Wednesday, December 10, 2008


The S*H*I*T Has Hit the fan IN Canada

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 6:20 AM

Something I need to throw in here that may be VERY important... .
I live in Illinois - where our governor just got arrested yesterday on numerous
corruption charges, and at this point, the mainstream media is saying that Obama
is not involved...
I got an unusual call from one of my local contacts to give me a 'heads up' on
coming events.. He says that HIS contact in Springfield (capitol) called him last
week and told him to watch the news, and that "in four days you'll see Blagojevich
in handcuffs".
Since that happened yesterday morning, and he's pretty awake on what's going on
in the rest of the world, he wanted to tell me what else he had been warned about
by this same person...
His contact says that Obama IS complicit on some of these charges, but that they are
waiting for his arrest until January 20th - the minute he finishes being inaugurated as
President. This way they could get maximum media coverage worldwide.
Imagine for a moment what kind of civil unrest and rioting would ensue by those
feeling 'disenfranchised' ...
Can you say 'Martial Law'?
New World Order Police State here we come!
-------Original Message----- --
Date: 12/10/2008 1:36:29 AM
Subject:] VERY IMPORTANT!!! The S*H*I*T Has Hit the fan IN Canada

This message was sent by J Douglas Fisher
The Morris County Campaign for Liberty
The S*H*I*T Has Hit the fan IN Canada

*VIDEO LINK: com/watch? v=8UNhhsMARJg

Canada right now is going through major political upheavel. Our current Prime Minister (equivalent to your President) released a new budget, in his budget he did not put in a stimulus package which all other political parties were calling for. The only thing he did was on numerous fronts cut the funding to all our other political parties. This was a very calculated move on his part. By doing what he did, he forced the other parties in our
Parliment to form a coalition to oust him as the leader. Why would he do that? Well, as Prime Minister, when he feels Parliment (same as your congress) is disjoined he can call a prorogation, a prorogation is a closing of Parliment (congress). In doing this, he has NO oversight by them, and can do as he pleases. He has called for and recieved his prorogation.

The Prime Minister has 6 weeks before he has to call Parliment back - Which takes us to January 27, 2009.

Now, lets move onto some key facts that are relevant:

1. Colin Powell stated on national tv there would be an event either January 21 or 22.

2. Joe Biden stated in a $25,000/plate dinner, thinking he wasn't being taped "Mark my words, Obama will be tested, if you only take one thing from my talk here tonight, take this, January 21, or 22 there will be an orchestrated event that will test Obama...." Not exact words, but I am sure you have heard this speech.

3. I don't know if you know what the SPP is, but in its most basic form it is this, Canada, US and Mexico are collaborating on many fronts to utilize each countries strengths to "help" each other, Canada's resources, US security forces, and Mexico's manpower.

4. A document that was just released yesterday, but dated February 14, 2008 was a part of the SPP, it was signed by the US and Canada, stating that either, nuculear, chemical, or biological attack, or PROPERTY DAMAGE, would allow for troops from each country to enter the other, and police the citizens.

5. Our Prime Minister, can do this without oversight of Parliment for 7 days AFTER Parliment has seated, if they are in session it must be within 7 days, if they are out of session, they have till 7 days AFTER they have seated.
Going on the 21st date, adding they will not sit till the 27th, and then 7 more days If there is ANY type of reason for our countries to "help" each other it will be done without any approval until Febuary 4th. After which time it may be to late to pull back on any agreements we have been involved in for 14 days at that point.

6. The constitution, the congress, and senate, have essentially lost all power through presidential directives already in the US.

7. I live near a heavily populated city in Western Canada. Starting today, we have seen an HUGE increase in military. Let me be clear here, we NEVER see military around. It is being posted all over the place, people dont know what is going on. Even craigslist has people writing posts about it, ( I dont know if you know what craigslist is).

Although I know you KNOW that the shit is going to hit the fan Martin, I want to make you aware, that I have been waiting for signs other than what is going on in the US. I KNEW it would required more than stuff going on in your country, it HAD to involve my country as well to be successful. I could see no way for that to happen, I did not disbelieve, but our country has been extremely stable, and would have NO REASON WHATSOVER, to going into the NAU, and further the One World Order agenda, Propogated by our common enemy. I could see no reason for Canada to enter an agreement to police each others countries, to require your military, for your country to require our resources.

