April Fools Day

April Fools Day. Today is April first. As I pondered the origins of this normally harmless day of foolishness, I got to thinking about another day that will soon be on the horizon, April 15th!
As the great day-of-pay approaches, I have been asking the people that I know why we have federal income tax? Almost without exception they have answered: "to pay the expenses of government". Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth. Income tax has nothing to do with paying the expenses of the government.

If I were to ask you when the country was created, most of you would give me a date somewhere around the fourth of July in 1776, so let's use that date for our point of reference. When the country began in 1776 there was no income tax. In fact, there was no machinery for collecting any such tax; even after the ratification of the Constitution in 1787-88 there was still no provision for any tax on the people's income. Except for the "temporary" income tax illegally administered during Lincoln's War to destroy the Union, there was no income tax in this country until 1913, when the Supreme Court upheld its validity in Brushaber, 240 US 1, and the passage of the 16th Amendment in "the dark of the night". And even then, it did not affect more than a few people. Until 1942, only 3% of the people paid income tax. Up to then, most people had heard of it, but they didn't pay it, and had never seen the form. The reason for this was that it did not apply to them. For the record, in 1941 the Federal government collected more money from alcohol, and tobacco than it did in income taxes. Remember the "moonshine", and "infernal revenooers" of the old comic "Snuffy Smith"?

The income tax as we know it today did not find its way into the pocketbooks of the people until 1942, and then only because we were in the middle of the war that FDR "arranged" to end the Depression. Even then, the money grabbers could only get away with it by calling it the "Victory Tax" which was to be repealed at the end of the war.

Question for you: Name for me one year between 1776 and 1942 when the nation could not function without income tax?; can't find one?; Neither could I, amazing isn't it? In all of those years, through all of the wars that we fought, and won, including WWII which we won by American might, and willpower more than any "Victory Tax", we were able to accomplish all of this without an income tax.

So, if we didn't have an income tax for all of this time, where did the federal government get the money to pay for itself? Why alcohol, and tobacco taxes, of course! These taxes, along with the tariffs that used to be in place that made foreigners pay for the privilege of selling their products here, were enough to pay for the few powers that the Constitution grants to the Federal government. As a matter of fact, there was so much money pouring into the Treasury that Congress didn't know what to do with it.

So, if we don't need an income tax to pay for the federal government, why do we have one? In 1942, a man named Meyer Jacobstein, of the Brookings Institute, testified to a Senate subcomittee of the "need to mop up the excess purchasing power of the nation" because of its effect on the price situation in the country. In other words, the people are producing too much wealth, which, with the lack of a metal-based currency equates to hyper-inflation, and the destruction of the dollar, so we have to remove this "excess" in order to preserve the economy. When there was "real" money(gold&silver) behind our currency, the government had to deposit the appropriate amount of "metal" in the Treasury to support the paper whenever any of it was printed in the same way you put money into your account before you write a check. This is the reason that you find the words "pay to the bearer on demand one silver dollar" on the old silver certificate money that used to be in circulation. Even the early Federal Reserve notes said that.The bank would pay to the bearer on demand the amount of the bill in "silver" if requested. The only difference between a personal check, and government currency is that the check names the person to be paid, and the currency does not.

So, this being the case, why doesn't the government just print the money that it needs, bigger numbers, on bigger pieces of paper? The answer brings us back to Meyer Jacobstein's testimony to the subcomitee which is "that doing so would bring on hyper-inflation" send the prices of goods to the moon, and destroy the purchasing power of the dollar. That is what happened to the Weimar Republic in post-WWI Germany, and is now happening in the African nation of Zimbabwe. It is also happening right here in the good ole USA, only it has taken so long for it to manifest because of the "shadow government" running the unbacked printing through the un-Federal Reserve System, which is , of course, un-Constitutional. This system, which has been brilliantly conveived to confuse, and conceal its intention, is being implemented by the "New World Order"(Novus Ordo Seclorum) to achieve its envisioned world government.

So, basically what we have here is the redistribution of the wealth of the people which has been ongoing since 1942. This is the "change" that Comrade Obama is talking about. It is also communism on a world level. So too is the subsidizing, and penalizing of various industries by the government which is to be seen most lately in the alleged take over of Ford Motors, which would have old Henry rolling over in his grave. The real issue here is controlling the purchasing power of the dollar. If the people have too much of it, the prices will rise. Simply put, the dollars taken by government cannot be spent by the people, and thereby cannot be used to acquire the things that are for sale. This is what Meyer Jacobstein meant by "mopping up purchasing power".

Thus, the true purpose of the income tax is to inhibit the inflationary effect of out of control government spending. The income tax allows our elitist rulers to "live off the fat of the land" by transferring the power of purchase from the people to the government, which has absolutely nothing to do with paying for the cost of government.

So, now that I got that off my chest and into your reservoirs of knowledge, maybe its time to re-think just which day of April is really "April Fools Day". The Revolution must be televised.

"Real" Change we can believe in!"

A militarized police state is coming to our neighborhoods with us as its target- unless we start, right now to enforce the Constitution as is our right, and duty as American citizens.

Recently, I have been thinking long and hard about what our options really are with respect to the posture that the Federal government has taken on human rights, most especially the rights of "we the people". It seems to me that they are lacking in respect for the people they have sworn to serve. The will of the people has been voiced time and time again, on everything from immigration to gun control, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and in most instances we are told that all we need is "change". Usually, when one examines just what that "change" entails, we are told that we will have to give up some more of our freedom to attain some questionable level of relief or comfort from whatever perplexes or annoys us.

As I pondered these thoughts one dismal evening, I came to the conclusion that only a policy of "blood and iron" will ever seriously get the attention of the sycophants in the Disgrace of Columbia; and the only viable option for actually achieving this is via the revival of the militia of the individual states. So with that thought in mind, I will digress from my series on the Constitution which I have been working on for these past months to say my piece on this subject, for I believe that if "we the people" are to succeed in keeping the republic, it will be only this way, and in the nick of time, as the enemy has us surrounded and pinned down!

In addition to the Feds' longstanding strategy of para-militarizing state and local police under the government umbrella of "homeland security", the tyrants in D.C. have two additional schemes openly in the works: 1. the overtly military, which will depend upon the deployment of the armed forces as domestic police, which is technically illegal under "Posse Comitatus"(not that they really care); and 2. the covertly military, which depends upon the creation of a proposed twenty-thousand man so-called "national security force".


