occasion seemed to me to require, it only remains for me to bid you a final adieu."

Unfortunately, Lincoln had other ideas...

Thoughts on the "Libertarian Movement"

2008-07-04T11:30:00.001-05:00

I have absolutely no problem with the definition and idea of "libertarian" and find that term a suitable label to describe an overall view that (in my opinion) is positive. In fact, I have even called myself a "conservative-libertarian (not to be confused with the party)" on many occasions. It is that "not to be confused with the party" part that is the kicker. You see, while I have no problem with the term "Libertarian"... I have a MAJOR problem with the Libertarian Party and, well, much of the "Libertarian Movement"... that is to say, I prefer to associate myself with a "Liberty Movement" instead.

You may be thinking... "isn't that the same thing?" The answer is an unequivocal "NO!!!"

The reason I say this is because there are many in the "Libertarian Movement" that have more in common with the "Libertarian Party" than "Liberty"... and NO, those two things are not the same either.

I'll jump right to some examples of why I say what I say... and then try and put it all together.

There are quite a few Libertarians that hold up Ayn Rand and her philosophies... below is a look at a few of Ayn Rand's thoughts on most "Libertarians" and "Anarchists"; and a few thoughts by one of her heirs. Though Ayn Rand is upheld by many Libertarians, the comments below, oddly enough, do not defend the "Libertarian Movement" but instead lead directly to my point.

"Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs." -- Ayn Rand

I personally put the viability of "Anarchy" on par with the existence of faeries, all you can eat diets, and unicorns... Furthermore, Anarchy is every bit as detrimental to Liberty as the most vile, corrupt, authoritarian dictator. Anarchy begets chaos, begets mob rule, begets fascism and the tyranny of the majority.

"...‘libertarian’ hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism" -- Ayn Rand, given as a reason why she did not join ideological movements or groups (such as the Libertarian Party).

"Libertarianism is a Perversion of Liberty" -- Peter Schwartz

"...the libertarian interprets liberty to mean the license to do whatever he feels like doing...to him, any obstacle in the path of people's whims is undesirable." -- Peter Schwartz

"IS LIBERTARIANISM AN EVIL DOCTRINE? Yes, if evil is the irrational and the destructive. Libertarianism belligerently rejects the very need for any justification for its belief in something called "liberty." It repudiates the need for any intellectual foundation to explain why "liberty" is desirable and what "liberty" means. Anyone from a gay-rights activist to a criminal counterfeiter to an overt anarchist can declare that he is merely asserting his "liberty"—and no Libertarian (even those who happen to disagree) can objectively refute his definition. Subjectivism, amoralism and anarchism are not merely present in certain "wings" of the Libertarian movement; they are integral to it. In the absence of any intellectual framework, the zealous advocacy of "liberty" can represent only the mindless quest to eliminate all restraints on human behavior—political, moral, metaphysical. And since reality is the fundamental "restraint" upon men's actions, it is nihilism—the desire to obliterate reality—that is the very essence of Libertarianism." -- Peter Schwartz

A good example of evil would be the Libertarian stance that murdering the unborn is fine as it is in keeping with a woman's freedom to do what she will with her body.

Another example is that gay marriage can be forced upon a society that overwhelmingly rejects it so as to pacify the "liberty" (i.e. militant activism) of the homosexual. Though few seem to consider the fact that legislative and judicial tyranny engaged to "liberate" someone is just as fascist as legislative and judicial tyranny used to enslave them. (I will elaborate more on this point in another essay)

Oftentimes some members of the "Libertarian Movement" confuse "Libertarian" with "Libertine"... they go beyond "tolerating" immoral actions, to embracing them. They do not seem to understand that just because someone "can" do something doesn't mean they "should" do it... or that you are not treading upon someone's liberty because you denounce or object to that which another has done. It is as if they believe shame, embarrassment, public scorn, or objection felt by one party somehow renders one or another incapable of being free. The ironic thing is... these "libertine libertarians" (keeping a straight face) claim they believe in "accountability".

On many issues (such as the ones listed above) elements of the 'Libertarian Movement" shows an almost complete lack of understanding of what liberty is, instead clinging to those things liberty is NOT, such as amorality, immorality, indifference, self-indulgence, selfishness, nihilism, and so on.

I am not saying that members of the "Libertarian Movement" are bad people... in fact, I am pretty confident that many of them are trying, as best they know how, to make a better world. However, the same can be said of some Marxists, Socialists, Communists, and yes... even Fascists. In other words, just because you have a good heart, and mean to do the right thing doesn't mean you are not inadvertently engaging in a social evil.

The "Libertarian Movement" (for the most part) lacks a great deal of rationality, with too wide a range of viewpoints (ranging from the Anarchist to the Liberal Statist), and is too focused on "me, me, me" to be able to step out of their self-imposed "fishbowl" long enough to see how much damage they are doing to themselves; and, in the long run, society.

If the "Libertarians" are not careful, soon the term "Libertarian" may no longer retain the meaning it was supposed to have, and will go the way of the term "Liberal"... a word that was synonymous with liberty which evolved into an ugly epithet.

Second Amendment... So simple, but few understand it.

2008-06-26T12:45:00.003-05:00

US Bill of Rights, Amendment 2:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Now, reading the Framer's Original Intent and everything they have written on the subject, AND looking at the meaning of the words:

Regulated:
Bring into conformity, shape or influence.

Militia:
All men physically capable of bearing arms.

Free:
unconfined, act at will, unhampered, unconstrained.

State:
A Country, a politically sovereign geographic area.

Right:
A legal or moral entitlement, ownership, held power or privilege.

People:
The body of citizens of a State.

Keep:
Continued possession. To hold and prevent from leaving.

Bear:
Bring forth, wield, wear, hold, move while supporting.

Arms:
Weaponry

Infringed:
To violate, break, encroach upon, transgress, exceed the limits, conflict.

It is very reasonable to say that:

A trained, uniformly armed citizenry, capable of bearing arms, ensures that a Country remains free... to this end, the entire body of citizens of that country are legally and morally entitled to possess, wield, wear, and use weaponry; and the government has NO right to violate, break, transgress, or encroach upon that right.

Is that really all that hard to understand?

Today's ruling by the Supreme Court was nothing short of a stab in the back of the Founding Fathers, and each and every citizen of the US. Sure, they ruled that the right to own a gun was an individual right... but they also left plenty of room for INFRINGEMENTS upon that right.

Case in Point:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapons whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." -- Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority.

Excerpt from News Story (link above):
"Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote for the dissenters,, said that the ruling leaves it to future courts to define the actual details of the right to bear arms. As he saw it, this was the business of state legislatures and the court should stay out of it. Law-abiding citizens will be permitted to keep guns at home but that doesn't address how state legislatures might want to regulate or curb gun ownership."

Today, We the People have gained NOTHING... instead we are having our rights eroded.

Food for Thought - The Election

2008-05-04T14:23:00.000-05:00

Many say that you are "throwing away" your vote if you do not vote for one of the major candidates... but I say you are throwing away your vote if you do not follow your conscience, opting instead for political expediency.

Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is not an act of good, it is an act of incremental evil. Little-by-little we place evil into office, and little-by-little our rights are eroded; little-by-little our government grows; little-by-little our voices are drowned out by a monstrous evil of our own creation.

We grow complacent with the limited choices we "think" we have, not realizing we have endless choices. We grumble and groan, about how things are versus how they should be, and then like trained sheep we turn and inflict more wounds upon ourselves.

Some believe that if they simply do not participate in the process, that they have somehow done some good. The reality is that tacit consent is consent none-the-less; and those who say nothing are as guilty (if not more so) of inflicting whatever evil comes to pass.

Others believe that if they do not participate in the process they are sending a message of "protest" to the "powers that be"... this is a great ignorance; how effective is a protest against wolves, when it takes the form of sheep and shepherds looking the other way when the wolves come to feed? The Wolves relish such forms of protest... Why shouldn't they, it grants them the ability to feed at will.

If you truly want change... REAL change... you are going to have to fight for it. It is OUR responsibility as citizens to keep a watchful eye on government, and to hold it accountable when it exceeds its bounds and trespasses against us. We cannot make the government fear us if we are the ones quivering.

Get up from your submissive positions in the field. Spit out what you have been spoon-fed. Stand upright as a Human Being and assert your God-Given Rights. Fight by word and deed against the encroachments of our homegrown evil.

How can we expect the government to give us what we demand if we do not speak? How can the government enforce our will if we do not act? How can government remain in check if we sit idly by and allow it free reign? How can we convince the government we mean business if we cannot even convince ourselves that trying is the first step in succeeding?

Stand or be sheared... the choice is yours.

Minarchism

2008-05-02T22:34:00.003-05:00

Is it possible to have good government? Anarchists would say “NO!”... Authoritarians and Statist would say “Absolutely!” However, most reasonable people would contend that good or evil, there needs to be some degree of government in order to protect our Natural Rights and prevent Anarchy; the sticking point being... how much is enough?

I contend that government is a necessary evil, that acts much like an illness. A minor outbreak builds up your immune system and eventually protects you, while a major outbreak may well kill you. Governments, much like many illnesses, left unchecked will grow and expand and overtake you. Therefore the burden lies on us, the people, to keep Government in check.

So, the questions may be asked: “What can we do to prevent Anarchy while avoiding a Fascist, Totalitarian State?” “Is there something between Chaos and the Nanny State?” “Can there be government AND liberty?”

The answers lie in the concept of Minarchism.

Minarchism:

Minarchism is the concept that minimal government is required to protect and defend the Natural Rights of the citizenry, prevent Anarchy, and enforce Natural Law. A Minarchist government must stay within the confines of its clearly-defined, specifically enumerated powers; fulfilling the role of “Night Watchmen”.

“What is the 'Night Watchmen' role?” You may ask.

The Night Watchman:
The concept of the Night Watchmen role is that it is the duty and responsibility of the state to stay out of the lives of the citizenry until such time as it becomes necessary to protect the Life, Liberty, and/or Property of those citizens.

In other words, the Government butts out until it is required, via the Constitution and Will of the People, to intervene.

No subsidies; no welfare state; no redistribution of wealth; no abuse of the “Necessary and Proper Clause”, “Commerce Clause”, or “General Welfare Clause”; no nannying; nothing but limited government kept in check by a vigilant populace.

In order for Minarchism to work, the People must have an understanding of their Natural Rights and Natural Law (refer to “Treatise on Natural Order” http://www.denofdragons.net/opinetime/TreatiseNaturalOrder.pdf). Furthermore, the People have to have a clear understanding of the function and purpose of Government, and the Reasonable Powers and Duties of Government.

The Government Exists Solely for the Purpose of...

Preventing Anarchy:
Without some form of government, mob rule (aka Pure Democracy) will eventually come to light, and liberty will ultimately suffer.

Establishing and Insuring Justice based upon Natural Law:
Law Enforcement and Courts working on behalf of society as a whole to hold accountable those that infringe upon Natural Rights and make offenses against Natural Law.

Insuring Domestic Tranquility:
Acting on behalf of society as a neutral arbitrator between disputing parties, and maintaining peace.

Defending the People against all enemies foreign and domestic:
Protecting our borders and society, acting on behalf of society for the active prevention and defense against intrusion.

Insuring and Protecting the Life, Liberty, and Property of the people:
Defending the minority against mob rule, and holding accountable those that tread upon another.

Promoting the Welfare of the people:
An example of this would be the establishment and maintenance of the public works (such as infrastructure). Another example would be the establishment of minimum standards (see below).

Serving the Will of the people:
Staying within the confines of the Constitution. Good government speaks on behalf of the society it serves... not in spite of it.

Reasonable Powers and Duties of Government:

Minimal Taxation:
For an entity to function on behalf of society, society must fund and maintain that entity. This is most effectively done via MINIMAL taxation. Taxes should not be intrusive, and should only cover the proper and necessary budgetary demands of a frugal government.

Maintaining Public and Official Records:
It is reasonable for government to maintain records of births, deaths, the votes of elected officials, ballot information, real estate titles, court records, etc. This is not to be confused with the issuance of Birth Certificates, or interfering with Real Estate Contracts, etc.

For example:
Let us say that that I want to broadcast an AM radio station. It would be reasonable that I cannot broadcast on a frequency, at a wattage, that would interfere with another person's broadcast. For the sake of argument, let us further say that radio frequencies are treated as real property (as they should be).

With that in mind, it would be reasonable for me to go to the County Clerk and say... “Does anyone own the frequency 870 AM at 500 Watts in [pick a geographical location]?” If no one has claim to it, you could stake claim to it (filing it with the Clerk)... and even if you don't use it, you have exclusive right to it.

If, for instance, another person began broadcasting on my frequency before I had a chance to get set up... I could then take that person to task for trespassing upon my property (or even theft). I could further make my case by the fact that my ownership of said frequency is a matter of public record; and so his “ignorance” would be no excuse.

Establish and Maintain Notary Services:
A Notary Public is an agent who acts as an authenticator, certifier, validator, administrator, and official witness of oaths, documents, proceedings, signatures, identification, and official copies of the same.

Establishing and Maintaining Minimum Standards (including Weights and Measures):
It is reasonable for government to establish minimum standards... but this is not to be confused with “Regulation” or government control of an industry.

For example:
It would be reasonable to say, “Restaurants must keep cooked food at a minimum of 'x' degrees, refrigerated food at a maximum of 'y' degrees, frozen food at 'z' degrees or less, deep frozen at 'w' degrees...” and so on.

This is a societal standard which government is setting on society's behalf, as these standards will prevent injury and death. It does not dictate to the Restaurant how to run their business... just that they must keep a minimum level of sanitary conditions.

Keep in mind... Laws/Rules are there to allow recourse. If a restaurant was in the habit of cross-contaminating raw meat and non-meat items, should we (as a society) have to wait until someone becomes seriously ill or dies from food poisoning before we (as a society) can intervene? Most reasonable people would say “No”.

Minimal Legislation:
Government needs to be able to construct and enforce a minimal amount of legislation to enact its specific Constitutionally defined powers, and to give society recourse for infractions against Natural Law.

Provide and Maintain Public works, and Public Roadways, Railways, Shipping Lanes, and other Transportation Lanes:
Essentially, it is proper for government to maintain that which ALL of society jointly shares and owns in the form of PUBLIC property.

Establishing and Regulating the Militia:
What good would it do to call the militia into action if you had no unified method of operation? It would turn into a self-defeating, demoralizing, chaotic mess. If a militia is going to defend society, then they need to have a degree of cohesiveness.

Establish and Maintain a Minimal Standing Army:
The militia is great for emergency need, but they are also busy with their personal lives and businesses... a small standing army should always be at the ready to defend against invasion or to defend/retaliate against an unforeseen attack.

The size of the standing army in times of peace should probably not rise above 1/100^th the number of able-bodied males aged 18 to 45. This way, if the government did become tyrannical, and the people were forced to physically rebel against it... the balance (in terms of numbers) would favor the people by as much as 99 to 1.

Provide for the Organizing, Arming, Training, and Discipline of the Military:
What good is a standing army if they are disorganized, undisciplined, untrained, and unarmed?

Establishing Rules of Capture:
Society, through government, needs to have rules established for the capture and treatment of enemy combatants.

Grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal:
This is a tool by which a government could enable a person or group to search, seize, apprehend, or destroy items, people, etc. from ships on the sea or within other nations. Consider it a Search and Seizure warrant enacted against another nation instead of a private citizen.

A simplistic example of when this could be properly utilized:
Let us say that a criminal from a foreign land comes to our country and kills 3 people and steals the original copies of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. He then high-tails it back home.

His home nation refuses to do anything about it, and will not extradite him even if they knew where he was. A Letter of Marque and Reprisal could be issued to apprehend the criminal, seize the stolen artifacts, and return both to the victimized nation for restitution.

Yes, this could lead to hostilities. Yes, this could lead to diplomatic problems... then again, so could the criminal's actions and his home nation's refusal to act.

Establish and Maintain Elections:
A Democratic Republic protects the minority while maintaining the will of the majority. The will of society is voiced, at least in part, via elections. Society, via government, must make the time, place, and function of elections a reality.

Establish and Maintain Diplomacy and Regulate Commerce/Trade with Foreign States:
Government speaks on behalf of Society, and in that capacity, establishes treaties and relations with the voice of foreign society.

Establish and Maintain a Solid Currency:
A solid currency greatly aids in having a solid economy which strengthens society both domestically and as a trading partner in the world.

Establishing and Maintaining Police/Law Enforcement:
What good are laws if they are not enforced? Private citizens do not have the time or inclination to track down criminals, investigate infractions of the law, etc; they leave that to society as a whole via government.

Establishing and Maintaining Emergency Services (Fire and Rescue):
In order to protect Life, Liberty, and Property society will need assistance in a crisis situation. We protect ourselves as a society, through government, by establishing emergency services that serves ALL of society.

Establishing and Maintaining Courts of Law and Equity and Aid in Enforcing Contracts:
To maintain tranquility, and to adjudicate disputes between us, we establish Courts to act as neutral arbitrators. Once a dispute is settled, society (through government) can assist in seeing that what is decided is enacted.

Example:
A couple gets a divorce. Child visitation can occur at any time mutually agreed upon; but in times in which there is no mutual agreement, the effects of a contract come into play. It is reasonable that if someone shows up to pick up their child at a predetermined, agreed time, that (barring some heinous event or circumstance) the parent should attain possession of the child. If the former spouse denies visitation (due to spite, contrariness, etc.) the visiting parent should have recourse.

In other words, the contract says the parent has the right, and they can fight about changing the contract in court... but in the meantime society (via the police) can intervene and see to it the parent gets his rightful visitation.

Establishing and Maintaining Prisons:
One cannot lose their Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of a just and fair law; however, once due process has taken its course, Society has to have a means with which to enact its punishment when holding someone accountable to Natural Law. Prisons serve all of society, and should be maintained by society via government.

Establish and Maintain Borders:
A Society establishes its dominion and jurisdiction geographically via borders. That which lies within those set borders are considered Sovereign, and under the control of the society therein via government.

Establish and Maintain Rules of Immigration and Naturalization:
A Society has a right to maintain its culture, history, language, organizations, rules, morals, interests, and institutions against encroachment and dilution. Society, via government, can defend their interests by establishing rules of immigration and naturalization so as to preserve their way of life.

Please Note: Open Borders are nothing more than an invitation to unarmed invasion and occupation of a Society.

Is it possible to have good government? The answer is “Yes”; however, it requires the watchful eye, and diligence of society to keep it in check. If Society is negligent, then government, like a cancer, will spread and grow and eventually kill the Society it served.

How to Deal With Law Enforcement

2008-03-14T12:48:00.003-05:00

Miranda Warning:
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.”

If you have ever watched TV or Movies, you have probably heard this a thousand times, however, few people really understand their rights or how to deal with Law Enforcement.

I do not claim to be an expert, nor should anything written here be perceived to replace legal counsel. What lies below are suggestions (for you to utilize at your own risk) to keep in mind when dealing with those times you come in contact with Law Enforcement.

Be Aware That:
You do not have to speak with a government agent unless you have been arrested, you are before a judge, or a judge has issued a valid warrant.

You have the right to privacy, and to be left alone.

The Privacy Act of 1974 gives you the right to require full disclosure from any government official that seeks information from you.

You have the right to demand full disclosure as a condition to giving out any information.

You are Constitutionally protected from testifying against yourself, or giving away any incriminating evidence, etc.

The “Color of Law” is not law, and Law Enforcement will be in violation of your rights by using the threat of official action to coerce you into unlawful or unreasonable compliance; fabricating evidence; conducting a false arrest,; making an unreasonable search and/or seizure; unlawful detention; willfully failing to keep you from harm; and abuse of power.

You should ALWAYS be respectful and polite, and make sure you make it clear that a requirement for your cooperation with the government, is the government's cooperation with you.

You are “in custody” any time you are detained by a Law Enforcement Official and you feel you are not free to leave (such as a car stop).

Law Enforcement may use any “reasonable force” (including deadly force) only when strictly necessary to conduct their job, but willfully unreasonable, or excessive force is against the law.

When approached by a Law Enforcement Official, before you answer any questions, or comply with any requests, you should be mindful to...

1.Never invite them into your home.
2.Never exit your home.
3.Avoid leaving your place of business, or the establishment you are at.
4.If you exit your home and are arrested, do not re-enter for ANY reason at all (they will escort you in, and this will lead them to search your home).

Keeping all of the above in mind, politely say:

“I will be happy to be cooperative to the extent that I can, but I have a few things I need to verify first.”

You are then well within your right to ask the following questions, to be applied when appropriate: (If he refuses to answer your questions, politely request (demand) that he leave/let you go.)

Question:
1.Are you a Law Enforcement Officer? (ask for proof if necessary)
2.As such, are you Sworn by Oath to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution for the United States, (if a State/County/Local official) the Constitution for this State, and the laws of the land?
3.Therefore, are you saying you are Sworn by Oath to protect my rights against infringement?
4.What is your name?
5.What is your Badge/Identification number?
6.What is the address and phone number of the department/office to which you are stationed.
7.What is the name of your supervisor?
8.What is the number of your Bond?
9.What is the name and address of your bonding company, or the name and address of the risk management office that carries/handles your Bond?
10.Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury, and violation of your Oath of office, that you have answered all preceding questions correctly and completely to the best of your ability?

Once he has answered the questions, very politely ask:
“What is the purpose of your stop/visit/approach?”

If asked for your name, identification, and any reasonable documentation (i.e. proof of insurance/registration for a car stop, etc.) politely comply.

If the officer makes reasonable requests of you (please pull your car further off the road to avoid injury, etc.) politely comply.

If he states that the purpose of the stop/visit/approach is:
A. You are (may be) in violation of the law.
You should politely ask: “What alleged violation am I being charged with?”

If the “violation” seems unreasonable (i.e you're praying in the park on Sunday), politely ask the following questions:

1.Will you please cite the specific law that I am allegedly violating?
2.Will you please read aloud to me the specific law I am accused of violating?

