I ought to have started here...

One thing I ought to have started this with was a major point that I now make.

I want to make sure I let you all know, I have no problem with authority or authority figures.

My problem is with abuse of authority.
That is what I am seeing and therefore fighting in our society.
what with people trying so Hard to be politically Correct, or touting Diversity as the only way to get things done. Forcing people into comprimising their values, threatening the wellbeing and health of Americans who disagree... well those are things that the Founding fathers went to great lengths to stop.

An example I would like to use; now that they have the Government tied up the democrats are doing everything in their power (Which is considerable right now)to promote their agenda.
This agenda has nothing to do with the well being of America! it serves ONLY the democrats; it includes making sure Democrats have the edge in ALL future elections, it includes paying off the people they like (especially if that gets them future favors), and it includes doing whatever they can to make sure that, if ever someone tries to reinforce the Constitution they will still get there piece of the pie. ( in other words it includes decimating the Constitution and all it stands for.)


Case in point it recently came to my attention that when GM went into bankruptcy the Government took it over (which they even admit too, why is our GOVERNMENT not doing the job of government and is instead micro managing a car company?).
Then the Dems refuse to abide by the laws of bankruptcy in order to make sure that their favored group/s, namely the UAW, got preferred treatment over the stock holders who got hit with enormous loss.
They shoved BILLIONS of dollars into failing companies in order to " keep them from going bankrupt", which they did/are doing anyway, and now that they are going bankrupt they are forcing GM and Chrysler to give up all the lines of vehicles the democrats don't like in favor of more dangerous cars, "oh but they are better for the environment" ( yeah right... A Republican senator from Colorado recently pointed out that they are on the verge of figuring out how to build the Hummer so that it will get "100 miles to the gallon". but that technology has been stopped because the Dems want Hummer to go to China.)

And they are also closing dealers... oh but wait, not just any dealers. apparently as I understand it, it turns out that most of ( if not ALL of) the dealers on the list to be closed contributed significantly to the Republican party (or at least They donated to Obama's opponents). Meanwhile if a dealer gave money to the Obama? nope it is business better than usual for them.

Look here for details...Dealergate

Or HERE

and HERE I have a link to a letter written by one of those dealers who is losing his livelihood. Although I do want to point out one thing in particular to think on.

"On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them. My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars. This inventory becomes impossible to sell with no factory incentives beyond June 9, 2009. Without the Dodge franchise we can no longer sell a new Dodge as "new," nor will we be able to do any warranty service work. Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service. There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory.

Our facility was recently totally renovated at Chrysler's insistence, incurring a multi-million dollar debt in the form of a mortgage at Sun Trust Bank.

And there you have it. THIS ladies and Gentlemen is the "change" that Obama wants to bring to the United States.
The Change of making the Democrats the ruling party in a sort of democratic dictatorship if you will.

Headed For Bondage Sir, Ma'am

Originally posted, Monday, January 19, 2009



As I look toward the future I find myself a bit worried. It has been said...

"

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith,
2. From spiritual faith to great courage,
3. From courage to liberty,
4. From liberty to abundance,
5. From abundance to complacency,
6. From complacency to apathy,
7. From apathy to dependence,
8. From dependence back again to bondage.


too long have we lived our lives here expecting the government to take care of us. The problem with letting the government take care of us is,

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

(the two quotes above have been attributed to a Doctor Tyler, or Tytler. However there is apparently debate as to that issue.)

You see we all have lived our lives ignoring what is going on around us. Too many people are trying to take our freedoms away from us. And I worry that we are facing imminent danger of collapse.

The recent vote is a sign, I believe, of such an occurrence. I was very concerned when I saw people who were being polled after the election. many of them indicated that their vote was considered solely on the basis of who would give them more.

for a long time some have been trying to erode the constitution. And we have let them!

We let people reinterpret what the founding fathers wrote to the point where the founding fathers themselves would be hard pressed to recognize their ideals in the laws governing us today.

I believe that what the founders of our country wrote is actually pretty straight forward.

for example...