That reason has been created, we have MASS unstablitiy now, we have had MAJOR protesting starting today here, and the time is shorter than most think. We have very very little time.

I just wanted you to know what is happening here so that we may all understand.

I have taken it on assumption that you would be interested in my thoughts, if you are, and have any questions please feel free to contact me. I realize your countrymen are your utmost priority, but we may, like it or lump it, be countrymen soon as well.

Please make it clear, that ALL road blocks to a false flag attack, are now cleared!

Harper delays confidence vote, appeals to federalists

http://www.youtubecom/watch?v=LgLUiv. ..

Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America

L.A. CA GOP County Central Committee taken over by RP supporters!

A number of us took out papers to get on the ballot "somewhere." Others who were not registered Republicans registered just in time to become write-in candidates.
There were a couple of important meetings of the "insiders" (about 8 to 10 of us) and we wanted to have as many of "our" people there as possible so that we could have a quorum and elect the "right" people to RPLAC.
Anthony Cinelli almost blew the whole thing when he sent out an e-mail [Friday evening?] asking everyone to vote for him as 1st Vice Chairman. Linda Boyd called him within 30 minutes and wanted to know who was behind "this", etc. Anthony truthfully answered that he didn't know (because he hadn't attended any of the "meetings").
Yesterday, I went to the swearing-in ceremony, along with a number of other RP supporters. Many of us met at 7:45 a.m. at a restaurant where I notarized Oaths of Office. Later, at the Ronald Reagan bldg., however, we acted as though we didn't know each other, avoiding eye contact, no winkin', blinkin', or noddin', whatever.
Instead of starting at 10:00 a.m., the swearing-in ceremony didn't begin until 11:10 a.m. - and we were supposed to be out of the building by 1:00 p.m. The reason for the delay was there were so many people who hadn't sent Linda Boyd, at her home (instead of Republican headquarters), their Oaths. There was a LONG line waiting to sign in and/or have their Oaths notarized by a single Notary Public (who didn't do it right). Then, Linda left half of the name-badges home (which caused another delay because people were sorting through them looking for theirs).
Did I mention that Linda Boyd was so paranoid about having the swearing-in ceremony disrupted that she had two (2) CA Highway Patrolmen stationed at the entrance to the Reagan Building who were to reject anyone whose name wasn't on the list of "approved" persons. (As John Lynch, former L.A. Co. Assessor told me, "The CHP Officers had no business being there! If anyone, it should have been either LA Co. Sheriffs or LAPD."
When it came time to select a Temporary Chairman, Linda Boyd put up the name of the outgoing 1st Vice Chair (can't remember his name). Someone else put up the name of Al Han and Linda then announced that nominations were closed (even though she was supposed to have asked if there were any more nominations). When she asked how many were in favor of her candidate there was a loud YES but there was an even louder YES for Al Han. Someone who voted for Linda's candidate requested a re-count by standing for the candidates and counting the people standing. Linda's candidate received about 34 votes and Al Han had over 50. So that ended that.
Al Han was all about getting the job done and getting out on time. Instead of asking for nominations for chairmen of the credentials, resolutions, by-laws, and nominations committees, he asked for people who wanted to be Chairmen of each of the committees, then made an executive decision as to who would chair the cte. Then Al asked for five or seven people to stand for the committees they wanted to be on, randomly picking some and not others. (He didn't know me from Adam but picked me.)
The most important committee was the credentials committee. Sandra Needs (a long-time Republican activist and all-around good gal) and I stood together (we are both in the 49th Assembly District). Al appointed us and five others. We went through all the people who had signed in and checked their names against the Oaths of office.
THEN came the issue of which write-in candidates should be seated to vote. The credentials cte (according to the arrogant Chairman) usually took "about 2 - 3 hours" and he was making Al Han wait. The cte as a whole ran a few minutes over our time alloted (during the regular business) so we adjourned, along with the write-in candidates, just outside the auditorium to consider the fate of the write-in candidates - all RP supporters.
The pompous chairman of the credentials cte was being a pain and nitpicking. Vincent Mross made the best points: Was the RPLAC going by its own by-laws or was it going to follow the rules of the CA Secretary of State and the fact that the L.A. Co. Registrar issued certificates to the write-ins? Sandra Needs said forcefully that we were short on Republicans in certain Assembly Districts and that we should seat them. The chairman then asked the seven of us (my being the ONLY RP supporter) for a vote and four of us said to seat them. At that point, it was over for Linda Boyd.
After the Chairman of the Credentials Cte read the report to the assembly, wherein about 10 RP write-in candidates would be allowed to vote, Linda Boyd withdrew her name as nominee for Chairman and walked out with about 25 - 30 of her supporters. Earlier, the quorum (needed to conduct business) had been established at 70. Linda may have thought that the walk-out would have destroyed the quorum but there were 74 people after they left. YES, there is a God and He was looking out for us!
Glen Forsch was elected Chairman and things went even faster. Lydia Gutierrez was elected 1st Vice Chair, ROBERT W. VAUGHN was elected 2nd Vice Chair, ROGER ESHLEMAN was elected Secretary, CONNIE RUFFLEY was elected Ass't. Secretary, Gary Aminoff was re-elected as Treasurer, and Gwen Patrick was elected Ass't. Treasurer.
At that point, time was running short and it was after 1:00 p.m. Elections for AD Committees were completed but there wasn't enough time to elect committees for CA Senatorial Districts and Congressional Districts. The latter two will be done at the next meeting of RPLAC on the 2nd Thursday of January.
In all, Doug Boyd's portrayal of the "take-over" of RPLAC by "hangers on" and gays was completely untrue. Linda and her followers walked out BEFORE any RP supporters/write-ins had a chance to vote! In addition, RP supporters weren't responsible for the change in leadership of RPLAC. Others within RPLAC were discontented with Linda Boyd's heavy hand and hated chafing under her yoke.
The objective of the new leadership is to develop "good" candidates [who can carry the message of liberty, prosperity, and peace] and run them in the CA Assembly and Senatorial Districts, as well as the Congressional Districts! This is the opposite of "focusing" on certain races and expecting those successful candidates to grovel in order to obtain funds, etc.
As a side note, our dear Pat Dixon told me yesterday that since the election of BO, she has been shipping 12-14 issues a DAY of "Creature from Jekyll Island." People's eyes are being opened.
So, when partying this holiday season, lift a glass or two to the new RPLAC, G. Edward Griffin, our own dear Dr. Ron Paul and say, "God bless us, every one!"
Connie R.