B. He wants to ask you (or your spouse/children) a “few questions”:
You should politely state, “For my protection, I will need to verify a few things first.” and then ask him the following questions:

1.Will you please furnish a copy of the law or regulation which authorizes this investigation?
2.What is the nature of this investigation? (Personal, or “at large”, etc.)
3.Is my cooperation voluntary or mandatory?
If he says “mandatory”, ask “What authorization (or on whose authority) do you have to compel me to answer?” “May I see proof?”
4.What effect will it have upon me if I choose not to answer any or all questions presented to me?
5.What basis exists for you asking the intended questions? (Is it being used as a discovery process; or is it to obtain facts of a known violation of the law?)
6.Will you cite the full name of the person or Entity requesting the investigation?
7.Will any other person or Entity have access to this information?
8.Will the information supplied by me be used by any other person or Entity outside of this investigation?
9.Do you anticipate that (or are you attempting to achieve the goal that) any information sought or achieved in this investigation will form the basis of (or lead to) criminal/civil action being taken against me (or my spouse, and/or children)? (In other words... “are you the focus of the inquiry?”)

If so, will you list the names/identities of all third parties, government agencies, or other sources that supplied information pertaining to this investigation?

If this will lead to action against me/spouse/children, may I have a copy of all information obtained so far?
10.Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury, and violation of your Oath of office, that you have answered all preceding questions correctly and completely to the best of your ability?

If the request/demand is to speak to your children (and you comply), demand you be witness to the questioning, with the right to end questioning at any time.

If the answer to number 9 above is “Yes” (or you otherwise believe there is reason for caution). Politely state the following:

“I do not feel I can answer any questions orally until I first consult counsel. Please submit all questions in writing, enclosing your contact information, and a certified copy, sworn under penalty of perjury, of your official credentials and the information I previously requested, and mail them to me.

I will need a reasonable amount of time to review the requested material, consult counsel, and return a response.

I state as a matter of record, that by complying with my request, you are contractually consenting that no information concerning this investigation has been divulged by me, and that I have been well within my rights, and cooperative to the extent that I can be.

If you fail to comply with my request, I will take that as tacit agreement that you no longer have interest in me, and my obligations to you shall be fulfilled.

I hereby give notice that you shall be in violation of your Sworn Oath, and the law, if you falsify, conceal, or cover up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; make any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or if you make or use any false writing or documentation knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry.”

Then politely give him your contact information and ask him to leave (or release you).

C. He asks if he may search you, your home, or your vehicle, politely ask:

1.Do you have a search warrant?
2.May I see the search warrant?
3.Will you conduct the search in a manner respectful of my property, keeping in mind your Sworn Oath?

If the answer to number 1 or 2 is “No”, you should politely say:

“I am sorry, but an unwarranted search would be a violation of my Constitutional Rights, and if you insist, or attempt to override my objection, you will be in violation of your Sworn Oath.”

If the answer to number 3 is “No”, you should politely say:
“I strongly object to you conducting this search; however, I have your Bond Number and vital information, and I must warn you that any destruction or disrespect of my property will be a violation of your Sworn Oath, and may lead to prosecution and/or civil litigation.”

D. He wants you to “come with him”.
Politely ask: Am I under arrest? (If not, you can decline)

E. He states you are under arrest.

Remain calm, and politely ask any bystanders to observe/witness the events.
Remain polite and respectful.
Do not resist, and do not become belligerent.
Do not turn, run, walk away, make any sudden movements, or remove your hands from the officer's line of sight.
If you are being abused, try not to resist as this will only exacerbate the situation; however, you can respectfully let them know they are hurting you, etc.
Do not make any statements of fact or answer any further questions (except name, address, etc.).
Respectfully follow the officer's instructions.

Politely ask the following questions:
1.Under what authority are you arresting me?
2.Do you have a warrant?
3.May I see the warrant?
3.Will you please cite the specific law that I am being charged with violating?
4.Will you contact (name of at least two contacts and how to contact them)?

Do not consent to any searches of any kind; however, the officer may be within his rights to search your person and surrounding area of the arrest (you may still politely state your objections).

Immediately request counsel, and be sure he is present for any tests (blood, etc.) that are administered, lineups, etc.

Do not discuss the matter with anyone but your counsel.

Request to make your phone calls.

Do not sign anything or answer any questions without consulting counsel.

Do not take a lie detector test... politely affirm that it will be a violation of your rights, and request your counsel.

Request an itemized receipt of all confiscated property.

Do not believe any “negotiations” or that the authorities are “looking out for you”... it is illegal for them to coerce a confession from you (via torture, promises, or otherwise).

You have the right to be brought before a judge.

You have the right to be released on bail for all but the most heinous of crimes (such as murder).

If you are released or acquitted, request/demand that all fingerprints, photographs, etc. from your booking be destroyed.

If you (and/or others) are abused, or your (and/or other's) rights have been violated be sure to do the following:

1.Gather all vital information pertaining to the victims.
2.Gather as much vital information pertaining to the perpetrators as possible (including rank, agency, supervisor, etc.).
3.Note the Date, Time, and Place of the incident.
4.Gather the names and contact information of any witnesses.
5.Write a complete chronology of the events, and include any ticket numbers, reports, charges, or other vital information.

Turn the above information over to the FBI and/or the Department of Justice.

Criminal Section
Civil Rights Division
US Department of Justice
PO Box 66018
Washington, DC 20035-6018

Above all, read and understand the Constitution for the United States and your State; familiarize yourself with the law; and know your rights!

The Doomed Dollar

2008-03-12T11:08:00.000-05:00

Investors are "high fiving" each other because the stock market had its biggest boom in 6 years. The Dow was up 3.6%

The Dow closed at 12,156.81 yesterday... over 2000 points below where it was a year ago.

March 19th the Fed will make another cut in the interest rate, and the dollar will plunge again. Gas will soon hit $4 a gallon... not because of oil shortages, but mostly due to the falling dollar; you know, that "inflation tax" Ron Paul was talking about.

Meanwhile, prices remain steady when matched to gold... which will soon hit $1000 an ounce after the Fed cuts rates.

In 1970 the price of a fully loaded Corvette convertible was roughly $3000 dollars... today a fully loaded Corvette convertible is about $65000 dollars. You can see what has happened to the buying power of the dollar.

How long until it takes a barrel full of money to buy bread?

Liberty or Slavery? It's Time to Decide

2008-02-29T14:07:00.001-06:00

by Tom Hudson and Scott McPherson

On March 18 the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in March 2007 that the Second Amendment guarantees and protects an individual rather than a “collective” right to bear arms. DC Mayor Adrian Fenty petitioned for an appeal. The Supreme Court will settle the matter.

The freedom or slavery of future generations of Americans depends on their decision.

The drafters of The Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and the Constitution all knew that without the right to keep and bear arms government would eventually take all rights away from the people. It has been over 200 years since these documents were written. Today such ideas are no longer taught to our children, and the people sit idly by as their liberty is stripped away.

The Founding Fathers would be ashamed of what we have let this country become. In just the last few years our Fourth Amendment protections have been attacked by the Patriot Act. Habeas Corpus has been seriously undermined by the Military Commissions Act. The National ID Card intrudes on the rightful powers of the States, and threatens the citizen's freedom of movement within our nation's borders. Finally, the Federal Government has stated clearly that citizens do not have the right to have their petition for redress of grievances answered (see We the People Foundation v. United States).

All of these laws have been passed openly and in the name of security. Remember what Benjamin Franklin said: “They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.” Rest assured that if we allow our government to continue on its present course, sooner rather than later we will have neither.

If ever there was a time to stand up and demand that our government respect the rights of citizens, it is now. We strongly encourage every man or woman who cherishes their freedom to take action, and send a clear message to the Federal Government that We the People are willing and able to take our government from the clutches of any who would reign over us.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787,

And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

The following actions are strongly encouraged:

Contact your state representatives, state senators and governor, and tell them that our freedom is not negotiable. If necessary, they should do their duty and interpose themselves between the citizen and the Federal Government.
Contact your US Congressmen, US Senators and the President, and tell them that our freedom is not theirs for the taking. We will not become slaves.
Write letters to the editor of your local newspaper(s) and contact other media outlets, declaring your intention to stand firm in defense of your rights – and encourage others to do the same.
Join a pro-liberty organization (Gun Owners of America, Free State Project, Fully Informed Jury Association, etc.)
Get involved with a pro-liberty candidate for public office this year, or consider running yourself. Run for any office – from school board on up.
On March 18, the day arguments begin in the Heller case, purchase at least one firearm and ammunition.
“[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” --Tench Coxe, 1788
Spread this message far and wide.

Tom Hudson lives in Gonic, New Hampshire.
Scott McPherson lives in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

For original post, please click here.

Curt's Lexicon: 2

2008-02-27T12:25:00.002-06:00

Just War:
(See "What is a Just War?")
A Just War is a war that you have little choice but to fight, you fight with honor and dignity, and you terminate with justice.

Natural Rights:
(See "Treatise on Natural Order")
Natural Rights are those inalienable rights, freedoms, and privileges granted to us by God. These rights are so intertwined with our Humanity that they cannot be traded, given away, or stolen from us. The only way that we can be denied our Natural Rights is by being held accountable via due process of a just and fair law... Natural Law.

Natural Law:
(See "Treatise on Natural Order")
Natural Law is the law written into the hearts and souls of just and reasonable men from which the norms of all human law must be derived.

Common Law:
(See "Treatise on Natural Order")
Law based in custom, tradition, usage, and court rulings setting legal precedent (evolved, discovered, and interpreted via custom, tradition, and reason).

The "Boxer":
(See "The Global Elite and the Boxer")
The Boxer is an analogy that is used to represent the manner by which "The Oligarchy" manipulates society to bring about their dream of One World Government.

Boxers use an intermix of hits from the left and right, fancy footwork, endurance, time, and strategy to beat their opponents into submission.

The Left Hand is represented as the Liberals/Democrats.
The Right Hand is represented as the Neo-Cons/Republicans.
The Fancy Footwork is represented by the media, loss of freedom for "noble causes", indoctrination via public schools, utilizing various "philanthropic" organizations, etc.
The Body is represented as the agenda of The Oligarchy.
The Head is represented as The Oligarchy.

Feminist (Femi-Nazi):
(See "Feminism: A Scourge on Society")
A vindictive, Liberal, baby killing, woman destroying, family ending, man-hating and/or emasculating tool of The Oligarchy that is utilized as "Fancy Footwork" for The Boxer. A scourge on society.

The Right of Revolution (Right of Rebellion):
(See "The Right of Revolution")
A Natural Right of the People to defend themselves against government.

The Pledge of Allegiance:
(See "The Pledge")
A jingoistic tool created by Marxist-Socialists, aimed originally at children, to instill a love of Country over a love of individual liberty for the purpose of desensitizing Americans to the encroachment upon their freedom.

Kwanza:
(See "What is Kwanza?")
Kwanza is a Marxist, Black Nationalist, Anti-Religious Holiday invented by a delusional, paranoid schizophrenic, kidnapping, raping, torturing, racist in 1966.

Curt's Lexicon: 1

2008-02-26T12:28:00.004-06:00

So that there will be no misunderstanding as to what I mean when I use a particular word or "label", and to avoid anyone dismissing MY use of the word as "Ill-Defined", I am beginning "Curt's Lexicon".

As time goes on, and the need arises, I will put out more editions of the lexicon. I hope you enjoy reading (and even using) these definitions as much I had writing them.

When I use a term in a manner different from the definitions given in the Lexicon, I will note it then (unless it is self-evident to most reasonable people).

Note: Nested definitions (a definition to explain or define a term in the definition) will be marked by an asterisk (*).

Liberal:
A Liberal is defined as a lunatic that acts out in the political arena by espousing (to varying degrees) Marxism, Fascism, Hedonism, Feminism, Collectivism, Socialist to Communist economic philosophies, Positivism, and often displaying an open hostility toward Traditionalism and Faith. A scourge on society.

*Scourge: Something that causes misery or death; to lay waste to; to devastate, ravage.

Conservative (or "Paleoconservative"):
A Conservative is defined as someone in the political arena that promotes Natural Law, Natural Rights, Individualism, Personal Accountability, Free Market economics, Capitalism, Limited Government, Family, Morality, Regional Heritage and Culture, Non-Interventionism, and has a high regard for Tradition and Faith.

Neo-Conservative (or "Neo-Con"):
A Neo-Conservative is defined as someone who claims to be a Conservative, and may hold Socially Conservative views (pro-life, traditional marriage, etc.), but in reality has roots in "Liberalism" and often promote Fascism, Big Government, Interventionism, light Socialism, Jingoism, and varying degrees of Collectivism.

The "Oligarchy":
A group of so-called "social elite" (which include bankers, politicians, and businessmen) who are actively seeking (openly in some avenues, secretly in others) to bring about a Marxist, Authoritarian One-World Government, placing themselves as its sole leadership. These men comprise a "Shadow Government" that have a huge influence and effect on world (particularly Western) politics, economics, and society via nefarious dealings and manipulation/control of public figures, institutions, and the media.

*Shadow Government: A government that is waiting for the proper time to emerge and assume control. In the instance of "The Oligarchy", the Shadow Government already has its tendrils deeply implanted into the "mainstream" and will take its place through a combination of Entryism, Covert manipulations, and Overt action.

Marxism: (See What is Marxism?)
Marxism is the philosophy that seeks to separate Man from his family, wife, God, self-restraint, community, individualism, liberty, property, ability to defend himself, ability to improve his station, freedom of association, truth, prosperity, growth, independence, free will, and inalienable rights; thereby creating an automaton that is easily controlled and manipulated, with no will to fight... a slave among slaves.

What is a Just War?

2008-02-25T16:22:00.002-06:00

The concept of a “Just War” has been around at least since circa 400 AD, when Saint Augustine of Hippo wrote “The City of God” to soothe Christians after “Barbarians” (the Visigoths) sacked Rome.

Augustine had a great influence on Saint Thomas Aquinas, who, between the mid-to-late 1260's and the early-to-mid 1270's AD, wrote “Summa Theologica”, which set the groundwork for modern day Just War (as well as Natural Law) Theory.

In 1625, Hugo Grotius advanced Just War Theory with his book “On the Laws of War and Peace”:

“Fully convinced...that there is a common law among nations, which is valid alike for war and in war, I have had many and weighty reasons for undertaking to write upon the subject. Throughout the Christian world I observed a lack of restraint in relation to war, such as even barbarous races should be ashamed of; I observed that men rush to arms for slight causes, or no cause at all, and that when arms have once been taken up there is no longer any respect for law, divine or human; it is as if, in accordance with a general decree, frenzy had openly been let loose for the committing of all crimes.” -- Hugo Grotius

So, you may be wondering, “What exactly is a 'just' war”?

The Just War Theory traditionally was broken down into two sections: Jus ad Bellum, or “The Right to War”, and Jus in Bello, or “Behavior in War”. In recent history an often debated third section has been added... Jus post Bellum, or “Ending a War”.

Each of these sections refer to the criterion and rules by which a war is justified in taking place, the manner in which it should be executed, and the terms by which it should end.

Not all Just War believers agree to all terms in all sections of the Just War Theory, and some will set aside (or add) elements for reasons that vary as much as the men who profess them, as you shall see as we progress.

The Right to War:
What gives a nation a right to go to war? According to Just War theory, the right to go to war exists if done for a Just Cause, the Right Intention, and as a Last Resort; even then, it may only be waged by the Legitimate Authority.

A “Just Cause” includes correcting a great evil done to the people; a massive violation of civil rights or other great injustice; or in self-defense.

The “Right Intention” is to correct a great wrong and support a just cause. Interventionism, material gain, and punishing those you disagree with do not fall under “Right Intention”.

A “Last Resort” means that you have exhausted all reasonable, viable means to resolve the situation peacefully; or that viable alternatives were not available (i.e. you don't have the luxury of holding a discussion when attack planes are strafing your landscape).

The “Legitimate Authority” is a public authority as outlined in the nation's Constitution. The declaration of war should be made known by the Legitimate Authority to the public of both nations.

Note: Rebellion, Civil War, and Secession have been areas of dispute as to who, or what, the Legitimate Authority is; the answer, however, is quite simple.

When a government has become tyrannical, unlawful, or corrupt, it is the right of the people to alter, reform, or depose it. When rebelling against (or seceding from) such a government, the people are acting in self-defense; and as it is upon their authority that government exists, it is upon their authority that the leaders of a rebellion will take the role of Legitimate Authority in their endeavor.

Note: Keep in mind that historically, when a people secede and then find themselves in a war, they are usually fending off an invading nation. The American Revolution and the War for Southern Independence are two examples of this.

There are three other criteria that many Just War Theorists include that I have omitted. They are “Probability of Success”, “Comparative Justice”, and “Proportionality”. I will explain my reason for omitting them as I explain what they are.

“Probability of Success” means that one should not take up a war that may be futile or gives a low chance of success. The reason I omit this one, is because one cannot determine if a war is Just by the odds of success. If the Founding Father's had thought that way, our Democratic Republic would never have been born.

“Comparative Justice” means that the wrong that one nation suffered must outweigh the suffering of the other nation. This is just nonsense. If you wage war by having a Just Cause, with the Right Intention, as a Last Resort, enacted by the Legitimate Authority, you should not have to weigh out whether the suffering you endured at the hand of the aggressor outweighs his suffering.

“Proportionality” is the understanding that the benefits of waging the war must be proportional to the harm the war will cause. I omit this because NO ONE can or will truly know the answer to this question until all is said and done.

These last three criteria, to me, come across as a means for absolute pacifists to find a way to avoid ever going to war under any circumstances whatsoever. These same individuals would find a reason not to lift a finger against an aggressor that worked them head to toe with a pair of pliers and a blowtorch.

To sum up the Right to War, if you have a Just Cause, and fight for the Right Intention, but only as a Last Resort; and so long as the War is conducted by the Legitimate Authorities, a War can be Justly fought.

Behavior in War:
A civilized nation should conduct itself in a civilized manner, even in times of war. To that end, to fight a war Justly, you must utilize “Distinction”, “Proportionality”, and “Military Necessity”. I have added a fourth criteria, “Rights of Soldiers”. I will explain my reasoning below.

“Distinction” means that you direct acts of war toward enemy combatants and do everything in your power reasonably possible to avoid non-combatants caught in the crossfire. To engage in “Distinction” is to omit terrorism, targeting residential areas, looting homes, crime against the civilians, etc. However, if a normally civilian building (such as a church, school, etc.) were to be utilized for military purposes (housing ammunition, acting as barracks, etc.) it would cease to be a civilian target and would then become a military target.

“Proportionality” is conduct in war governed by the belief that any force used must be proportional to the wrong suffered. In other words, when conducting the war, there is no reason to do such damage that the country will be crippled for decades after the hostilities end. Furthermore, it would NOT be proportional to destroy (at least in the long term) crops, livestock, drinking water, forests, etc.

“Military Necessity” means that an action must be a military objective intended to defeat the enemy without utilizing unnecessary and/or excessive force. In other words, try to keep the death and destruction to a minimal.

“Rights of Soldiers” should be of concern in the manner in which a war is conducted. Enemy soldiers that are killed should be allowed to be collected and buried, and should not be mutilated or have personal effects stolen. Enemy soldiers that surrender assume the status of prisoner, and should be treated for illnesses and wounds. Prisoners of War should be humanely treated, given adequate food, water, shelter, and exercise. Prisoners should not have personal effects stolen, and should have access (within reason) to items necessary to practice their religion. In a nutshell, treat enemy soldiers as humanely as possible.

To sum up the Behavior in War, a nation that utilizes Distinction, Proportionality, and Military Necessity, while maintaining the Rights of Soldiers will be conducting war in a civilized manner.

Ending a War:
As stated previously, a new (and debated) entry into Just War Theory has recently come into being... a criteria for Ending a War. The proposed Criteria includes, “Just Cause for Termination”, “Right Intention”, “Public Declaration and Authority”, “Discrimination”, and “Proportionality”.

“Just Cause for Termination” means that the terms of war have been met, violations have been reasonably vindicated, and/or the aggressor is willing to surrender. To continue a war after these goals have met would be unjustified.

“Right Intention” means that when terminating a war the victor may not exact revenge, must objectively investigate war crimes on both sides, and must be reasonable with the terms and demands made upon the vanquished enemy.

“Public Declaration and Authority” is the premise that terms of peace must be made by the Legitimate Authority of each side, and all such terms shall (within reason) be made known to the public of each nation.

“Discrimination” means that the nation who is the victor must differentiate between the political/military leaders, combatants, and non-combatants when inflicting punishment.

“Proportionality” is utilized when the victor in a conflict makes the terms of surrender proportional to the wrong being vindicated. The victor may not conduct itself in a retaliatory manner, nor attempt to cripple the country, or disallow the vanquished nation the right to participate in the world.

To sum up justly Ending a War, a nation must end a war upon attaining “Just Cause for Termination”. The victor nation must terminate the war using the Right Intention, upon Public Declaration and Authority, while utilizing Discrimination and Proportionality.

What is a Just War? A Just War is a war that you have little choice but to fight, you fight with honor and dignity, and you terminate with justice.

The concept of Just War has been around roughly 1600 years, and yet few (if any ) nations utilize the theory. When a nation embraces the concept of a Just War, it takes a major step toward civility and gaining the respect of friends and enemies alike. Perhaps, someday, the people will figure that out and demand compliance from their government.

Ron Paul's Viability

2008-02-06T11:37:00.000-06:00

Okay, Super Tuesday has come and gone...

1191 Delegates needed:
McCain = 559 delegates
Romney = 265
Huckabee = 169
Paul = 16

McCain currently has just under half of what he needs to gain the nomination.
So far 1009 of the 2380 delegates have been assigned; which leaves 1371 delegates.

Depending on what the voters see when the remaining primaries occur, Paul could pick up more delegates. What I mean by that is this... there are people out there who support Paul, but now may believe that they are "wasting their vote" by voting for him.

My thoughts are as follows:
As long as Ron Paul is in the race, and you feel inclined to support him, you should. The reason why is simple.