The question is, and must be, "What should patriotic Americans do about this situation"?


As I have been describing in my recent posts on the Constitution: the government of the United States is a type of political machinery. When you are unsure as to how any piece of machinery should be used to the greatest effect, the wise operator will consult the manufacturer's set of instructions- in this instant, the Constitution. The Constitution clearly establishes four, and only four "homeland security" provisions:


1. "the militia of the several states"(Article 1 Sec. 8)


2. "the army"


3. "the navy"


4. "troops, and ships of war that the states may keep in times of peace with the consent of Congress (Article 1 Sec. 10)


Of these, ONLY the militia is described as "necessary for security": " a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep, and bear arms shall not be infringed"(Amendment #2). Not just for security in some general sense, but specifically for "the security of a free state". And, contrary to what constitutes a popular argument these days as to what the militia was meant to be; it is patently NOT the National Guard, which is really a branch of the army!


The second amendment, through the militia, guarantees an actual "state" with independence, and its own sovereignty- not just some impotent subdivision of a regional, or global conglomerate in which each nation surrenders its identity, and authority for self-governance. It also guarantees "a free state"- one in which the people actually(not theoretically)govern themselves, because that is the only form of political organization entitled to the adjective "free"


Thus, the 2nd amendment, through the militia, preserves America's entire political system, including the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the constitutions of the all of the states.


Beside being "necessary, the militia are also the only form of permanent "homeland security" establishment that the Constitution absolutely mandates. Congress is not required to maintain, or provide an army, or navy, or to allow the states to keep troops, or ships of war in times of peace, if any, or all of those forces are not deemed "necessary, and proper" under Article 1 Sec. 8. But neither Congress nor the states may dispense with "the militia of the several states, which the Constitution recognizes as "necessary" indefinitely in its existence, and continuance.


Thus, the militia are to be permanent because they are to be composed of "we the people" themselves! Constitutions, and governments may come, and go; but the people remain. The militia are hence, the only Constitutional claim to the title "democratic"(in the best sense of that over-rated adjective).


People govern themselves to the degree that they alone exercise supreme political power. Mao Tse-tung had it right when he said; "political power emanates from the barrel of a gun".


The militia are composed of "we the people" in their entirety- armed, organized, disciplined, and trained to wield the power of the sword. It is my belief that popular self-government is impossible without the militia fully active, and in force in "the several states".


Not too surprisingly, the Constitution expressely delegates to the militia the authority, and responsibility "to execute the laws of the union, supress insurrections, and repel invasions(Article 1 Sec.8 #15). As self-governors,"we the people' must exercise the ultimate power to execute the laws, because directly, or indirectly we make all of the laws! Thus, "we the people" are the law- subject only to"the laws of nature, and nature's God!!!


The President has the constitutional responsibility to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed"(Article2 Sec.3) and thus appoints him as "commander in chief of the militia of the several states"when called into the actual service of the United States(Article 2 Sec. 2#1)


The key word here is "actual service" because the militia's subordination to the President can only occur when they are called into the "actual" service of the United States government as a whole. Otherwise, the militia are subject to the command of only their own officers, because the Constitution reserves to the states respectively" the appointment of the officers"(Article 1 Sec. 8#16). The requirement that the militia come under the command of the President solely in the "actual" service of the United States provides a safeguard against any rogue President's usurpation, and tyranny. Thus, by this act, the militia are authorized on Constitutional grounds to ascertain for themselves whether any command from a President are at that time genuine to the interests of the states, or pretended by some act of tyranny on the part of the President.


In other words, is the "service" in the national interest of "we the people", or is it in the interest of something else? If it is not in the interest of "we the people" as we understand it, than we have the right, the duty, Constitutionally, to follow it, or not.


Therefore, the requirement of "actual service" reinforces the 2nd Amendment's definition of the militia's purpose: "the security of a free state", a state in which the people really and genuinely govern themselves, particularly as it relates to the decision to employ their own armed force in the "service" of their own " common defence".



The incorporation of the Militia into the Constitution is not just a matter of Constitutional Theory, but also because the Founders were quite familiar with the Militia's practical uses in the area of "homeland security". This would seem to indicate that the Militia would be just the thing that is needed in the present state of terrorist alert that we have been living in since 9/11. The opportunity to demonstrate their usefulness would be perhaps, more evident than ever before. For example, a fully realized Militia will provide literally millions of citizen soldiers to patrol streets, malls, public parks, and buildings thus maximizing deterrence against terrorists, and potential criminals. Because the Militia are composed of every adult in the community, their existence will ferret out every illegal alien who make his presence known to anyone in the community. A revitalized Militia will emphasize local readyness, and self-reliance in all its forms from securing food supplies, fuel, medicines, and other critical materials necessary in the event of emergency from manipulations by any outside speculators who might attempt to control them for their own purposes, to putting into practice an alternate constitution, and solvent monetary system that will protect the community from the inevitable collapse of the Federal Reserve System, and its "shadow" government.

With the revitalized Militia monitoring polling places, and verifying the counting of paper ballots, the present day scourge of voting fraud will be terminated. Because all elected public officials will be members of the Militia, and will thereby be subject to investigation by the Militia for whatever infractions of the law they might commit, political corruption, police brutality, and the arrogance of power so wide spread, and uncontrolled today will receive swift, and just exposure, and punishment. When young adults, and mature teens, through Militia discipline, and training recognize that they are being prepared to genuinely direct, and defend their country's future under their own authority, and in their own interest with an understanding of the personal as well as the public purpose, and benefits of, and from patriotism, then the level of aimlessness, drug use, and mindless violence so prevalent among the young people of today will shrink into insignificance. This aspect alone should make the revitalization of the Militia a paramount concern for our nation's leaders as they assume the reigns of responsibility for the future direction of the country.

Sadly, this picture of real social progress, "real change we can believe in", because common Americans would themselves be responsible for it, is at present a dream to be visited behind closed doors at night in our beds. It is as if we have arrived at the point finally where the only fear we have to fear is the fear of our own possibility of success.