I want to thank and congratulate all of you on a job well done, demonstrating that heart and doing the right thing will always prevail against corruptness and ulterior motives. For the write-in candidates, my hat is off to all of you. Who could have imagined that it would be your caring and willingness to BE the change that saved the day, made the difference. We fought more than most to become a part of the RPLAC as Committee Members. From the initial petitions to actually ALLOW write-in's, to getting our signatures for nomination, to finding people dedicated enough to write our names in on election day, to finally standing our ground yesterday against incredible top-down intimidation, you have all shown your unwavering commitment to not only each other and our Los Angeles GOP, but to the nation as a whole and the noble principles on which it was founded.

Like all great events in our countries history, it was the extra effort that made the difference. Others made the plans to elect a new leadership, executed them brilliantly. And when it was time for us to play our role, we did so with tenacity and resolve. When the dust settled, it was the write-in candidates that "sealed the deal", our numbers putting the quorum count at 74 members in attendance. Without 70 members present yesterday, nothing would have taken effect,
effectively causing the elections to become null and void. But, when they begun the standing count for quorum, to see one of our write-in candidates actually count out "70", be the difference, shift the balance, make the quorum, words can't describe how proud and honored I felt to be standing amongst you all. We made the difference, created the change we always talk about, and this, I know, is only the beginning.

Anthony C

Gun Control: Protecting Terrorists and Despots

Tragically, over the Thanksgiving holiday, the world was reminded how evil and cruel people can be. According to emerging accounts of the events in India, about a dozen well-armed and devastatingly well-trained terrorists laid siege on the city of Mumbai, killing almost two hundred people, and terrorizing thousands.

Regardless of the reasons, the indiscriminate shooting on masses of unarmed and defenseless people is chilling and reprehensible. How were these terrorists able to continue so long, relatively unchallenged, killing so many?