Ron Paul may not attain enough delegates to get the nomination, but he may get enough to have a voice at the Convention. He may even get enough to be able to swing a close race.

Example: Let's say RP ends the race with 200 delegates. Let's further say that Huckabee throws in with McCain and together they are just shy of the nomination (even 1 delegate). Let's further say that Romney is shy of the nomination by a larger margin, but within the scope of RP's delegates. RP could then demand a prime time speech during the convention, an adoption of some of his agenda, a place within the administration, and the bragging rights to have his message considered viable come the next election cycle (even if RP is not the one carrying the message).

This would put RP in a position to have the voice that the MSM and GOP have been trying to silence.

RP has viability in Kansas, and (if they count ALL of the votes) may well win Louisiana... these contests happen in 3 days.

RP may also have viability in Texas... in fact RP's district is a heavily populated area (Houston area), and RP is so popular there that no one really runs against him there. It is possible RP could gain a considerable number of delegates over the next few weeks; and even if those delegates do not get him close to the nomination, they may put him in a position to do some good.

Think about it.

Morality and Liberty

2008-01-09T11:27:00.000-06:00

There has been a refreshing, growing trend… especially among the youth, toward the prospect of liberty. Libertarian ideology seems to be on the rise, and the talk of individual liberty, adherence to the Constitution, the talk of Natural Rights, and the creed of the Founding Fathers seems to be upon the lips of many.

However, there is another, albeit disturbing, trend growing simultaneously with the rise of Libertarian ideology, and that is an almost militant individualism. This is not to say individualism is a bad thing, quite the opposite, but an extreme in any direction can be devastating to society.

You see, these militant Individualists believe that liberty means that “anything goes”, that they can do anything they want, anytime they want, in any manner they want. They believe that they have no right to judge or be judged; that they should not be held to any standard; that they must accept all things in all people as if it were perfectly fine and normal.

These naive souls do not understand that liberty without morality will soon fail; or as James Madison put it “To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical [fantastical] idea.”

These individuals fail to understand that a hedonistic society is a society in decay; that to be free and enjoy liberty within a society, one must practice self-restraint as a member of society. Quite simply… just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you SHOULD do something; for as Ron Paul states “Truly, only a moral society can adapt to personal liberty.”

This thought is anathema to many “modern” Libertarians for they believe (or fear) that any restraint to a moral or traditional standard limits their selfish desires, wants, and needs. It is true that adhering to a moral and/or traditional standard does limit their selfishness… it is called self-restraint.

From my “Treatise on Natural Order”:
“As we are a social animal, and as we congregate together, we have to utilize personal and societal restraints and codes of behavior in order to further and advance our society. We do this through our morals. Morality is the act of conforming to a standard of behavior arising from the sense of right and wrong, justice and prudence (fairness and sound judgment). Morality is based on natural reason, firmly established tradition, and societal norms.”

"Liberty cannot be established without morality..." -- Alexis de Tocqueville

Without these restraints society collapses and then tyranny takes a foothold. It is actually in the best interest of Liberty that we, as individuals, adhere to a moral code. This is not to say that we should legislate morality (as we should not)… but we most certainly MUST teach and practice it; holding others to account via our scorn or contempt.

“Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God then tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.” -- Patrick Henry

If we truly desire to be free, and we truly desire to live in a Democratic Republic with a government whose purposes are to secure and defend liberty, and serve the will of the people then we must reclaim our Morality. We must adhere to a moral standard and maintain the traditions that our society was built upon or it will surely crumble to dust, only to be replaced by tyranny and a sickened, decayed society, devoid of the will to reclaim what was lost.

The Founding Father’s understood this, and warned us that it was so. I leave you with some of their words:

“Let them revere nothing but religion, morality and liberty” - John Adams to his wife in reference to his sons.

“Religion and Virtue are the only foundations, not only of republicanism and of all free governments, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society.” -- John Adams

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” -- Benjamin Franklin

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” -- John Adams

“That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.”–Thomas Jefferson

The Power of the Jury

2007-10-06T16:30:00.000-05:00

Most people, when they receive a summons for jury duty, react as if they have been diagnosed with cancer. They look at jury duty as a burden, and as something they must try desperately to avoid.

The reason most people do this, is because they do not understand the absolute necessity and importance a jury plays in the struggle to maintain justice and closely guard our rights.

Juries are the final check and balance for our laws and our government. Juries are the last line of defense against tyranny and oppression. Juries, when properly applied, are the cornerstone of liberty and justice.

Consider that as you progress; however, before we begin to discuss the power, necessity, role, and responsibility of the Jury, there are a few established truths and other information that you must be made aware of.

First and foremost, I would direct you to my “Treatise on Natural Order” so that you may familiarize yourself with Natural Law Theory, and Man’s Natural Rights.

Second, you must understand that America’s legal system is based upon Natural Law and Common Law.

As a reminder as to what Natural Law, Natural Rights, and Common Law are, I give you this:

Natural Rights: Natural Rights are those inalienable rights, freedoms, and privileges granted to us by God. These rights are so intertwined with our Humanity that they cannot be traded, given away, or stolen from us. The only way that we can be denied our Natural Rights is by being held accountable via due process of a just and fair law... Natural Law.

Natural Law: Natural Law is the law written into the hearts and souls of just and reasonable men from which the norms of all human law must be derived.

Common Law: Law based in custom, tradition, usage, and court rulings setting legal precedent (evolved, discovered, and interpreted via custom, tradition, and reason).

Third, you must understand a little of the history of how our law was developed. I will give you a little primer here…

A simplistic overview of the history of American Law:
Man came into the world and via rulings by fathers, chieftains, etc. the people were held to account for what was inherently known as crimes (murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, etc.). Customs, traditions, and the creed of Natural Law unevenly ruled the day (key word = unevenly).

Thousands of years ago God gave Moses the Ten Commandments (and other commandments), establishing in word and written form, laws for Man to live by.

In 450 BC, the Roman Twelve Tables establish another written law, which acted as the foundation of Roman Law. Around this same time, philosophers such as Socrates and Plato (and later Aristotle) discussed the theories of Natural Law and Natural Justice.

Roman law (and Greek philosophy) played a role across Europe (England to a lesser degree)... and in conjunction with the Laws of Moses, and the traditions, customs, and usage of England, precedents were set.

In 1066 William the Conqueror invaded England, and in doing so, he combined the best of Anglo-Saxon and Norman Law establishing a basis for what would become English Common Law.

In 1100 Henry the First enacted the Charter of Liberties which bound the King to laws respecting the rights and treatment of Nobles and Church officials.

In 1215, King John instated the Magna Carta (based largely on the Charter of Liberties), which established that the People had rights that a King cannot override, and that the King should be bound by law.

In the 1260's and 1270's Saint Thomas Aquinas revived the philosophies of Natural Law. These philosophies would simmer and bubble for 400 years, being revised again in the 1650's by Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan), and then more masterfully (and correctly) by John Locke in 1689 in his Second Treatise of Government.

When colonist came to America, establishing Jamestown in 1607, they brought with them the established concepts of Natural Law and English Common Law.

In 1769, William Blackstone published "Commentaries on the Laws of England"... considered the bible of Common Law by Americans (at least through the first century and a half of the existence of the US).

In 1776, when the colonies (heavily influenced by Lockean thought) thrust off British rule and declared themselves independent; they established themselves as being founded squarely on Natural Law and Common Law:

From the Declaration of Independence (emphasis mine):
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

From the US Constitution (emphasis mine):
“Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

Over time, people within the United States have tried to twist this basis into something it is not. They have tried to pervert it into a Positivist scheme of Government granted rights, and Statutory Laws based upon the will of Government; and the people, mostly unknowing of the truth... or uncaring of the consequences, do not hold them to account.

Armed with the proper knowledge, such as is contained herein, you will be prepared to meet these usurpers of the truth head on.

To further your knowledge, you should familiarize yourself with at least some of the Maxims of Law and Equity.

Maxim: An established principle or proposition. A principle of law universally admitted, as being just, keeping with, and remaining consistent to reason.

There are many, many (hundreds, if not thousands of) Maxims of Law and Maxims of Equity. They were originally written in Latin. I have taken some of the Maxims pertinent to this dissertation and given them a bit of clarification without changing their meaning.

For example:
The Legal Maxim: “Actus Dei nemini facit injuriam” translates “The act of God does no injury”. I will list it below as “The act of God does no injury; that is, no one is responsible for inevitable accidents. An act of God does wrong to no one.”

In some instances, a specific Maxim may not exists among the list (or I did not find it) but, the item so listed, being a matter of acknowledged truth and meeting the criteria of the Maxims, by right should exist among them.

For example:
The Maxim “Law exists as a matter of recourse, and a means to defend against injustice.” I could not find, but is a part of Lockean thought, Natural Law Theory, and is accepted as an undeniable truth. Furthermore, it exists as “an established principle or proposition. A principle of law universally admitted, as being just, keeping with, and remaining consistent to reason”; therefore it has been included. I will denote these with an asterisk (*).

Some Maxims for you to have in mind as you continue through this dissertation:

Law exists as a matter of recourse, and a means to defend against injustice.*

Law is established for the benefit of man.

The execution of a Law should do no injury (but instead serve Natural Justice*).

An act of the court shall oppress no one.

Acting and consenting parties are liable to the same punishment. In other words, accomplices and co-conspirators are just as guilty as the actual perpetrator of a crime.

No one is punished for his thoughts.

Custom is the best interpreter of laws (so long as it follows Natural Law*).

The power that is derived cannot be greater than that from which it derives.

The government is to be subject to the law, for the law makes government.

One who commands lawfully must be obeyed.

The law does not seek to compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly perform. No one can do what is impossible.

What is inconvenient or contrary to reason, is not allowed in law.

The act of God does no injury; that is, no one is responsible for inevitable accidents. An act of God does wrong to no one.

No one is held to answer for the effects of a superior force, or of an accident, unless his own fault has contributed.

There may be damage or injury inflicted without any act of injustice.

The judges do not answer to questions of fact; the jury does not answer to questions of law.

Continuing on…
It is absolutely vital that you understand the reality behind some “perceived” truths, and attain a proper understanding of how this plays into the role of a jury.

For example, there are times in which a person is held to account for a crime against a law that isn’t really a law. There are times in which someone is held to account based upon the “Color of Law” or “Legal Fictions”.

Legal Fiction:
Wikipedia:
“In the common law, legal fictions are suppositions of fact taken to be true by the courts of law, but which are not necessarily true. They typically are done to evade archaic rules of procedure or to extend the jurisdiction of the courts in ways that were considered useful, but not strictly authorized by the old rule.”

Color of law.
The appearance or semblance of law without the substance of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because [the] wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under "color of state law." (Atkins v. Lanning, 415 F. Supp. 186, 188) - BLD sixth edition.

So, what constitutes a valid law?

A valid law must be grounded in Natural Law, Common Law, and fall within Constitutional parameters… if it does not, it is an invalid law. Furthermore, the law must not infringe upon your rights.

Rights:
According to Blackstone’s Commentary on the Laws of England:

“The rights of persons considered in their natural capacities are also two sorts, absolute, and relative. Absolute, which are as appertain and belong to particular men, merely as individuals or single persons; relative, which are indigent to them as members of society, and standing in various relations to each other.”

“Let a man therefore be ever so abandoned in his principles, or vitious in his practice, provided he keeps his wickedness to himself, and does not offend against the rules of public decency, he is out of the reach of human laws. But if he makes his vices public, though they be such as seem principally to affect himself, (as drunkenness, or the like) they then become, by the bad example they set, of pernicious effects to society; and therefore it is then the business of human laws to correct them.”

“For the principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights, which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature; but which could not be preserved in peace without that mutual assistance and intercourse, which is gained by the institution of friendly and social communities. Hence it follows, that the first and primary end of human laws is to maintain and regulate these absolute rights of individuals. Such rights as are social and relative result from, and are posterior to, the formation of states and societies: so that to maintain and regulate these, is clearly a subsequent consideration. And therefore the principal view of human laws is, or ought always to be, to explain, protect, and enforce such rights as are absolute, which in themselves are few and simple; and, then, such rights as are relative, which arising from a variety of connexions, will be far more numerous and more complicated. These will take up a greater space in any code of laws, and hence may appear to be more attended to, though in reality they are not, than the rights of the former kind.”

A valid law must also have an Enacting Clause that tells you by what authority a law is being implemented:

Enacting Clause (or Enacting Formula):
An Enacting Clause is a clause that establishes the authority by which the law can be enforced. In the US, the Supreme Court has ruled that ANY law which lacks an enacting clause is null and void.

For example:
God said to Moses, “Ye shall keep my commandments and do them: I am the Lord” (Lev: 22:31). God gave an Enacting Clause. He told Moses the authority by which the commandments would be enacted was the authority of God.

A State would do so by writing something such as “By the Authority of the State of Texas given by consent of the people…”

Furthermore, if a legal code is copyrighted, it cannot be used as public law—as public law cannot be copyrighted. Copyrighted laws are private (or corporate) law. If you are not a corporation, then the law does not apply to you as a Natural Person.

What do I mean, “the law does not apply to you as a Natural Person”? You see, there are actually two types of “Persons”, Natural and Artificial.

Persons:
According to Blackstone’s Commentary on the Laws of England:

“Persons also are divided by the law into either natural persons, or artificial. Natural persons are such as the God of nature formed us; artificial are such as created and devised by human laws for the purpose of society and government; which are called corporations or bodies politic.”

Note: Corporate Persons are also called “Juristic Persons”.

Power to Prosecute:
For a Person to be prosecuted before the Law, the Court must have the power to prosecute. In order to prosecute you, the Court must have:

In Personam (Personal) Jurisdiction:
The Court’s power over the individual (or “In Rem” Jurisdiction… power over an item or property).

Subject Matter Jurisdiction:
The power of the Court to render a decision on the subject at hand.

Proper Notification:
The Court’s obligation to notify the defendant in a case that he is the subject of a case.

If these criteria are not met, the defendant is being unjustly prosecuted.

Lastly, you must understand the power and function of an Oath.

Oaths:
An Oath is a binding contract to fulfill an obligation or future action, and/or to pledge the truth of his statements; and punishment is due he who breaks his oath.

An Oath upon something you hold sacred... such as God... is to bind that sacred thing as witness to your pledge; and to face retribution by that sacred thing upon the breaking of that oath.

To break an Oath sworn to Man is a crime. To break an Oath sworn to Man, bound to God, is not only a crime against Man... But is a crime against God as well.

When Oaths are made upon something... it acts as collateral. For example, to Swear upon your life... is to put your life as collateral to the holding of the Oath.

Example: From the Declaration of Independence:
"...And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor"

Failure to uphold their Pledge (Oath) would be to lose their Lives, Fortunes, and Sacred Honor.

At this point you may be thinking “Okay, great… but what does this all have to do with Juries?” The answer will unfold as we now delve into the power, necessity, role, and responsibility of the Jury.

Juries:
“A jury is a sworn body of persons convened to render a rational, impartial verdict and a finding of fact on a legal question officially submitted to them, or to set a penalty or judgment in a jury trial of a court of law.” – Wikipedia

The Necessity and Role of a Jury:
As stated earlier, Juries are the cornerstone of liberty and the best defense against tyranny. The Founding Fathers understood this principle very well… so much so, that they provided for Jury Trials in the Constitution.

“By a declaration of rights, I mean one which shall stipulate freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce against monopolies, trial by juries in all cases, no suspensions of the habeas corpus, no standing armies. These are fetters against doing evil which no honest government should decline.” – Thomas Jefferson

“The jury is there, by design, "to prevent oppression by the Government" and to "protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority." Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 155-56 (1968).”

“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson

Responsibilities of the Jury:
Juries judge the spirit, motive, and intent of both the law and the accused.

Juries must pass judgment in a case based solely on the evidence; with the burden of proof being upon the Accuser.

A jury must acquit if conviction would go against their deep seated sense of morality and justice (see Nullification below)

A conviction in a criminal trial must only occur when the entire jury is beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.

Awards in a civil case may come upon a majority vote of the jury based upon the balance of probabilities.

Power of the Jury:
Aside from the Jury’s power to determine a Person’s innocence or guilt, determine penalties and awards, etc. the Jury has the power of Nullification.

Jury Nullification:
It is incumbent upon a jury to judge both the facts and the law; and if it believes a law is immoral, unjust, unconstitutional, or improperly applied, the jury can return a “not guilty” verdict base upon this premise. Nullification is every bit as lawful as leniency, a commuted sentence, or a pardon extended by a prosecutor, a judge, or the chief executive of any Nation.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an "unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.” US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972)

From a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Maryland: "We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic of passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." US vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969)

A succession of nullification can render a law dead, bringing about its repeal.

A Jury has the final veto power over all "acts of the legislature" that may come to be called "laws".

A verdict of “not guilty” cannot be overturned.

Rights of the Jury:
“The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy” – John Jay

Juries are immune from punishment for their verdicts.

Juries have a right to be informed of their power.

Juries have a right to deliberate in private.

Juries cannot be compelled to explain their verdict.

With all of this in mind; the next time you get a summons to jury duty, you should look at it as an opportunity to safeguard Natural Law, Natural Rights, and the Constitution against tyranny. You may be the difference between Justice and Injustice.

***
Just for fun, I would suggest you watch “12 Angry Men” and “The Ox-Bow Incident”, both starring Henry Fonda… see if you can identify with what has been written above, and understand just how important a vigilant, informed Jury is.

Church of the 501c3

2007-08-22T12:02:00.001-05:00

The Government is now wanting to use the Churches to help quell the anger and frustration of the citizens as their rights are being usurped by a runaway government. Ministers are being employed by Homeland Security to pacify the masses and have them accept Martial Law, and the suspension of their rights.

How far we have deteriorated...

The Churches and Taverns used to be the meeting halls from which the wellspring of revolution took root and spread like wildfire. Today, the Churches are slaves to the 501c3; and Taverns have become nothing more than a place to watch football and eat chicken wings.

Furthermore, many modern Christian churches have used (misinterpreted) Romans 13 as a means to submit to the rule of Government unquestioningly... This, no matter how useful to a tyrannical government it is, of course, is a load of crap...

This is what Romans 13 says:
Romans 13:
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."

Now, what are the "higher powers"; what rules us? Is it a President who would be King? NO... it is Natural Law and the Constitution.

According to Romans 13, "rulers are not terror to good works..." so, if a Ruler (Government) IS a terror to good works and IS evil, doesn't it make sense that he (it) is not a valid Ruler; that his (its) Rule is void of our duty to obey?

Wasn't Christ and every apostle (except John and Judas) killed by the civil authorities for disobedience? Haven't Christians died throughout history for refusing to submit to unjust governments? Did the very foundation of Christianity (the Messiah, the Savior) and all the martyrs die as a result of disobeying God? Unless the answer is "NO", modern Christians have a whole lot of rethinking of their faith to do.

To submit, unquestioningly, to any government or governor is to be a slave... in case you didn't remember, God, through his Minister, lead the slaves AWAY from Pharaoh; perhaps it is now time for the Ministers of today to do the same.

Questions

2007-08-07T14:25:00.000-05:00

It has been just shy of 6 years since the attacks of 9-11...

Why hasn't there been ANY other attacks since then? Don't confuse this with "major plot foiled by police" stories.

What I am asking is this...

Why hasn't any suicide bombers walked into a mall and set themselves off? ...or a bus? ...or a rock concert? ...or a football game?

It isn't because of security... there are no bomb sniffing dogs screening people as they enter those things.

Why have no bridges blown up? Why no shootings by Islamo-Fascists (its easy enough for lonely, wacky college students)? Why no dirty bombs in Time Square?

It isn't because of security... the borders are wide open, anyone and anything can get smuggled in with little effort.

Why no kidnapped people being beheaded on video? Why no destruction of synagogues and churches?

It isn't because of security... people are kidnapped, raped, murdered, etc. daily in this country.

Why is it there have been no car bombs? No IED's? No rental trucks destroying buildings?

It isn't because of security... these things are actually VERY easy to do. I see rental trucks and cars everywhere, and none of them are being scrutinized.

What we are supposed to be dealing with are crazy, suicidal, evil people hellbent on destroying us... why are they not even being a daily nuisance?

It isn't because of security... roadside bombs in trash cans, mailboxes, etc... they aren't hard to do. It is easy to walk into a group of people and blow yourself up. People walk around with backpacks everywhere.

I am not asking these questions because I have something profound to say, nor am I saying there is no reason to worry... I am simply asking these questions because I want to know...

Why haven't crazy, suicidal, evil people hellbent on destroying us attacked us in ANY way, shape, or form? It isn't because of security... and if it isn't because of security, Why are we allowing ourselves to be inconvenienced? Why are we allowing our liberties to be stripped away? Why are we allowing the government to grow its power? Why are we doing these things in the name of security?

Why doesn't anyone seem to care?

Sovereign States

2007-08-04T22:22:00.000-05:00

There is a lot of misunderstanding by most modern Americans (most everyone in the world really) as to the nature and the power of the States. Some falsely believe that The United States of America was to be ONE NATION (a concept made popular by the Pledge of Allegiance). The reality of it is this... the "United States of America" was intended to be the united States of America (notice the capitalization)... a Federation of Sovereign States.

The term "State" having the 18th century meaning "a country or nation".

In modern times this has been argued and debated, but it is actually quite clear and undebatable... Each and every State in the Union are sovereign, independent States.

How can I be so sure? Simple.

Aside from all of the letters, discussions, speeches, etc. by the Founding Fathers stating this to be true, there is this...

The first Constitution for the United States of America was the Articles of Confederation. Note the wording...

"From The Articles of Confederation:
ARTICLE I The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".

ARTICLE II Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

ARTICLE III The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, 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, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever."

Some like to speak about the term "Perpetual Union" used in the Articles to mean "cannot be broken"... the reality is this... all treaties, contracts, etc. of the time that held no sunset clause or other finite term was deemed "Perpetual"... meaning that the Contract, Treaty, etc. would last until the parties involved no longer desired it. There would be no set "end date".

Then there is this from the Second (and current) Constitution for the United States of America:
"Ninth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States:
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."