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Second Amendment: 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

Both of these were written into our laws in December of 1791. Unfortunately the first one is either misquoted, abused or both. Note it says Congress (ie: government) will make NO LAW respecting establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;! yet that is exactly what is happening every time they say we cannot pray if we are in government employ (free exercise of religion) or every time they say a pastor cannot preach on a subject because it is "hateful" (this also buts into the freedom of speech part.)

People want us to believe this means "separation of church and state" but I ask you were are those words here? that phrase is found NO WHERE in the first amendment.

As for the second amendment people want me to believe that the guys who wrote this "didn't know that Automatic weapons were going to exist, this must have been established for hunting and no one needs an automatic weapon for hunting." but you know what? I do not see it saying anything about hunting. It states that this amendment is there for us to be secure! To defend ourselves against those who would take from us our freedoms! So if the "enemy" will be armed with automatic weapons doesn't it stand to reason that we too ought to be armed similarly?


I want to end with a few more quotes... note the dates and/or people making these statements!

"One of the ordinary modes by which tyrants accomplish their purpose, without resistance, is by disarming the people and making it an offense to keep arms".
- Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court Justice. 1811-1845
"The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams

"As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is twilight. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
- Justice William O. Douglas, US Supreme court (1939-75)

No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.
- Thomas Jefferson

A new Civil War?

Yet another transfer... from, Tuesday, February 17, 2009...

Last night I was listening to late night radio as I am wont to do while at work, and I got a rather interesting look at where our government seems to be headed.

The "show" I listened to was called "Coast to Coast AM with George Noory". usually I find I have to take all they have to say with a grain of salt (they are very much into U.F.O.'s, Ghosts, and the supernatural.) but last night's show had state senators on from four different states; these senators spoke out about their states policies vis a vis the issue at hand

One of the primary guests was, Jerome Corsi his article on the subject can be found click here.
Or you can go to...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89082
The other main guest was Alex Jones whose website is here.

The subject of the show was about state sovereignty. It seems that several states have become extremely upset with the trend of the Federal government and they are declaring themselves to be Sovereign.
In other words there are states (last I heard about 20-30 of them) which are saying to the federal government that they are not going to be Tyrannized by anyone even if that anyone is the federal government.

I find this to be a very interesting (or scary) issue!

I am a little bit of a civil war buff and one point that I keep running up against is, no matter what we think of it today, at the start the south did not go to war 150 years ago primarily about slavery, that was a secondary issue to the matter.

The Civil war (or as some southerners still call it, the war of northern aggression) started when several states felt that the federal government was limiting and/or removing the rights of the states to be self governing.

This viewpoint is somewhat supported in part by the fact that it took over a year (Sept 1862) after the start of the civil war (Apr 1861) for Abraham Lincoln to sign the Emancipation Proclamation.

Now the History books would tell us that the civil war occurred PURELY because of the issue of slavery. but there were many who fought for the confederacy who "didn't care one way or the other about [slavery]"

Here I am reminded of the adage "the victor writes the history books."

The thing here is, I see this issue (state Sovereignty) as being the same issue all over again.

When you look at the wording of some of the bills being passed by states today you get a good idea of how serious this is.

For an example I give you HCR-6. this is a declaration by the state legislation in New Hampshire about State Sovereignty. HCR 0006

If you can't get there that way try...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89082

I will include the last few (and most pertinent) paragraphs of HCR-6 at the end of this writing.

It turns out that this is a problem that appears to have been brewing for quite a while and now it is coming to a head.
Already there are nine states which have declared state sovereignty; Arizona, California, Hawai'i, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington

And now there are apparently 13 or more states considering doing the same. (for more on this please look here.)

they include...
Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine, Pennsylvania and Texas.

One of the reasons for these actions is reportedly a presidential directive marked as PDD 51 which would theoretically cause the country to revert to Martial law.*

One of the State legislators who was a guest on the show said "the states created the federal government and the constitution gives states the right to dissolve the federal government."

And they are right! In plain speak, basically under the 9th and 10th amendments provision is made that should the federal government start to become unwieldy and self serving then the states (or the people) have the right and even the obligation to change the government.