India’s gun laws are her business, of course. However, once the shock of these events and the initial reaction of fear passes, Americans should take away a valuable lesson about real homeland security and gun control from this tragedy.

Gun control advocates tell us that removing guns from society makes us safer. If that were the case why do the worst shootings happen in gun free zones, like schools? And while accidents do happen, aggressive, terroristic shootings like this are unheard of at gun and knife shows, or military bases. It bears repeating that an armed society truly is a polite society.

The fact is that firearm technology exists. It cannot be uninvented. As long as there is metalworking and welding capability, it matters not what gun laws are imposed upon law-abiding people. Those that wish to have guns, and disregard the law, will have guns. Gun control makes violence safer and more effective for the aggressive, whether the aggressor is a terrorist or a government.

History shows us that another tragedy of gun laws is genocide. Hitler, for example, knew well that in order to enact his “final solution,” disarmament was a necessary precursor. While it is not always the case that an unarmed populace WILL be killed by their government, if a government is going to kill its own people, it MUST disarm them first so they cannot fight back. Disarmament must happen at a time when overall trust in government is high, and under the guise of safety for the people, or perhaps the children. Knowing that any government, no matter how idealistically started, can become despotic, the Founding Fathers enabled the future freedom of Americans by enacting the second amendment.

In our own country, we should be ever vigilant against any attempts to disarm the people, especially in this economic downturn. I expect violent crime to rise sharply in the coming days, and as states and municipalities are even more financially strained, the police will be even less able or willing to respond to crime. In many areas, local police could become more and more absorbed with revenue generating activities, like minor traffic violations and the asset forfeiture opportunities of non-violent drug offenses. Your safety has always, ultimately been your own responsibility, but never more so than now. People have a natural right to defend themselves. Governments that take that away from their people should be highly suspect.

Feel free to leave a comment. Comments are moderated and may take several hours to appear.

Posted by Ron Paul (12-08-2008, 12:35 PM) filed under Civil Liberties

Police SWAT Team Holds Entire Family at Gunpoint for Hours

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 2:36 PM
Brannon Howse interviewed John Loeffler about his article on on why SWAT police, armed for riot control weapons, packing automatic rifles and armored for a terrorist response stormed a family food cooperative in Ohio.

Agents from the
State of Ohio Department of Agriculture with the S.W.A.T. team did not give any explanation to the family other than a warrant, did not provide them a phone call, did not charge the family with anything as they burst into their private home. But what they did do was make a big mess, taking over ten thousand dollars of merchandise with them, reported the IVN Bureau Chief.

"They were not read their rights… Over ten thousand dollars worth of food was taken, including the family’s personal stock of food for the coming year. All of their computers and all of their cell phones were taken, as well as phone and contact records. The food cooperative was virtually shut down. There was no rational explanation, nor justification, for this extreme violation of Constitutional rights." - John Loeffler, IRN/USA

Jack Otto: THe Sheriff, Posse Comitatus and the Militia

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 11:14 AM

I had a little extra time this weekend, so I transcribed one of Jack Otto's programs. Enjoy...