If that is not enough to convince you, here is the kicker... the end of all arguments everywhere... you see, when the Revolutionary War ended, a Treaty was signed. This treaty, called "The Treaty of Paris" had some very interesting wording.

From the Treaty of Paris:
"Article 1:

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

Notice something there? King George did not recognize "The United States of America" as a country... he recognized each individual State as being free and independent; joined together in a Federation.

When the war ended and Independence was attained... it was attained by 13 States. You see, the King did refer to the United States, but used the term "viz", which means "that is to say"... in other words, King George recognized that the United States was not a single nation... it was a Federation comprised of 13 Nations. Those 13 Nations agreed to the Treaty of Paris.

Why the term "United States"? Simple, the Articles of Confederation anwered that in Article 3.. besides, the term "United States" is easier than continually listing 13 Names... this is why it was used in the Declaration, and the Constitutions... originally they were going to list each state separately, but no one knew for certain which State would ratify and which State wouldn't... which brings up another interesting point. If each State were not independent, then why would they be given an OPTION to join? Think about it.

The full text of the Treaty of Paris can be found here: http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/paris.shtml

Simplistic History of American Law

2007-07-26T16:22:00.000-05:00

America was founded upon the principles of Natural Rights, Natural Law, and Common Law.

Natural Rights: Natural Rights are those inalienable rights, freedoms, and privileges granted to us by God. These rights are so intertwined with our Humanity that they cannot be traded, given away, or stolen from us. The only way that we can be denied our Natural Rights is by being held accountable via due process of a just and fair law... Natural Law.

Natural Law: Natural Law is the law written into the hearts and souls of just and reasonable men from which the norms of all human law must be derived.

Common Law: Law based in custom, tradition, usage, and court rulings setting legal precedent (evolved, discovered, and interpreted via custom, tradition, and reason).

Note: See my "Treatise on Natural Order" for details.

A simplistic overview:
Man came into the world and via rulings by fathers, chieftains, etc. the people were held to account for what was inherently known as crimes (murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, etc.). Customs, traditions, and the creed of Natural Law unevenly ruled the day (key word = unevenly).

Thousands of years ago God gave Moses the Ten Commandments (and other commandments), establishing in word and written form, laws for Man to live by.

In 450 BC, the Roman Twelve Tables establish another written law, which acted as the foundation of Roman Law. Around this same time, philosophers such as Socrates and Plato (and later Aristotle) discussed the theories of Natural Law and Natural Justice.

Roman law (and Greek philosophy) played a role across Europe (England to a lesser degree)... and in conjunction with the Laws of Moses, and the traditions, customs, and usage of England precedents were set.

In 1066 William the Conquerer invaded England, and in doing so, he combined the best of Anglo-Saxon and Norman Law establishing a basis for what would become English Common Law.

In 1100 Henry the First enacted the Charter of Liberties which bound the King to laws respecting the rights and treatment of Nobles and Church officials.

In 1215, King John instated the Magna Carta (based largely on the Charter of Liberties), which established that the People had rights that a King cannot override, and that the King should be bound by law.

In the 1260's and 1270's Saint Thomas Aquinas revived the philosophies of Natural Law. These philosophies would simmer and bubble for 400 years, being revised again in the 1650's by Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan), and then more masterfully (and correctly) by John Locke in 1689 in his Second Treatise of Government.

When colonist came to America, establishing Jamestown in 1607, they brought with them the established concepts of Natural Law and English Common Law.

In 1769, William Blackstone published "Commentaries on the Laws of England"... considered the bible of Common Law by Americans (at least through the first century and a half of the existence of the US).

In 1776, when the colonies (heavily influenced by Lockean thought) thrust off British rule and Declared themselves independent. They established themselves as being founded squarely on Natural Law and Common Law:

Declaration of Independence (emphasis mine):
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

US Constitution (emphasis mine):
Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Over time, people within the United States have tried to twist this basis into something it is not. They have tried to pervert it into a Positivist scheme of Government granted rights, and Statutory Laws based upon the will of Government; and the people, mostly unknowing of the truth... or uncaring of the consequences, do not hold them to account.

With this in mind, when someone tries to sell you Positivist Theory, or states claim that you can only argue law in a secular manner, you can look them square in the eye and in no-uncertain-terms, tell them that they are living in a fantasy world, with no basis in fact, and no lawful claim; and while they are standing there with their "opinion", (with a little research) you can throw the history of the world in their face.

Impeachment

2007-07-21T19:08:00.000-05:00

There are many who want to see President Bush impeached because of the Iraq War. I say that as far as impeachment goes...

In January 2001 he took and Oath:
"I, George Walker Bush, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help me God."

In January 2005 he again took an Oath:
"I, George Walker Bush, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help me God."

Here is a list of some of his offenses against the Constitution:

1. Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
2. Regulation of political speech.
3. Legislation via executive order.
4. Designation of citizens as "enemy combatants" stripping them of Constitutional protections.
5. Warrantless search and seizures.
6. Invasion of privacy.
7. "War Powers", and going to war without a declaration.
8. Expanding power to arrest without probably cause.
9. Exclusion of Judicial power in obtaining warrants.
10. Treaties without Congressional approval.
11. Denial of trial by jury.
12. Consolidation of Federal power.
13. Usurpation of State authority.
14. Authorizing the military to intervene in civilian matters.
15. Undermining the sovereignty of the US.
... and so on, and on

To sum up:
"The Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper!" -- President George W. Bush

...so much for his Oath.

An Oath is a binding contract to fulfill an obligation or future action, and/or to pledge the truth of his statements; and punishment is due he who breaks his oath.

An Oath upon something you hold sacred... such as God... is to bind that sacred thing as witness to your pledge; and to face retribution by that sacred thing upon the breaking of that oath.

To break an Oath sworn to Man is a crime. To break an Oath sworn to Man, bound to God, is not only a crime against Man... but is a crime against God as well.

When Oaths are made upon something... it acts as collateral. For example, to Swear upon your life... is to put your life as collateral to the holding of the Oath.

Example: From the Declaration of Independence:
"...And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor"

Failure to uphold their Pledge (Oath) would be to lose their Lives, Fortunes, and Sacred Honor. The Founding Fathers knew this well, and did not take Oaths lightly... as NO ONE should.

President Bush pledged to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help me God.". He bound his Oath to God.

President Bush should most certainly be held to account for his Crime against Man... God will take care of the other matter.

The Right of Revolution

2007-07-13T21:27:00.000-05:00

Men form Governments for the purpose of preventing Anarchy; allowing for the Creation, Execution, and Judgments of Law for the provision of Recourse and Justice; all for the preservation and protection of their Life, Liberty, and Property.

When these Governments are in the habit to usurp power; destroy liberty; steal or destroy property; murder; breach the trust; or transgress beyond their Constitutional limits, they put themselves in a state of War with Man; thereby forfeiting the power entrusted them by Men, and Man shall be absolved of any compulsion of participation, allegiance, or obedience to that Government.

It is incumbent upon Man to dissolve a Government that is at War with him and to replace it with one that is at Peace, and will provide the securities and protections for which it was established.

Oftentimes Man is hesitant to do his duty out of fear; the fear of change, fear of the Tyrant, fear of being disloyal, fear of involvement, fear of suffering, and so on. Despotic Government counts upon Man’s fear, and utilizes it against him.

Man, however, is not alone… he is a part of Society; and Society is far more powerful than the most Tyrannical Government. The fears of Man need not be the fears of Society.

Society need not suffer at the hands of resistance or of revolution, for it is not Society that must change. Society and Government are not one in the same. Societies implement Government for their benefit.

Government, by its very nature, is evil; and it will seek to expand and grow in scope and power, attempting to consume the society that it was established to protect. Therefore it is an absolute necessity that Society remains vigilant to keep Government in check. If Society fails in this effort, they must resort to more drastic means, at first resisting the breaches; or if Government persists in its evil, by eliminating the Tyrant, and establishing Government anew.

This begs the question: “At what point may resistance become revolution?”

There is a simple criterion to follow for the Right of Revolution:

First, the abuses by government must be reasonably consistent, as isolated instances may be dealt with through appeals or resistance.

Second, the abuses by government must be reasonably seen (whether through, as John Locke puts it, “ambition, fear, folly, or corruption”) to be designed to bring about the subordination of the People.

Third, reasonable attempts at appeal and/or resistance must be made; and shown to be mostly ineffective.

Once the criterion is met, Society has not only a right, but a duty to replace their government; peacefully if possible, by force if necessary.

There are times in which Government may make a move so bold, so despotic, so overwhelming that Man (or Society) has no chance at recourse, and must resort to open Rebellion as a matter of self-defense. In these cases, Man (or Society) is not at fault, and should not be held to account. Government, on the other hand, must be put in check, or replaced for its transgression.

The Right of Rebellion is a Natural Right, as it is the defense of Life, Liberty, and Property against Governments; and Governments are nothing more than vessels by which we secure that which we hold most dear.

What is Marxism?

2007-06-29T13:59:00.000-05:00

I often go on and on about Marxism and what a detriment to society I believe it is.

People have asked me... "What exactly is Marxism, and why do you cast it in such a negative light".

I thought I would take this opprotunity to answer those questions.

What is Marxism?

This question alone is the catharsis behind encyclopedias of information that has been written over the decades. I don't think I will do adequate justice in a blurb in an blog post... but I will try to at least paint a broad picture. Forgive me if I over-simplify a few things.

Marxism comes in many shades, shapes, sizes, and titles... it is a catch-all term for all of the sub-genres that lie within; kind of like "Rock and Roll" encompasses rockabilly, doo-wop, surfer, hard rock , soft rock, pop rock, etc. The foundation of all those sub-genres are the same... a basis in the philosophies of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels... it encompasses the range from socialism to hard-core communism, and beyond, into other arenas; just as Rock and Roll has a basis in the blending of country, western, blues, jazz, and gospel... Like Rock and Roll though, Marxism has new things thrown into the mix.

With that in mind, consider this...

Marxism encompasses the following goals:
1. The destruction of the family... separating children from their parents for easier control.
2. The destruction of marriage... separating man from woman.
3. The abolition of religion... separating Man from God.
4. The abolition, or redefinition of, morality... separating Man from self-restraint.
5. The abolition of nationality and countries... separating Man from his community.
6. Nationalism, and a devotion to state (government) over individuality or liberty... separating Man from himself.
7. Compulsory state education... to further #1 through #6 above. To separate Man from the truth.
8. The abolition of private property... separating Man from the basis of human happiness, stability, prosperity, advancement, and freedom of contract. The foundation of a free society (see my "Treatise on Natural Order").
9. The abolition of weapons... separating Man from the means to defend himself and hold government to account.
10. The use of heavy taxes... further separating Man from his property, and depriving him of a means to improve his station.
11. A centralized, governmental banking system... a means to attain power and control the masses.
12. Governmental control of communication and transportation... separating Man from his freedom to associate.
13. Governmental control of business... separating Man from his ability to prosper and grow.
14. Redistribution of wealth... "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"... separating Man from his independence.
15. Governmental control of population and society... separating Man from his free will.
16. Positive Law Theory instead of Natural Law Theory... separating Man from his inalienable rights.

When you separate Man from his family, wife, God, self-restraint, community, individualism, liberty, property, ability to defend himself, ability to improve his station, freedom of association, truth, prosperity, growth, independence, free will, and inalienable rights, what has he become?

An automaton that is easily controlled and manipulated, with no will to fight... a slave among slaves.

The Marxism twist (outside of Karl Marx's Utopian philosophy)
Who has absolute power? The government.
Who controls the government? The elite.
Who's back do they ride upon? The people.
Who holds them to account? No one.

That is Marxism... that is why I portray it in a negative light.

I hope that cleared things up a bit.

Fascism

2007-06-19T17:45:00.000-05:00

I have heard the term "fascism" come up quite a lot lately... and everyone seems to think that Fascism is the extreme leanings of Conservatism; with Communism being the extreme leanings of Liberalism. This is a very false, and to be honest, uninformed conjecture.

The reality of the matter is that Fascism can occur from the extreme of either political philosophy (Liberal or Conservative).

To put this in perspective, you have to understand the following:

1. Communism is an economic policy. It's opposite is Capitalism. Socialism is a stepping stone toward Communism ("Communism Lite").
2. Totalitarianism is the extreme form of Authoritarianism.
3. Anarchy is the extreme form of Libertarianism.
4. The opposite of Authoritarianism is Libertarianism.
5. The opposite of Totalitarianism is Anarchy (which is also "Pure Democracy").
6. The modern understanding of what Liberalism, and its opposite, Conservatism are has changed over the last 100 years or so (essentially swapping places, just as Democrats and Republicans have).
7. Neo-Conservatives are NOT conservatives... "Neo-Cons" stems from the Liberal/Big Government/Marxist philosophy with an adoption of some Conservative principles. You can essentially say that "Neo" Conservative means "Not Really" Conservative. You will see what I mean as we progress.
8. Liberals and Conservatives are opposites to each other. The basics of their philosophy display this.

Let's look at where each Philosophy stands on various issues. When looking at the chart below, keep in mind that there are always exceptions to the rule. I am showing the general rule. Furthermore, this is not a dissertation on Liberals vs Conservatives, and so I am using a great deal of simplicity here.

Now let's go over a couple that may cause some eyebrows to be raised.

Economics: Conservatives believe in a free market, free trade, and low taxes. Liberals believe in governmental controls, high taxes, and redistribution of wealth. Conservatives believe in helping the poor through charity and incentives to make their own way. Liberals believe in helping the poor through government welfare.

Religion: Conservatives tend to be more religious, and tend to approach things from that perspective. Liberals tend to be more humanistic in their approach. Liberals lean more toward an atheistic view, and conservatives lean toward a theistic view.

Class Base: Liberals tend to appeal to, and make their case to, the poor... sighting government as a better way to care for their needs. Conservatives tend to appeal to the middle and upper class with the philosophy that we can each take care of ourselves better than government.

Power Base: Liberals believe that most people need someone to govern them... that someone being a strong government. Conservatives believe that people can govern themselves and that the government should answer to them.

World Affairs: Conservatives believe in being neutral in world affairs, entanglements with none-- trade for all. Liberals believe in using the government to "help" solve the problems of other countries.

With all of this in perspective, lets look at what it means.

Liberals tend to want government to do everything... therefore they are of an Authoritarian mindset.
Conservatives tend to want government out of everything... therefore they are of a Libertarian mindset.

Okay, Okay, I know what you are thinking right now... "...but, Conservatives are against "xyz" and Liberals are for it." The opposite is true as well. It is the manner in which they go about handling their opinions on "xyz" that things differ. Generally, Liberals want government to intervene in their cause.

Let's look at a few things here:
Liberals want government to force people to hire based on race and gender (quotas); Conservatives want to hire who they want when they want.
Liberals want thoughts and speech to be criminal (hate crimes); Conservatives want to punish for the crime, not the motive.
Liberals want to force acceptance of lifestyles and immorality on the public through legislation; Conservatives want to keep tradition-- HOWEVER some Conservatives want to force morality on the public through legislation... but then they are not following the concepts of Conservatism or Natural Law.
Liberals want government to take your money and give it to others; Conservatives want to keep their money.

...and the list goes on and on.

With all of this in mind, let's get to the point:

Fascism is best defined as (American Heritage Dictionary): "A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism."

For the most part... who wants to control social and economic issues with government? Liberals.

By the way... Hitler, whose name is synonymous with "Fascism", was a SOCIALIST who appealed to the proletariat via extreme Nationalism, with the Elite ruling them, utilizing Positive Law to enforce progressive social reform, compulsory education, the destruction of religion, etc.; while practicing hedonism and Intervening in the affairs of other Nations as he did his blitzkrieg across Europe. Oh, and he was a vegetarian too!

Okay, Okay... I am having fun picking on Liberals, but to be fair, Anarchy (Pure Democracy) can be Fascist as well... when going purely off majority rule, anything can be forced down the minority's throat; and when Conservatives try and enforce morality via legislation they are practicing Fascism as well.

So, the next time someone reserves the term "Fascist" solely for a "Conservative", remind them that Hitler was a LIBERAL S.O.B.

Is Iran Committing an Act of War?

2007-06-07T12:55:00.000-05:00

ABC News is reporting that Iran is supplying arms to the Taliban... (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/document_iran_c.html)

Okay, IF it turns out to be true that the Iranian Government sponsored or otherwise sanctioned this to happen then by all means it IS an act of War. However, we have to be sure this is NOT a blackmarket, underground, or otherwise "backroom" deal outside the sanctions of the Iranian Government.

From the news story (emphasis mine):
"Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stopped short earlier this week of blaming Iran, saying the U.S. did not have evidence "of the involvement of the Iranian government in support of the Taliban.""

IF this changes, then so does our justification to go to war. Without the proof, we currently do not have a justification to go to war with Iran. A Nation simply spouting off at the mouth or having WMD's is NOT, in and of itself, a justification for war.

In a forum I belong to I stated the following in regard to the Sovereignty of Nations, Iran getting a Nuke, etc. (January 2007)

"Every sovereign nation has a right to build weapons... even WMD's. North Korea fires off a test, everyone freaks. India does it 3 days later, no one says anything. We are extremely concerned that NK, Russia, China, or Iran will give nukes to others; yet we openly do it and were even contemplating giving them to the Japanese as recently as a few months ago.

I understand the argument... Iran is crazy, NK is crazy, etc. HOWEVER, in the last 50-some-odd years NK hasn't attacked anyone. Iran took over our embassy in 1979, but Carter failed to deal with it. Otherwise, Iran and Iraq fought a war... which I believe Iraq started!

Iran says it wants to destroy Israel, they want to bring down America, blah-blah-blah... talk is cheap. Leaders of countries can screech all they want to... its all hot air.

HOWEVER...

If Iran, NK, or anyone else ACTS or attempts to act, then it would be open season. If we were (for example) to be attacked by Iran, I would have no problem with the following:

1. Wipe them off the face of the map.
2. Walk away.

Its kind of like this...

If your next door neighbor keeps yelling at you and telling you he's gonna punch you in the face for whatever reason, you can be cautious... you can make plans for it... but there is really nothing you can (reasonably) do about it until he acts (or tries to act). The second he marches onto your lawn ready to duke it out, you hospitalize him and walk away. You don't do his housework for him. You don't pay his medical bills. You don't teach his kids how to read.

If your neighbor buys a shotgun, you have no right to demand he not buy shells! You have no right to park your car in front of his driveway as some kind of embargo, punishing him for having weapons you don't want him to have. You have no right to break into his house, kill his dog, imprison his kids, and destroy his shotgun. He has the same right to own a shotgun that you do. EVEN IF HE'S A JERK!

ONCE again, IF he comes to your yard with his shotgun looking for trouble, you kill him, bill his kids for the shell, walk away."

(from another post also January 2007, and extension of the discussion above)
I agree that the West shares some blame for what is occurring over in the Middle East... the problem is that even if the Muslims were 100 percent, absolutely right in their cause, their methods, single-minded barbarity, overwhelming intolerance, and complete disregard for Human life, destroys any sympathy I can have for them.

Herein lies the problem: most (not all) of these legions of drones that are willing to give their lives for Islam can never be saved from their brainwashing. Unlike the Russians, North Koreans, etc. they can never be reasoned with.

To further complicate things, the Islamic states go out of their way to indoctrinate and brainwash the population from day one. Their school curriculum is filled with this mindset. When a child's parents, society, schools, government, media, and culture completely immerse him in this world until the roots of hatred and single-minded barbarism are deeply locked in, how can he ever be saved? How can we ever reason with him? The answer is... you don't.

We have limited choices when it comes to dealing with most (but not all) of the Middle East. Regardless of the reasons why, the people of the Middle East are the ones that contribute most to the limitations.

If we choose to stay out of the Middle East (which must include Israel as well), then we have to be VERY non-PC and we have to profile, and constantly look over our shoulder, and be ever studious from this day forward; and the moment they act, or attempt to act, we wipe them off the face of the Earth and walk away.

-OR-

We can choose to fight this open-ended War on Terror... but not the way we have been doing it. Instead, we tell every single nation the following:

1. If you choose to indoctrinate, train, harbor, aid and abet, house, trade with, negotiate with, supply, or ally yourself with Al Queda (and other such groups) you will be wiped off the face of the Earth.

2. This includes France, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, etc. and if you don't like it we will stop funding the UN, close our bases in your countries, stop sending you financial aid, stop buying your products, and stop taking immigrants from your country.

3. You have 72 hours to decide... then see rule number 1.

My preference would be to practice what we should have been practicing all along, and what George Washington wisely advocated... armed Neutrality. We don't jack with you, you don't jack with us... but if you do jack with us we will wipe you off the face of the Earth and walk away. "

(I then went on in another post to clarify "wipe them off the face of the Earth" and a few other things...)
"The reality is, the term "Wipe them off the face of the map" is a simplistic exaggeration to make a point. Not knowing me, I can understand you wanting clarification.

To clarify:
If a country attacked or attempted to attack us, I believe we should attack them in such a manner as to devastate them and make them, and any others who may wish to do the same, reel at the thought of ever doing it again. I would not pay to restore them. I would not help them back up. I would not defend them against their preying neighbors.

You may think that is cold... but it is not; it is practical. Think about it. If the actions of your government causes you to have your way of life disrupted, your utilities to cease functioning, your roads to be impassible, your defenses to be destroyed, and so on... you would then think twice about who you support. You would then be more apt to hold your government accountable.

...and try not to fall into the trap of "the people have no choice... they are oppressed". The people are free to make choices. We, as Americans, made a choice in 1776 and 1861. The citizens of every country, everywhere in the world make a choice. Iranians made a choice in 1979."
Like I've said:

"My preference would be to practice what we should have been practicing all along, and what George Washington wisely advocated... armed Neutrality. We don't jack with you, you don't jack with us... but if you do jack with us we will wipe you off the face of the Earth and walk away."

Now we know we are being jacked with, we just have to discover who is actually behind it...