Although the Constitution requires that all able-bodied adult Americans(excepting conscientous objectors) be organized in some manner in "the Militia of the several states"; Congress, and State legislatures have consigned Americans to the illegal "unorganized militia" that operates outside of the system in the side alleys in a fearful, pathetic attempt to defend itself from the present darkness that is descending upon us. And although the Constitution requires that all members of the Militia possess firearms equivalent in firepower to those carried by light infantry units in the Armed forces, Congress has busyied itself enacting statutes(that the states have not opposed) that make it nearly impossible for the average American to acquire this necessary equipment even while pretending to uphold "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

The Constitution sets forth in plain English that the Militia is absolutely necessary in the preparation of a free people according to the principles of self-reliance, self-suffiency, and especially self-governance, to deal with "homeland security" in the most effective, and legal fashion in their home states, and local towns. And although it is illegal for these programs to not be in operation, there are no plans at present for the implementation, or even the contemplation of beginning to establish them.

This situation is intolerable, and flies in the face of Congress's absolute duty to organize, arm, discipline, and train the Militia according to Article 1 Sec.8 clause 16. The 2nd Amendment declares that "a well organized Militia is necessary to the security of a free state", and that a "well regulated militia" are those organized according to the pattern common in the colonies, and independent states prior to the ratification of the Constitution, and as such, Congress must exercise its power by enacting such appropriate legislation to empower it. If Congress fails, or refuses to do so, the states must themselves enact it by their own statutes as "the Militia of the several States"

In July of 2008, Barack Obama was reported to have said: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that have been established. We must establish a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, strong, and well funded."
Rahm Emmanuel, Obama's White house Controller has followed these statements by saying:"We are planning to have universal civil defense training. Somewhere between the ages of 18 to 25 you will do three months training which will give young people a sense of what it means to be American."

My son would be terminally deficient in patriotism if he needed the likes of Barack Obama, or anyone else at the pyramid of power in the Disgrace of Columbia, to give him a "sense of what it means to be American". This is especially true when one considers how much more deficient is Obama with respect to his familiarity with elementary constitutional principles.

We, who are by nature suspicious of politicians, may rightly speculate as to what are the true purposes Obama and his ilk may be planning for in the establishment of any new "civilian nationl security force" that would indoctrinate a generation of young Americans in the Party line, teaching them how to be "good" citizens of the world, then turning them loose to terrorize the remaining patriotic Americans into acquiesing to the totalitarian ideal that would become a modern Hitler Youth militarizing, and fanaticizing young Americans into becoming cannon fodder in foreign wars designed by their imperial masters to advance the cause of global fascism. Such suspicions are not needed for us to know that the proposed "civilian national security force" is, to say the least, undesirable, and also quite unecessary, for unless that force solely, and faithfully serves Constitutional purposes, it will serve non-American, un-American, and probably anti-American special interests.

There is a "civilian security force" already provided for by the American Constitution for the purpose of "homeland security" that if enacted, will take the form of the revitalized "Militia of the several States". Anything else will be unnecessary, and unconstitutional.

So, now what? What must the patriots of America demand of Obama if he refuses to do his duty in upholding the Constitution? Simply put, "if it is to be, it is up to me" "we the people" must enforce the Constitution by the revitalization of the Militia. Now that would be real "change we could believe in"! And in the nick of time too.

The Revolution will be televised.

"What have ye wrought?"

The Constitution was the settlement of a revolution, and on which class the political center of power would come to rest. The human race is ultimately divided into two political groups; those who desire to be controlled, and those who do not.

It was opened on May 25, 1787 to suggest some mere revisions to the Articles of Confederation. The proposed constitution was approved on September 17, and the closed doors of secrecy were finally opened to the world. It was on this date that a local woman inquired of Benjamin Franklin the now famous question, "What have ye wrought?" Will it be a republic, or a monarchy? Franklin's answer,"A Republic, if you can keep it.", was an outright half-truth as he knew that there was no way that the convention had created a "keepable" republic. When analyzed in contrast to the history that has followed since 1787, it very clearly shows that the Constitution was purposely weighted with with several components that were designed to guarantee the gradual expansion of the Federal Government.

Under the first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, Congress depended on the good will of the states (how awful!). Had the states not waged pointless trade wars with each other, and been more responsible with their use of currencies, most of the opposition to their continuance could have been avoided. Congress did not have the power to raise taxes, to regulate commerce, or to prohibit the states from coining money. Since Congress assembled could not act without unanimous agreement, the states often ignored them. Congress "got no respect".

For those who desired an "energetic" central government, this was intolerable. Washington said, "experience has taught us that men will not carry into execution such measures that are the best for their own good without the intervention of a coercive power". Of course "the best for their own good" was to be determined by their imperial majesties, the "nationals", as they always know what is best for the people (sound familiar?). To get to the point: the Articles of Confederation created a Congress which had to go begging to the states, and the control freaks were chomping at the bit! This sort of thing infuriated the nationals. Jay wrote to Washington,"Rage for private property suppresses public considerations, and personal rather than national interests have become the object of greater attention. Virtue can only be exerted by a strong , central government that will put down the crisis at hand".

Great effort behind the scenes was done to foment a panic over the overstated "crisis at hand". A "weak government" cannot muster a viable defending army to protect the nation from powerful nations without, and from the Indians within, so we need to strengthen Congress. Translate: create the "problem"; create opposition to the"problem", offer your solution to the "problem"(sound familiar?). This is the classic Hegelian philosophy so well used by the Socialists/Communists of today. Most men in the know were having none of it, and vigorously challenged any notion of the existence of a "crisis". A year later in his June of 1788 warning against the adoption of the Constitution, Patrick Henry would say: "I ask you; where is that danger? I see none. Why then tell us of supposed dangers to terrify us into the adoption of this new government? Sirs, it is the fortune of a free people not to be intimidated by imaginary dangers. Fear is the passion of slaves".

In retrospect, although some might disagree, the Articles of Confederation have been unfairly criticized by historians I think, perhaps due to the many weighted books, and opinions that have been used in arguments against them. But it should be remembered that the Articles successfully brought a war to conclusion, and negotiated the Treaty of Paris in 1783, which gave the USA world status as a nation, and gave the new nation a lesson in the need for interstate cooperation in the handling of national problems which led to the further refinement in the practical application of such measures.