The Sheriff, Posse Comitatus, and the Militia

Jack Otto “Radically Right” Program
June 23, 2007
Filename: Otto_062307_ 200000.MP3
We’re going to talk about the Sheriff tonight, and specifically a law called Posse Comitatus which limits the scope of what government can do. They may not bring military people in upon us.
Here in America, the only true seat of government is the county, and the county sheriff is the highest lawfully sanctioned law enforcement officer in the United States of America. He can mobilize all men between the ages of 17 and 65 who are armed and in good health and not in the military service. Other may volunteer. The militia is that entire body of those inhabitants who may be summoned by the sheriff. Every man must serve when he’s called. The citizens called out of the militia for service are the sheriff’s posse. The full title of that body of law is called Posse Comitatus.
By definition the militia is free people with arms who are ready to defend themselves and their country, and hence the sheriff is the elected servant of the citizens who are inhabitants of the county. It’s not his choice as to whether or not the militia is organized and brought into being. It’s only his choice as to whether or not he chooses to use it by calling up a posse out of the militia. The term posse comitatus is itself a Latin phrase that means “power of the county”. A county government is the highest authority of government in our republic. It’s the closest to the people who in fact are the government.
The county sheriff is elected by those people as directly responsible for law enforcement in his county. It is his responsibility to protect the people of the county from unlawful acts on the part of anyone, including officials of government. In his oath of officer he swears to protect and defend for the United States of America and the state in which his county sits. He may be required to do no less, no more, in the performance of his duties.
It should be emphasized that this section extends to citizens who are being subjected to unlawful acts, even by government officials, and whether it be judges of court or federal or state agents of any kind. And if he refuses to do so, he may be removed from office by recall.
Now, the county sheriff might be advised of the incidents where unlawful acts are committed. It is the duty of the sheriff to protect the local citizens from such unlawful acts. Once he’s been advised and refuses or cannot perform his lawful duty in respect to the matter of the militia, the militia has the right, under natural law, to act in the name of the sheriff to protect their local jurisdiction.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution says very clearly, “The militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to own and bear arms shall not be infringed.” In the execution of the law, arrests may be made, the criminal may be remanded to the custody of the county sheriff for trial by a citizens jury, empanelled by the sheriff from among the citizens of the local jurisdiction, instead of by the court, as is the current procedure in most counties. There is no basis in law for this unlawful use of county sheriffs as lackeys of the court. There is no lawful authority for judges and the courts to direct law enforcement activity of a county sheriff. The sheriff is accountable and responsible only to the citizens who are his electorate. He is under oath of office and need not accept unlawful orders from the judge. The courts are the judiciary and the sheriff is the executive branch of government. The prerequisite to proper guidance is the basic understanding of common law and a background knowledge of the Constitution for the United States of America, as well as the republican form of government created by that Constitution.
The Second Amendment specifically says “the right of the people to own and bear arms shall not be infringed.” “Infringed” means government may not even go around the edges of it. There are those who say in error that what was meant by “militia” was the state police, that they’re the ones that have the right to own and bear arms. The state police are a recent phenomenon, and it doesn’t take much study of the notes of the founding fathers to realize that the Bill of Rights delineates the rights of the people and not government. The Bill of Rights was put there so people would be able to take an armed stand against governmental tyranny if it was needed. Primary enforcement of the peace was through the armed people themselves.
This precludes a standing army. The domestic function of a standing army is now called “police” or “law enforcement”. Our founders noticed that the King’s army served two functions: they could march off and war against others, or stand around and run the people. The Constitution forbade this tyranny. They knew any body of uniformed officers would soon become oppressive, and they moved to secure the sanctity of the militia by forbidding any court to even review action taken by the militia. Now any action of our people against corruption and lawlessness is called “vigilantism” rather than the original term, “militia”. And television consistently covers fictional accounts of vigilantes as error. These movies include an episode of vigilantes taking the law into their own hands, it is done in error and the innocent are harmed, and it takes governmental law enforcement to correct the wrongs that were done by the these vigilantes. The propaganda convinces people that vigilantism is wrong, and law enforcement should be left to the police. Unfortunately, the police and court have become corrupt and cannot be counted on for justice. Americans have forgotten that “vigilant” means “watchful”.
President James Madison states in the first Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not infringed. A well regulated militia composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.“ President Madison was the author of that Second Amendment. And it was Madison who told posterity that, “A people, armed and free, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition and is a bulwark for the nation against foreign invasion and domestic oppression.” President Madison revealed how such encroachments were likely to occur. He said, “I believe there are more instances of abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden dissipation.”
In a speech given on January 7th, 1790, President George Washington said, “A free people ought to be armed.” On a different occasion he stated, “Firearms stand in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people’s liberty, and the keystone under independence. The rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains people’s interfering. They deserve a place of honor with all that is good.”