Fallen Heroes

2007-05-29T14:57:00.000-05:00

In light of Memorial Day, I pose the following:

Would most Americans stand for the removal of a monument to American soldiers, heroes, or leaders? Would they stand for the smearing of the honor and good name of those soldier, heroes, and leaders that gave the greatest of sacrifices? No? Then why are so many in the last few years demanding the removal of all things Confederate?

Yes, I know... the politically correct (and historically false) assertion that the Confederacy is/was a bunch of racist, slave-mongering, traitors is prevalent now days; however, according to the US Congress, Confederate Veterans are on par with other American Veterans... so, again, I have to ask... Why are monuments to American soldiers, heroes, and leaders coming down?

United States Statutes at large (85th Congress) Part 1, Volume 72, pages 133-134 (also known as Public Law 85-425)

Public Law 85-425
May 23, 1958 [H. R. 358] 72 Stat. 133

AN ACT
To increase the monthly rates of pension payable to widows and former widows of deceased veterans of the Spanish-American War, Civil War, Indian War, and Mexican War, and provide pensions to widows of veterans who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1957 (Public Law 85-56) is amended:

(1) In section 431, strike out the figure "$52.50" and insert the figure "$65".
(2) In subsection 432 (a), strike out the figure "$54.18" and insert the figure "$65", and strike out the figure "$67.73" and insert the figure "$75".
(3) Section 432 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

"(e) For the purpose of this section, and section 433, the term 'veteran' includes a person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, and the term `active, military or naval service' includes active service in such forces."

(4) In section 433, strike out the figure "$48.77" and insert the figure "$73.13".
(5) In subsection 434 (a), strike out the figure "$54.18" and insert the figure "$65", and strike out the figure "$67.73" and insert the figure "$75".
(6) In section 435, strike out the figure "$48.77" and insert the figure "$73.13".
(7) In subsection 436 (a), strike out the figure "$54.18" and insert the figure "$65", and strike out the figure "$67.73" and insert the figure "$75".
(8) In section 437, strike out the figure "$62.31" and insert the figure "$73.13".

Approved, May 23, 1958.

The Global Elite and the Boxer

2007-05-21T12:46:00.000-05:00

I have often sited that the Democrats and Republicans are two heads of the same snake, striking from different sides, but working together for a common goal... the CFR dream of World Government.

Last night as I was winding down for the day, I began thinking that perhaps there is a better analogy. One that can better point out the things I am trying to say. It then came to me... the best analogy is a championship boxer in his prime.

A boxer uses a combination of left and right, dodges, blocks, time, and endurance to beat you into submission.

The left and right hands intermix in a flurry of jabs, hooks, crosses, upper-cuts, and hay-makers to keep the defender so busy watching the hands that he fails to see the fancy footwork.

Some boxers come at you predominately from the left, with a crushing left hook. Some come at you with a devastating right cross. Left or Right, they are still part of the same body taking orders from the head.

The left hand (Liberals/Democrats) and the right hand (Neo-Cons/Republicans); the fancy footwork (the use of media, smoke and mirrors, playing society, loss of freedom for “noble causes”, etc.); the body (the globalist agenda); and the head (the architects/CFR/Global Elite); all work together as a single juggernaut toward their ultimate goal.

Boxer, Marxist-Globalist, the Ultimate Goal is the same... to stand alone as the champion of the world.

Throwing Ron Paul Under a Bus

2007-05-17T11:53:00.000-05:00

From long before the election season even started, everyone in the media, including talk radio, has tried to coronate Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama as the top Presidential candidates.

As time has passed, the media, the RNC, and the DNC has included names such as Mitt Romney, John Edwards, Fred Thompson, and Newt Gingrich to the list. At the same time, they have tried to dismiss or exclude so-called “second tier” candidates... especially Ron Paul.

Most media outlets and “major news” organizations have done their best to either ignore, overlook, or dismiss Ron Paul. Polls asking about Candidate preference purposely leave Paul off. Questionnaires and interviews have been silent about Paul.

As pressure began to come from Paul supporters, and as polls began to show Paul support... even when he isn't on them; and when outrage began to bubble from people who smelled a scam, the media relented and decided to throw a bone Paul's way.

Ron Paul then began to show up in late, late, late night interviews on TV. Radio devoted a few minutes as an aside to mention Paul-- always with the assurance that he doesn't have a hope in Hell of winning.

Paul was included in two debates in which a vast majority of the questions and speaking time were devoted to the “big three” (Giuliani, McCain, and Romney) turning a shoulder to Paul in a dismissive manner. When questions were aimed at Paul, they were usually in the form of an attack “Why are you running as a REPUBLICAN?” “Can you tell me why ALL the other candidates are WRONG?” “Are you saying we should get rid of HOMELAND SECURITY during A TIME OF WAR?”

Even through all of the dismissiveness, Paul managed to intrigue people. Paul began to speak to the true conservatives that believe they have no choice among the coronated Candidates thrust in their face.

Because of Paul's denting of the armor of the Status Quo, spin doctors began touting the “commanding performance” of one “top three” candidate or another. They stated that Paul only wins debate polls and text message polls because Libertarian Wackos are good “texters” or “diligent spammers”... or because Liberals plotted against “the big three”.

The media upped their rhetoric of “the big three” and refused to interview Paul, and stated that anyone who called in on his behalf were nothing more than rabid, lunatic, “kool aid” drinkers, that have lost touch with reality. Some talk radio even stated that Ron Paul supporters have a mental condition.

Tuesday, May 15th in a debate in South Carolina Ron Paul stated that interventionist US Foreign Policy played a part in the events of 9-11. One of the moderators then (with a look like a deer in the headlights) asked “Are you suggesting America caused 9-11?” in which Paul told him NO, but that (once again) US interventionist policies played a large factor.

Rudy Giuliani then took the opportunity to get a resounding sound bite by mischaracterizing what Paul said, blasting Paul for what he didn't say, and then alluding to Paul as some sort of 9-11 conspiracy theorist.

After the debate, Hannity and Colmes interviewed every Candidate... Rudy first, giving ample time to each of the “big three”. They saved Ron Paul for last... and not only did they not give him the same amount of time as anyone else, the “conservative” Hannity attacked him, and after asking him to clarify his responses... yelled over Paul so that Paul couldn't answer.
In the rebroadcast of the debates, Paul's “interview” was cut entirely.

The next day, I made a point of listening to Hannity's radio show. I also scoured the web looking for information, analysis, etc. I listened to other so-called “conservative” radio shows.
This is what I have found.

Hannity made it a point to say that Paul was a nut, and that what he said was despicable. He then stated that Paul needed to go. Hannity then, contrary to normal practices, took NO calls the first hour and a half to two hours of his show. He then interviewed Mitt Romney, and proceeded to take calls.

No Calls were about Paul. I find it hard to believe, after the big deal that was made about what Paul did (and didn't say); and after Hannity ranted on and on about it, that NO ONE wanted to talk about it.

The consensus of most talk radio, “major” media, etc. is not only that Ron Paul “couldn't have” truly received the text votes he got... but that he should drop out of the race, or be barred from further debates, or (in a couple of instances I heard) should be REMOVED as a Congressman!
Here is where the real problem lies...

Ron Paul is an enemy to the Status Quo. He is the enemy of the planned future of the US. He is an enemy to the goals of globalist, Marxists, and their ilk.

Don't you find it “interesting” that “conservative” talk shows are touting Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and/or Mitt Romney as being the best candidate for the Republican ticket? Think about that for a minute... Giuliani is a LIBERAL, McCain is a LIBERAL, Romney is a LIBERAL; they represent beliefs and practices which are the bane of Conservative ideology. Why then are they being touted as the best candidates for the Republican ticket?

This is why... US Presidential elections are an illusion of freedom. Actually most US elections (particularly upper tier elections) are illusions of freedom.

Every President has been either a CFR member or a close associate of the CFR. Most Cabinet positions go to CFR members. This is not a coincidence.

Rudy Giuliani is a member of the CFR; John McCain is a member of the CFR; Mitt Romney is a member of the CFR; Other Candidates (and potential Candidates) such as Newt Gingrich, Fred Thompson, Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, and Tommy Thompson, as well as Democrats Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards... all CFR Members.

Ron Paul is NOT a member of the CFR. Ron Paul despises the CFR. You are all aware of what the CFR is and what it stands for. That is why Ron Paul is getting thrown under a bus. If he ends up rising up above it and becoming a threat to the anointed candidates, don't be surprised if he ends up “committing suicide”, becoming involved in a “scandal”, having a “heart attack”, or meeting some other undesired fate. If throwing him under a bus doesn't get him out of the race (i.e. Catagorizing him as an Anti-American lunatic), the CFR architects and drones will find another way.

Which brings me back to the illusion of freedom... if your choice for President really boils down to which CFR member you want, do you really have a choice?

Misused Military

2007-05-09T15:20:00.000-05:00

I have heard many complain that the modern American military cannot win any wars. I heard Harry Reid say that the war in Iraq was lost. There is a reason for that.

The modern American military can't win anything because since the end of WWII the wars have been fought in Washington DC, opinion polls, and the evening news instead of the battle field.

The US military has been hobbled by the very society they have sworn to defend.

Secondly, the US Military has been misused by every American President since Lincoln.

The US has been warned since its birth by the very people who founded this Nation to practice what I like to call "Armed Neutrality". The US gave up any hope of that starting 1860. Every War that the US has been in from that time forward came about by poking their nose into other people's business.

President Buchanan was going to let the South go in peace... Lincoln had other ideas. Despite what you may have read in school, Lincoln didn't care two cents about slaves... he wanted to secure his tax base; and Cotton was King! Guess who had the cotton!

President McKinley got into the affairs of Spain's dealing with Cuba and thus the Spanish-American War.

President Wilson (against the advice of many) chose to get embroiled in a European conflict under the guise of ending "Aristocracy" and "Militarism" and bring "Democracy" to Germany and Russia. Many in the US Government argued to stay out of the conflict... Wilson wanted in... he then got the thing that helped pull the public along, when a British Cruise Ship (The Lusitania) was sunk by a German Sub... (Cruise ships were being used to transport cargo and supplies for the war effort to circumvent enemy attack). We were then in the war... World War 1 to be precise.

President Roosevelt set up trade embargoes on Japan due to the conflict between Japan and China... cutting off a major amount of Japan's resources, harming them economically and militarily. The best way to stop a blockade is to take out the Navy doing it. This, and other factors lead the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor... we then declared war against Japan AND Germany... who, oddly enough, was in a completely different theater of operations. Why? Because, again against the desires of most Americans and Congress, Roosevelt was chomping at the bit to aid England and France (to whom we had extensive trade). The attack on Pearl Harbor angered America to the point that war with Japan AND Germany was feasible, and Roosevelt got what he wanted.

The Cold War began the moment WW2 ended, as the US and UK (after taking lands controlled by a vicious socialist dictator (Hitler) and giving them to a vicious communist oligarchy (the USSR)) decided that they did not want their ally (the Soviet Union) to acquire any further land, or alliances as well armed as them, and so used the "Mutually Assured Annihilation" technique to stop them (Cuban Missile Crisis ring a bell?).

President Truman got embroiled in a civil war in Asia, citing a desire to stop communism and bring democracy.

President Kennedy/Johnson got embroiled in a civil war in Asia, citing a desire to stop communism and bring democracy.

President Reagan got embroiled in a civil war in Grenada, citing a desire to stop communism and bring democracy. He also got involved in the conflict between Iran and Iraq AND the anti-communist fighters in South America.

President Carter had the opportunity to go to war with Iran when US hostages were taken. Though Carter was bogged down with destroying the US economy, he did manage to send in a rescue mission that fell on its face before they even got near their target. That was that, and instead of trying again, he endured 444 days of "talks". The US hostages were taken (in part) as a result of US dealings in Iranian and Middle East Politics since WW2... including the bringing to power the Shah of Iran (circa 1953?). When Reagan was elected, the Iranians knew war would come if they didn't release the hostages... so they did.

President Bush (the elder) got involved in a land dispute between Iraq and Kuwait.

President Clinton got involved in various civil wars and squabbles throughout many regions of the world (Black Hawk Down, anyone?). He even bombed a medical plant to divert attention away from his sexual controversies.

President Bush invaded Afghanistan due to the attack on 9-11 (see note below); he then used that as a catalyst to finish the war in Iraq, and then to move on to Iran (the stage is set... we will see what the next President does).

Note: The events in, and directly after, WW2 are what (in part) lead to the 9/11 attacks and the "War on Terror".

Note 2: Though I cited the "reason" Japan bombed Pearl Harbor; and alluded to why Hostages were taken in Iran; and alluded to why Terrorists killed thousands of Americans... I don't condone those actions. I was simply stating some facts.

There is wisdom in the words of the Founding Fathers... but, like the saying goes... "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

Arguing Against Homosexual Marriage

2007-04-25T15:36:00.000-05:00

Many argue that the only reason that people are against Homosexual Marriage is because of religion; claiming that there is no reason to be against it based upon Evidence, Facts, and Defensible Truth. I say that those who argue that point are very, very wrong; as you shall see as I discuss Homosexual Marriage and EFDT (Evidence, Facts, and Defensible Truth) below:

Marriage, as traditionally defined is a "legal and spiritual union of a man and wife as the foundation of a family".

Throughout ALL history, in ALL cultures, in ALL the world, marriage has been reserved for men to women. Even in societies in which homosexual relationships openly existed (ancient Greece as an example) when the young man (usually in a "relationship" with an older man) matured, he was given preparation to be married to a woman. Why? See definition above.

The current movement for "same sex marriage" did NOT arise out of a desire for equitability and civil rights, but was/is a part of the feminist campaign to destroy traditional marriage (refer to Feminism: A Scourge on Society).

ALL societies that have embraced homosexual relationships have collapsed... learning their lesson, the survivors return to "Traditional" roots of what biology, society, and thousands upon thousands of years has deemed best for the advancement of man... "Traditional Values".

One argument that the “gay community” like to use, is to say that homosexual couples have no legal rights... this is horribly incorrect. I know for a FACT, upon personal observation that homosexuals have NO problem with the legalities many claim they do.

Example: A coworker and friend of mine was in a relationship with someone who developed terminal cancer... he was able to visit him in the hospital, get information on his health, etc. When the man died, my friend was willed his belonging and was the beneficiary of his insurance.

Legal contracts are legal contracts. I can give any one of you those rights whether we are married, homo, hetero, or prefer sheep.

Those "whoa is me" arguments the homosexual and PC community put out is nothing but smoke and mirrors to garner sympathy for their goal... the destruction of Traditional Values.

Many chime against the term “Traditional Values”, as if it were some heretical term used like acid to burn the masses; or they claim “not to even know what that means”.

To believe that “Traditional Values” is somehow a dirty word is ludicrous; and for those that want to pretend they don't know what "Traditional Values" are... allow me to give you a definition:

Traditional Values: Societal customs and morals that have withstood the test of time, enhancing the advancement, betterment, and propagation of mankind.

Homosexuality, like Feminism, Abortion, and most of the other Marxist, Liberal causes are a detriment to the advancement, betterment, and propagation of mankind.

Therefore, I would say that "Traditional Values" meet the requirements of EFDT (Notice: I didn't mention God or religion in any of my arguments above).

Abortion 101

2007-04-23T12:44:00.000-05:00

The first wave of feminism came to call mostly because of women wanting the right to vote. It was precipitated by the emancipation of the slaves, and the right to vote being conferred upon black males. The agenda of these feminists was very simple, and noble... they did not desire to be treated as less than a former slave, and they desired to have a voice in government.

Abortion was not on their agenda, in fact... they universally opposed abortion.

Susan B. Anthony referred to abortion as murder, and stated "Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!"

Other leaders of the movement shared Susan's belief:
"When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." -- Elizabeth Cady Stanton

"When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society - so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged." -- Mattie Brinkerhoff

"The rights of children as individuals begin while yet they remain the foetus [sic]." -- Victoria Woodhull

"Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women." -- Alice Paul

So what changed with the coming of the second wave of feminism?

You see, the second wave of feminism did not have a noble cause to fight, nor were they truly seeking to right wrongs and oppression (see http://opinetime.blogspot.com/2007/02/feminism-scourge-on-society.html), their goals were far more sinister.

The architects and leaders of the second wave feminists... (Once known as Women Libbers, now Feminists... the first wave were called Suffragettes) sought to destroy the family unit, bring about government intervention into the lives of the populace, bring about a Marxist society, and so on.

The feminists advocated that women should devote themselves to jobs instead of family, succumb to promiscuity, and reject marriage. One major hurdle to successfully attain that was the burden of pregnancy. In order to eliminate that obstacle, the feminists had to do the following:

1. Convince society that there was no value to the life of the unborn.

2. Convince society that unwanted pregnancy, life threatening pregnancy, pregnancy due to rape and incest, etc. were at epidemic proportions.

3. Convince society that women were running in droves to back-alley abortionists with rusty tools and infection filled tables.

4. Convince society that a woman's body being trumped by pregnancy was an infringement on her "reproductive rights".

5. Convince society that a "woman's right to choose" would put her on equal footing to a man.

6. Convince society that the Constitution somehow guarantees women a right to murder her child.

7. Convince society that feminist speak on behalf of all women.

To say that the feminist have been successful is an understatement. Aside from the fact that people are now convinced (incorrectly) that a woman has a Constitutional right to murder her child in the womb, they excuse her for murdering her child after it is born on the basis of mental anguish, depression, etc. What better way to destroy a family and society than to allow a mother to get away with murdering her own child?

The goals of evil people are often spoken aloud for everyone to hear, but few listen.

Let's put this in perspective:

Genocides (rough totals):
Stalin = 3 million
Hitler = 12 million (includes non-Jews)
Killing Fields of Cambodia = 2 million
Saddam Hussein = 1 million
Total = 18 million

War Deaths:
Total American Deaths for all American Wars to date (except the War for Southern Independence): 644,935
Total American Deaths for the War for Southern Independence: 623,026
Total = 1.27 million

American Genocide:
Aborted Babies = 50 million, 2 and a half times more deaths than those killed by the worst mass murders, and the deaths of all American Wars combined.

Juxtapose the belief of the Suffragette with the Feminist:
"The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it." -- Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood

The feminist foothold was firmly planted with the passing of Roe v Wade. To this day they hold it up as the dam-wall that is holding back the floodgates of oppression... but what they fail to acknowledge is that Norma McCorvey (the "Roe" in Roe v Wade) has realized that she was a pawn for an evil purpose; and she is haunted daily by what she did. She has been on a crusade to see Roe v Wade overturned ever since. Unfortunately, the voice of her "benefactors" drown her out "in her name".

A Call to Arms

2007-04-20T13:51:00.000-05:00

Everyone is very aware of the tragedy of the Virginia Tech shooting spree, the backlash of which is a call to get rid of the Second Amendment and to Ban Guns.

These knee-jerk reactionaries fail to understand the reason why the US has the second amendment. So to put it plainly and clearly... An armed populace is the best defense against a tyrannical government. It was the belief of the founders, and still the belief of many Americans, that the right to keep and bear arms is essential to liberty. Furthermore, it is essential to the defense of life, and property.

Essentially, you have to understand that every law abiding citizen will adhere to gun laws... but you have no fear of the law abiding. Criminals intent on killing are not concerned about breaking gun laws. Think about it... if someone is willing to kill 32 people, do you really think he cares if he gets caught doing it with a gun?

People often associate a desire to own a gun with some kind of Freudian “penis thing”, but the reality is Freud stated “Fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.” We now understand why Liberals are always so full of hate and anger.

Some people claim that the Second Amendment is out of date, but I would retort that the right of a person to protect his life, liberty, and property is never out of date. It is also not out of date to protect yourself from a tyrannical government.

You may be thinking… “We live in a ‘Civilized Democracy’… what do you mean by ‘Tyranny’”; Well, have you ever heard of Waco, Ruby Ridge, or Kent State? A Democratic State can be as tyrannical as any other.

I also take great pleasure in knowing that if our government collapsed tomorrow, ANY Nation in the world would be hard pressed to launch an invasion. Do you know why? Because the citizens would rise up armed and ready.

Another thing to consider is this… Our civil liberties are being eroded because we are not being good stewards of them, and we allow incidents like these to limit them in the name of "security" or some other “good cause”. The reality is these bits of “feel good” legislation are nothing more than placebos that are robbing us of our liberty. Gun Laws are to Liberty what Placebos are to curing illness… using them may make you feel like you are accomplishing something, but in the end the problem only gets worse.

The problem is that many want to blame a killer’s method of killing instead of the killer. The delusional believe that if only guns were not easily available mass killings would stop.

The 9/11 Hijackers obtained their box cutters legally. Those box cutters were used to kill more people in a single mass killing than any other seen in US History. Literally 100 times the body count of Cho's killing spree.

Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people with a bomb he made from over the counter, readily available items. Ryder Trucks are pretty easy to come by too.

To be honest, the moment I heard of the shootings at VT I was expecting two things:
1. A call to ban guns and/or tougher gun laws.
2. A call to ban violent games and/or a campaign against violent games.

Both, of course, are happening.

Shakespeare's writings are extremely violent, as are Bible stories... should we blame these things for the violence someone inflicts. John Hinkley tried to assassinate Reagan because of an obsession with Jodie Foster (and a link to the movie Taxi Driver). Did Jodie Foster or Taxi Driver cause this to happen... no, a sick mind did (Martin Scorsese... you BASTARD!!!).

Did Hamlet cause mass poisonings to break out across Europe... no.
Did MacBeth cause people to go around unseaming men from the nave to the chop... no.
Did the rate of teen suicide dramatically increase because of Romeo and Juliet... no.
Did pixies jack with us because of A Midsummer Night's Dream... no.

Aside from video games, here are other common factors associated with many of these "troubled" individuals... More often than not they are:
1. Smart
2. Make good grades
3. Come from troubled homes/relationships
4. Are social misfits
5. Have vivid imaginations

Therefore; by this reckoning... we should ban Star Trek Conventions.

Divine Intervention or Luck?

2007-04-13T14:18:00.000-05:00

A horrific accident reveals another horror... underneath the overturned semi is a crushed car. The Fire and Rescue Crew lift up the trailer to find what some would describe as the miracle of God... others, only luck. You decide which it was.