In the Autumn of 1786, the nationalists had their "crisis" - self created of course - with Shay's Rebellion. After the revolution, most states raised taxes to pay their war debts, and kept them as paper currency issues for the most part in various degrees. Massachusetts debtors that could not pay in currency had their cattle and lands seized and were thrown in jail. All petitions for relief were ignored, and a flashfire rebellion ensued. Armed farmers (another good reason to keep and bear arms) prevented courts from opening, and stopped the seizures. Led by Daniel Shays, eleven hundred angry men attacked the Springfield courthouse and federal arsenal. Although they were easily defeated, and dispersed by a superior force, the politicians panicked and created a hysteria that spread through the states like a wildfire. They made it seem that this was the beginning of the end!

While the rebellion was a failure militarily speaking, it made for a rout in the spring of 1787 elections. John Hancock easily defeated the inflexible Governor James Bowdoin, as well as three-fourths of the House members. Relief laws were immediately enacted, the seizures stopped, and the imprisoned debtors were freed rendering further rebellions as being unneccessary. The nationals, however, had their "crisis". Shay's rebellion was the proverbial "drop that overflowed the vase", and set the wheels in motion for the call for the convention of 1787 to be held in Philadelphia. Madison himself admitted years later that the "unjustified sense of alarm which threatened the economic status quo contributed to the uneasiness which produced the Constitution more than any inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation."

In other words, it wasn't the "principles". It was the "money" and the consequent loss of power by the "moneyed" class that constituted a "crisis" in the land. By alarming the people with fears of a looming, hollow "crisis", delegates were sent to Philadelphia for the purpose of "revising the Articles of Confederation"- not scrapping them entirely for a replacement. But the nationalists knew that this was their moment. Madison had already sent his replacement plans to Washington, and Hamilton for their review in April prior to the convention. The evidence is that the nationalists hidden agenda, unbeknownst to the other delegates and the people at large, was to scrap the Articles in favor of replacing them with their own form of "energetic" central government.

As always, the people did not understand the sweeping nature of the scheme. "The American war is over, but the American revolution has just begun," said conventioneer Benjamin Rush. Little wonder why the convention operated under such extraordinary secrecy. The delegates were sworn to the strictest silence, sentries were posted at all doors, and the windows were shut tight. Fifty-three years would pass before Madison's thoroughly edited notes were publically released. Great measures of propaganda were used to conceal the true levels of dissent that were present. Electing the widely respected George Washington as convention president was responsible for much of the "public confidence" that was associated with these meetings. According to Maryland delegate James McHenry, at least "21 of the 55 delegates favored some sort of monarchy", and although generally of high caliber, most delegates were of the "moneyed" class, and as such were anxious for a national government that would make them the rightful inheritors of power.

The American countryside of "middle class yeoman" that were so much championed by Jefferson were hardly represented at the convention. The "Virginia Plan" supporters, Hamilton and company, pretty much wanted to abolish the state governments. Madison proposed that they be "reduced to corporations", and Hamilton imagined that they" might gradually dwindle in power to nothing", which is in fact exactly what has happened in both instances. It should be noted that the famous revolutionaries were not delegates, either by choice or by circumstance. Jefferson, and Adams were on assignment in Europe. Patrick Henry had outright refused to participate in such vility, while Thomas Paine and, Samuel Adams were not among the chosen (I wonder why). So the stage was set, and the plan was ready for enactment. Madison's plan, which he envisioned as "strengthening the confederacy", in fact did not and was hotly contested by the defenders of state sovereignty. William Paterson offered a fair compromise called the "New Jersey Plan". It provided that any laws that were to be applied to all states would be "the supreme laws", and would be reserved to Congress with the executive having the power to enforce the law if necessary. Each state would have an equal voice in Congress, and would retain most of the attributes of sovereignty. This is, in a nutshell, the Swiss system.

Fearing that the convention might slip out of the nationalists' control and (Horrors!) return to the the original idea of revision, the brilliant attorney from New York, Alexander Hamilton, spoke on June 18 for five hours praising the British Constitution as the world's best, opining for a Senate and Presidency elected for life, and declaring that state government should be appointed by Congress (wow). Little wonder that John Adams referred to him as an "Anglophile" from that point on. However, his long-winded afternoon harangue cleverly made Madison's Virginia Plan seem like a viable compromise and quite moderate by comparison. Hamilton later molded his "energetic" central government from the willing clay of this plan.

It is an interesting side note that the other two delegates from New York refused to be cowed into siging on to the fraudulent illegality, leaving Hamilton to generously sign for New York by himself. This is why his name is the only one that appears on the document in behalf of one of the wealthiest, and most populous states of that time. A bit of math is illumininating here. The states chose 74 delegates, 19 of whom refused to attend. Of the 55 who did, 14 left early, leaving 41. Of those 41, 3 refused to sign. So, only 39 of 74 delegates actually signed on to the hallowed document, or 53%.

Asked why he boycotted the convention, Patrick Henry replied, "Because I smelt a rat."

In retrospect, the convention was a well-run "dog and pony show", and the debates were an excellent piece of deliberation by a singularly august body of 18th century cosmopolitan Americans. That aside, what did it achieve? In any proposed governmental ideal, trying to discern at the outset the probable ultimate beneficiary of that action will be difficult. It is like a game of chess. The winner can only be recognized by a series of board moves to the completion of the game, or "checkmate". Patrick Henry and George Mason feared that the inherent weaknesses that were written into the Constitution would produce a corrupt, oppressive aristocracy, and after 222 years, that is what has happened!

It appears that the real genius of the Constitution has been to utterly transform political reality without the subject people knowing it. It has destroyed the power of the states without sound or smoke, and like a Houdini trick, by the time the people realized what had happened, it was too late. Read between the lines of Washington's transmittal letter of the Constitution to Congress: "Individuals entering into any society must give up a share of their liberty to preserve the rest". Does that sound like a blank check or what? The words of the avowed Socialist Hillary Clinton are very nicely encapsulated in this letter ("to stop terrorism and organized crime, the American people must give up some of their personal freedom, and privacy."). Wow!

The Constitution's obvious tendency towards an expansionist government was clearly understood by the anti-federalists of 1787-88. Would they be able to sound the warning in time to defeat ratification? Sadly, no, but they sure came close...

The revolution will not be televised.

Original post date 10/23/2008. Date changed to bring it to the top due to extended edit time. - RWR

NJ Citizenship Case Goes to the SCOTUS

This case was held up by a clerk, but is now going before the US Supreme Court (and the clerk is being charged with misconduct). With the Berg case also going there, this issue doesn't look like it's going away. Our President-elect could be in some trouble here.

Also being challenged is the legitimacy of the candidacy of John McCain, who was born in Panama while his father was serving in the military. However, despite my not being a McCain supporter, I do believe a good case could be made that McCain, being born to two American parents in US-controlled territory while serving in the military, could easily pass the legitimacy test, especially if he were born in a US military hospital or other similar facility.

Obama, on the other hand, was allegedly born in Kenya to parents who were of different nationalities (an American mother and a Kenyan father) and not serving in the US military or other similar mission. There is also documentation from Barack's Indonesian school that suggests he may have been recorded as a citizen of that country at some point as well. IN addition, Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate has been called into question due to technicalities that exist within that state's laws.

The only way to stop all this would be for Obama to allow his original birth certificate to be released to the public. While this would be ridiculously simple and easy to do, he has steadfastly refused to do so, despite court orders ordering him to do just that.

I recently renewed my driver's license. I was required to show multiple forms of identification. Any time you start a new job, you are required to show certain forms of identification, largely to prove that you are eligible for the job. Why then, should our new President not also be required to show documentation proving that he is eligible for his job?

Mind this as well: If Barack Obama satisfies the order to show his original vault birth certificate and it turns out to be legitimate (to my satisfaction - which will be easy), then as far as I'm concerned, this issue is closed and I will deal with his successes and failures as they come. I am not bringing this to the fore for any reason other than to participate in the enforcement of the law set forth in the Constitution. Once the constitutional requirement is satisfied, so then should the law be satisfied. If it turns out that Obama was born on foreign soil, then he should be ashamed of himself for defying the Constitution in that manner, and so should his party. I would even support criminal charges being filed against him and the DNC for knowingly nominating an ineligible candidate for President of the United States. Should the SCOTUS drop the ball and not apply an appropriate ruling, then they also should face the wrath of the people.

If we cannot expect the US government to take the Constitution seriously in this matter, then that goes a long way in bringing its prior usurpations to the fore. Based on this and those prior usurpations, why would anyone be so stupid as to assume our elected officials will EVER take the Constitution seriously?

RWR

"Does any gentleman believe this?"

"It is freedom gentlemen; and not a choice of the forms of servitude for which we contend. We entertain no jealousy of the present Congress, but who knows whether in some corrupt future time there may be a Congress that will form a design against the liberties of the people"- John Adams.
The new government cloaked purposely insurmountable advantages to themselves in very subtle ways. It is a credit to the "anti-federalists" intelligence, and foresight that most of these crafty advantages were spotted. Having seen the seeds of federal tyranny, they correctly envisioned the future trees of oppression under which we now find ourselves. Any talk of these so-called "trees" back in 1787, however, was subject to the open scorn of the smooth talking federalists.



Such a tyrannical future time when property rights would be ignored, where a standing army(police) would reign unchallenged, where Congressmen would virtually hold office for life, where ruinous treaties, and alliances would be commonplace, where the Executive would openly abbrogate Constitutional law with an impunity, and arrogance that would make Nero jealous, where gold and silver would disappear from circulation to be replaced by worthless pieces of paper(fiat currency) from a private banking cartel, where the states would be reduced to administrative departments of the federal government, and where the grip of taxation would actually reach into the common laborer's pocketbook, all of this was too fantastic to be even theoretically debated during the ratification processes of that time.





An example would be John Marshall's reply to Patrick Henry's concerns at the NY ratification convention in 1788: Henry had made the comment that "the officers of the proposed federal government will be protected from merited punishment by the federal judiciary." To this Marshall replied " The Federal sheriff, says he; (Henry) will go into a man's house and beat him, or abuse him, and the federal courts will protect him. Does any gentleman believe this?


Is it necessary that the officers will commit a trespass on the property, and person of those with whom they wish to "transact business"?(Note: The 21st century embodiment of this glittering generality is the Internal Revenue service). Will such great assaults on the people be allowable? Were such a law ever made to authorize them, it would be made null and void."(Theoretically, yes, but not in fact unless the Supreme Court says so). As you can see, the federalists quite easily dismissed the urgent warnings of true patriots as grotesque delusions. Sounds familiar doesn't it?





Does any gentleman believe this? Ask the few Branch Davidians who survived about the federal sheriffs as in 1993 they poured machine gun fire through the roof of a homestead church on dozens of women and children. The 17 children that lived through that assault were again made subject to their federal masters 51 days later by tanks firing gas cannon shells when the feds knew damn well that the children had no gas masks for protection, and the type of gas used was lethal to the kids. The Clinton Administration launched an attack on American citizens in Waco, Texas, because those people were "religious nuts with guns". Hell, this country was founded by religious nuts with guns! Who did Bill Clinton think stepped ashore on Plymouth Rock? Peace Corp Volunteers? Or maybe the people in Texas were attacked because of child abuse? But if child abuse was the issue, why didn't Janet Reno teargas Michael Jackson?



The attack on individual rights has reached a point where a citizen has no right to use his own land if a government official finds a wet area on it, no right to the money in his own bank account if an IRS Agent thinks he might have dodged paying the illegal extortion that is committed every April 15 by the feds. A man's house is his castle, unless a politician covets the land in the name of "making it more productive"(for whom, pray tell?), or if his house is more than fifty years old, or if he has too many relatives living with him(does not pertain to illegals), or if he has old cars parked in his yard, or wants to add a porch, or deck. "Does any gentleman believe this?"



We have federal sheriffs beyond imagination. There are 46 civilian agencies of the Federal Government whose officers carry guns, and can make arrests. Those "great assaults" on the people have been allowed because there is nothing we can do about them short of armed rebellion. And by the way, no laws authorizing federal tyranny have ever been struck down by any sitting Supreme Court, and in the wake of 9/11, are not likely to in the near future. As Patrick Henry so wisely observed, "Will the oppressor ever let go the oppressed? Was there ever such an instance?"



The Congressional Hearings on Waco, and Ruby Ridge were a farce. None of the federal sheriffs have been brought to justice, and never will. Following the federal massacre at Waco Janet Reno told a group of the same sheriffs that "they are a part of the government that has given its people more freedom than any other government in the history of the world" (Wow!) So much for the notion that freedom, and "certain inalienable rights" of men come from God!



Patrick Henry did'nt have to wait until the 21st century to be proven right. He was vindicated in just six years when the venerable first president of the United States George Washington descended on the farmers of western Pennsylvania with an army of 13,000 men-nearly as large as which he had when he faced Cornwallis at Yorktown to suppress none other than a revolt that was caused by the farmer's refusal to pay a tax that was illegally imposed on them by the same government that was supposed to be constrained by the so-called "checks and balances" of constitutional government. The seeds of tyranny were transported from London to Washington; and were already growing!



Folks, there are no real "checks and balances" amongst the three branches of government because no branch has any real motive to restrain the other! The appetite of government is only for more; it is never satisfied! Can anything be more obvious than this?

The Founders well knew that their beloved federalism could only be achieved covertly and gradually over time through a political sleight of hand (Houdini), so they created a dog and pony show(elections) to misdirect the people from seeing the "trees" of tyranny that were growing along the sides. And so for the last two hundred years, while the seemingly fruitless gyrations went on, the shoulder dislocated, and helped the hand to wriggle free.

Since the shoulder(Supreme Court) was the key, it was deliberately underplayed in its importance in the Constitution. Article III concerning the federal judiciary is merely a few paragraphs compared to the voluminous pages of details of Articles I&II for Congress, and the President. For years the work of the Supreme Court went unnoticed by the people in the cramped, cold basement of the Capitol. Unnoticed, and uncontrolled, and that was precisely the idea. Any alleged control of the Supreme Court by the people is so insignificant it is worthless. The people elect state legislators, who appoint electoral college delegates, who choose the President, who then appoints the Justices. The link is so obscurant as to be barely more than theoretical- a veritable four ball combo shot in a game of pool!

If there is a true hope for freedom in the present application of the Constitution, then I will cheerfully wear the repute of being a sworn cynic forever! I would love nothing better than to be wrong about all of this, but the evidence is that: federal expansion is subject to no real, practical, and enforceable constitutional limits, and that both circumstancial, and historical evidence clearly supports the Constitution as being conceived, planned, and executed with the goal of relentless and unstoppable federal expansion of power at the expense of the freedoms of the people in general.

Some have attempted to refute this premise by responding that "the Constitution was inspired by God". Those who believe this will be quite surprised to learn that the Federal Convention was not even opened with prayer in May of 1787. It was proposed by Ben Franklin, but opposed by Alexander Hamilton on the grounds that the convention was not in need of "foreign aid". No action was taken on Franklin's proposal. As a result, the convention was never led in daily prayer

Others have said that"the founders were free-market guys weren't they?" No, they were not. As wealthy lawyers, and businessmen they had little commitment to any notions of an unregulated free market. The economy supported by them was a mixed economy that gave clear leverage to the merchant, and financial classes to directly benefit those classes. It is fair to say that this was considered to be pragmatic in the world of the 1780's.

Our "parchment worship" has blinded us to the provable history of the Constitution being a lukewarm servant of both freedom, and tyranny. Our oppressors have understood this for a long time; we're just now beginning to wrinkle our brows a little bit. So while there are many sincere clarion calls to "go back to the Constitution", even by men as honorable as Ron Paul, WE ARE ALREADY THERE! Don't blame the "liberal" justices, don't blame the lazy Congress, don't blame an imperial Presidency. They are all acting perfectly legally within the allowable limits imposed by the Constitution. Ignore the "Federalist Papers" ad copy and look instead at what they did, not what they said. When you focus your eyes on the rules of the game, and not on the board pieces, it is easy to see just what has happened to our country.

Let no one ever say that "John doesn't believe in America anymore". I do believe as much as ever in the "natural rights of men" as embodied in the Declaration of Independence, and as they were SUPPOSED to be defended by the Constitution. And when the day comes that that government is firmly in place I will be its most ardent supporter. However, we're in big trouble. We have no rights, only privileges, and responsibilities that are given by those that rule over us. We are one crisis(created) away from the end of liberty. We are "in check", and soon to be "checkmate" from the powers that be. Obama's "change" will not save us from the this demon, and neither would have McCain's. Both are "owned" by the present darkness of tyranny that besets us, and are ready to do its bidding. One need only look at the "Constitution for the Newstates of America" to see where we are going.

My hope is that we will wake from our slumber and realize that" the glory of Rome rests on the life of one righteous man"(Claudius). Let us finally understand the name of the game being played, take the hand we have been dealt, and play it better, and with more honor than our opponents while there is still time. The Revolution must be televised.

The Federal "Houdini"

"That system which was pompously displayed as the perfection of government, proves upon examination to be the most odious system of tyranny that was ever projected, a many headed hydra of despotism, whose complicated and various evils would be infinitely more oppressive and afflictive than the scourge of any tyrant... it is a crime of the blackest dye."

These are strong words. The words of a prophet usually are. The great patriot Patrick Henry wrote these words in an essay published in January of 1788. He went on to say that the American people would not see the Constitution thus because of a forecasted "distraction of misery" which would blind them from the realization that their government was a "many headed hydra of despotism", and that it would be, in fact, the weakness of the document itself that would be most responsible for this.

In every instance, whoever sets the rules of the game determines the eventual winner. As it is presently manifested, the Federal Government is like holding water in your hand- there is no way to really get a good hold on it. The feds have given themselves several viable, constitutionally legal escape routes which have proven more than adequate to defeat any conceivable restraint that might be placed upon them by the people. For all intents and purposes, the people and their States were checkmated back in 1789. The "game" was won at that time by the federal rule makers. It has just taken two hundred or so odd years of board moves for the checkmate to become visible(painfully). The painful point being that a "winning" margin of constitutional balance was given to the feds assuring their eventual victory. The "Houdini" was tricking the people to believe that the proportioning of constitutional power was balanced, and thus would be self-sustaining in its claims of checking federal power. Most people then, and now have continued this misguided belief almost to the point of making it a national religion. Only the Anti-Federalists, Patrick Henry among them, smelled the federal "rat" and realized that the Aristocrats had set themselves up to one unhappy day come out on top. That is the reason Patrick Henry never signed off on the dotted line, and in fact, boycotted the convention. He knew what would come of it.

The Constitution was, at least in form, to be the confining straightjacket of the Federal Government. The government was to have some use of its legs for international purposes, its body was to be bound up, and thus restricted from ever wielding its full power over the states. A straightjacket will reliably constrain a "normal" physique. One must only "change" the body, and escape will be simply a matter of time, and effort. All the body needs is an inch of new movement, and it can, with effort wriggle out of its hold. If you have ever watched an old Houdini flick of him extricating himself from a straightjacket, you know what I mean! Its all in the shoulder. The shoulder normally does not have anymore free movement than the arm, however, while the arm cannot shorten, the shoulder can dislocate itself. A straightjacket was not designed to hold a dislocated shoulder. Once the shoulder has dislocated, the arm has won the battle! Escape is only a matter of time, and effort. The audience, however, is reassured that the restraint is permanent because of all the wriggling which seems fruitless initially. This applies to the government in this respect: the Executive is the hand, Congress is the arm, and the Supreme Court is the shoulder. The branches are distinct, but they are all part of the same body with the single goal of freedom for all parts. The "checks and balances" myth is now seen for what it seems, and truly is: a form without function. It makes no sense to think that the shoulder, and arm will jointly prevent the hand from groping. There is, no de facto "separation of powers", they are all in the same hands like three bully brothers each promising to restrain the other from beating you up.

The shoulder is the key. Only it can dislocate and thus foil the intended purpose. Only the Supreme Court can "pop out of the socket" and cheat the master plan. Once the arm is out of the restraint and begins to unbuckle the suit the torso's eventual victory is plainly seen by "all who have eyes to see". What the audience hasn't seen, however, and would have even less understood has been that escape is the inevitable result once the shoulder has dislocated.

By now most Americans would agree that the Feds are busy unbuckling the constitutional straightjacket. What they cannot fathom is: How this has happened, and how they can wrestle it back into its place. While ideas vary widely, the general consensus is that the government somehow cheated, that Congress, and the President have broken the rules. The sharper minds among us understand that the so-called cheating has taken place in the Supreme Court, and has not really been cheating at all, but rather the use of a back door approach that was purposely left open by the founders from the outset.

It is painfully clear that the founders had foreseen the coming, guaranteed dislocation of the shoulder, yet did nothing to prevent it! And why was this you ask?

The answer is to be found by remembering that it wasn't the people, or the states that were clamoring for the 1787 convention, but rather a distinct group of mostly wealthy, aristocrats(federalists) who very much wanted a "strong central government"(Hamilton). While there was wide spread support for altering the Articles of Confederation for very good reasons, it was the federalists alone that wanted to scrap the Articles in favor of a "more energetic" national government, believing that it alone was "good and necessary"(Madison).

While I do believe their motives were genuinely sincere, I heartily disagree with their conclusions. The way to hell is paved with good intentions!

Here is a listing of the two hundred years or so of the acts that led to the straightjacket extrication that we are presently confronted with:

1790: "Rogue" Island joins the Union, new govt. in its constitutional straightjacket.
1791: Hamilton forms up the Bank of the US.
1794: Whiskey Rebellion; violent wriggling begins.
1798: Alien and Sedition Acts; first concerted effort by the shoulder, arm, and hand.
1803: Marbury vs. Madison; Supreme Court decides what is or isn't constitutional.(biggie)
1819: McCulloch vs. Maryland; Supreme Court rules that there are "implied powers" that Congress has that are not mentioned in the Constitution.
1824: Gibbons vs. Ogden; Supreme Court stretches "commerce" to mean "intercourse".(Congress can now federally regulate ANYTHING)
1876: Munn vs. Illinois; Supreme Court rules that when private property is used publically it is subject to public regulation(read: THEIR regulation)
1930: Shoulder now fully dislocated by Congress by "necessary and proper" legislation.
1933: Declaration of presidential emergency war powers, New deal legislation reverses 10th Amendment doctrine. Arm free of straightjacket.
1933-1980: Arm out, hand working on the buckle.
1984: Executive hand has complete freedom of movement, Posse Comitatus suspended with Executive power to declare martial law.
1994: Exclusionary Rule Reform Act(H.R. 666) passed by Congress
2001: Patriot Act; buckle undone, jacket coming off. Audience beginning to panic!
2008: Neo-feudalism, or the 2nd American Revolution???(Ron Paul)

The Revolution WILL be televised!!!

Civics 101: The Mythological Document

Probably 90% of Americans feel that the Federal Government has become too powerful, and too intrusive. Worse, they have no idea of how this came to be- or what to do about it. In the 20th century alone, government has grown five hundred times faster than its citizens. How has this happened? Where has our republic gone? Wasn't the Constitution supposed to check the growth of the Federal Government, and protect our liberties?

Yes, the Constitution was supposed to do that according to what we learned in Civics 101, according to the "mythological document". However, when faced with the sheer logic of what happens when Constitutional text and history are coldly analyzed this thinking collapses in a heap of dust.It collapses when one merely looks around seriously- the feds presently take one third of our productivity, and regulate everything from milk to the size of chimneys. There never was a tenth amendment of any substance, and there never will be. THE FEDS CAN DO ANYTHING THEY WANT!!!

Americans know nothing about the Constitution; only one in a hundred can correctly name James Madison its "Father'; only one in a thousand can name even one of the Bill of Rights.
Real Constitutional knowledge does not exist, but the myth is alive and well! We very much believe the founders advertisement of 1787-88 that the Constitution was written by great statesmen, the founding fathers, so its become a sacred cow that cannot be touched. So here we are blasting Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court without ever even looking at the document itself. I admit to having been guilty of this myself. But the truth is that despite our mythology, despite our so-called traditions of liberty, we are sinking into the depths of despotism and no one seems to be able to do anything about it.

This thinking of mine has been so depressing even for a cynic that I have gone over it again and again thinking that I must have missed something; that I had no right to arrive at such a foreboding conclusion. It was like passing by a well known building and hearing a weird sound coming from within; a sound that I had never heard before. What I found when I went inside was no less than horrifying. Under the Constitution, Americans have no legally enforceable avenue to counteract the Federal usurpation of the people's power that we are presently witnessing . Worse yet, this was in fact planned for , and intended by the founders from the beginning. The weird sound was an inconsistency in the Constitution's Preamble. What inconsistency you're wondering? Linguistically it is almost invisible. But if you eliminate all of the legalistic jargon you will spot it here:"We the people of the United States... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America". Doesn't it strike you as at least curious that both of these are mentioned in the same passage? Did you know that there is a difference between the "US" and the "USA"? Did you know that the "US" is actually a corporation, separate from the "USA"? The founding lawyers of 1787 knew exactly what they were doing and summarized it in the very first paragraph of their new corporate charter!

Please do not dismiss this as nothing more than a hair-splitting play on words. The Constitution is not only a political document, but also a body of law, and as such "the devil is in the details"! Detailed language is the structure of all legal matters. To understand the matter, we must first understand the structure. While not openly governing the text, this "wording" hinted at what was to be in the future.

Too many state delegates believed the federalist hoopla, and as a result overlooked the ambiguities, and subleties of the document. Only the Anti-Federalists saw through the papier-mache handcuffs on government that appeared to the rest as being solid iron. The Aristocrats won, and they are still winning because we are still living under their system, completely clueless as to why its not working.

And that is exactly the point, it wasn't supposed to work as advertised! It was never meant to guarantee state autonomy, or protect individual rights. And even more importantly, it was NEVER meant to limit federal growth.

I have come to the horrific conclusion that the Constitution as it was framed was the most insidious, protracted coup d' etat in history. Since its ratification, our federal masters have exhausted all powers, and stretched all ambiguities in language to the breaking point. The Constitution, as currently interpreted, now resembles what the founding lawyers truly wanted in their aristocratic hearts. For over two hundred years "We the sheeple" have been blindly in love with a lovely virgin of our own image that does not exist!

The Federalists were unhappy from the start because their beloved "Aristocracy" would not be achieved in their lifetimes, and they knew it! Hamilton himself angrily blurted out his feelings in 1792 when he said that "the Constitution was a shilly-shally thing which would not last, AND WAS ONLY GOOD AS A STEP TO SOMETHING BETTER!!! He best understood its "frail and worthless fabric! Helplessly caught between the two diametrically opposed forces- freedom, and big government, it would be just a matter of time before it would be radically altered, or replaced by one of them.

I realize that this is the most depressing post I have ever written, and may just be the most controversial as well. However, my resources are all orthodox, and my conclusions, if applied with reason seem inescapable. As awful as this premise sounds on its face, I believe it to be circumstancially compelling, if not conclusive.

Know that I am for true liberty under a constitution, even this one if it were possible. But it must be a documentary guarantee of our freedoms with some real limits on government, one that requires substance, and not just clever form. Its long past the time we finally see through the form and learn how truly hollow this document really is, and has always been. I am willing to know the truth; and I hope you are too. I have always agreed with the saying that "liberty has always been a fourth quarter team". We're up against a very formidable opponent that is well organized, and aims to fight. Its late in the game, and we're all really on the same team. A synthesis of effort is needed here.

Republicans need to cast off their "Democrat Light" costumes, and get serious about freedom. They need to crave something more substancial than Rush Limpbiscuit, and Ann Cuttlefish's liberal-bashing.

Libertarians need to get their heads out of the clouds and do something beyond intellectual dreaming. Face it, we won't be hosting the Inaugural Ball in 2009.

Conservative Christians need to learn to mind their own business, and spend their time applying their religion to themselves. They need to quit harping on the issue of "morality"; most especially someone elses. The point of government is not to make a heaven on earth, but rather keep from making a hell of it. Libertarians wouldn't think of interfering with anybody's church service, so why not let them buy a six-pack on Sunday if they want to?

Everyone needs to examine their "parchment worship" of the Constitution, and eliminate the idolatry.

Civics 101 starts here. See you in class!!! The Revolution will not be Televised.

Good Old Fashioned Government

I shouldn't really complain; it could have been worse . A trip to Canada this past weekend ended with me having to plead with a Spanish bureaucrat to convince him that I was an an American citizen. My NH driver's license wasn't good enough to get me home, or my knowledge of all of the presidents in chronological order backwards, and forwards(I am a teacher of US History after all)The threat of being detained for possibly hours, or days while my citizenship was verified loomed as large in my car window as did his bulbous nose. He sensed all of this I think, and thus released me with a stern reprimand, and admonishment that" if I had real I.D. with bar codes that could be scanned quickly, I would have been on my way without further ado, but since I had only a license, which must inputted manually, it would take much longer. I was standing in the way of government efficiency. I meekly offered the defense that "passports cost money,lots of it, and are a hassle to get nowadays".

What I really wanted to say was: "the hell with so-called efficiency". It is poisoning our food production, destroying the environment, squandering our financial security, and efficient entertainment is numbing the minds of our children. In fact, the last thing in the world that we should want is an efficient government, but that is what seems to be the test of a good government at least according to a study done by a major foundation. Our old fashion way of running government has put New Hampshire dead last in a Pew Foundation analysis of efficiency in state government.From the perspective of this Washington think tank and their government managers, New Hampshire is an "antiquated, odd ball state, hopelessly mired in the ideals of an 18th century decentralized republic that is suspicious of any form of centralized power". I took this as something of a backhanded compliment of which I am quite proud of as it affirms without doubt the reason that I want to live here. It seems to me that I can almost hear the applause of the founding brothers echoing from the top of Mt. Washington!

It is true that our structure of government has remained largely unchanged since 1784, three years before the US Constitution was adopted. And while other states have marched to the tune of "centralized government efficiency", the Granite State has stubbornly resisted. We have a large citizen Legislature, a slew of volunteer boards, a purposely weak executive that must deal with department heads that are independently elected, and an Executive Council that must approve all appointments, and expenditures. All of this is admittedly inefficient. It drives government bureaucrats and power hungry politicians absolutely mad! And it makes for one of the "freest states" in our nation.

It is my humble opinion that government operates best in small places where maximum participation is possible. From the Mayflower Compact to the New England town meeting, we have learned that the only way to control the abuses of government is by distributing its power as widely as possible, and encouraging the inherent distrust of anything that can become too large and powerful. It is, after all, our heritage. We are a nation of exiles, and immigrants, who left their homes because of their government's efficiency at denying their God-given rights.
The measure of a "good" government is not its efficiency, but rather its restraint. It is best when it allows maximum freedom and opportunity according to the will of the people.

When the powers that be speak of "patriotism, and security" and the need for efficiency in carrying out their jobs as defenders of these ideals, I am reminded of the words of one the founders in this regard,"Those who would surrender liberty for security deserve neither."

The revolution will not be televised!