In the encyclopedia of Thomas Jefferson he is quoted on page 318 as saying, “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While it gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walk.” On a separate occasion, President Jefferson hosted the criminologist [name unintelligible] stating, “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crime. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailant. They serve rather to encourage than prevent homicide, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.”
A classic example of President Jefferson’s remarks are to be found in the total gun ban of Mortongrove, Illinois. It contrasted sharply with legislation requiring citizens to be armed in Kennesaw, Georgia. Crime soared up in Mortongrove, Illinois, while it was concurrently dropping in Kennesaw.
President Jefferson warned us. He indicated that he believed the Second Amendment kept the government honest. And he remarked “If that right is ever being threatened the people should be vigilant and take a stand and defend that right because that would be the final sign that our rights and freedoms are about to be taken from us.” On a separate occasion he stated, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
In the year 1789 George Mason, one of the Founding Fathers, asked rhetorically, “What, sir, is the use of the militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.” See, there was no police force then. The king’s army had served that function as well as foreign invasion, and it was the domestic enforcement of the king’s laws that made people resent standing armies.
Now, there has been a significant increase in the unlawful use of the military as a police force, and more can be expected in the future. Like they accused David Koresh of having a methamphetamine lab, so they could bring tanks up there and kill him and the children.
Going back to the use of the military—there will be more of it. An excuse will probably be the War on Drugs, guns, or terror. Freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights have been sacrificed in the process. And since government cannot keep drugs out of the prisons, they probably won’t be able to eradicate drugs from the nation. They’re sure going to want us to give up the rights in trying to do so.
By this Constitution, the state, representing the people, created an agent of the state known as the federal government. The people, as state, gave powers to this agent, and by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments made it clear that this agent had only those powers which have been enumerated for it in the contract between the states. All others remain with the state and the people.
The federal government is not above the state that created it. The Constitution is a simple document. It says what it means and it means what it says. And it means today what it meant when it was written. It’s the supreme law for the states of the union as well as for the federal government, which has been created by the state and the people existing in the state, which are a sovereign republic within the united States.
It should be made clear that the federal government is an agency of the state. The federal government is a servant of the states and their people, not their master. The Ninth Amendment says very clearly, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This simply means that because the contract enumerated rights for the states, that the listing of these rights does not mean that the same must be done for the people, but that the people retain all rights without having them enumerated in the contract. The Tenth Amendment says, “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.” This simply means that the federal government has only those powers that have been listed in the Constitution, and if the power’s not listed, then the federal government does not have it. All powers not listed for the federal government in the contract remain with the states or with the people. Prior to the existence of the United States it was, and it remains to this very day, a separate sovereign republic.
The governor of each state was and remains to this very day the chief executive officer of the state, and he is the only officer of government within the United States that has domestic military power and military authority. He is the Commander and Chief of the state militia. He’s the only officer of government in the United States who has the lawful authority to declare martial law. The governor of a state had such military power prior to the existence of the union and he retains it to today. It was never delivered to the federal government by either the states or the people.
Let’s talk for a minute about the differences between common law and statutory law. In the Federalist Papers #46, James Madison wrote, “The federal and state governments are in fact but debtor agents and trustees of the people. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether. They must understand that the ultimate authority resides in the people.”
Then in Federalist Paper #78, Alexander Hamilton wrote, “No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than its principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people. That men, acting by virtue of power, may not do only what their [unintelligible] . It is not to be supposed that the Constitution would intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of the constituents. A Constitution is in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as fundamental law.”
According to American Jurisprudence, second section 210, in Goss versus Sanford, 19 Howe 393, 58L, position 691, “Neither the legislative, executive, nor the judicial parts of the federal government can lawfully exercise any authority beyond the limits marked out in the Constitution.”
In the 16th American Jurisprudence, second section 210, Wilson versus Philadelphia School District, it says, “Any fundamental or basic power necessary to government cannot be delegated.” It’s like, Congress has delegated its legislative powers to the President. That’s really wrong.
It went on to say that the general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law but is fully void and ineffective for any purpose. That unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. Unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been pass. An unconstitutional law is void. It imposes no duty, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no act performed under it. An unconstitutional law cannot repeal the Constitution. Kind of like Barbary vs. Madison, where again we find that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and anything that is repugnant to it is null and void from its very inception.