The Right to Secede

2007-04-10T09:58:00.000-05:00

I had someone say to me once that Texas vs White settled the issue of the Confederate State's right to secede, claiming it was "Unconstitutional".

This is bunk... the decision was in fact rendered by the Supreme Court in a 5 to 3 decision; however all 5 who rendered the decision were Lincoln appointees who sought to validate Lincoln's decision to go to war. Note that the decision was rendered at the height of the first Reconstruction while Texas was still under military occupation.

The case was brought by the Satellite Texas Governor to prevent payment of Federal Bonds disposed of by Confederate Texas in payment for supplies.

The Supreme Court ruled the Governor could sue because Texas never ceased to be a member of the United States thereby stating that the secession ordinance was void... (My essay "A Nation Under Occupation" proves otherwise.) Besides, the Supreme Court contradicted themselves when they wrote:

"The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States"

Furthermore, it is my understanding that this decision was overturned in Morgan vs United States.

To state that legal scholars look at Texas vs White as controversial, suspect, and questionable would be to understate it considerably.

To put it in locker room plain English, this was a part of the Reconstruction Federal screw-job. Besides... here is all the proof we need to show that we had the right:

From the Texas Constitution:
"All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit and they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may think expedient; and, therefore, no government or authority can exist or exercise power within the State of Texas, without the consent of the people thereof previously given; nor after that consent be withdrawn."

For specific details, review the following:

From Legal Encyclopedia:
Texas v. White

In the aftermath of the Civil War, several questions about the legal status of the Southern states that had seceded from the Union remained unanswered. These questions included whether these states had, in fact, left the Union, whether the acts of the secessionist governments had legal effect after the war, and whether the imposition of military rule by the president and Congress on these states during the postwar Reconstruction meant that the states were not fully restored to the Union.

The Supreme Court addressed these issues in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700, 19 L. Ed. 227 (1869), which involved a dispute over the payment of U.S. bonds. In 1850 Texas had received $10 million in bonds from the United States in settlement of boundary claims. The bonds were payable to the state and redeemable after December 31, 1864. Texas law required the governor to endorse the bonds before they could be redeemed or transferred. When Texas seceded from the Union in 1862, however, the Confederate legislature repealed the gubernatorial endorsement requirement and established a military board to sell the bonds to finance the war effort.

In 1865 George White and John Chiles, among others, purchased the bonds in exchange for cotton and medicine. None of the bonds were endorsed by the governor. After the war the people of Texas convened and established a constitution under which they elected a governor in 1866. The convention also authorized the governor to seek recovery of the bonds. In 1867 Congress enacted the Reconstruction Acts, which created five military districts in Texas, each with a military commander. The military rule was imposed to ensure the restoration of civil peace in the Southern states and to protect the rights of the newly freed slaves.

Texas filed suit in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking recovery of the bonds sold to White and Chiles and subsequently resold to citizens of many states. The state also asked that the United States be enjoined from paying the bonds because they had not been endorsed by the governor and were past due when presented for payment. White argued that Texas had no right to bring the suit and that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case because Texas's status as a state had changed due to its secession during the Civil War. Thus, federal law was not applicable at the time the bonds were transferred.

The Supreme Court rejected the bondholders' arguments. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, in his majority opinion, held that the Constitution "in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States." Once a territory gained admission to the Union as a state, its relationship to the Union was perpetual and indissoluble unless terminated by revolution or consent of the states. Therefore, the secession of the insurgent government from the Union was void. Texas remained a state during the Civil War, and its citizens were still citizens of the United States.

The defeat of the secessionist Texas regime left Texas without a lawful government, and its rights as a member of the Union were suspended. The Court ruled that under the Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution the U.S. government had the right to provide Texas with a republican form of government. Hence, the president was authorized to establish a provisional government. This action, which had been ratified by Congress in the Reconstruction Acts, buttressed the federal government's right to oversee the post-Civil War South.

Based on these principles, the Court easily disposed of the substantive issues. The Court held that the state had retained title to the bonds. The contract made by the illegal secessionist government with White and other bondholders was void, as this government had no legal authority to make the contract. The bonds themselves were not negotiable because they were not endorsed by the governor. The repealing statute enacted by the Confederate government was void because of its illegal purpose. The bondholders who had purchased the bonds from White and Chiles could be denied payment because they had assumed a risk of bad title, as the bonds were already past due and were sold at a price substantially lower than face value.

From Encyclopedia of American History:
Texas v. White

Texas v. White, 7 Wallace 700 (1869), was an attempt by the RECONSTRUCTION governor of TEXAS to prevent payment on federal bonds disposed of by the secessionist state government in payment of supplies for the Confederacy. The SUPREME COURT acknowledged the governor's competence to sue on the ground that Texas was now, and had never ceased to be, a member of "an indestructible Union"; hence the ordinance of SECESSION was void. But the Court denied the power of the secessionist government to dispose of state property for purposes of rebellion. The decision was overruled in 1885 in Morgan v. United States.

From Wikipedia.com

Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) was a significant case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The Court held in a 5–3 decision that Texas had remained a state of the United States ever since it first joined the Union, despite its joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision in the case. It further held that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".

During the war, the secessionist government of Texas had sold U.S. bonds after passing an ordinance repealing a requirement that the governor of Texas endorse the bonds before redeeming them. The case was brought by the state of Texas to recover the bonds that had thus been transferred to White, Chiles, and several others. The issue of whether or not Texas was a state of the United States had bearing on whether or not the Supreme Court had jurisdiction in the case.

The court's opinion was authored by Chief Justice Salmon Chase, himself a former cabinet member under Abraham Lincoln and leading figure in the northern government during the American Civil War. Based on his previous position, many southerners questioned Chase's impartiality and believed he should have recused himself from the decision. While legally binding, the court's decision was extremely controversial and remains so to this day. Many former Confederate officials such as Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens as well as legal theorists such as Lysander Spooner rejected the court's reasoning and defended the right of states to secede.

The main rationale for the argument that states could not legally secede was derived from the Articles of Confederation's description of the American Union as perpetual. This, combined with the current Constitution's expressed goal of creating a more perfect Union, suggested that the United States was now more perfectly perpetual. Also cited was the statement in Article Four of the United States Constitution that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." This implies that Texas would always be a state, distinct from its government (since the Constitution refers to a state as having a government rather than being a government). This also suggested that the Constitution could work to ensure states remain intact and to regulate state governments. As the Court wrote, "The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States." Hence Texas would still be a state even when laws are passed saying it is independent. Such laws would be "absolutely null."

The court did allow some possibility of the divisibility of the Union in the following statement:

The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

A dissent was written which, while denying Texas remained a state, claimed not that Texas had successfully seceded but that she had become a "conquered province". Precedent was cited that a state is defined as an entity with representation in the United States Congress. During the Civil War, Texas had lost that representation. Thus, her status had become more analogous to a Native American tribe than to a state.

Chief Justice Chase (1864), Justice Swayne (1861), Justice Miller (1862), Justice Davis (1862), Justice Field, (1863) were all President Lincoln appointees who essentially validated Lincoln's decision to go to war with the Confederate States of America after the war's cessation in 1865 which also makes this decision controversial.

I got a fetus, and I know how to use it

2007-03-23T21:31:00.000-05:00

"Texas Lawmakers want to pay women $500 to choose adoption over abortion"
(see news story below or at link at top)

I have a problem with this on so many different levels. I appreciate the "good intentions" behind it... but I think this is a long wrong road they are trying to travel.

Ignoring the feminist rants against this, my reasons for not liking it include:
1. The lawmaker cited "We want that lady to have an incentive that makes her stop and think about having an abortion..." How about the incentive of sparing a life... if she is going to think nothing of killing her own child, she should think nothing of giving it away to someone who will take care of it.
2. Many poor women do not have to pay for having a baby due to medicaid, and they get WIC as they get close to term... $500 might seem tempting. I don't like the idea of creating a baby market... that's why there are laws against selling babies for adoption.
3. It will be $500 today, and then (as time curries favor) the price will begin to rise... as "$500 will not be enough for what the poor mother has to endure to bring that child to the world". The coercive ultimatum will be "raise the amount, or they'll abort".

...can I get a receipt for that?

From: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,260741,00.html

Texas State Lawmaker Wants to Pay Women $500 to Choose Adoption Over Abortion

Friday, March 23, 2007

AUSTIN, Texas — A proposal by state Sen. Dan Patrick would pay pregnant women $500 for choosing adoption over abortion.

The anti-abortion Houston Republican said Senate Bill 1567 would provide an incentive to forgo abortion, but critics questioned whether such payments would be viewed as baby selling or coercion.

"We want that lady to have an incentive that makes her stop and think about having an abortion and that gives her a reason to put her baby up for adoption," Patrick said. "My goal is to save as many babies as we possibly can."

Critics of the bill, which has not yet been scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, said the idea of paying women to choose adoption oversimplifies the decision they face.

"This is insulting to women and also insulting to all the great charitable organizations out there that do wonderful work finding adoptive parents and taking care of the birth mother," said Fran Hagerty of the Women's Health and Family Planning Association of Texas.

Joe Pojman of the anti-abortion group Texas Alliance for Life also expressed caution.

"We just need to make sure there isn't even the perception of baby buying going on," Pojman said.

It's against Texas law to offer to give a thing of value to another for acquiring a child for purposes of adoption.

Patrick disputed any portrayal of the bill as baby selling.

"We're just giving someone an incentive to put your baby up for adoption," he said. "Then the baby goes through the normal adoptive process."

Adam Pertman, head of the adoption-policy group Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, said women facing adoption need to be able to weigh all options equally.

"You let women respectfully make the best decision they can at an excruciatingly difficult time. Introducing money into the mix can be coercive," Pertman said.

William "April" Ellison

2007-03-16T12:20:00.000-05:00

William “April” Ellison was born in 1790. At age 10 he was apprenticed and trained as a cotton gin builder and repairer; furthermore, he spent six years training as a blacksmith and carpenter. During his apprenticeship, William was also taught how to read, write, cipher, and do bookkeeping.

By the time William was in his late twenties, he went into business for himself as a master cotton gin builder/repairer; and by 1860 William owned, not only his gin shop, but a large cotton plantation and as many as 60 slaves. William Ellison had managed to climb from abject poverty to being one of the top 10% wealthiest people in all of South Carolina, was in the top 5% of land ownership, and was the third largest slave owner.

When war broke out in 1861, William was one of the staunchest supporters of the Confederacy. His grandson joined a Confederate Artillery Unit, and William turned his plantation over from being a cotton cash crop to farming foodstuff for the Confederacy.

Ellison died in December of 1861 at the age of 71, and per his wishes, his family actively supported the Confederacy throughout the war. Aside from producing foodstuff for the Confederate Army, they contributed vast amounts of money, paid $5000 in taxes, and invested a good portion of their fortune into Confederate Bonds.

After the war, the Ellison family fortune dried up and the family returned to the impoverishment the Ellison patriarch knew in his youth.

The story, in-and-of itself is not all that remarkable… save for one fact. William “April” Ellison was a black man, born in slavery. He was born “April” Ellison; acquired his freedom at the age of 26; and took the first name of his former master “William”.

Something the modern history books seem to leave out is the following facts (as of 1860):

1. Roughly 6% of the total population in the South owned slaves (some census reports show 4% to 5%).
2. Roughly 1.6% of the free black population in the South owned slaves.
3. Of the 4.5 million blacks living in the entire US, roughly 4 million lived in the South. 261,988 of these Blacks were free (6.5%).
4. 10,689 free blacks lived in New Orleans, and of those, over 3,000 owned slaves (that’s 28% of the black population of New Orleans).
5. Most slave owners owned from 1 to 5 slaves.
6. Most southern slave owners worked the field beside their slaves.
7. Only the top 1% of slave owners had 50+ slaves. These are called “Slave Magnets”.
8. There were 6 black “Slave Magnets” in New Orleans alone… one owned at least 152 Slaves.
9. The average wealth of a southern white man was $3,978 dollars (this would be total worth). The average wealth of free blacks was $500.
10. In South Carolina 125 blacks owned slaves, with 6 owning 10 or more.
11. In North Carolina 69 blacks owned slaves.
12. Slavery was still practiced in the North until the ratification of the 13th amendment to the Constitution.
13. There were over 200 slaves in the North.

A few more interesting facts:

1. Ulysses S. Grant, Commanding General of the Union army owned slaves until the 13th amendment forced him to free them.
2. Robert E. Lee, Commanding General of the Confederate army did not own slaves.
3. Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy had a black foster son that he raised as his own until Union soldiers seized the child… the Davis family tried desperately to see him returned but the Union refused to allow it. He died never knowing the fate of his foster son.

The point of all of this is simple… Slavery was not a white problem; it was not a southern problem; it was an AMERICAN problem.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

2007-03-11T00:58:00.000-06:00

This movie is a nice answer to Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" ("Convenient Lie" would be a better title).

Sit back , relax, and remember... it's not your fault.

Great Global Warming Swindle

What Are You Prepared To Do?

2007-03-02T12:17:00.000-06:00

In the not-so-distant past, Men would rise up to answer the call to fight for what they believe in. They would risk capture, torture, and death to fight for a noble cause. These Men would march underpaid, underfed, with no shoes on their feet to secure the freedoms we take for granted.

Our forefathers left behind their homes and families; their jobs and hobbies; their comfort and happiness because they had a higher calling.

Family homes were burned, lives were crushed, the seeds of sorrow were planted, but our heroes remained stern in the face of adversity.

Today, we are faced with no less a threat than they… however, we have grown complacent. We have our jobs, and our homes, and football practice. We schedule hunting trips, and doctor’s appointments.

Between catching “American Idol” on TV, spending time with the kids, dropping the dog off at the vet, and trying to have a quiet cup of coffee with our wife, our time is spent.

We have so much on our plate; it is hard to fit in that epic struggle to secure our liberties. We vote, and we give grand speeches, and we send emails, and we poke holes in the air with our fingers when we get excited… but we really don’t have the time necessary to fight the struggle proper; we’ll get to it eventually—besides, we have a lawn to mow.

Is this how we want to be remembered? Do we want our grandchildren living in a Marxist’s Hell looking back and asking “Why? Why didn’t they have the time?”

If we are truly committed to find liberation, then we have to ask ourselves… “What are we prepared to do?” Are we prepared to be inconvenienced? Are we prepared to sacrifice our homes, our jobs, and our financial security? Are we willing to fight and die to secure liberty for the ones we love? Are we ready to honor our forefathers by rising up and doing ALL we can do to secure the blessings given us by Almighty God?

Each and every one of us needs to look in the mirror and ask ourselves these questions. If we cannot make our struggle to free our country from the bonds of the Beast our top priority, then can we really call ourselves Confederates?

If I were arrested tomorrow and my home burned to the ground; would you rally to fight, or would you simply send an angry email to your friends? What did we do when women and children were burned to death in Waco? What did we do when a wife and child was killed in Ruby Ridge? What will we do tomorrow?

We were given the cause. We were given the means. We were given the knowledge. What are we prepared to do with it?

Either we stand as one to do ALL we can to succeed, or we get in the corral with the rest of the sheep. Stand or be sheared.

The Pledge

2007-02-17T13:57:00.000-06:00

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

We know these words by heart. We have said them countless times as we have grown through our lives. We have recited this Pledge as a part of our Patriotic duty, and to honor our Nation. We have done these things without fully knowing, understanding, or comprehending where these words came from; what they mean; or why they exist.

Once we learn the basic elements of Who, What, When, Where, and Why of those things we take for granted, or do from habit, we may then feel like fools for having done it. Because of the fear of being foolish, we often refuse to accept certain truths… even when the evidence is irrefutable.

What truth am I referring to? Why should anyone feel the fool for reciting the glorious Pledge? My answers may surprise you; they may even anger you; but they are the truth nevertheless.

Francis Julius Bellamy, a Baptist Minister and Cousin of Edward Bellamy, wrote the Pledge of Allegiance in 1892.

The original Pledge was a bit different than the one recited today:
I pledge allegiance to my flag and (to) the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The Pledge was to be recited using the “Bellamy Salute”, a salute akin to the way Roman Soldiers would salute the Caesar. The right hand was over the heart while reciting “I pledge allegiance”; at the point in which “to the flag” was recited, the arm was extended to the flag, where it would remain for the duration of the rest of the Pledge.

The Pledge was published in the leading family magazine of the day, “The Youth’s Companion” at the behest of Daniel Ford, the owner and editor.

The Pledge was then used officially during programs for Public Schools during a celebration of Columbus Day in 1892. Francis Bellamy was chairman of the committee of state superintendents of the NEA (National Education Association), so implementation was considerably easy; especially considering President Harrison set forth a proclamation making it so.

By 1898, a movement was underway to put a US Flag in front of every school in America. The goal was to boost a sense of Nationalism and Patriotism in the children. By 1905 Northern States began passing laws requiring Schools to fly the flag (the South refused to based, most likely, on their contempt for the flag of the Union).

In 1923, the National Flag Conference changed the words of the Pledge from “my flag” to “the Flag of the United States of America”… Bellamy protested, but the change was made. The purpose for the change was to insure that immigrants knew for certain which flag they were giving their allegiance.

In 1940, the Supreme Court ruled that students in public schools could be COMPELLED to recite the Pledge, even if they objected to it on religious grounds. In light of the riots this caused, in 1943 the Supreme Court reversed itself and made exception for religious objection.

In 1945, the US Congress made the Pledge of Allegiance an official National Pledge.

In 1954, President Eisenhower authorized the words “under God” to be inserted into the Pledge.

With basic history of the Pledge now behind us, we have, at least, skimmed the surface of the Who, What, When, and Where; and for the most part, you are probably not all that bothered or alarmed by most of what you have read.

It is when we dig deeper into the “Who”, and begin touching upon the “Why” that this seemingly benign bit of history begins to become upsetting.

Edward Bellamy was the author of Socialist Utopian novels. His cousin, Francis Bellamy was a socialist, who dreamed of making Edwards Utopia a reality.

Francis Bellamy used his pulpit to further his socialist agenda, and was eventually kicked out of his Church for his ardent socialist sermons and stances.

Daniel Ford was not only the owner and editor of “Youth’s Companion”, but was a member of Bellamy’s congregation; who was greatly impressed by Bellamy’s socialist’s philosophy and sermons. Daniel Ford went on to found the Ford Hall Forum… a socialist forum dedicated to educational organization and public involvement.

The “Youth Companion”, began selling flags to schools to solicit subscriptions and promote the Pledge. The magazine became the leading campaigner on behalf of the Pledge… thrusting it into the very fabric of American society. The campaign was headed by James Upham, Daniel Ford’s nephew.

James Upham, a socialist, was an ardent campaigner for the Pledge; and implemented many ideas that brought the Pledge into the American culture.

Now that we know a little more about the “Who”, lets move on to the “Why”:

It was the belief of Francis and Edward Bellamy that in order to bring about a socialist Utopia, you must (as all manipulators of society knows) indoctrinate the children. It was vital to them to instill in the children an overwhelming sense of Nationalism, and Patriotism; a loyalty to State… a single Nation, not a federation of sovereign States.

Bellamy was very careful in his wording of the Pledge. Each and every word meant something specific, and every specific word was meant to bring about the idea of his Utopia.

I pledge allegiance to the flag and the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, indivisible…
“The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the "republic for which it stands." ... And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation – the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches.”—Francis Bellamy

…with liberty and justice for all.
An American take on a French Revolutionary idea “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”. Bellamy referred to the French Revolution as “the poetry of human brotherhood”. The French Revolution is a study in socialism.

Bellamy wanted the Pledge to be a vow to State; garnering the idea from the “loyalty oaths” that were thrust upon Confederates as they were conquered by Lincoln’s army; and throughout the reign of Reconstruction.

The love of the State, Bellamy believed, should override the love of individuality and liberty, as those things would stand in the way of achieving the socialist utopia.

“America suffers too much liberty, and not enough equality”—Francis Bellamy

It was Bellamy’s contention that the public school system could be used as a means to teach blind obedience to the State. The National Education Association was a means to that end.

We now know the Who: Socialist
We now know the What: The Pledge
We now know the When: 1892 to the present day
We now know the Where: the “freest” country in the world
We now know the Why: To bring about a socialist utopia by indoctrinating the children into a love of State (Nationalism) over individual liberty.

It seems they were successful, for how many people speak out against the encroachment of their liberties out of fear of being called “unpatriotic”? How many people do you know who get angry if you do not say the Pledge, because they accuse you of not loving America? Why do men fight and die, is it for love of liberty, or love of Country?

The Pledge is, on its face, a very UN-American thing to do. If we are to pledge ourselves to anything, it should be the Constitution and the liberties it guarantees; not to the State, which seeks only to centralize its power and strip away the freedoms we take for granted.

(Note: See the effect Bellamy and the Pledge had on Hitler... including the use of the "Bellamy Salute" which is now associated as the Nazi Salute. The Bellamy Salute was done away with in 1950 due to association to the Nazi's; it was replaced by the modern practice of covering the heart with the right hand.)

Feminism: A Scourge on Society

2007-02-06T15:06:00.000-06:00

I am sure if you asked most people what the Feminist Movement was originally about, they would say “equality” or “oppression”, and so on. What if I were to say that it was not, is not, and never will be about that?

What if I were to tell you that the second wave of feminism, which launched in earnest with the release of Betty Friedan’s 1963 book “The Feminine Mystique”, was actually a manufactured (or inflated) movement steeped in Marxism, used as a deliberate means to tear down American society, and aid in the coming of the “New World Order”? Would you say I was crazy, or a conspiracy theorist, or off my meds..? What if I gave you evidence of such a thing? Would your ingrained view of the world allow you to accept it? Can you step back and look at the world we live in today, and juxtapose it to the world of even 30 years ago?

“Destroy the family, and you destroy society.” – Lenin

Before I begin to make my case, allow me to refresh you on a few things, including names of major players, and warnings from the past.

Refer to:

http://opinetime.blogspot.com/2007/01/new-world-order.html

http://opinetime.blogspot.com/2006/12/coming-of-new-america.html

Keep in mind what the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, and the Council on Foreign Relations is; what their agenda is, who runs and finances these groups, and who its members are.

A sampling can be seen here:

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Foundation)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Foundation)

The Rockefeller Foundation is a major supporter and financial contributor to the Feminist Movement from its beginnings to present day; including the funding and support for “Women’s Studies” (aka Feminist recruitment and indoctrination centers) at Universities throughout the country.

In 1958, a young activist and writer named Gloria Steinem was recruited by the CIA (Agent Clay Felker, who would go on to be an editor for feminist publications) for the purpose of promoting American involvement in a World Youth Festival, a Marxists/Globalist gathering of youths from various nations.

I do not know the exact purpose the CIA (with backing by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations) had for sending Gloria Steinem in—though, it in part had to do with using such efforts as a “nursery school” for potential, future CIA employees and agents; Gloria’s purpose for going was, to some extent, to further her socialist beliefs.

“I have sued twice to hide my CIA ties.”—Gloria Steinem (included in the law suit in support of Steinem was Clay Felker and Ford Foundation President Franklin Thomas)

“Our main misconception about the CIA is that it serves US interests. In fact, it has always been the instrument of a dynastic international banking and oil elite (Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan) coordinated by the Royal Institute for Internal Affairs in London and their US branch, the Council for Foreign Relations.”—Henry Makow

With her CIA connections in tow, Gloria Steinem attained media attention, financial backing, and sponsorship of a media outlet (MS magazine, and others) for the purpose of promoting Feminism in the United States, and the rest of Western Civilization. Though she tried to paint herself as a “radical”, she kept some very “establishment” bedfellows… literally, having dated Stanley Pottinger, Attorney General during the Nixon and Ford administrations; and Secretary of State Henry Kissenger (who, oddly enough are/were both members of the CFR).

The Rockefellers had a great interest in seeing the feminist movement prevail; for in keeping with Freneau’s Rules:

#10: Divide and govern. Establish classes of people, and keep them at odds with one another. A "majority vote" can be established by pandering to one class or another for the purpose of the question at hand.

#16: Keep the people asleep so as not to discover your true intentions; or divide them so they cannot resist.

The immediate goal of those who want to bring about a “New World Order”, is to destroy the family unit, because they believe that in order to prevail you must separate Man from his God, his family, his traditions, and his responsibilities so that you create an automaton that no longer has a will or reason to fight.

Strong families make strong communities. Strong communities keep government in check. If you break down society, you can easily centralize power. The “Globalists” seek to break down families and allow government to attain greater and greater control of everyday life.

“Let me tell you what that [the feminist movement] was about, we the Rockefellers funded that, we funded women’s lib, we’re the ones who got all of the newspapers and television – the Rockefeller Foundation.” – Nicholas Rockefeller

“[We did it for two reasons] One, before women’s lib the bankers couldn’t tax half the population; and two, because it allowed us to get children in school at an earlier age, enabling them to be indoctrinated into accepting the state as the primary family, breaking up the traditional family model.” – Nicholas Rockefeller

It is also the contention of the Rockefellers that the world is too overpopulated, and that the population must be decreased so that they can be more easily controlled.

This is also why feminism has entrenched itself so tightly to the Homosexual Movement, whose aims are the same; and who are funded and backed by the same people. Together they tear away at tradition, family, and marriage.

Feminists and the Media have done a great job of making the populace believe that Feminists stood for the empowerment of women and the equality of all… but this is nothing less than a bold-faced lie.

Or put another way… “[Feminism is not] about equal opportunity for women. It is a thuggish, devious synthesis of Marxism and lesbianism used by ruling elites to undermine individuals and weaken society. It is to society what AIDS is to the body.” — Feminism Defined, by Bruce Eden of Divorce Reform in New Jersey

Take a moment and read it in their own words; I will return at the end for some final remarks:

“No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” – Simone de Beauvoir, feminist leader

“The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men.” – Alison Jagger, feminist leader

“In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.” – Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and professor at Wellesley College.

“[If we destroy the family unit] Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare.” – Roxanne Dunbar, feminist author

“We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.” – From “Sisterhood is Powerful” (1970)

“Families make possible the super-exploitation of women by training them to look upon their work outside the home as peripheral to their ‘true’ role.” – Andrea Dworkin, feminist leader

“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.” – Sheila Cronan, feminist leader

“…women give up whatever ghost of a unique and human self they may have when they marry and raise children.” – Phyllis Chesler, feminist leader

“Marriage is just another form of prostitution.” – Barbara Ehrenreich, feminist activist and author

“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."— Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."— Catherine MacKinnon

"In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent." — Catherine MacKinnon

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." — Robin Morgan, (editor of MS magazine)

"Female heterosexuality is not a biological drive or an individual women's erotic attraction or attachment to another human animal which happens to be male. Female heterosexuality is a set of social institutions and practices... Those definitions... are about the oppression and exploitation of women [by men]."— Marilyn Frye

“…[I]t is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. — The Declaration of Feminism, November 1971

"By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God" — Gloria Steinem, editor of 'MS' magazine.

"God is going to change. We women... will change the world so much that He won't fit anymore."— Naomi Goldenberg

“Marxism and Feminism are one, and that one is Marxism” — Heidi Hartmann and Amy Bridges

“Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.” – Catharine A. MacKinnon, Feminist Law Professor at University of Michigan

“Prime purposes of feminism are to establish a lesbian-socialist republic and to dismantle the family unit.” — The Declaration of Feminism

"Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that" — Vivian Gornick, feminist author

"Only when manhood is dead - and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it - only then will we know what it is to be free.” — Andrea Dworkin.

"The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist."— National Now Times, Jan.1988

Feminism has been, is, and forever will be the scourge of society…

'...Women's liberation, if not the most extreme then certainly the most influential neo-Marxist movement in America, has done to the American home what communism did to the Russian economy, and most of the ruin is irreversible. By defining between men and women in terms of power and competition instead of reciprocity and cooperation, the movement tore apart the most basic and fragile contract in human society, the unit from which all other social institutions draw their strength.' — Harvard Professor Ruth Wisse

Feminism is not unlike Nazism… “Even the language of the [feminist] movement mirrors the mood of fascism. The apocalyptic and hate-filled rhetoric of radical feminists expresses their eagerness to inflict harm.” — Robert H. Bork

The Globalists are no fools, they understand what every dictator, fascists, or totalitarian understands, and Hitler so knowingly stated…

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." -- Adolph Hitler

Get the mothers at odds with the fathers. Get the mothers out of the homes. Get the children out of the wombs or get the children to indoctrination rooms.

Here is what feminism has accomplished in the last 46 years (revised and corrected):

POINT 1: Feminist have helped destroy marriage.

(this statement cites its references... from an AP News story, emphasis mine)
"America's divorce rate began climbing in the late 1960s and skyrocketed during the '70s and early '80s, as virtually every state adopted no-fault divorce laws. The rate peaked at 5.3 divorces per 1,000 people in 1981.

But since then it's dropped by one-third, to 3.6. That's the lowest rate since 1970.
What's fueling that decline? According to 20 scholars, marriage-promotion experts and divorce lawyers consulted by The Associated Press, a lot of things.

The number of couples who live together without marrying has increased tenfold since 1960; the marriage rate has dropped by nearly 30 percent in past 25 years; and Americans are waiting about five years longer to marry than they did in 1970." (In other words... divorce rates are dropping during recent history due to less people marrying.)

The stats provided from the US Census Bureau supports this...

"Recent US scholarship based on such longterm (sic) tracking,
reported for example in the New York Times on April 19,
2005, has found that about 60% of all marriages that result
in divorce do so in the first decade, and more than 80% do
so within the first 20 years; that the percentage of all marriages
that eventually end in divorce peaked in the United States at
about 41% around 1980, and has been slowly declining ever
since, standing by 2002 at around 31%. Some have attributed
this decline to the popularity of co-habitation (sic) without marriage."

Guess who pushed for "No Fault Divorce"? Need a hint? Feminists.

The National Association of Women Lawyers (a feminist organization) according to their website: http://www.abanet.org/nawl/about/history.html

""The greatest project NAWL has ever undertaken" is the description given by committee chair Matilda Fenberg to NAWL's pioneering work to create a Uniform Divorce Bill." ...and

"In 1965, the Conference commenced the task of drafting, and in 1970 produced, the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act (amended in 1971 and 1973). By 1977, the divorce portions had been adopted by nine states. Following this, the momentum for uniformity waned, but the ideal of no-fault divorce became the guiding principle for reform of divorce laws in the majority of states." (When did divorce rates skyrocket? Oh yeah, late 60's, 70's, and 80's... the reigning era of the second wave feminists)

POINT 2: There has been a dramatic rise in promiscuity among teenage girls.
There was a poll of NYC teens and the promiscuity rate hit 90% among girls in some high schools.

Further polls... such as one conducted by NYC Magazine showed the promiscuity rate at 61%.
A poll by Planned Parenthood shows the number to be 57%.

Zogby polls showed a 79% promiscuity rate by college age (18 - 19); 61% have multiple partners starting from as young as 15.

NY Times poll showed the number to be 75%.

According to the CDC the promiscuity rate among teen girls in 1960 was 4%. That is an increase to (using the lowest modern numbers) 14.25 times the rate in 1960.

POINT 3: The teenage pregnancy rates have risen DRAMATICALLY since 1960.
According to (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf ) the teenage pregnancy rate was 95.1 per 1000 in 1972, down to 75.4 by 2002-- which was largely attributed to birth control.

According to the University of New Mexico School of Medicine... the number of teenage pregnancies will reach approximately 1,000,000 with roughly 1/3 ending in abortion, 1/3 ending in miscarriage, and the remaining 1/3 will come to term. More than half of these pregnancies are to girls under 17 years of age. According to studies by the March of Dimes... 17% will go on to have a second child within 3 years.

The March of Dimes study went on to state that 11% of all births in the US are to teenage girls.

There is no specific data on teenage pregnancy rates of 1960, but according to the CDC the number of ALL unmarried women (i.e. ALL age brackets) was 15.3 per 1000 (in other words, ALL the unwed pregnancies of ALL ages in 1960 is roughly 1/5 the current rate of TEEN pregnancy of the "declining number" today).

POINT 4: Since Roe v Wade the number of aborted babies is 48,589,993.
The rate of abortions in 1972 was 19.1 per 1000, up to 42.3 in 1986, and down to 21.7 in 2002. In 1965 (first available data) was .07 per 1000 pregnancies. So from 1965 to 1972 the abortion rate jumped roughly 273 times higher than the 1965 rate. As of 2002 the abortion rate was 310 times higher than in 1965.

According to the National Right to Life website, the total number of abortions since Roe v Wade is 48,589,993.

POINT 5: As the NY Times headline reads "51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse".
According to RECENT reports (reported here http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/us/16census.html?ex=1326603600&en=8b6192126c472ee5&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss and http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/16/eveningnews/main2365036.shtml ) the rate of unmarried women has now risen to 51%.

POINT 6: The rate of Cervical Cancer has been rising 3% per year since 1986 even though the rate and intensity of pap smears has increased (i.e Cervical Cancer has dramatically increased due to "two types of HPV that cause the majority of cervical cancers worldwide").
According to the Department of Health and Human Services
"The two-decade quest for the underlying causes of cervical cancer could be considered a scientific success stories, culminating last June in the Food and Drug Administration approval of the vaccine Gardasil, which protects against infection from the two types of HPV that cause the majority of cervical cancers worldwide."

The rate has been rising 3% per year since 1986 even though the rate and intensity of pap smears has increased (Encyclopedia.com).

See also (http://opinetime.blogspot.com/search?q=+What+every+woman+should+know...+but+the+feminists+won%27t+tell+you )

POINT 7: A dramatic rise in Breast Cancer since the 1970's (attributed to a change in mating and reproductive habits).
According to Cornell University, the Breast Cancer rates in 1976 was 110 per 100,000 and in 1996 was 135 per 100,000. It is now 129 per 100,000. In 1960 the rate was 50 per 100,000.

According to www.breastcancer.org 1 in 20 women had breast cancer in 1960; now 1 in 8 do.

More info at: http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/BrCaFF2001.pdf

POINT 8: Sperm Counts are dropping... there is SOME debate as to SOME estimates and the root cause.

Can I scientifically link this to the rise of feminism... probably not; but I do find it interesting it is happening over the course of the last couple of decades in the wake of the rise of feminism. This along with other provable factors of the negative impact of feminism, I am inclined... theoretically to say that it has to do with the emasculation of men by feminism.

According to http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/312/7040/1183/a:
"The studies, published in the May (1996) issue of Fertility and Sterility, did not refute estimates that sperm counts were falling worldwide. But they do cast doubt on some previous estimates of levels among US men."

Okay... "did not refute estimates that sperm counts were falling" "cast doubt on SOME previous estimates of levels among US men". This indicates that "A" sperm counts are falling, and "B" there is doubt on SOME estimates of levels among US men specifically... not all.

Now modern (not 1996 reports) are stating that Yes, US sperm counts are dropping but they are saying it is possibly attributed to mother's eating beef (but their not sure)... (like Mom's didn't do that in previous decades).

POINT 9: Dropping Testosterone levels in Men.
Again, can I scientifically link this to the rise of feminism... probably not; but (once again) I do find it interesting it is happening over the course of the last couple of decades in the wake of the rise of feminism. This along with other provable factors of the negative impact of feminism, I am inclined... theoretically to say that it has to do with the emasculation of men by feminism.

Dropping Testosterone levels are at a "dramatic decline in the last two decades". Furthermore "The researchers concluded that the decline in testosterone "does not appear to be attributable to observed changes in explanatory factors, including health and lifestyle changes such as smoking and obesity.""

http://www.endocrinetoday.com/200702/frameset.asp?article=decline.asp

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/92/1/196

POINT 10: Roughly 50 Million abortions since 1973, and a tripling of maternal filicide cases since 1950 = Dramatic rise in women murdering their own children.
In addition to the murder of roughly 50 Million babies... feminists are also making excuses and enabling people like Andrea Yates and the woman who just recently hung her children in a murder suicide (http://www.wbir.com/news/national/story.aspx?storyid=45708 ). They cite how these women are actually the victim, are not accountable due to post partem depression, etc. The feminist hold them up as saints, and use it to justify abortion... you don't have to do much research to discover this.

Since 1950 filicide has tripled. According to FBI crime statistics, from 1976 to 1999 30% of children under 5 were murdered by their mother.

The list can go on and on, but the evidence is clear. The collective “They” are succeeding in their goals.

My Trip to Austin

2007-02-03T11:14:00.000-06:00

I spent the day at the Capital in Austin on Friday. I went there with the intention of interacting with hundreds of SCV (Sons of Confederate Veterans) on their "Legislative Action Day". My hope was to discuss the Confederate Movement and garner recruits.

I met with one of my contemporaries from Bryan, and we went to where the SCV was to gather. No one was there.

We went to see if they had gone on to the session of the Senate. The Senate was not in session. However, children doing mock events were there.

We went to see if they had gone on to the session of the House. The House was not in session. However, children doing mock events were there.

I looked to my colleague and said, "there can be no 'legislative action day' without a legislature; I think the SCV is going to be a 'no show'". I had checked all of my sources and I definitely had the right day and time. I definitely had the right place. My colleague checked his sources, and verified the same information. Regardless of how "right" we were, the event was not going to happen.

I was disheartened, a 5 hour trip (one way), the cost of gas, meals, a motel room... I then decided to turn lemons into lemonade. This was the first time I had ever been inside the Capital Building. I walked around, taking my own little tour.

My colleague then suggested we go see our representatives... he had read my mind! We went to find them. They weren't in... after all, neither house was in session. We went to see the President Pro Tempore. He was in Houston. My colleague wasted no time though... everyone we spoke with ended with them getting a brief summary of who we were, what our intentions were, and he handed them his card. This happened in various offices, this happened to a little old man directing traffic; in fact, between my colleague handing out cards, our name tags, and all the discussions we were having, few would not of known who we were.

After about an hour or so of walking a marathon, he being a man of extended years, and me being a man of extended weight, decided that we were tired and would eat lunch in the cafeteria.

We sat down and began eating and discussing politics, the role of government, the future of our movement, how we needed to educate the masses that "Confederate" was not a dirty word, and so on.

As we were speaking to each other in a lively, friendly way, a group of about 10 High School kids sat at a large table next to us. My friend and I were engulfed in conversation and barely noticed the looks we were getting from the kids.

One of the kids, who happened to be black, turned and looked to us with a burning look of anger. This, of course, caught my eye. The other kids seemed to be prompting, or encouraging, him in a supportive, loving way. The young man then turned and said to us "Why do you have to do that?"

"Do what?" I asked.

"Its STUPID! Its STUPID, for you to do that!" He said.

"What do you mean?" I asked again.

"Why do you wear that flag? Why do you use that name?" He was getting bolder now.

"Its RACISTS! Its RACISTS!!" He is now very angry and attracting the attention of other tables.

He then points at my friend... "You are a racists!" My friend replies, "No, your the racists as you are the one putting race into this".

They were then firing back and forth "you're a racists... no you are... no you" back and forth. My friend's desire was to simply be left alone to eat. I saw an opportunity.

I intervened in the exchange and stopped it. I then looked to the table full of kids and asked, "What is racists about it?" I received the typical response, the one I was expecting... "Slavery".

I then began to answer their questions, discuss topics, and my friend joined in. Before long, we had half of them gathered around us, including the angry boy, like an enthralled audience at a cliffhanger. The other half was listening, but nervously so. The peripheral audience gave varied responses... tables full of blacks, rolled their eyes and walked away... tables full of whites gave the cocked, confused puppy look, and so on.

At one point, I even pointed out to the angry young man, that my friend and I were in the midst of discussing the inherent God-given rights of ALL men regardless of color, when it was he that "pre-judged" us. I pointed out the irony to him, which was not lost. He understood it.

We spoke to the kids for almost two hours, and when it was over, notes were taken, personal research and homework was eagerly sought by the kids, the angry black boy was now comfortable with us. A few adults that had pulled up chairs behind us unnoticed, asked us which class we were teaching... I replied "Oh, we aren't teaching a class, we just met these kids." The adults were stunned in light of what they were witnessing.

The boy that initiated our contact asked for my phone number and email; and as my friend and I decided we had a long trip ahead, and rose to leave; the kids were disappointed to see us go. They eagerly shook our hands, with wide friendly smiles.

The once angry boy looked at me eye to eye; I could see the hint of tears, and he shook my hand once more and said, "I am sorry I called you a racist." I smiled, patted him on the shoulder and said, "that's alright son." I turned to the entire group and said "I know you may think we're crazy, but we respect you. You are very bright young ladies and gentlemen. You are very respectful and polite. Your school and your parents should be very proud."

We then walked away, and the kids began to scramble to their laptops, and an intense discussion group.

It turns out those kids were at the Capital Friday as a part of Youth in Government. They were there to learn about history, politics, the function of Government and the Constitution. They were there as future leaders of Texas, perhaps the United States. Friday they received a lesson that wasn't on the agenda. They learned there is more than what you learn in school. They also learned to not judge anyone they meet solely by what they see.

It turns out that my trip to Austin was far more successful than I ever would have imagined.

The Birth of Slavery in the New World

2007-02-02T23:34:00.000-06:00

It was common practice in the early days of Colonization of the New World for the wealthy to sponsor the poor for passage to the New World. In exchange for passage, the poor would become an indentured servant for a limited amount of time (usually 2 to 7 years).

After their term of service, an indentured servant would receive their freedom and a modest plot of land to call their own.

Anthony Johnson came to Jamestown in 1619 as an indentured servant; and within 4 years, he worked off his debt and settled down with his wife as a land owner. By 1651, Anthony Johnson became wealthy enough to sponsor 5 individuals for passage to the New World. The sponsorship not only garnered Anthony workers, but also increased his land holdings by 250 acres in headrights.

Unlike his contemporaries, Anthony Johnson put a twist in the normal sponsorship, when he outright purchased one of his wards (an African) as a slave.

Within a year or two, John Casor (the slave) pleaded with a local farmer (Robert Parker) to save him. Casor stated that Anthony Johnson had sponsored him as an indentured servant and that he had worked off his debt, but Mr. Johnson refused to release him.

Outraged, Robert Parker took John Casor under his wing. Anthony took Parker to court. After a year and a half court battle, the English Court had to make a ruling on something they never had before… whether a man could possess another man as chattel.

In 1654, the decision was rendered, and the court ruled that “seriously consideringe and maturely weighing the premisses, doe fynde that the saide Mr. Robert Parker most unjustly keepeth the said Negro from Anthony Johnson his master....It is therefore the Judgement of the Court and ordered That the said John Casor Negro forthwith returne unto the service of the said master Anthony Johnson, And that mr. Robert Parker make payment of all charges in the suit.”.

John Casor had become the first ever slave of the New World Colonies.

The People of Jamestown, and elsewhere, began to see the benefit and cost savings of purchasing Africans outright for a life of servitude, as opposed to sponsoring freemen for a limited duration, and slavery was underway in force.

The above story is not spectacular, nor does it give rise to gasps of shock or surprise; what should surprise and shock you however is this…

Anthony Johnson, the man responsible for slavery in the New World was not named Anthony Johnson; that was the name he adopted upon arriving in the New World. Anthony Johnson signed on as an indentured servant under the name “Antonio, a Negro”. You see, slavery was birthed in the New World by a black man from Africa.

I am sure that this accomplishment will not be the subject of a Black History Month special.

Enumerated Powers

2007-01-31T15:32:00.000-06:00

The Government of the United States is to have limited powers which are specifically enumerated in the Constitution; however, the Government has grown far beyond those powers granted them.

The People have become so complacent that they do not realize that this has happened; or even worse, they are apathetic about the fact.

Some would argue that the Constitution does not specifically limit the Government; however, those people would be horribly wrong.

The framers of the Constitution were very specific about the powers of Government; and purposefully limited them. They gave Government specific powers because to give them implied powers would be to pave the way to tyranny. The framers insured the people not only specific rights, but all implied rights.

I back up my statement with the following:

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

Amendment X
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.

The Constitution delegates specific powers to Government; yet protects all the rights of the people, whether they are enumerated or not.

I will further press my case with this:

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." --Thomas Jefferson

...and this:

"Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." --Thomas Jefferson

...and this:

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." --Thomas Jefferson

If you are tired of Jefferson, how about Madison, the author of the Constitution:

" With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted"-- James Madison

...and this:

"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."-- James Madison

...how about this, from the first session of the first Congress of the new Constitution:

'We must confine ourselves to the powers described in the Constitution, and the moment we pass it, we take an arbitrary stride towards a despotic Government."-- James Jackson

...If that doesn't make my case, how about another opinion from the author:

"Resolved, That the General Assembly of Virginia, doth unequivocally express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic ... That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them."-- James Madison

I am no Constitutional Scholar, but I would say my interpretation is spot on.

The Government has specifically enumerated powers, none implied.

A good example of how the Government over-exerts authority:

The Government wields a significant amount of financial power... but much of it is Unconstitutionally taken. The Constitution lists very specific powers that each branch of government has.

Article 1, Section 8 lists 18 Specific Powers Congress has, these DO NOT include:

1. The power to set a minimum or maximum wage.
2. The power to set interest rates.
3. The power to set hiring practices.
4. The power to give entitlements to business.
5. The power to have a graduated tax (our current Income Tax) as all taxes must be uniform throughout the US.
6. The power to set up a central bank (especially one privately owned, such as the Federal Reserve).
7. The power to regulate commerce WITHIN any State.
8. The power to bail out corporations.
9. The power to subsidize farmers.
10. The power to regulate what is farmed or ranched.
11. The power to regulate prices.

...the list goes on and on. We could then move on to areas other than financial and find a whole other list of things they don't have the power to do that they do anyway.

"We the People" have been lax in our duty to keep the power of Government in check.

The Flag of Many Colors

2007-01-16T14:40:00.000-06:00

It is the modern day perception that the Confederacy was comprised of a bunch of slave owning, racist, uneducated, hillbilly white boys. The reality of it is this… The Confederacy was comprised of Whites, Hispanics, Indians, Jews, and Blacks. That’s right, Blacks were a part of the Confederacy too… and not only, as some of you may assume, in the capacity of slave.

In 1861 the CSA formalized relations with “The Five Tribes” that were settled in what is now the State of Oklahoma. The Five Tribes (Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole) were official members of the CSA and were to have Oklahoma as their own sovereign state, with its own Constitution written by them. Additionally, the Indians were to be treated as a Confederate Citizen with the right to purchase, hold, and freely travel the lands of the CSA.

Here is an excerpt from the 1861 CSA Cherokee Treaty:

“The Confederate States of America, having accepted the said protectorate, hereby solemnly promise the said Cherokee Nation never to desert or to abandon it, and that under no circumstances will they permit the Northern States or any other enemy to overcome them and sever the Cherokees from the Confederacy; but that they will, at any cost and all hazards, protect and defend them and maintain unbroken the ties created by identity of interests and institutions, and strengthened and made perpetual by this treaty.”

“It is hereby further agreed by the Confederate States that all the members of the Cherokee Nation, as hereinafter defined, shall be henceforward competent to take, hold, and pass, by purchased or descent, lands in any of the Confederate States, heretofore or hereafter acquired by them.”

The 5 red stars represent the 5 Tribes

Roughly 65,000 Blacks served as Confederate Soldiers, with Jefferson Davis seeking a goal of enlisting up to 300,000. The Blacks that served were comprised of both slave and free. The free Blacks were paid the same as White soldiers and were entitled to the same benefits, unlike Blacks in the Union army. In fact, Frederick Douglas even commented

“There are at the present moment many Colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but real soldiers, having musket on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down any loyal troops and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government and build up that of the rebels.”

Furthermore, Frederick Douglas gave a warning to Abraham Lincoln that if he could not capture slaves and then guarantee them freedom and land bounties “they would take up arms for the rebels.”

Note: The first military monument in the US Capital to honor a Black soldier is the Confederate Monument in Arlington National Cemetery. The monument also depicts a White soldier giving his child to a Black woman for protection.

A Black Confederate Veteran

More than 13,000 Hispanics fought on the side of the Confederacy, as did over 3000 Jews.

The next time someone tells you that the Confederate Flag is a symbol of racism; you can gently remind them of the efforts of Men of all colors, all creeds, and all walks of life that fought under that flag. You can tell them that they fought for liberty and to preserve the Democratic Republic of our forefathers. You can remind them that the Confederate Flag is a Flag of many colors: Red, White, and Blue.

Did anyone else notice?

2007-01-11T15:19:00.000-06:00

Last night President Bush gave a speech to the Nation... the World really, on his strategic change in Iraq. The thing I found interesting is this statement (the added emphasis is mine):

"Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

We're also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence-sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region."

It seems that in his speech on Iraq he was mostly focused on Iran. In fact, in his speech on IRAQ he mentioned "Iran" 6 different times. In plain view he told you what he is doing, and why.

While we are muddled in Iraq, Bush is getting us ready for a war with Iran. For the past 5 years or so I have been predicting it would happen; and it probably would have sooner if the Iraq War had not taken the turn that it did.

Consider this... in the excerpt above from Bush's speech, he plainly states (in context) that in order to win in Iraq he has to address Iran and Syria. He is moving the focus from Iraq, to Iran now being the problem; with Syria in the batter's box. He is stating that in order to win in Iraq he will have to "disrupt" attacks on our forces (i.e. the ones via Iran), and "interrupt" the flow of support (from Iran). In order to do this he is deploying an additional carrier strike group and a Patriot air defense system.

Think about this for a moment... the attacks in Iraq are via IED's. Since when do you take out IED's with an aircraft carrier and Patriot missile defense? The additional 20,000 troops should be able to sweep the neighborhood, root the terrorists out, and secure the city. An additional carrier, Patriot missile defense, working with Turkey, and "prevent(ing) Iran from gaining nuclear weapons" kind of paints a clear picture as to what is to come.

Remember Freneau's Rule #12:
"Perpetuate external dangers requiring the need for a standing army and an enlarged establishment. Even military defeats can be used as a political victory"

For more on Freneau, see (http://opinetime.blogspot.com/2006/12/coming-of-new-america.html)

A New World Order

2007-01-02T17:21:00.000-06:00

On March 6^th, 1991 President George H.W. Bush gave a speech that was truly notable. It was not a notable speech due to its poetic elegance, nor due to its passion, or inspiration; the speech was notable because of a single phrase: “New World Order”.

To keep this in context and perspective, here is an excerpt from that speech:

“The consequences of the conflict in the Gulf reach far beyond the confines of the Middle East. Twice before in this century, an entire world was convulsed by war. Twice this century, out of the horrors of war hope emerged for enduring peace. Twice before, those hopes proved to be a distant dream, beyond the grasp of man.

Until now, the world we’ve known has been a world divided – a world of barbed wire and concrete block, conflict and cold war.

Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order. In the words of Winston Churchill, a "world order" in which "the principles of justice and fair play ... protect the weak against the strong ..." A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations.

The Gulf war put this new world to its first test, and, my fellow Americans, we passed that test.”

There have been elements in America that have sought to destroy what was established in 1776 since day 1. Some sought to return to a Monarchal system of government, some sought a Marxist’s style government, some want it all… a One World Government.

Now we all understand that for multiple nations to form into a single governing body will require a lot of time, patience, subversion, the inclusion of men of stature to give it credibility, and a means to motivate the masses to embrace the idea.

An Englishman by the name of Cecil Rhodes had a dream to see the United States returned to the British Empire. To further his goals upon his death, he established the Rhodes Scholarship which would bring 32 Americans to Oxford (his alma mater). However, not just any Americans could come; the Americans so chosen had to have great literary and scholastic skills (which makes perfect sense); the energy and desire to use their talents to the fullest; have a fondness and success in sports; have a moral force of character and leadership abilities; sympathy for the weak; and a devotion to duty.

These “Rhodes Scholars” would be groomed to be leaders in American Politics, Academics, and Business.

Others eligible to receive Rhodes Scholarships were citizens of British Colonies, and Germany; the thought being that “an understanding between the three great powers (Britain, the US, and Germany) will render war impossible”.

Note: 32 Americans a year were to be accepted… the scholarships awarded to citizens of the British Colonies and Germany totaled 27.

In 1939, as World War 2 began, Rhodes Scholar and Marxist Clarence Streit wrote a book called “Union Now” (http://www.constitution.org/aun/union_now.htm). “Union Now” advocates a gradual move to a World Union by means of regional unions (aka EU, North American Union, etc.) starting with a union between Britain and the US. Committees were established across the US (forming the group “Federal Union”) and over two million Americans signed petitions asking for a union with Britain (which then evolved to all of Western Europe).

The Federal Union and its supporters were instrumental in several key areas:

In close cooperation with President Roosevelt helped move the US from neutrality to intervention in WW2.
Helped with the formation of the United Nations.
Helped create NATO.

In 1949, Federal Union created the Atlantic Union Committee with former Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts as chair. The goal of the Committee was to persuade Congress to hold a federal convention like the one held in Philadelphia in 1787 (the formation of the US Constitution over the Articles of Confederation).

Note: Former Under-Secretary of State, and author of the “Marshall Plan”, Will Clayton and former Secretary of War Robert Patterson were Vice Chairmen.

Note: The Marshall Plan was the primary plan of the United States to rebuild Europe.

Note: The development of the European Union had begun formation in earnest about the time the AUC was created.

The Atlantic Union Committee managed to have an Atlantic Union Resolution brought before Congress beginning in 1949; being reintroduced every year well into the 1970’s.

Supporters of the Resolution included: Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Adlai Stevenson, Eugene McCarthy, Nelson Rockefeller, and Henry Kissenger, as well as a majority of Congress. In fact, in 1973 the act failed by only 13 votes.

Note: The Rockerfeller family have provided free accommodations and financial support to this project since 1939.

In 1961 the Atlantic Union Committee dissolved, however the Federal Union is still alive and well. In 1985 Federal Union was renamed “The Association to Unite the Democracies”.

Besides, there are plenty of organizations interlinked via Rockefeller’s and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), including the United World Federalists (whose supporters included Harry Truman, Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Nixon, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Justice William Douglas, and Ronald Reagan).

You may be thinking… “what does this have to do with President G.H.W. Bush’s speech, or politics of today?” I’ll sum it up for you.

We have been heading toward the end of a Democratic Republic for a very long time. As stated earlier, “for multiple nations to form into a single governing body will require a lot of time, patience, subversion, the inclusion of men of stature to give it credibility, and a means to motivate the masses to embrace the idea”; and those cards have all been laid out nice and neat.

Time: Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists set things in motion beginning 1787… the plan is coming to fruition over 200 years later.
Patience: Generation after generation picked up the torch and carried it under various names, under the training and tutelage of Government School Systems, Rhodes Scholarships, Reconstructionist’s History, “Noble” Organizations, and Nationalism.
Subversion: Eroding liberty and seeking to attain their goals under the guise of “ending slavery”, “preserving the Union”, “ending the depression”, “fighting tyranny”, “General Welfare”, the “War on Poverty”, or the “War on Terror”.
Credibility: Hamilton is on the $10, Lincoln is on the $5, modern bringers of the “New World Order” are Rhodes Scholars, Justices, Presidents, Congressmen, Senators, givers of Charity, and members of the media you invite into your home every single day via TV and Radio.
Motivation: It is always packaged to sound so good “Emancipation Proclamation”, “Reconstruction, “New Deal”, “Great Society”, or “New World Order”.

Now consider the words President Bush used in 1991:

“A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders.”

Remember who those founders were… Marxists and World Federalists.

Perhaps all of this goes a long way to explaining why President George W. Bush (our current President) referred to the US Constitution as “just a goddamn piece of paper”.

After all, these men have been wiping themselves with it for a very long time.

Sources:

Time Magazine: March 17, 1941:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,765254,00.html

Government Website:

http://www.loc.gov/rr/mss/text/atlantic.html

Streit Council:

http://www.streitcouncil.org/content/about_us/History/atlantic_union.html

The Rockefeller File by Gary Allen

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/gary_allen_rocker/index.html#metatop

Wikipedia

www.wikipedia.com

The North American Union enters our schools

2006-12-31T10:31:00.000-06:00

The Arizona State University has put up a web site (http://www.asu.edu/clas/nacts/bna/index.html) to assist "educators" in setting up a curriculum to "educate" students about the vast benefits and desirability of a North American Union. The University is working in cooperation with organizations that lead to David Rockefeller... "Rockefeller". In case that name does not immediately send off alerts, might I give you a little reminder (http://opinetime.blogspot.com/2006/12/coming-of-new-america.html).

Furthermore... in case you are thinking I am "reading too much into this"... here is a quote from David Rockefeller's book "Memoirs" (2002):
"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world , if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and am proud of it"

Do not ever say you were not warned.

What is Kwanzaa?

2006-12-29T14:14:00.000-06:00

What is Kwanzaa?

In the past few years, the celebration of Kwanzaa has been gaining stature within the United States; which may lead many of you to wonder “What is Kwanzaa, and where did it come from?”

Kwanzaa is a holiday that was created, and first celebrated on December 26^th, 1966, by a man by the name of Ron Everett (aka Ron Karenga, aka Maulana Karenga).

Items of note about Ron Everett:

He is a Marxist political activist.
He is the founder of the United Slaves organization (a rival to the Black Panthers).
A member of the Black Power movement.
He anointed himself “maulana” which is Swahili for “master teacher”.
He is a Black Nationalist who authored the mission statement for the Million Man March.
An argument between his US organization and the Black Panthers ended with two Black Panthers shot dead by US members.
He kidnapped, raped, and tortured two of his female US organization members.
At his trial a psychiatrist’s report stated “This man now represents a picture that can be considered both paranoid and schizophrenic with hallucinations and illusions, inappropriate affect, disorganization, and impaired contact with the environment.”
He invented Kwanzaa as a secular humanism practice, asking all Blacks to reject other practices as mythical.
In 1977 he set forth the seven principles of Kwanzaa based in Marxism.

The Seven Principles of Kwanzaa are:
Umoja (unity)—To strive for and maintain unity in the family, community, nation, and race.
Kujichagulia (self-determination)—To define ourselves, name ourselves, create for ourselves, and speak for ourselves.
Ujima (collective work and responsibility)—To build and maintain our community together and make our brother's and sister's problems our problems and to solve them together.
Ujamaa (cooperative economics)—To build and maintain our own stores, shops, and other businesses and to profit from them together.
Nia (purpose)—To make our collective vocation the building and development of our community in order to restore our people to their traditional greatness.
Kuumba (creativity)—To do always as much as we can, in the way we can, in order to leave our community more beautiful and beneficial than we inherited it.
Imani (faith)—To believe with all our heart in our people, our parents, our teachers, our leaders, and the righteousness and victory of our struggle.

So, to sum up, Kwanzaa is essentially a Marxists Black Nationalists Anti-Religious Holiday invented by a delusional, paranoid schizophrenic, kidnapping, raping, torturing, Marxists, racist.

Yet in 1997 the US Post Office issued its first Kwanzaa stamp, and in 2001 George W. Bush issued the first ever Presidential Kwanzaa message.

Makes you wonder how long it will be before there is a “Beheading Americans Day”… maybe the Post Office will issue a stamp.

What part of “Illegal” don’t you understand?

2006-12-27T10:39:00.000-06:00

Liberals fighting for the illegal aliens as if they were doing nothing wrong…

All in a push toward the North American Union:

Rosy Outlook for Our Kids!

2006-12-23T23:25:00.000-06:00

Remember Freneau's Rule Number 16:
Keep the people asleep so as not to discover your true intentions; or divide them so they cannot resist.

Those who are in the "establishment" do not want you to speak the truth; they do not want you to hear the truth; they most assuredly do not want you to know the truth; that is why they will ridicule you every time you bring truth to the table.

Here is an interesting video perspective from an angry Canadian citizen:

...This is the Big One

2006-12-21T13:11:00.000-06:00

In the early days of American History, men would see before them a worthwhile cause, or an unanswered tyranny, and they would rise up en masse to battle it. They would risk all but their honor to fight for what they believe in.

Today there exists a much different breed of men. The men of today are willing to point out the problem… but few are actually willing to do anything constructive about it.

I have seen this behavior in most (not all) “movements” and third parties. It would take many words to describe to you the history I have had arguing with these people, trying to motivate them to get up and ACTUALLY accomplish something constructive… but it would be much easier to reference a movie that says it all… Monty Python’s “Life of Brian”.

In case you have never seen the film, let us say that many (not all) right wing movements and third parties are like the People’s Front of Judea (the PFJ) from “The Life of Brian”.

Allow me to set up the scene…
Brian (the protagonist of the film) has, through happenstance, found himself about to be crucified by the Romans. Judith (Brian’s love interest) seeks to rescue Brian by alerting her PFJ brother’s in arms.

Let us say for this example that Brian represents our Democratic Republic; the PFJ (et al) represents the various movements and third parties; the Romans represent everyone that is destroying our Democratic Republic; and Judith represents you and I.

--[At the PFJ Headquarters a meeting is underway]

REG (PFJ leader)
Right, now, eh. Item four: attainment of world supremacy within the next five years. Eh, Francis, you've been doing some work on this.

FRANCIS
Yeah, thank you, Reg. Well, quite frankly, siblings, I think five years is optimistic, unless we can smash the Roman Empire within the next twelve months.

REG
Twelve months?

FRANCIS
Yeah. Twelve months. And let's face it... as empires go, this is the big one, so we've got to get up off our arses, and stop just talking about it.

PFJ
Hear, hear!

LORETTA
I agree. Its action that counts, not words, and we need action now.

PFJ
Hear, hear!

REG
You're right. We could sit around here all day talking, passing resolutions, making clever speeches; it's not going to shift one Roman soldier.

FRANCIS
So let's just stop gabbing on about it, it's completely pointless, and it's getting us nowhere.

PFJ
Right!

LORETTA
I agree. This is a complete waste of time.

--[Judith runs in, panicked.]

JUDITH
They've arrested Brian!!

PFJ
What?

JUDITH
They've dragged him off. They're going to crucify him.

REG
Right! This calls for immediate discussion!

JUDITH
What?!?

REGULAR
Immediate.

DIET
Right.

LORETTA
New motion?

REG
Completely new motion; Eh, That, ah; That there be, ah, immediate action...

FRANCIS
... ah, once the vote has been taken.

REG
Well, obviously once the vote has been taken, you can't act on a resolution 'till you've voted on it!

JUDITH
Reg, for God's sake, let's go now, please!

REG
Yeah, yeah; Right, right… In the, in the light of fresh information from, ah, sibling Judith…

LORETTA
[taking notes] Ah, not so fast, Reg.

JUDITH
Reg, for God's sake, it's perfectly simple… All you've got to do is to go out of that door now, and try to stop the Romans nailing him up. Its happening, Reg! Something's actually HAPPENING, Reg! Can't you understand? Yaaargh! [She rushes out in a rage.]

FRANCIS
Oh… Oh, dear.

REG
Hello... and a little ego-trip for the feminists.

LORETTA
What?

REG
Ah, oh, sorry, Loretta. Ah, read that back, would you?

--[Brian proceeds to get crucified… the end]

So what is the point of this… simple, I am telling you that time is running out… “this is the big one, so we've got to get up off our arses, and stop just talking about it.”

The Light is Shining on Darkened Corners

2006-12-10T18:27:00.000-06:00

Now that the Government has been unable to fully bring about the North American Union unnoticed, they are now applying Freneau's Rule Number 15: "...Charge every man who even thinks that revolution is at hand as being the enemy. Repeat the charge over and over again until such confusion and uncertainty occurs in the people, that they are unaware of where the truth lies. Remove the attention of the people away from the contest at hand."

In other words... (according to the Government) everyone who has discovered what is going on and is sounding the alarms are "Conspiracy Nuts" or "Extremists".

CNN Video: Lou Dobbs Reports on the North American Union.

Orwell's Vision Coming True

2006-12-07T22:03:00.000-06:00

Well, everyone is justifiably up in arms about the reintroduction of Hate Crime Legislation; however, you should all be aware of other Hate/Thought/Diversity Legislation that is (or will be) pending before Congress this year:

The Department of Peace and Non-Violence Act
This Act has huge support in the House and quite a bit in the Senate. It is relatively brief, but goes a long way to bringing Orwell's vision of the future to life.

The Anti-bullying Campaign Act:
This one is aimed at reducing bullying in school based on any "distinguishing" characteristics of an individual. Basically, it is Hate Crime Law for schools.

Other Scary Items on the Agenda:
The Universal National Service Act:
An act to forcibly conscript every US Citizen (and others simply Residing in the US) between the ages of 18 and 42 into two years of National Service.

Justice for the Unprotected against Sexually Transmitted Infections among the Confined and Exposed Act:
Condom distribution in prisons; with a prohibition on Prison's from taking action against it.

Gas Stamps Act:
Like Food Stamps... only for Gas.

National Health Insurance Act:
Increased property and services tax to pay for medical services.

Freedom of Choice Act:
Constitutional right to an abortion... including late term abortions.

A Living Wage, Jobs for All Act:
A Constitutional right to a job and a living wage.

Health Security for All Americans Act:
Universal Health Care

Living American Wage Act:
Mandates the minimum wage = 112% of the Poverty Level, revised every 4 years.

Media Ownership Act:
Removes private ownership of media outlets and allows the government to regulate content.

Universal Education Act:
Creates a Universal Education Corporation that gives tax money to foreign countries that enter into education reform agreements with the US.

Medicare for All Act:
Increases Income Tax and Tax on Employers to give Medicare to all people legally in the US.

Amendments to the Constitution Proposed:
1. Constitutional right to a free public education (including College).
2. Constitutional right to housing.
3. Constitutional right to full employment.

The Federal Union is making its move... how much longer are you going to wait to make yours?

"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."-- Samuel Adams