What is frightening is that any one who has advocated such actions in the past have been labeled as seditious, terrorists or worse. But now we are talking about STATE GOVERNMENTS who are saying these things; how can a duly elected constitutionally supported government be seditious?

And we seem to have the federal government responding in kind. Declaring that they will enact said martial law and bring the state governments who oppose the federal government to "justice".

I suppose we would have to look at the constitution. But the states declaring their sovereignty HAVE done that. And apparently they are finding that it is the Federal government who is, or is about to be, at fault for disobedience to the constitution.

And it all hinges on the 9th and tenth amendments. In other words, as I understand it, recognizing that some rights might be overlooked by the constitution. so even though they are not specifically mentioned federal government still may not take away those rights.

AMENDMENT IX
(1791)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


In other words, as I understand it, the drafters of this amendment recognized that some rights might be overlooked by the constitution. So this was a catch all saying any rights enjoyed by the people, even though not specifically referred to, could not be taken away by the government.


AMENDMENT X
(1791)

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 one is saying that Federal Government cannot remove or overrule State rights, or powers which are held by the States.
ie: The States are free to govern themselves without interference from the federal level; as long as they do not become unconstitutional by taking away the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the people.



I am worried for many reasons, because we ought to not have to fight for our freedoms AGAIN!, because we ought not to have another civil war, and because I swore an oath as a member of the National guard... the oath goes

"I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
(Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Some of the issues

BUT having signed with the national guard (and both states in which I served as a guardsman are on the lists as declaring their sovereignty) I have a further dilemma. What side do I serve if reactivated?

You see under the statutes for serving in the national guard...

"The National Guard is uniquely organized under the constitution and federal statutes. The Guard and Reserves are equally accessible under federal mobilization and can be called-up for operations, national emergencies, or war...but only the National Guard can be called-up by the individual states. Unless called to active federal service, the Guard is under the command of the Governor, through the direction of the Adjutant General. When called to federal service the President of the United States is commander in chief."

If the state does not recognize the federal government as the proper authority and my first obligation is to my state unless called to federal service by the president. This assumes that the president is recognized as the proper authority.

If the president or congress is an illegal government under the constitution then my obligation lies with the states AND defending the constitution against the president (or congress) who is then declared a domestic enemy of the constitution.
BUT
If the president is the legal authority it is the state/s who are the enemies of the constitution.

I am not a lawyer but I think even a lawyer would be able to argue either side in this as I am trying to do.

I do believe however that I know where I will be if it comes to it.

I feel much the same as an illustrious member of civil war fame that I could not fight against my home.


The end of HCR-6 states,

"That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government; and

That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the house clerk to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress, and the presiding officers of each State’s legislature."





*Martial Law. n:

1. Temporary rule by military authorities, imposed on a civilian population especially in time of war or when civil authority has broken down.
2. The law imposed on an occupied territory by occupying military forces.

Democracy, or Republic?

Many People like to tout that America is a democracy, the problem is that technically no it is not. And it was never intended to be.

Benjamin Franklin once was quoted as saying, "This new government is a republic, if you can keep it.”

Of course there is a point there, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT. even while creating it they knew it could be fragile and if the people didn't stand up for it and defend it then it would disintegrate to something much less.

I like the joke that James Bovard had to say...

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is two wolves attempting to have a sheep for dinner and finding a well-informed, well-armed sheep.

See a constitutional republic, like what we supposedly live in here, allows rights or LIBERTY for everyone... minority as well as majority.

Our founding fathers were wise enough to see the need for such a setup. It is firmly established in the Constitution!

"Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

They established three branches of government in order to keep the government from being abusive.

So, O.K. time for our lesson of the day.
The U.S. Government consists of three branches the Executive, (the president) the Legislative, (Congress) and the Judicial (The Supreme Court). The President "runs" the country the Congress makes the rules and the Supreme court is to make sure that the rules made by the other two do not infringe on our rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

Then Like President Abraham Lincoln said we are a government "of the people By the people and For the people." The PEOPLE are supposed to determine the level of governance they have.

The Declaration of Independence States,

"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."

O.K. so now you are armed with some basic education. Now we can start looking into other things.