Now let’s take a look at federal education and the school. The federal congress has been legislating in the areas of education and schools and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution forbid it. Within the Constitution no one will find any power given to any branch of the federal government in the area of education and the school. As it is not enumerated in the contract, the federal government does not have it. Therefore all such acts of any branch of the federal government, whether it is legislative, executive or judiciary are unlawful. In fact officials of the federal government, by enacting such pretended legislation and court edicts, are in violation of their respective oaths of office to uphold, preserve and defend the Constitution. This is defined by law as a criminal act.
Let’s take the Federal Reserve System. Article 1, section 10 of the Constitution prohibits the states from making anything but gold and silver coin as tender in payment of debt. By law, one dollar must equal 23.22 grains of pure gold or 271.25 grains of silver. And citizens of the United States can not obtain such coins, simply because none is available. The federal Congress has unlawfully violated Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. It has unlawfully abdicated the power mandated by the state and the people to coin money and regulate the value thereof. The federal congress has unlawfully delegated its power to a privately owned corporation, the Federal Reserve. It is a private monopoly which neither the people nor the state authorized in the Constitution. The Federal Reserve Act, which was 38-251 USC 21, enacted on December 23rd, 1913, is in violation of the Constitution and therefore it is not lawful.
Let’s take the judiciary now. With few exceptions, both state and federal courts have been engaged in subtle subversion of the Constitution of these united States. It is apparent that the judiciary has attempted to alter our form of government by unlawful administrative acts and procedures. They have attempted to establish a dictatorship of the courts over the citizens of this republic. The legal profession has with few exceptions conspired with the judiciary for this purpose.
The Constitution for the United States is clear and concise in its delegation of powers to the federal judiciary. In fact the only federal court established by the Constitution is the Supreme Court. The highest court in the land is the Justice of the Peace court, which is closest to the people. It is a local county court. All other federal courts are ordained and established by a congress according to Article 3, Section 1, clause 1. Judges, both of the Supreme and superior [or inferior-not clear] Courts, do not hold office for life, but only during good behavior. Disregard for the Constitution is not good behavior. It is a violation of the oath of office. In the establishment of the inferior federal court, the Congress is limited to the extent that any legislative act may be in pursuance of the Constitution. The Congress may not amend the Constitution, nor may it delegate its powers as mandated by the contract. The federal congress has violated the mandate, particularly in the passage of the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946. Under this unlawful act, rules and regulations have been promulgated by government. Such as the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, as well as the federal courts. By this act, the Congress abdicates its mandated legislative powers, delivering those powers to the executive and judicial branches of the government.
Federal judges, U.S. Attorneys, and other law enforcement officials, including lawyers and officers of the court are helped to repudiate their oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Under cover of law they are forced to collaborate to obstruct justice, disenfranchise citizens, and liquidate the constitutional republic of the United States. Under these unlawful rules and procedures citizens have been unlawfully arrested by court order, intimidated, threatened, harassed with and without trial by jury and due process of law as guaranteed by the Constitution. Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution requires trial of all crimes—except in cases of impeachment—by jury. The Fifth Amendment reads as follows: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime unless on presentment of indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia…”
All citizens, as members of locally organized militia, need to research their local law library on the subject of Posse Comitatus. Because the law of our country provides for the Posse Comitatus and for posse action. The law prescribes harsh prosecution of government officials who commit criminal acts or violate their oaths of office. For in law he shall be removed by the posse to the most populated intersection of streets in the township and at high noon be hung by the neck, the body remaining until sundown as an example to those who would subvert the law. Those who have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution for the United States of government against all enemies, foreign and domestic must know that Constitution in order to respect it.
What a beautiful document that is. A document that limits the scope of government. That’s just exactly what we need. It was one of the comedians on television that thought they ought to give the Constitution to Iraq because it served us well for many years, and we’re not using it any more. It starts off so well, right up there, just before Article 1, it says, “We the People of the United States in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” And a part of that I think is more important than anything else—it was not only for ourselves but their posterity. That’s us, and our children and our grandchildren. We are in grave danger right now of our children and our grandchildren not getting freedom. If we let it slip through our fingers—if we don’t pass it on to them—they won’t have it, and they will find that they must get more permits than we do. Think about all the things you must get permits for. It’s an outrage.
Are we free people? Do we have choices? It’s getting around to the point where everything not mandatory will be forbidden. Concerned about your children, your posterity having some of that freedom? I’d like you to support the cause of freedom. Because freedom really isn’t free. We got it because somebody paid the price. Our founding fathers put their lives on the line. They shed their blood, they burned their treasures in cause of the war of us becoming free.

No comments: