I attended a town hall meeting in Claremore on Tuesday, January 29, 2013 featuring Markwayne Mullin, the newly elected congressman from Oklahoma’s 2^nd District.  Some of his statements sounded strange coming from a “conservative” but one response to a question bothered me more than the rest.

 A man asked Mullin about the executive orders being used by Barack Obama to by-pass Congress, and what can be done to nullify them.  Mullin’s response was that the way to stop an EO was for the House to pass legislation nullifying the order, then send it to the Senate where Dingy Harry Reid would refuse to allow it to be heard.  And even if it could be passed by the Senate it would have to go to Obama for his signature.

Read More:

http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2013/01/mullin-disappoints-once-again/

A look at Agenda 21 in the United States

On June 9, 2011, an Executive Order established the White House Rural Council with 25 executive branch departments including Defense, Justice, Homeland Security, National Drug Control, Environmental Quality, Labor, Commerce, Interior, EPA, Housing, Health, Education to name just a few.

The order covers 16% of the American population who lives in rural counties because they “supply our food, fiber, and energy, safeguard our natural resources, and are essential in the development of science and innovation. ”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_juUVKKBw-k

Executive Order 13575 of June 9, 2011

Establishment of the White House Rural Council

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America and in order to enhance Federal engagement with rural communities, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy.

Sixteen percent of the American population lives in rural counties. Strong, sustainable rural communities are essential to winning the future and ensuring American competitiveness in the years ahead. These communities supply our food, fiber, and energy, safeguard our natural resources, and are essential in the development of science and innovation. Though rural communities face numerous challenges, they also present enormous economic potential. The Federal Government has an important role to play in order to expand access to the capital necessary for economic growth, promote innovation, improve access to health care and education, and expand outdoor recreational activities on public lands.

To enhance the Federal Government’s efforts to address the needs of rural America, this order establishes a council to better coordinate Federal programs and maximize the impact of Federal investment to promote economic prosperity and quality of life in our rural communities.

Sec. 2. Establishment.

There is established a White House Rural Council (Council).

Sec. 3. Membership.

(a)
The Secretary of Agriculture shall serve as the Chair of the Council, which shall also include the heads of the following executive branch departments, agencies, and offices:

(1)
the Department of the Treasury;

(2)
the Department of Defense;

(3)
the Department of Justice;

(4)
the Department of the Interior;

(5)
the Department of Commerce;

(6)
the Department of Labor;

(7)
the Department of Health and Human Services;

(8)
the Department of Housing and Urban Development;

(9)
the Department of Transportation;

(10)
the Department of Energy;

(11)
the Department of Education;

(12)
the Department of Veterans Affairs;

(13)
the Department of Homeland Security;

(14)
the Environmental Protection Agency;

(15)
the Federal Communications Commission;

(16)
the Office of Management and Budget;

(17)
the Office of Science and Technology Policy;

(18)
the Office of National Drug Control Policy;

(19)
the Council of Economic Advisers;

(20)
the Domestic Policy Council;

(21)
the National Economic Council;

(22)
the Small Business Administration;

(23)
the Council on Environmental Quality;

(24)
the White House Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs;

(25)
the White House Office of Cabinet Affairs; and such other executive branch departments, agencies, and offices as the President or the Secretary of Agriculture may, from time to time, designate.

(b)
A member of the Council may designate, to perform the Council functions of the member, a senior-level official who is part of the member’s department, agency, or office, and who is a full-time officer or employee of the Federal Government.

(c)
The Department of Agriculture shall provide funding and administrative support for the Council to the extent permitted by law and within existing appropriations.

(d)
The Council shall coordinate its policy development through the Domestic Policy Council and the National Economic Council.

Sec. 4. Mission and Function of the Council

The Council shall work across executive departments, agencies, and offices to coordinate development of policy recommendations to promote economic prosperity and quality of life in rural America, and shall coordinate my Administration’s engagement with rural communities. The Council shall:

(a)
make recommendations to the President, through the Director of the Domestic Policy Council and the Director of the National Economic Council, on streamlining and leveraging Federal investments in rural areas, where appropriate, to increase the impact of Federal dollars and create economic opportunities to improve the quality of life in rural America;

(b)
coordinate and increase the effectiveness of Federal engagement with rural stakeholders, including agricultural organizations, small businesses, education and training institutions, health-care providers, telecommunications services providers, research and land grant institutions, law enforcement, State, local, and tribal governments, and nongovernmental organizations regarding the needs of rural America;

(c)
coordinate Federal efforts directed toward the growth and development of geographic regions that encompass both urban and rural areas; and

(d)
identify and facilitate rural economic opportunities associated with energy development, outdoor recreation, and other conservation related activities.

Sec. 5. General Provisions.

(a)
The heads of executive departments and agencies shall assist and provide information to the Council, consistent with applicable law, as may be necessary to carry out the functions of the Council. Each executive department and agency shall bear its own expense for participating in the Council.

(b)
Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)
authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)
functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(c)
This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(d)
This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Image credit: Will Lovell

A recent article in Washington Post appeared with the innocuous title, “What we need: Smarter growth plans.” The author is Roger K. Lewis, a practicing architect and professor emeritus at the University of Maryland. Who can possibly object to “smarter growth plans?” Except that “smart growth plans” is the euphemism used by the United Nations for its Agenda 21, a direct assault on private property rights and American sovereignty.

Roger K. Lewis suggests that “smart growth” was designed by market forces driven by “green building.” He makes no mention of Agenda 21 and ICLEI objectives and intrusion into our society since the early 1970s or the agreement signed in 1992 that went under the radar of the American people’s understanding of the complex negative ramifications for our economy and our liberties.

I have not met Americans who think, “sprawl-producing planning, zoning and mortgage templates are obsolete” as the author claims. Would Americans willingly give up their land and homes with or without compensation in exchange for a move to a densely populated high-rise, with no parking garages, no access to cars, like rats fenced in a grey concrete maze?

Communist “social engineering” confiscated land and homes for agriculture. People were forced to move into many-storied, tiny cinder block apartments without any compensation for the land or homes bulldozed. They were forced to commute by bicycles or public transit.

Lewis deems subdivision developments with low-density, detached, single-family homes as outdated. He calls the areas educationally dysfunctional and unsafe. American suburbia was built, he says, on four assumptions that have lost validity today:

1. Unlimited supply of land
2. Inexpensive and inexhaustible supply of oil
3. Homogenous land use
4. The American dream to own and inhabit a mortgaged house.

I am not sure on what research Lewis based his conclusions, but we have huge domestic oil reserves if permits were issued to drill. We also have a vast land mass. Some areas have 70 or less inhabitants per square mile. Americans still want to own their own home and want to live in a homogeneous community of other homeowners. Just because power hungry bureaucrats at the United Nations have decided to “preserve” land and the environment for the future of the planet and its animals, neglecting the future of humans, does not mean Americans agree to this vision.

“Much of America’s land cannot and should not be developed.” Who are you to decide for us, Mr. Lewis and why? Last time I checked we were free people who determined their own life choices.

“Dependency on oil and limitless use of cars pose daunting environmental, economic, and geopolitical problems.” Who is going to decide the limit to our car use? Is it going to be done by law, more regulations, or executive order?

A handful of environmentalists, the EPA, and the United Nation’s dictators, using faulty debunked data from the University of East Anglia or phony research are trying to separate Americans from their land use, cars, trucks, and the open-wide roads.

Lewis continues his Agenda 21 fallacy. “The traditional nuclear family—mom, dad, two to three kids and one or two pets—is now a minority of America’s households.” I am positive that this man is not describing America that I know and see every day. His statements continue, “Today a majority of households are people, young or old, living alone; couples or sets of unrelated individuals of various ethnicities, ages and tastes.”

Agenda 21 and Mr. Lewis suggest building high-rises in “designated areas within municipalities where new development and re-development is feasible and desirable.”Affordable housing is a priority and so are environmental standards.

It is obvious that “smart growth plans” or Agenda 21 designed by United Nations will affect our future choices in how we live and where. EPA will be involved and will twist the arms of those who do not adopt “smart growth plans,” denying grants to states and cities and levying other penalties. By the time Americans realize the implications of Agenda 21“smart growth,” they will lose their homes and lands with no compensation. At least people who lost property under Eminent Domain have been compensated.

The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) is a conglomerate of 600 national, regional, and local government associations who promote “sustainable development” and protection of the environment because of man-made global warming that does not exist.

“Sustainable development” is the United Nations effort to contain and limit economic development in developed countries and thus control population growth. It is “sustainable de-growth,” plain and simple. The focus is “low-income agriculture” and to set limits on the developed world.

United Nations and its affiliates believe that first world countries polluted significantly during their development while urging third world countries to reduce pollution thus impeding their growth. Implementation of“sustainable development” would revert our society to a pre-modern lifestyle.

ICLEI wants to keep the environment as pristine as possible through “ideal-seeking behavior.” These euphemisms are not clearly defined in terms of what or who will evaluate or set the standards for this “ideal-seeking behavior.”

Agenda 21 sets up the global infrastructure to manage, count, and control assets. It is not concerned with protecting the environment or the world’s resources. Agenda 21 wants change from old sector-centered ways of doing business to new approaches. The “desired future state” should be to pursue “economic prosperity, environmental quality, and social equity.”

“Social equity” is the new euphemism for “social justice” the Marxists in our government have been using a lot lately. Who gave them the authority and the mandate to initiate such change? I do not remember the American people being asked through a referendum whether we wanted our way of life to be fundamentally changed according to mandates set up by the United Nations. How will population growth control be achieved in order to protect the precious environment?

Image credit: Johann Dreo

There are four tiers to UN’s “sustainable development” plan:

1. Environmental sustainability
2. Economic sustainability
3. Socio-political sustainability
4. Cultural diversity.

In 2001 UNESCO, in The Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, stated that cultural diversity is as important as biodiversity in the sense of a more satisfactory, intellectual, emotional, moral, and spiritual existence. Who is to decide the level and quality of the population’s satisfaction, intellectual, emotional, moral, and spiritual existence? Human needs must be met while preserving the environment for the future. Again, who will decide what our needs are in order to preserve the future?

In February 2011 in Nairobi, Kenya, ICLEI attended a United Nations conference as representative of the interests of local governments. “In collaboration with partners such as UN-Habitat, Cities Alliance and ICLEI, UNEP (United Nations Environmental Protection) is working to make cities more livable, better prepared for the multiple environmental challenges they are facing, as well as giving them a stronger voice in the international climate negotiations.” Last time I checked, global warming has been debunked as a hoax and UN rapidly changed its name to climate change, continuing the attempt to fleece developed countries. In addition, who decides these international climate negotiations and why? What are we negotiating? Carbon credits?

In October 2009 in Bangkok, ICLEI stated, “local governments are offering national governments our partnership in the fight against climate change.” ICLEI wants local governments to collaborate with national governments to fight against climate change, the very change that has been scientifically debunked.

Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution states clearly, “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation, …No State shall,… enter into an Agreement or Compact with another State or with a foreign power…” The counties and cities that are members of ICLEI in the U.S. through its national organization are attempting to implement foreign policy, which our Constitution forbids. What mayors and municipal governments are doing is plain unconstitutional.

“Mayors and local governments set forth the following commitments to implement sub-national, national, and international frameworks by providing resources, authority, and mandate to carry forward climate protection roles and responsibilities.”

There is no law or act of Congress to authorize the aiding and abetting of foreign policy globalism by state and local governments. We have to protect our sovereignty by banning cities and counties to be members of ICLEI, an organization that promotes United Nation’s Agenda 21/“smart growth” which is detrimental to American economic interests, liberty, and sovereignty.

“No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto law, or Law impairing the obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.” -Article 1, Section 10, The United States Constitution. That Section of the Constitution prevents membership of states, cities and counties in an organization called International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI)…

But I’ll bet many of you reading this live in a city, town, or county that belongs to ICLEI because ICLEI has more than 600 active members throughout the United States. Those members are cities, counties, and states, not individuals. Westchester County is a member of ICLEI. Think we have a problem? To see if your city, town or county is affiliated with ICLEI go here: http://www.icleiusa.org/about-iclei/members/member-list

Tags: Agenda 21, ICLEI, United Nations, United States

I translated the Obama Executive Orders into “peasant language”. The Obama version is listed, with the truth following:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

Insure that every agency has every bit of information on everyone in the nation so nothing slips through our fingers, er through the cracks. “Sieg Heil!!!”.

Read More:

http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2013/01/obamas-gun-control-executive-orders-plain-english-version/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=obamas-gun-control-executive-orders-plain-english-version

A general dissolution of principals and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.

Samuel Adams[i]

The sanctioned backwards display of the U.S. flag is a perfect example of the backwards thinking of our federal and State governments, as well as our laughable policy-makers in general within the United States. The sad examples of what we call leaders, do much more than support this sort of idiocy, they enthusiastically promote more of the same. But there are other examples of backwards thinking we can look at, not just the flag. Let’s look at the bills Congress passes or attempts to pass. Even a moron tries to read what he is going to sign, although he may be incapable. But Congress routinely signs bills without reading them. The Legislative and Executive Branches have created more public debt than could be paid off in a millennia, yet they continue to foolishly borrow more money from foreign nations with the sole intent of giving that same money to other foreign nations in the form of aid which will never be repaid, only to leave the U.S. taxpayer dangling on the hook with more debt to suffocate him. We allow this by giving the so-called fix to our junkie lawmakers time and time again. Another example is government refusal to police our international borders while we police the borders of foreign nations who neither pay for the service nor wish for our presence in those nations. At the same time, they encourage and we allow overzealous policing of ourselves by an overly militarized police force right here in the United States. Then there is the hypocrisy of government when they speak of the evils of China and Russia (or the former Soviet Union if you will), only to turn around and gladly incarcerate more U.S. citizens than either China or Russia incarcerate, and at a staggering cost. But remember, we are the ‘land of the free.’

So what do We the People do? We enable these forked-tongued prevaricators by giving them whatever they desire, rather than disabling them so they have to slither on their bellies like the snakes which they actually are. This is the backwards thinking of our government officials at every level and these are just some of the tools which they are using to happily bury us with what appears to be our consent.

If you look at the U.S. flag code Section 175 (i), which deals with the position and manner of display of the flag. It states, “When displayed either horizontally or vertically against a wall, the union should be uppermost and to the flag’s own right, that is, to the observers left[ii].” Just so you are not confused by this, it is quite simple. The canton or union, which is blue and holds the stars, always, goes in the upper left hand corner as the crowd is looking at it. So if you hang the flag from your porch, while you look out of your own window and see the canton in the upper right corner, to the people who pass by and see the flag, the canton is in the upper left hand corner. Now we get to my problem. The backwards display of the flag on military uniforms as ordered by the federal government. While the U.S. Army claims this ‘backwards’ display has always been the case (at least for the Army), so the soldiers appear to be advancing and not retreating is really nothing more than a misleading argument. In no way is it possible for a patch of the U.S. flag on the shoulder of a uniform capable of giving anyone the appearance of retreating. I looked at hundreds if not thousands of photos of troops who fought in WWII through the Viet Nam War; I could not find one photo of the patch which was displayed in that fashion. If there was a patch, the canton was always in the upper left corner, I don’t care on what sleeve the patch was on. If you look at old photos of U.S. military aircraft, if there was a flag on the starboard side of the aircraft, the canton was in the upper left hand corner. I asked a friend of mine who is a retired U.S. Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant if I was right or wrong, he agreed with me. He stated, with a disturbed look on his face, “The canton always goes in the upper left corner, but in the upper right…that was never the case.” The canton always was in the upper left hand corner, until maybe 2002-2003 when some mental midget in the government thought it would be a good idea. I know people think this is a good idea, I personally think it is disgraceful, wrong and it makes me sick. Let’s move on, because the government and at least some of the people seem to have what they want, something backwards.

A good government implies two things; first, fidelity to the objects of the government; secondly, a knowledge of the means, by which those objects can best be attained.

Joseph Story[iii]

Since the Republican National Convention just happened in Tampa Florida and the Democratic National Convention is happening right now in Charlotte North Carolina, these are good examples. According to an article, “Congress set aside $50 million for security at each of the party conventions for 2012, for a total of $100 million. The total cost to taxpayers of the two national party conventions in 2012 exceeded $136 million[iv].” Here in Tampa, it was like some sort of police state. I personally have never asked the government to protect me in this manner. There were barricades impeding pedestrians and vehicles, cops in gangs roaming about. In fact you couldn’t walk 100 ft. without encountering a bunch of them. Did they bother people? No, but that isn’t the point. If I wanted to live in the Middle East, that’s where I would go. So are we to actually believe, our so-called leaders need this type of security? If they do, then they are obviously doing something wrong. I cannot believe the security was to protect them against al Qaeda, because we know it was to protect them from Americans. What would possibly make U.S. politicians feel as though they need that type of security to protect themselves from U.S. citizens? If the massive security was to protect property from protesters, then it also seems like overkill. People do have the right to protest, whether I agree with them or not. But to assume they will be a violent mob in some way violates the 1^st Amendment; the right to the people to peaceably assemble. Where does it say peaceably assemble under threat of an overly militarized police force? Or in the 5^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; nor be deprived of…liberty…without due process of law. Barricades and an excessive police presence do in fact deprive us of our liberty. But once again I will state, in no way did the police act in a Nazi-like fashion. However, I still have a problem with the apparent lack of trust by our elected government officials who feel this type of security is needed with regard to U.S. citizens.

An example of our leaders not paying attention is the Read the Bills Act of 2011 (RTBA). Why would there need to be such an Act if our legislators actually read what they were signing? According to Downsize DC, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse for citizens. Neither should it be for Congress[v].” The report goes on to state, “Any member of Congress wishing to cast an affirmative vote for more spending, greater regulation, or the creation or retention of a program of bureaucracy, must sign an affidavit swearing that he or she has either…read the entire bill or heard the entire bill read.” Can you actually imagine our geniuses in Congress passing legislation without reading the bill first? Keep in mind, this isn’t like reading a thousand page novel, this is difficult stuff and takes time, effort and thought. We know there is absolutely no way they can read and understand something that large or complex in a short period of time. Maybe if the plumbing wasn’t so difficult, it wouldn’t be so easy to stop up the drain. Bills should be simplified and they should stick to the proposed idea or intent of the bill and not have phony pork-laden trailers added ad nauseam. So the easy answer to what has been happening is, Congress is and has been passing bills without reading them. I believe this is criminal behavior. Why you ask? Simple, fraud is a crime in the United States. To enact a law which affects us all without knowing what is actually in the law is fraudulent. The devil is always in the details and lawmakers should know that. US News reported, “Steny Hoyer, the No. 2 Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives…all but admitted that few if any members of Congress will read the healthcare reform bill before voting for it[vi].” Representative Hoyer further stated, “If every member pledged not to vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes.” That would actually be a good thing. But be that as it may, it certainly is nice to know our elected leaders don’t find it important enough to take the time to read, digest and discuss the bills which have a huge impact on American citizens. Someone should really slip in something that states these fools will accept a 95% pay cut, but you can bet they would read that part of any bill.

An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation.

John Marshall[vii]

A perfect example of us borrowing money just so we can give it back to the same nation would be China. House “Republicans and Democrats bashed the programs during a hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Asia and Pacific panel, calling them a “giant mistake of thinking” by the State Department and “an insult” to taxpayers in America[viii].” For once I can actually applaud the words of some politicians. But, even though Congress controls the purse-strings, they still allow this to happen. So once again the State Department and their misguided foreign policy agenda strikes and our impotent House members can only be ‘insulted.’ According to the Daily Mail in the UK, “The U.S. is providing hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign aid to some of the world’s richest countries – while at the same time borrowing billions back[ix].” Articles like this one make it very difficult to think that U.S. lawmakers aren’t slightly ‘special’ when it comes to intelligence. The report went on to name some of the countries receiving the aid in 2010, “China…$27.2m, India $126.6m, Brazil $25m, and Russia $71.5m. Mexico also received $316.7m and Egypt $255.7m.” This is why we pay so much money in taxes. The government throws our money around the globe like the Secret Service does while on duty in a Columbian brothel. How and why we allow this to continue is beyond me, but it is quite easy to see why our public debt as of 4 September 2012 is a whopping $16,009,448,000,594.65[x]. Remember how Thomas Jefferson described public debt, as “A departure of principle” which reduces us to “Mere automations of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering…The fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression[xi].” Thomas Jefferson was not wrong.

According to Vet Friends, “No military in the history of the world has been more widely deployed as the United States. Currently, the United States has military personnel deployed in about 150 countries…This covers 75% of The World’s Nations[xii].” In a Tampa Bay Times report, Ron Paul states, “We’re in 130 countries. We have 900 bases around the world. We’re going broke[xiii].” Even if we split the difference between 150 and 130 nations, that’s still 140 nations out of roughly 196 nations (that number changes depending  on who is calculating the number). Still, if we had those troops in the United States, securing our borders instead of everyone else’s borders, do you think it would cost so much? Plus, the United States and our borders would be better protected and at a much lower cost to the taxpayer. Does South Korea really need us there to secure the DMZ? I’ll bet if we left and told them what they do is their business, the ROK would stomp on North Korea in no time. How about Europe? Maybe Europeans nations should guard their own borders, I like Europe, but if they can’t handle their own security, maybe they should be called something else. Either way, that wouldn’t be my concern, it would be theirs. My concern as should be the concern of all Americans is the United States of America, not every other nation on the planet. Read the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. To ‘provide for the common defence… to ourselves and to our Posterity’ is for the United States, not Korea, Germany, or any other nation. I don’t believe in the U.S. being the policemen of the world and if we are going to be that, then I believe people of other nations should be paying us handsomely for the service.

Let’s take a moment to talk about prison populations around the globe. While we all know for a fact we are the land of the free, which might not actually be true when you stop to consider we have more people in prison than any other nation on this planet. According to Nation Master[xiv], we have 715 people out of 100K people in prison, while Russia has 584 per 100K and China has 119 out of 100K. If you take these numbers, you come up with about 2.5m incarcerated in the U.S. to China’s 7.14m. If Nation Master’s figures are correct, and if you figure China has 6 billion people and we have 350 million, then we still incarcerate the most per capita. Stop and consider the fact that China has a population over 17 times greater than the United States, but we have a third as many people incarcerated. However, in a 2006 report by Natural News, “The United States has 5 percent of the world’s population and 25 percent of the world’s incarcerated population.” The report goes on to state, “A report released by the justice department…a record 7 million people -- were incarcerated, on probation or on parole at the end of 2005, with 2.2 million of them in prison or jail[xv].” So how ever you do the math, the United States has far more people incarcerated than any other nation per population. Then there is “China ranking second with 1.5 million prisoners, and Russia sitting in third with 870,000.” A CBS News report about the U.S. prisons or ‘Incarceration Nation’ stated, “A report by the organization, “The Price of Prisons,” states that the cost of incarcerating one inmate in Fiscal 2010 was $31,307 per year. In states like Connecticut, Washington state, New York, it’s anywhere from $50,000 to $60,000[xvi].” It seems fairly obvious there has been a push in the United States to incarcerate as many people as possible in order to sustain what I believe is an institution which has no intention of ever getting smaller. Prisons are now being built and operated by private companies, not that it wasn’t bad enough to have the government doing this to their own people, now it is for-profit prisons and we all know they are only going to get bigger. “Is it fair to call the United States “incarceration nation”?” Fairness has nothing to do with what is happening in the United States to the people through petty laws meant to strip us of our freedoms and keep us locked up in prisons so a profit can be turned.

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.

Patrick Henry[xvii]

We should all remember how the founding fathers of this nation wanted limited federal government. While the people within each sovereign State can easily make up the laws as they see fit, nobody needs to go there if those laws are too draconian. But when the federal government gets it claws into you, there is little chance you will ever break free. While you may or may not like my analogy of the backwards flag, keep in mind our so-called leaders are backwards, and they prove it time and time again. Why else would they pay $100 million for security for 2 weeks of political conventions, when we know they are trying to protect themselves from us, not to protect the cities from a foreign attack. Why would they sign bills without reading them? Those bills impact us greatly. Why would they borrow money from foreign nations only to give it back to foreign nations, while we suffocate under a $16 trillion plus public debt? Why would we have our troops in 75% of the nations of the world, while we are policed by an overly militarized police force right here at home? Are we that much of a threat? Yet our borders protections are much like a malfunctioning sieve, allowing practically anyone or anything to pass. I guess in the end that is why we have 5% of the world’s population and 25% of the world’s prison population. It’s nice to know the U.S. government has such affection for its people. Perhaps we should show our government the same kind of affection. I realize they don’t think the laws apply to them, but they do.

God Bless this Great Republic, the United States of America.

Brett L. Baker

http://mytreatises.blogspot.com 

I believe the subject of this treatise will be about an individual which a great many people consider to be public enemy number one. For those of you who have read my other treatises, I hate to disappoint you, this particular treatise will not be the scathing witch hunt which uncovers the corruptness of our so-called leadership or of any particular leader for that matter. Instead, I am going to spend the time looking into a man who much of the public seems to intensely dislike, but for whom I have a great deal of respect.

While there are nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices, I am going to focus on one. If you haven’t guessed who I am referring to by now, it is Senior Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia. Antonin Scalia was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate and assumed his office, or his seat, on 26 September 1986 as a Supreme Court Justice. Who is this Supreme Court Justice and what sets him apart from the rest? According to Wikipedia Justice Scalia is, “The longest-serving justice currently on the Court, Scalia is the Senior Associate Justice. Appointed to the Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, Scalia has been described as the intellectual anchor of the Court’s conservative wing[i].” I would like to mention a few more items noted in Wikipedia before I continue, which I believe will give us something to work with regarding Justice Scalia. Wikipedia also notes, “In his quarter-century on the Court, Scalia has staked out a conservative ideology in his opinions, advocating textualism in statutory interpretation and originalism in constitutional interpretation. He is a strong defender of the executive branch…and, in his minority opinions, often castigates the Court’s majority in scathing language.” I’ll also touch on Justice Scalia’s beliefs on such matters as flag-burning and abortion as they relate to the Constitution of the United States. I believe these items through his over 25 years on the Court will allow us to find out who Supreme Court Justice Scalia is and why so many people believe he is public enemy number one.

A Constitution is not meant to facilitate change. It is meant to impede change, to make it difficult to change.

Antonin Scalia

Because I love the U.S. Constitution and know the founding fathers of this nation were great men, I believe that would be a good place to start. What does Justice Scalia mean when he speaks about originalism in constitutional interpretation? According to an interview with Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes, the CBS News report states, “Justice Scalia is still a maverick, championing a philosophy known as “originalism,” which means interpreting the Constitution based on what it originally meant to the people who ratified it over 200 years ago[ii].” Personally, I like the idea of interpreting the U.S. Constitution[iii] in a manner that upholds the values, principles and words of our founding fathers who actually risked everything to create such a wonderful document for the people of the United States. In the report Justice Scalia goes on to explain what he means, “It is an enduring Constitution that I want to defend.” Ms Stahl notes, “Scalia has no patience with so-called activist judges, who create rights not in the Constitution – like a right to abortion – by interpreting the Constitution as a “living document” that adapts to changing values.” Justice Scalia states why he is against the idea of a living Constitution, “What’s wrong with it is, it’s wonderful imagery and it puts me on the defensive as defending presumably a dead Constitution.” So it is apparent, Justice Scalia believes the U.S. Constitution should be and is our ‘rock solid foundation’ which we stand upon and which has elevated us, the United States, to our (at least once) grand stature. With regard to the founders, Justice Scalia goes on to say, “Well, it isn’t the mindset. It’s what did the words mean to the people who ratified the Bill of Rights or who ratified the Constitution.” Justice Scalia isn’t against progress or change, “Create it the way most rights are created…Pass a law.” But he is against changing the Constitution, our foundation. Like many people I believe if you wish to change the Constitution, lawmakers need to go through the extremely cumbersome amendment process in order to make the Amendment. However, making a law in itself, is much less cumbersome, it just needs to be constitutional.

Why does Justice Scalia advocate textualism in statutory interpretation and what is it? Oliver Wendell Holmes in The Theory of Legal Interpretation stated, “How is it when you admit evidence of circumstances and read the document in the light of them? Is this trying to discover the particular intent of the individual, to get into his mind and to bend what he said to what he wanted?” Mr. Holmes, who I might add was a brilliant man, further states, “Thereupon we ask, not what this man meant, but what those words would mean in the mouth of a normal speaker of English, using them in the circumstances in which they were used, and it is to the end of answering this last question that we let in evidence as to what the circumstances were[iv].” So I believe Mr. Holmes is stating textualism is not necessarily the intent of the man as much as it is the words themselves, as used by men in general, to understand the meaning of the words within a certain circumstance.

According to the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, “The basic premise of textualism is that judges “must seek and abide by the public meaning of the enacted text, [as] understood in context” and should “choose the letter of the statutory text over its spirit[v].”” Mr. Davis further states with regard to textualism, “Only the statutory text has passed the constitutional requirements of bicameralism and presentment, and that judicial reliance on unenacted intentions or purposes “disrespects the legislative process.”” Also according to Mr. Davis, textualists believe those ‘unenacted intentions and purposes’ are that which “Skirts the constitutional protections designed to safeguard liberty by diffusing legislative power.” So textualism maintains the separation of power within the three branches of government itself and protects the U.S. Constitution as well as the liberty of sovereign individuals and sovereign States.

Just so you know bicameralism is Congress as two chambers, the House of Representatives and the Senate. For the definition of presentment I’ll go to Black’s Law Dictionary, “In criminal practice. The written notice taken by a grand jury of any offense, from their own knowledge or observation, without any bill of indictment laid before them at the suit of the government. A presentment Is an informal statement In writing, by the grand jury, representing to the court that a public offense has been committed which is triable in the county, and that there is reasonable ground for believing that a particular individual named or described therein has committed it[vi].”

So between Oliver Wendell Holmes and Mr. Davis of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Justice Scalia’s advocacy of textualism in statutory interpretation is not the intent of what is or was meant, but the actual public meaning of the text itself within the context of what was said [in the statute] and this is done strictly to safeguard our liberty under the U.S. Constitution while holding the government in check. I can’t figure out how that is a bad thing. The framers of the Constitution believed in limited government, to be sure, limited federal government as stated by James Madison in Federalist No. 45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined[vii].”

Now imagine a provision—perhaps inserted right after…the Naturalization clause—which included among the enumerated powers of Congress “To establish Limitations upon Immigration that will be exclusive and that will be enforced only to the extent the President deems appropriate.” The delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits.

Antonin Scalia

An example of one of Justice Scalia’s minority opinions can be found in Arizona v. United States. Justice Scalia states, “Must Arizona’s ability to protect its borders yield to the reality that Congress has provided inadequate funding for federal enforcement—or, even worse, to the Executive’s unwise targeting of that funding[viii]?” Justice Scalia goes on to say, “The President said at a news conference that the new program “is the right thing to do” in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.” This is wonderful example of Justice Scalia castigating the majority (let’s call it) in scathing language-lite (I would have just called them spineless jellyfish). While the majority opinion was in favor of the President’s so-called plan of doing nothing other than trampling atop the rights of the sovereign State of Arizona, Justice Scalia sets himself apart and appropriately rebuffs the majority as well as the Executive branch. Justice Scalia states, “The Court opinion’s looming specter of inutterable horror…seems to me not so horrible and even less looming…the specter that Arizona and the States that support it predicted: A Federal Government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written…Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?” Justice Scalia seems right on point and makes my previous statement with regard to the Supreme Court Justices in “On Sovereignty[ix]” seem a bit harsh. Quite frankly I should have stated the Supreme Court might as well be referred to as ‘Eight Empty Chairs’ instead of nine. Justice Scalia quite eloquently affirmed Arizona’s sovereign status and rebuked the Executive’s misguided stance as well as the Supreme Court’s inconceivable majority opinion. Why should the sovereign State of Arizona be required to allow its borders to be violated? As a sovereign State, Arizona has every right to secure its borders, protect its citizens and enforce Immigration Laws even if the Federal government doesn’t have the backbone or the intestinal fortitude to aggressively enforce those laws. I have always been unable to fathom why the federal government shirks its own responsibilities but has such a voracious appetite for prosecuting decent Americans who simply exercise their freedoms as they see fit, which seem to be at odds with the misguided beliefs of the jack-booted thugs in Washington.

Apparently, the Obama administration which flatly refuses to rigorously enforce existing immigration laws, just like his predecessor, George W. Bush who also refused to enforce those laws should not handcuff a sovereign State from doing so. Each sovereign State, like the nation as a whole, has its own Constitution and its own three branches of government. The federal government in my view is always subordinate to the States as well as the individuals who make up the States, unless one of the various constitutionally guaranteed rights of the individual has been violated by the State. What right does the federal government believe it has to step in as ‘High Lord and Potentate’ and issue its so-called fatwa’s or to even dictate to the sovereign individuals and the sovereign States? The business of the State is just that, the business of the State. The federal government’s power is limited for a reason, the founders believed in the sovereign individual and the sovereign State.  Clearly, the federal government merely acts out of jealousy in its daily attempts to usurp what is not rightfully theirs as stated in the Law of the Land, the U. S. Constitution.

Frequently an issue of this sort will come before the Court clad, so to speak, in sheep’s clothing…But this wolf comes as a wolf.

Antonin Scalia

Now that we have seen Justice Scalia beat up on Obama, I think it would be a good time to touch on him [Scalia] as a strong defender of the executive branch. In Morrison v. Olson Justice Scalia gave his dissenting opinion, “We should say here that the President’s constitutionally assigned duties include complete control over investigation and prosecutions of violations of the law, and that the inexorable command of Article II is clear and definite: the executive power must be vested in the President of the United States[x].” Clearly, Article II of the U.S. Constitution states the duties and power of the Executive Branch as separate from either the Legislative or Judicial Branches, as stated in Articles I and III respectively, and vice versa. Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion continues, “In my view…the Court’s conclusion must be wrong…One of the natural advantages the Constitution gave to the Presidency, just as it gave Members of Congress (and their staffs) the advantage of not being prosecutable for anything said or done in their legislative capacities…It is the very object of this legislation to eliminate that assurance of a sympathetic forum.” As executive privilege is a principle based on the constitutionally mandated separation of powers – the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches operate independently from one another. Private decision making with their advisors, in this case the independent council was the Assistant Attorney General Olson, has to be done without fear of ‘how something might look’ to either of the other branches of government. Unless a crime has been committed, no branch of government may frivolously impede the duties of the other branches of government. Especially when the aim is simply to destroy an elected leader’s ability to carry out the duties of his office through a so-called witch hunt or a fishing expedition which effectively renders the elected leader impotent without just cause, or simply to act as a device to destroy one’s political enemy. “The purpose of the separation and equilibration of powers in general, and of the unitary Executive in particular, was not merely to assure effective government but to preserve individual freedom.” This is a good example of Justice Scalia’s strong defense of the executive branch. But in doing so, Justice Scalia is actually defending all three separate branches of government and their duties as delineated in the U.S. Constitution. What strikes me as even more paramount than the defense of the Executive and the separation of powers (which is extremely important), is Justice Scalia’s believe that in doing so it is in the defense of the individual freedoms which are ultimately protected.

Lastly, we should take a look at Justice Scalia’s conservative ideology. If we go back to the 60 Minutes interview with Leslie Stahl, Justice Scalia states, “I’m a law-and-order guy. I confess I’m a social conservative, but it does not affect my views on cases.” An example of Justice Scalia’s impartiality, in spite of his own personal beliefs, is in regard to flag-burners, “If it was up to me, I would have thrown this bearded, sandal wearing flag-burner into jail, but it was not up to me.” While that does sound conservative to me, it also sounds impartial. Justice Scalia clearly states his disdain for flag-burning and flag-burners, yet his opinion with regard to the law is flag-burners are protected under the U.S. Constitution. I’m not so certain I could be so fair-minded. It seems to me, flag-burners have plunged themselves into the depths of the multitudes of depraved individuals around the globe who constantly burn our flag, yet cry a river whenever the United States does something with which they do not agree. Of course, they claim they burn our flag because of our aggression, and while there may be a certain amount of truth to that statement, these people which I speak of live in a barbaric rat hole as a result of their own choosing, not ours. Their argument is disingenuous as well as fallacious.

The right to abortion is another issue with which we are all too familiar, based on the landmark case Roe v. Wade. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Justice Scalia gave his dissenting opinion, “By foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish. – We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining[xi].” Whether someone is for or against abortion, it seems clear to me as it seems to be with Justice Scalia, nowhere within the U.S. Constitution does it state there is a right to abortion. However, I do believe as Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion states, this is a matter that should be left up to the States. Roe v. Wade is a perfect example of the federal government’s attempts to destroy States rights. Has there been an amendment to the Constitution? The easy answer is no, but if that is the case, then why does the federal government feel they have the right to enact a national law without going through the cumbersome amendment process to the U.S. Constitution? If a State or the people of a State enact a law which either affirms or denies the right to have an abortion through State law, the individual on either side is not held against their will in that State. They have the freedom and the right to leave and seek out their liberty in another State where the people of that State have beliefs which are more in keeping with their own set of beliefs. But to have a national law foisted upon us all with the misguided attempt at appeasement for some, completely disregards the others. Not to mention the fact that such an idea is completely foreign to the U.S. Constitution.

I would conclude by stating Justice Scalia is not only a fantastic jurist, but an outstanding Supreme Court Justice. This man has a clear grasp of the law and an understanding of the U.S. Constitution which is unparalleled. I happen to like the fact that he adheres to the public meaning of text in his interpretation of the statutes and how he sticks to what the founding fathers said and what the words meant to them regarding the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Justice Scalia’s belief that the idea of a living constitution is in reality a dead constitution is an honorable defense of the U.S. Constitution. His belief that his duty is to defend an enduring Constitution speaks volumes about this man. Justice Scalia’s defense of the sovereign State in the face of Executive, Congressional and Judicial malfeasance is also quite noteworthy. To protect the sovereign State is to protect the sovereign individual and it would appear as though Justice Scalia is a staunch supporter of both. As I have already stated, he defends the Constitution, but he also does this by affirming there is a clear separation of power between the three branches of government as stated in the Constitution. His conservative leanings don’t seem to sway his opinions or impartiality with regard to any case. And his opinions in general are quite interesting to read. Justice Scalia shows up for work each day fully prepared to uphold, defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. I cannot imagine why so many people hate this man, unless of course, it is because they hate the U.S. Constitution.

Justice Scalia is in many ways like Socrates, he questions and reproves, he educates and he enlightens. While in his interview with Ms Stahl he stated, “I was never cool,” I would have to disagree with him on that point. I personally believe Justice Scalia is in fact very cool, I might even go so far as to say he is a role model for decent and honorable men and not just young lawyers who someday wish to sit on the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia is an example of a man who leads by example. If we had more like him on the Supreme Court, it’s possible our nation wouldn’t hit the nail right on our thumb quite so often.

If you think aficionados of a living constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again. You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens to enact it. That’s flexibility.

Antonin Scalia[xii]

God Bless this Great Republic, the United States of America.

Brett L. Baker

http://mytreatises.blogspot.com 

References

Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematical plan of reducing us to slavery.

Thomas Jefferson[i]

Has our Legislative branch of government become a mere legislature for the legislators? The only time either side of the aisle seems to be in agreement is when they legislate for themselves. Of course in regard to partisan politics the results are more egregious. But when it comes to the people of the United States, or in the larger sense, the United States itself as the people are the United States, the Legislative branch of government appears to be absent. Why is this the case? If you consider the fact that elected officials are supposed to serve the people, then why is it that they only tend to serve themselves? And how does this happen? To make matters even worse, it’s not just the Congress, it is our government officials at every level; Governors, Mayors, City Councils, you name it. While I’ll never understand how these degenerates get elected in the first place, I absolutely will never understand how they continue to get re-elected over and over again. These are the questions which will be the focus of this treatise and I believe the answers will shed light on an unfortunate, but very real set of facts; the Legislative branch of government or any type of legislator in general, only serves itself.

Illinois is a good example of the self-serving politician. In a 6 March 2012 report, “Just a week after Democratic Governor Pat Quinn of Illinois gave his State of the State address in which he announced massive cuts throughout the system due to the state being broke, the governor and other lawmakers have given themselves a pay raise[ii].” The truth is the U.S. Congress has been at this for quite some time. An article by Robert Longley reports, “For the fifth year in a row, lawmakers voted not to reject their automatic “cost of living” raise that will increase the annual salary of members by $3,400 to a total of $158,103 per year[iii].” Mr. Longley continues, “In 1989, Congress passed an amendment allowing for the automatic raises.” The report also states, “The fiscal year 2004 Transportation and Treasury Department Appropriations bill included Congress’ 2.2 percent pay raise.” It’s no wonder so many people look down on our elected leaders, these politicians only vote for themselves, and they do it time and time again. When the States, the nation and the people are broke, only the most shameless bunch of self centered frauds the United States has to offer would actually vote for automatic pay raises and accept them. Of course their childish, petty and partisan bickering must entitle them to these raises, because they accomplish nothing else. The Congress can’t even follow the U.S. Constitution as stated in Article I, Section 8. For proof of that I will cite two wars, one which is still ongoing, Iraq and Afghanistan. Our Congress was too cowardly to even Declare War, but they did allow them to last for a decade and even longer in the case of Afghanistan which is still ongoing. This is a perfect example of politicians thumbing their noses at the people.

This same obnoxious behavior by politicians happens at every level. I came across a letter to the editor for Cumberland County Voices in New Jersey. The letter starts out, “Our city government is underpaid for the hours of service they perform. Sitting for hours at a time puts a tremendous amount of stress on their decision-making muscle. Yes, this group has the nerve to take a 42 percent pay raise[iv].” The letter goes on to state, “They [the city council] want it retroactive…They even had the unmitigated gall to attach their raise to the salary schedule for city employees, so if it does not pass the city employees will have to wait for their raises, too.” The individual who is being talked about is the Mayor of Bridgeton New Jersey, James B. Begley. Apparently this man is the least visible Mayor in history and really only wants to secure pay raises for him and his fellow crooked city politicians, without actually working. That seems about right for a politician. Begley proves you don’t have to be in the House or the Senate to be a crooked politician. You don’t even have to be governor! Just a pathetic little city mayor, in a town where violence runs rampant throughout the streets and the mayor can only seem to secure himself a 42% pay increase! But I guess he’s been in office for about 20 years, so that tells you something about the voters. My suggestion would be getting Begley out of office and never vote him back in under any circumstance.

I saw an interesting article on the Yellow Hammer Politics web-site. Apparently, not surprisingly, there is a very self-serving Democratic Alabama Senator named Roger Bedford. This man was “The architect of the 2007 pay raise.” The report states, “In 2007, in some dark crevice of the Alabama State House, Democrat legislators hatched a plan to give themselves a 62-percent pay raise. With the next election still several years away, they figured that while the voters may be upset initially, they would have plenty of time to forget about this inexplicable violation of public trust. They were wrong[v].” Apparently, the people of Alabama didn’t take a shine to this sort of behavior. What eventually happened was, in April of 2012 the Alabama House passed a bill repealing the 62% pay increase, “And passed enabling legislation that will place a constitutional amendment on the ballot which will provide voters with control over legislative pay.” The idea behind this GOP push in the Alabama House was to make certain this could never happen again; voters would control pay raises for their State legislature. The Alabama Senate attempted to follow suit, but Senator Bedford “Jumped into action offering amendment after amendment in a death-by-a-million-paper-cuts strategy…his amendments allowed the legislature to retain control over legislative pay rather than giving that power back to the voters – which is the true spirit of the GOP’s plan.” This is a perfect example of politicians serving themselves. Even when there are some members who wish to do the right thing, the self-serving leaches somehow are able to maintain their advantage. What strikes me as funny is this so-called Senator, Roger Bedford, who is obviously an enemy of the people of State of Alabama, is able to walk free. Bedford is a public servant, but he is only serving himself. Why is this man not in a prison cell? The reason, is because the people of the State of Alabama allow this to happen (just as we all do). Fortunately, the fight isn’t over, “I’ve withstood as much hypocrisy as I can for one day,” Senate President Pro Tem Del Marsh stated, “What came out today was a monstrosity that we want to correct in conference committee.” I wish the people of the Great State of Alabama luck with their endeavor.

Of course, legislators who give themselves pay raises need even more. According to a Washington Post analysis, “One hundred-thirty members of Congress or their families have traded stocks collectively worth hundreds of millions of dollars in companies lobbying on bills that came before their committees, a practice that is permitted under current ethics rules[vi].” Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines ethics, “The discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation; a set of moral principles: a theory or system of moral values; the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group; a guiding philosophy; a consciousness of moral importance; a set of moral issues or aspects (as rightness)[vii].” It would appear as though members of Congress believe their moral duty, obligation and guiding philosophy is to amass as much wealth as possible while in office. I had to laugh when I read, “The Post analysis does not provide evidence of insider trading, which requires showing that Lawmakers knowingly used confidential information to make trades benefitting themselves.” The article only stated that this, “Raise[d] questions about potential conflicts and illustrate[s] the weaker standard that Congress applies to itself.” Fortunately, Martha Stewart wasn’t a lawmaker or the government wouldn’t have been able to throw her in prison for five months for lying about dumping ImClone stock before the price plunged. Yet the Washington Post article states, “Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) sold between $50,000 and $100,000 in General Electric stock shortly before a republican filibuster killed legislation sought by the company.” What strikes me as funny about this is, politicians are the biggest liars on the planet, so why go after Stewart? The Post analysis did state an interesting fact, “Almost one in every eight trades – 5,531 – intersected with legislation…The party affiliation of the lawmakers was almost evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, 68 to 62.” It’s good to know there is a little bipartisanship in Washington. That being said, this is still the worst type of so-called leadership; it’s self-serving and arrogant to say the least.

Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust be men of unexceptionable characters. The public cannot be too curious concerning the character of public men.

Samuel Adams[viii]

But legislators have even more unscrupulous ways to make money. Fox News reported on a deal made by former Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, “In February 2004, Hastert…through a trust…bought up 69 acres of land that adjoined his farm…transferred an additional 69 acres from his farm into the trust…Two months later, Congress passed a spending bill into which Hastert inserted a $207 million earmark…in August 2005..Hastert and his partners flipped the land for what appeared to be a multi-million dollar profit[ix].” The Fox documentary which was called ‘Porked: Earmarks for Profit’ named other wastes of taxpayer money which benefitted politicians and their families, “A $223 million “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska, a $500,000 teapot museum in North Carolina, a $10 million extension to Coconut Road in Florida.” Personally, I think these ‘pigs’ are already fat enough and don’t need our taxpayer money to fill their troughs or to line their already golden pockets.

Of course there is more. Democratic Rep. Norm Dicks of Washington State is also crooked, according to the Seattle Weekly, “In 2008, Dicks, as an appropriations chairman, secured a $1.82 million earmark for a Washington State environmental agency where his son worked as executive director…the congressman also sent $15 million to the Environmental Protection Agency, which gave the funds in noncompetitive grants to his son’s agency, the Puget sound Partnership[x].” I cannot believe we allow our money, our tax dollars to be siphoned from our bank accounts only to fuel the engines of the depraved, so-called leaders who have absolutely no shame or honor. These are just a few examples; I could easily go on with many more examples. If an individual citizen (who wasn’t related to a politician) did this, then I have no doubt there would be jail time involved. Is it a surprise our legislators continue to increase their wealth, but we continue to get closer to poverty? But the truth is once again, when it’s connected to an elected legislator, we can see how they are given (or give themselves) carte blanche to do as they please. Where does the service to your constituents or to your country fit into this type of leadership?

I think now is a good time to take a look at one of our elected legislators and see just what we uncover. Let’s look at Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), who according to Citizens for Ethics states, “Her ethics issues stem from the exercise of this power to financially benefit her daughter, husband and son. Rep. Waters’ family has earned a total of more than $1 million in the last eight years through business dealings with companies and issue organizations Rep. Waters has assisted[xi].” Among the organizations are, “L.A. Vote, the African American Committee 2000, the firm of Siebert, Brandford and Shank, and the Chester Washington Golf Course. It would appear that Rep. Waters believes her position in the House of Representatives entitles her to make backroom deals which benefit her family to the sum of $1 million. This is actually a perfect example of how politicians in the U.S. get rich on our taxpayer money. The report states, “Of the $1.7 million collected by L.A. Vote over the past 8 years…$450,000 has gone to Karen Waters and her consulting firm, Progressive Connections, and $115,000 to Rep. Waters’ son, Edward.” The report also notes, “Karen Waters also has collected $20,000 from…African American Committee 2000 & Beyond…Many corporations and organizations seeking to win Rep. Waters’ favor have donated…The non-profit has used this money to pay for parties hosted by Rep. Waters at the Democratic national conventions. Sponsors…include Fannie Mae.” Apparently, Rep. Waters believes non-profits exist to fill the bank accounts of her family members for her favors as a member of the House. Rep. Waters and her children weren’t the only beneficiaries, “Rep. Waters’ husband, Sidney Williams…working as a part-time consultant for…Siebert, Brandford and Shank…collected close to $500,000 by  making valuable introductions for Siebert to politicians who have received his wife’s support.” The report gives an example, Waters “Guaranteed a $10 million loan from the Department of Housing and Urban Development…to handle a $40 million school bond sale, they chose Siebert. Mr. Williams earned $54,000 in commission from the deal.” A $500,000 payout for a part-time consulting job, that’s a pretty sweet deal. Of course as we all know, ordinary Americans work for peanuts and allow these criminals to ‘govern.’ And then there was the Chester Washington Golf Course, “Waters’ son, Edward Waters…her husband Sidney Williams…won a 20 year lease to run the county-owned Chester Washington Golf Course in South Los Angeles. The key decision-maker for the deal was County Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke…Rep. Waters handed the County Supervisor a victory just several months earlier…Mr. Williams and Mr. Waters earned between $140,000 and $400,000 through the golf venture.” It really does pay to go into politics, especially if you are Rep. Maxine Waters or one of her family members.

I should mention, the report also states, “Rule 23 of the House Ethics Manual requires all members of the House to conduct themselves “at all times in a manner that reflects credibility on the House.”” I’m guessing that House Ethics Manual has collected a lot of dust over the years.

Before I move on I would like to mention one more item in the CREW report, “5 CFR §2635.702(a)…An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office in a manner that is intended to coerce or induce another person…to provide any benefit, financial or otherwise, to himself or to friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a non-governmental capacity.”

How can I put this? It is blatantly obvious that Rep. Maxine Waters did everything she wasn’t supposed to do with regard to her position in the House of Representatives. As we all know, Maxine Waters hasn’t been charged, tried or convicted with regard to any of the above offences. If you are asking yourselves why, the answer is quite simple. Our elected so-called leaders are nothing more than a gang of unethical, self-serving criminals who are above the law. But I urge each and every one of you, don’t get caught smoking a joint on the street, because you will go directly to jail. Are any of you starting to see the problem here? It’s really quite simple as demonstrated by Maxine Waters; the legislators only legislate for benefit of themselves, their families and their confederates.

Let’s take a look at how our legislators spend our money. We have already seen how Governor Pat Quinn, Mayor James Begley, Senator Roger Bedford, Representative Ed Whitfield, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, House Appropriations Chairman Norm Dick and Representative Maxine Waters serve themselves and their families. But there are more.

I think the place to wind this up is Solyndra. In a report from The Center for Public Integrity, “Time and again, the government handed breaks to Solyndra Inc.; an upstart California solar panel firm backed by a major supporter of the president…benefits flowed from Washington despite warning signs that the government’s $535 million investment was a risky bet, at best[xii].” First I must say, it wasn’t the government’s $535 million, it belonged to the people of the United States, the taxpayers who got fleeced. A major backer of Obama, in this case “George Kaiser, an Oklahoma oil billionaire who raised at least $50,000 for Obama’s 2008 campaign and is a frequent visitor to the White House,” received over a half a billion taxpayer dollars for his efforts. I can’t blame Kaiser, if I thought I could give $50,000 for over 10,000 times that amount in return, I suppose I would. The report went on to state, “The House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations escalated its examination of DOE spending by focusing on Solyndra.” Of course, it is the Congress who holds the purse-strings in the United States. Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution states, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law[xiii].” So it would appear the Congress was in fact involved just as much as Obama with giving $535 million in taxpayer money to Solyndra. The result was 1,100 employees got fired in the end; that’s a little over a $486,000 investment for each employee to have a job. Solyndra as we all know went bankrupt and the company has been shut down. But I believe this is a perfect example of the short-sightedness of our government. From the top down, both the President and Congress are fools and crooks. What the taxpayers get in return is a U-6 unemployment rate of about 15% according to Portal Seven[xiv], and as of 28 August 2012, according to Ed Hall a national debt of $15,988,985,503,358.85[xv].

It’s fitting that Mars (Nimrod) guards the entrance to the U.S. Capitol Building as our legislators spew gibberish out of their mouths whenever they speak. It’s also fitting Persephone; the Queen of the Underworld (Semiramis) sits atop the U.S. Capitol Building looking down upon us, as our legislators by all appearances look down upon us as mere fodder for their arsenal of evil misdeeds. Our forefathers believed in service to the people, the State and to the nation. Now our elected officials, the so-called leaders of our nation, have elevated a self-serving and egocentric way of life and quasi-form of governance and/or leadership to new highs, which effectively, have left the people of this nation in a position of servitude and poverty. Service to the people is a spectre; it no longer exists. It really makes you proud to be an American when you see how our elected leaders behave. Nepotism, cronyism, unethical behavior at every turn, self-serving criminal attitudes and actions; these are what the people of the United States receive from their elected officials. And in return, we continue to re-elect the same set of reprobates so they can continue to serve themselves.

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.

James Madison[xvi]

God Bless this Great Republic, the United States of America

Brett L. Baker

http://mytreatises.blogspot.com/ 

References

                                                                                                         By

                                                                                                                          Brett L. Baker

The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.

John Quincy Adams

You will not find the phrase, the separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution. What you will find is the 1^st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  The phrase ‘the separation of church and state’ which was actually ‘wall of separation between the church and the state’ was written in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. In 1892, the Supreme Court unanimously declared that America was “legally and organically a Christian nation.” But is that really the truth? What was the U.S. Supreme Court actually talking about regarding the decision in Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States? Was this really about Christianity or was it about something else? We see in the U.S. Capitol building the words above the Speaker of the House, “In God We Trust” and you will see there are carvings of Moses and the Ten Commandments (which is a reference to Mosaic Law) on the Supreme Court building and in various other locations throughout the nation and government buildings. But as a nation do we actually follow these tenets or is there a totally different meaning behind all of this, such as Catholicism? Let’s take a closer look at the symbolism and the actions here in the United States and see what we uncover; Christianity or something else.

There have been court battles over the Pledge of Allegiance because of the words which were added, due to the perceived threat of Communism, in 1954 after ‘one nation’ which are ‘under God’ and there are municipalities which ban nativity scenes because they depict the birth of the Messiah as well as school prayer. But there are plenty of pagan symbols in the United States on government and/or public property and many people really don’t seem to say anything even care and these symbols do appear to be sanctioned by the U.S. government. Is this because of the beliefs of the so-called ruling elite, the people or both? Ellis Island is a good example of what I am talking about. It is managed by the U.S. National Park Service and owned by the States of New York and New Jersey; it is clearly government and public property. Yes, I am referring to the Statue of Liberty. Is the Statue of Liberty a pagan idol?

Who is Lady Liberty? While we know she was a gift from the French which was completed in July of 1884, she arrived in New York harbor in June of 1885, the dedication ceremony took place October 28, 1886 and the sculptor was Frederic Auguste Bartholdi. According to William F. Dankenbring, he originally “was seeking a commission to construct a giant statue of the goddess “Isis,” the Egyptian Queen of Heaven, to overlook the Suez Canal.” He may have got his wish, just not in the location which he originally intended. Many believe, she (Lady Liberty) is the representation of the pagan goddess Queen Semiramis the Goddess of Lust and Sexual Desire, the mother-wife of Nimrod (the reincarnated Sun God) and the mother of Tammuz (the reincarnation of Nimrod as well as the Moon God); she’s also known as Isis (Egyptian), Mother of God, Oaster (Easter-Eastern-Star), Ishtar (Babylonian), Astarte (Syrian), Cybele (Roman), Ashtoreth (Israel), Goddess of Love, Aphrodite (Ephesus), Helena (Greek), Lady of the Towers (Sumerian), Wife and Sister of Kronos, Sammurant (Assyrian), Ish-Tara (the Indian deity), Sami-Rama-isi (Vedic) and Mother Mary (Rome) just to name a few, according to Ms. Lynda Brasier of Mission-Ignition.        

The symbolism of the statue is apparent and unmistakable; the turreted crown or crown of towers which symbolize the rays of the sun on her head to show “sun worship.” The torch she is holding is not “of liberty, but of the illuminated ones, the ruling elite.” And the “gown folds around her like a classical Greek toga.” The “helmet of sunray spikes” is an “allusion to the headgear of the Colossus of Rhodes, a monument to the Sun-God Helios standing astride a Greek harbor, which is said to be one of the key influences on the New York statue,” according to Ms. Brasier, and she further states, “She stands on a base patterned after Babylonian Step pyramids (ziggurats)…designed after the ‘Tower of Babel.’”

So it would appear that the Statue of Liberty is a pagan religious symbol which is sanctioned by the U.S. government. Fortunately, it’s not a nativity scene or it wouldn’t be allowed. But the true question is why is it allowed? Perhaps it is because of the Masonic influence within the U.S. government, or maybe the real reason is religious in nature, specifically Catholicism. We should take a look at some of the leaders of the United States and see what unfolds.

While it is not an unusual phenomenon for U.S. leaders to visit the Pope, it is also not unusual for other world leaders to visit with the Pope. President’s George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Hussein Obama, as well as many first ladies visited the Pope. Secretary of State Rice and Representative Pelosi have also been with the Pope. Of course Nancy Pelosi is the only U.S. leader I could find a photo of who is kissing the Pope’s ring, but I’m sure there are others. Perhaps she is a servant of the Pope, I don’t know. But keep in mind the list of visitors is endless, even Adolf Hitler and Yasser Arafat have been photographed with the Pope. Maybe this has something to do with Catholicism, but it does have something to do with worship in general. The UK Telegraph reported on 1 August 2012 that President G.W. Bush “May follow in Tony Blair’s footsteps and convert to Catholicism.” The report further stated, “Jeb Bush, the president’s brother, has already converted to Catholicism.” While this really doesn’t concern me, nor do I (or should I) really care, I do find this to be very interesting. What is Catholicism? And just what is its appeal? According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, catholic is defined, “Of the doctrines of the ancient church,” literally “universally accepted,” from FR. catholique, from L.L. catholicus “universal, general,” from Gk. katholikos, from the phrase kath’ holou “on the whole, in general.” General sense of “of interest to all, universal.” Wikipedia defines the word catholic, “Derived from Late Latin catholicus, from the Greek adjective katholikos, meaning “universal.”” So, Catholicism is Universalism by definition. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines Universalism as, “A theological doctrine that all human beings will eventually be saved.” So it appears that some certainly believe it is good news to know Adolf Hitler, Emperor Nero, Judas Iscariot and Osama bin Laden and their ilk will eventually be saved, at least according to Catholicism.

What is the Trinity? According to Catholic Answers, “The parallelism of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is not unique to Matthew’s Gospel, but appears elsewhere in the New Testament…that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three divine persons who are one divine being (God).” Parallelism is an interesting term which they use for this idea of the Trinity. I have heard it before and not just from the Catholic Church; there was the supposed Babylonian Trinity of Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz as well as so-called the Egyptian Trinity of Osiris, Isis and Horace, the Israeli paganist Trinity of Kether, Hokhmah and Binah, the Greek triad of Zeus, Athena and Apollo and the Romans had Jupiter, Mercury and Venus. That’s quite a number of Trinities, Triads and Triunes! So within Catholicism, the Trinity is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three separate individuals, but one single being which rule as one. If we take a look at the King James Version of the Bible, 1611, and go to Exodus 20:1-17 we find the 10 Commandments, “And God spake all these words, saying, I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage: Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.” In the book of Deuteronomy 5:1-21, we also find the 10 Commandments, “I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. Thou shalt have none other gods before me.” Just for reference, that is the 1^st Commandment. It certainly sounds like God is an individual; His Son Jesus is an individual. As for the Holy Spirit, I have not been able to find anywhere in the Bible where it states the Holy Spirit is a separate (3^rd) individual, however it does describe God as the Holy Spirit.

What are the origins of the Catholic Church? According to Sword of the Spirit, Simon Magus was the founder of the Roman Catholic Church. “The great false church system of Rome had its beginning in the day of the Apostles of Christ…mixed into one religious system. This is why there are so many pagan ideas and doctrines in the Roman Catholic Church.” Simon Magus is first heard of in Acts 8:9-25, “But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used Sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries.” Again, according to Sword of the Spirit, “The person that is mentioned and that we need to concentrate on is Simon Magus and how he transformed himself into the first leader of the false worldwide religious system, the Catholic Church.” The makeup of this church is further delineated, “The four beasts used to make up the beast are the same four beasts Daniel saw in a vision in Daniel 7…papal Rome inherited from each of these pagan empires…that we see practiced in this modern day false system of religion, the Roman Catholic Church.” Then this is explained even further, “From Babylon, the lion the papacy inherited a pagan priesthood; from Medo-Persia, the bear sun worship; from Greece, the leopard human philosophies; and from the dragon, Pagan Rome, its power, seat and great authority. As stated in Rev. 13:2 the mixing of these pagan ideas of the Roman Catholic Church had its onset from the very beginning… can be traced back to…Simon Magus.” And the Sword of the Spirit makes their position perfectly clear, “Yes, the correct meaning of the Catholic Church is the Universal Church.” If this is correct, Simon Magus, who was a sorcerer and a magician, founded what is known as the Roman Catholic Church and this church is a very old mixture of belief systems which are known today as Catholicism or Universalism. These different belief systems were pagan in origin from the region known as Samaria and this mixture brought about a false religious system, which in turn has become a worldwide system of religious belief. This system is said to be from the Babylonians, Medo-Persia (which is defined as the Achaemenid Empire ca. 550-330 BCE and founded by Cyrus the Great and also known as the First Persian Empire), Greece and Pagan Rome. I must admit, that’s quite a mixture!

All this makes me wonder about Easter Sunday. What is it and what is it about? According to therefinersfire.org, “The Nicaean Council of 325 A.D. decreed that “Easter” should be celebrated on the first Sunday, after the full moon, on or after the vernal equinox.” So what is Easter? “Easter is a completely man-made “holy-day”…It is the day that Tammuz was immaculately conceived by the rays of the sun-god Nimrod and the day that Tammuz’ mother, the “Queen of Heaven,” was fabled to have returned to earth from heaven as the goddess of fertility, who purportedly transformed a bird into an egg-laying rabbit to prove her divinity.” One ritual according to thinknot.net is, “At Babel…Every year the priest of Easter would impregnate virgins on the altar of Easter. The next year those infants would be 3 months old. They would kill infants and dye eggs in their blood.” Another ritual is people “Stand there with rapt faces adoring the sun as it rises in the east, not realizing they are performing the rituals demanded by the mythical and idolatrous goddess Ishtar (Easter). Deceived into believing this is Christian, millions practice the identical form of the ancient sun-worship of the Sun-god Baal!” As stated by refinersfire.org. I suppose this is where we actually get the word Sunday, for the sun-worshippers who dislike the Sabbath which is Friday at even (sunset) to Saturday at even (sunset) according to Jewish tradition, and it also seems blatantly obvious that Easter was simply a way to get rid of Passover by the “Church Leaders such as Constantine, Tertullian and Marcion.” This is some very interesting perspective by therefinersfire.org, and it continues, “The truth is that Easter has nothing whatsoever to do with the resurrection of Messiah Yeshua! God’s commanded Biblical Feasts reveal that Yeshua was born during the Feast of Sukkot (Tabernacles) which falls on the Gregorian calendar September/ October timeframe. He was nailed to the stake on 14 Nisan and was REMOVED before sunset that same day; and He rose exactly 72 hours later, just before sunset on the following Sabbath-NOT on a “Sunday.” That’s actually very fascinating don’t you think? And it sounds accurate, because from Good Friday to Easter Sunday, which are both based on Canonical gospels which have been recognized by the Catholic Church since the turn of the 5^th century, is only two days and not three days and three nights!

So I have to ask, why is Christmas celebrated? It is claimed by multitudes that the day the Messiah was born on the 25^th of December, is that correct? If the refinersfire.org is correct, then it seems more likely than not that Yeshua (Jesus) was conceived during Hanukkah, the Festival of Light, and born at the Feast of Tabernacles and was murdered and resurrected during Passover. Just what is so important to the Catholic Church with regard to December 25^th? If the Messiah wasn’t born on December 25^th, then we have to assume something is important to the Catholic Church with regard to that date. As previously stated by many people, the Catholic Church is pagan in its origin and practice. December is the month of the winter solstice; the shortest day of the year and it’s when the days start to get longer and pagans worship the sun. Was the birthday of Tammuz for the second generation of false gods? According to Real Israelites, “The so-called “Christmas tree” has its origin in the ‘Babylonian mysteries;’ it was used as a symbol to personify Tammuz…The Christmas tree or Tammuz tree represents Nimrod redivivus-the slain god revived and worshipped as Tammuz. Semiramis taught the Babylonians that their gods could transform themselves into trees and if gifts were not presented before these trees the spirit of Nimrod would revive and destroy them!” As the story goes, Shem killed Nimrod and dismembered him and spread the parts (or pieces) throughout the Samarian kingdom, as was the custom at the time. Semiramis had all the parts brought back for burial, but the only piece that wasn’t found was Nimrod’s penis and it appears this is a representation of the Christmas tree. So Nimrod’s penis represents the idol of jealousy! And they are all over the world; they are called obelisks.

It certainly would appear Catholicism is closely associated with the worship of sun-gods and they were all born on December 25^th; Nimrod, Mithra, Dagon, Osiris, Horace, Baal, Kronos, Zeus, Jupiter, Saturn, Mercury, Mars, Pluto, Neptune, Ares, Bacchus, Shamash, Odin, EL-BAR, Molech, Ra and Tammuz, just to name a few as stated by xanga.com. And if you ever wondered why Christmas is sometimes referred to as X-mas, the answer is quite simple according to theforbiddenknowledge.com; “The legendary symbol for Nimrod is “X.” The use of this symbol always denotes witchcraft. When “X” is used as a shortened form meaning Christmas, it actually means “to celebrate the feast of Nimrod.” A double X, which has always meant to double-cross or betray, in its fundamental meaning indicates one’s betrayal into the hands of Satan. When American corporations use the “X” in their logo, such as “Exxon,” the historic Rockefeller firm of Standard Oil of New Jersey, there can be little doubt of this hidden meaning.” This comes as no surprise to me, as the Rockefellers are one of the family bloodlines of the Illuminati, “One of the 13 Satanic bloodlines that rule the world…the Illuminati…the Rockefeller bloodline is involved in the promotion of the occult and Satanism…they are involved in the control of Christian denominations.” Of course, if this is true, then should we wonder about any information we get from xanga.com? After all, the name does use the “X” of Nimrod, or does it?

So what does all of this tell us about our country and our leaders? A majority of the people around the globe have such a low opinion of the United States because of our so-called leadership it isn’t even funny. And why should, We the People, put up with this sort of behavior if any of this is the truth? Of course that just leads to the question, is it even possible to believe what a politician says? Anyone will tell you the obvious answer to that question is no or laugh derisively while they say yes. U.S. currency has pagan symbols, the U.S. Capitol building has pagan symbols, most memorials and buildings like the White House and the Supreme Court buildings appear to be modeled after ancient pagan societies, statues of pagan gods stand at the U.S. Capitol building, Easter egg hunts on the White House lawn, Christmas trees in the White House, as well as pagan obelisks in honor of Nimrod are in our nation’s capitol. On top of that, the U.S. government seems intent on shoving Islam down our throats as well. They allow a Mosque to be built at ground zero, in New York City, with its honeycomb of pentagrams on the façade rising up to the heavens like some sort of devilish tribute which mocks the destruction of the World Trade Center. But if Catholicism is sun-worship, and it appears to be, Islam and sharia law really are just the left hand of the Catholic Church and cannon law. So just exactly what does that give us? Do we now have moon and sun worship together? And is it sanctioned by the U.S. government and their confederates? Pagan idolatry has become so richly engrained within the U.S. government and the States we couldn’t rid ourselves of the symbolism without a concerted effort and that effort would take 1000 years. Even President’s and first ladies give the devil hand salute like it is some sort of badge of honor.

Our very acts as well as our mantra have become so vitriolic in nature; these pagans will drag the country down with them if we don’t change our ways and our leadership. While the U.S. government claims to stay out of religion, they should really stay out of the business of promoting pagan religions. However, man-made religion does seem to fit in with their plan. The Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States is a perfect example of this. The Catholic Church is well known for its long and inglorious history of child molestation and quite probably child sacrifice. The Plain Truth states, “Cannibal (Cahna Baal) is a word which means “Baal Priest” and…had to do with CONSUMING OF HUMAN FLESH – mostly LITTLE CHILDREN.” And continues, “Nimrod, as the representative of the devouring fire to which human victims, and especially CHILDREN, were offered in SACRIFICE, was regarded as the great CHILD-DEVOURER.” The point of all this is, the U.S. Constitution is the Law of the Land given to us by our forefathers; God fearing men. Mosaic Law; God’s Law, is the only thing higher. Those are the only two things which should be of any concern to our leaders; not sun-worship of Ra, not their so-called pagan gods Nimrod and Semiramis, not their pagan leaders or idols; Ratzinger and his vile objects, and certainly not their pagan holidays. Unfortunately, it would appear as though our leaders as well as the leaders of the world are hell bent on the destruction of the United States and the world. Happiness cannot come to a Satanist unless they are allowed to cull billions of people. We cannot and should not allow this to continue.

[i]

Does the United States actually exist as the country we once knew, or is this nation really just some sort of transitional nation which is or will be called America? The concept of our founding fathers, obviously, was to create a Constitutional Republic where men could pursue their dreams and live a life free from the twisted whims of tyrants. Of course, as we all know, nothing man-made lasts forever and it appears that dream is either dead or dying and at a rapid pace. I believe what we now have, is exactly what the framers fought to rid themselves of, a dictatorship run by petty demagogues in a so-called foreign nation which is now just called America.

So just exactly what has transpired to foster this atmosphere, which has festered over time into this seamy dictatorship that would make King George proud? One factor is undoubtedly the misguided belief that the U.S. Constitution is a ‘living Constitution’ which evolves over time. According to David A. Strauss, “A living Constitution is one that evolves, changes over time, and adapts to new circumstances, without being formally amended[ii].” Mr. Strauss explains some of the pros with regard to a living Constitution such as, “the cumbersome amendment process, the world has changed in incalculable ways, the nation has grown in territory and population, technology, the international situation, the economy and social mores,” are all different today. But he also touches on the cons, “The Constitution is supposed to be a rock-solid foundation, our basic principals-our constitutional principles-must remain constant, and the term…is hardly ever used, except derisively.” So, although time moves on and the nation and the world changes, should the U.S. Constitution change? I believe the Law of the Land is just that and it shouldn’t be surreptitiously altered, by public opinion, a liberal or conservative agenda, or the whims of anyone, especially politicians. I believe a cumbersome amendment process is a good thing; it keeps politicians and judges from forcing their opinions and their laws down our throats just because they are in office or on the bench. However, that rock-solid foundation appears to be more like quick sand than anything else.

Obama care is actually a good example of why a living constitution is a bad idea. Whether we need some sort of overhaul regarding our health system or not is a matter that should be up to the States. Yet, somehow this immediately went to the Supreme Court to decide. In essence, doesn’t that remove State sovereignty? The University of Alabama Law Review states, “A problem for our time is that we cannot help knowing that our highest courts are not merely enforcing rules…We know too well that they often shape the rules… according to their own preferences to assist one rival interest or another[iii]” (p. 4 of 68). Something tells me if Judges are supposed to be impartial referees, their own preferences should have absolutely nothing to do with enforcing rules. The Alabama Law Review goes on to state, “Justices sitting on the Supreme Court…have by the terms of their certiorari rule almost completely disowned responsibility for assuring that individuals’ legal rights and duties are actually enforced by lower courts in individual cases. They seldom bother to decide a case unless it has impact on some public interest…It decides only those cases which provide a suitable occasion for expressing policies the Justices choose to express” (p. 5 of 68). So it would appear that the Supreme Court has, in effect, become an activist for political cause within the U.S. government. How is it possible to be an activist and impartial at the same time? Rather than allowing the States to decide an issue which is inherently an issue for the people of each sovereign State, the Supreme Court has decided that for us all; the Supreme Courts usurpation of the rights of each and every sovereign individual as well as each and every sovereign State is apparent. If the U.S. government wishes to make a nationwide health care system, shouldn’t they actually be required to go through the extremely cumbersome amendment process in order to make that law? As far as I can tell, a national law, such as Obama care, is much like an amendment to the Constitution as it becomes (part of) the Law of the Land. As sovereign individuals, which is a status guaranteed to each of us in the U.S. Constitution through Republicanism, we cannot simply step away from this edict, because the self-serving type of politician which has decreed a national health care system, is the same type of politician which has decreed we are no longer a Republic, but a democracy where we are governed by force. This is the malevolent effect of a living Constitution.

Lobbyists and PAC’s are another form of decimation to the U.S. Constitution, which gives the extremely wealthy organizations who can simply pay for votes to achieve their goal. I’m certain Machiavelli would be proud of our politicians, after all, to these types of people, the end justifies the means. However, if you stop to consider the Republic of the United States is not supposed to be a Machiavellian society where the Prince rules over the people with an iron fist, then there must be a problem. What we now have, like it or not, is a nation which is sold to the highest bidder. This comes in the form of the special interest group. Among these advocacy groups you will find according to Dr. Kathi Carlisle, “The AFL/CIO, Amnesty International USA, the Arab American Institute, the Business-Industry Political Action Committee, Campaign for United Nations Reform (or Citizens for Global Solutions), Communist Party USA, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Feminist Majority, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), the John Birch Society, Muslim Public Affairs Council, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, the Socialist Party USA[iv]” and many more. In essence, these groups attempt to influence the way which elected officials vote, which basically puts the politician in someone’s pocket. These groups also attempt to steer the country in on direction or another with no legal basis for their actions. Governance paid for by pressure groups is governance by force, not freedom.

Another factor which I believe erodes our Constitution and the status of our nation are agreements such as NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), OAS (Organization of American States) and GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), which is now called the WTO (World Trade Organization) and are all undoubtedly beholden to The World Bank. Organizations such as these can only tend to move jobs and money out of the United States to others around the globe and leave us here, in the United States, in a position of poverty and servitude. We no longer have a manufacturing base of well paying jobs, we are stuck buying substandard products which are intended to break and be thrown on the junk heap as well as further the misguided notion that we are the worlds policemen. All of this has been done at the cost of our bank accounts and our sovereignty. While Americans are and have always been a people who are extremely generous, that generosity needs to come directly through the people as we see fit, not as the government sees fit. Organizations such as these, especially when given the blessings of our so-called leaders, can only chip away at our individual, State and National sovereignty.

I believe this is, in part, the New World Order. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, “Many economists agree that NAFTA has had some positive impact on overall U.S. employment. But most also agree that gains have been accompanied by some painful side effects[v].” According to Edward Alden, “Wages haven’t kept pace with labor productivity and that income inequality has risen in recent years.” Opponents of NAFTA such as the Economic Policy Institute state, “The deal’s trade agenda has served to widen U.S. trade deficits and has indirectly pushed some U.S. workers into lower-paying jobs.” I don’t know about you, but I personally don’t like the idea of ‘painful side effects’ or ‘lower-paying jobs’ for Americans. According to RT Question More, “The US government’s official unemployment rate, now at 8.3 percent, only takes into consideration those who have no jobs and are looking for work…this is called a “U-3” rate…The national U-6 rate is 15.3 percent, but some states have a shockingly higher individual rate[vi].” Somehow, I just can-not fathom how these so-called economic blocs are good for either U.S. workers or our economy. But with such a high unemployment rate, the U.S. government still thinks we should allow others to come and take our jobs away from us. I defy anyone to prove to me that politicians in the U.S. aren’t crooks. In a report by Erika Lovley on 6 November 2009, “Two-hundred-and-thirty-seven members of Congress are millionaires. That’s 44 percent of the body – compared to about 1 percent of Americans overall[vii].” Keep in mind that was nearly 3 years ago, so the figure is undoubtedly higher today. Yet these individuals believe they know what is best for the people of the United States.

[viii]

I believe other factors which further this agenda are a perverted immigration policy, the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA and even TSA. If we look at our immigration policy, the word amnesty is used far too often. The Washington Post reports, “Under the new policy, as many as1.4 million undocumented immigrants under age 30 will be able to apply for the amnesty[ix].” It appears the Federal government doesn’t have a problem with the 1.4 million ‘undocumented immigrants,’ which is a really a euphemism for people who broke U.S. law by entering the United States illegally, and their families. If 1.4 million are eligible, how many others are there who are also here breaking our laws? Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security (the name itself smacks of Soviet style language) doesn’t see this as a threat to our sovereignty. But I have to wonder why? Isn’t it their duty to protect the ‘Homeland’ against invasion? If it isn’t, then why have they ordered 450 million rounds of ammunition from ATK[x]? If it isn’t to keep illegal invasion from happening, perhaps it’s for some other diabolical reason. We already know all too well what FEMA’s position is with regard to Americans. During Hurricane Katrina, they stood by and did nothing while Americans died and lived in squalor in New Orleans and many still do. In a PBS NEWSHOUR report, Senator Lieberman stated, “But government failures…allowed much more human suffering and property destruction to occur than should have[xi].” Louisiana Governor Blanco’s press secretary stated, “We wanted helicopters, food and water. They wanted to negotiate an organizational chart.” How pathetic is that? It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if FEMA, which was incorporated into the Department of Homeland Security in 2003, was in league with the rest of the Federal government in an attempt to assist in the formation of a new North American Union, made up of Canada, the US and Mexico, after all, they are doing quite a good job of turning the United States into a Third World Nation.

In a report by Jerome Corsi on 19 May 2006 he stated, “Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA politically, setting the stage for a North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico[xii].” The report goes on to state, “President Bush intends to abrogate U.S. sovereignty to the North American Union.” The report concludes, “His secret agenda is to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union. The administration has no intent to secure the border, or to enforce rigorously existing immigration laws. Securing our border with Mexico is evidently one of the jobs President Bush just won’t do.” As previously stated, it appears President Obama is on board with this same idea. He also refuses to secure the border with Mexico, he refuses to enforce existing immigration laws and neither the Bush nor the Obama administrations are friends of the sovereignty of United States of America. Quite frankly, I believe this goes back even further. Something tells me George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barak Hussein Obama are all cut from the exact same piece of cloth. Plots such as these do not hatch themselves overnight, but take decades to form and implement.

Could this lead to a complete loss of our rights guaranteed to us under the U.S. Constitution? Would the U.S. Constitution even exist under such a system? While it isn’t much of a secret that the United States has been bankrupt by our leaders; our outstanding public debt as of 7 August 2012, according to Ed Hall of brillig.com is, “$15,918,879,613,227.57[xiii].” Would such a ploy by the Federal government con-artists of this former Republic be for such a simple reason as to gain new taxpayers? I can’t believe it would really matter. Without the United States or the U.S. Constitution, we would be nothing more than slaves to our usurpers, who already are nothing more than puppets of their masters, the so-called ‘illuminated ones.’ So just exactly where would the central power then be located? I have no doubt the central power would temporarily be somewhere in North America. I can’t help but imagine some sort of Triune would be set-up. After all, the United States has already proven their affection for Trinities; Nimrod-Semiramis-Tammuz is a good example of that. But undoubtedly, the central power would eventually be shifted, or should I say freely given to the Vatican. All of this is simply a precursor to a One World Government; a New World Order which has been envisioned by certain extremely wealthy families for thousands of years? Before you laugh too hard, perhaps you should take a moment and think about the ramifications of such an idea. Ask yourselves if the Constitution and your rights have been slowly eroded by the U.S. government, extremely wealthy multi-national corporations and banks. It’s funny how they seem to get bailed-out by us, but we get shafted by them. And by them I do mean the government, corporations and the banks. Please prove me wrong.

Tell me, are the secrets which are enthusiastically and fastidiously guarded by our so-called leaders for the protection of the nation, which means the people of the United States, or are they kept for the protection of the ruling elite? I submit that these secrets are maintained because the people would most likely revolt if they knew the truth. These deceivers know they can continue to spoon-feed us lies and they know we will accept the continuation of those lies because they are easier to swallow that the truth.

Don’t be fooled by the families of those who have prepared for countless millennia for their ‘thousand points of light.’ It’s not the light which they seek, although they call themselves ‘the illuminated ones,’ they seek darkness; war, famine, disease, slavery and death, all in the unholy name of their master who yearns for our wanton obedience to feed his desire for power to control and destroy. Be assured, these people and their master, seek to enthrall others by any means available, but they prefer to receive this through our free-will. Treachery and deception are a small part of the arsenal from which their cabal ensnares others into taking their mark freely by thoughts and beliefs as well as acts and deeds.

Now is the time to wake up! Arise and throw off the chains of mental, physical and spiritual slavery which unknowingly have been fastened around our throats with the sole intent of dragging us down into the depths of the abyss where they reside. It’s never too late to come to our senses and do what’s right and save ourselves and our Republic, the United States of America.

God Bless this Great Republic, the United States of America.

Brett L. Baker

[xiv]

On Sovereignty

We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.

Abraham Lincoln[i]

Are we in the United States sovereign individuals? I believe we are according to the U.S. Constitution. The purpose of this treatise is to investigate and expose the principals of not only what it means to be sovereign, but of sovereignty in general and whether the U.S. Constitution actually guarantees the individual sovereign status. This discourse will touch on the differences between republicanism, democracy and the actual make-up of the United States with regard to the U.S. Constitution as well as the beliefs of our founding fathers.

What is sovereignty? Black’s Law Dictionary 2^nd Ed. Defines sovereignty, “The possession of sovereign power; supreme political authority; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration; the self-sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived[ii].” By definition, sovereignty gives the ownership of power; ultimate political power to determine; preeminent direction over the make-up and structure of not only the government, but the administration of the government as well; the provision for one to supply for his own needs, sansexternal assistance; and the source of our ability to act with regard to politics.

According to 1215.org Lawnotes[iii], “A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.” This may seem like a very small distinction, but the difference is great. The individual’s sovereign status cannot be taken by the majority in a republic, with the exception in the U.S. being “100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.” But, in a democracy, “The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.” A republic is, “That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated.” A Democracy is, “That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy.” So, “In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think.”

Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” Article VI, Clause 2 states, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land[iv].” As unequivocally stated in the U.S. Constitution, the sovereign power which is vested in the people through Republicanism is guaranteedby the supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution of the United States. There can be no doubt, our forefathers, believed in the sovereign individual or the U.S. Constitution would clearly state, we the people of the United States are a democracy. Yet nowhere within the U.S. Constitution is the word democracy even mentioned.

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain government.

Patrick Henry[v]

Are our Constitution and our sovereignty inviolate? I would argue, by Law, i.e. the U.S. Constitution, and by definition, our possession of sovereign power; the answer is undeniably yes, both are inviolate. But if you look not only at our modern day society, but to some of the founding fathers themselves, it is obvious there is a debate on this issue. Modern day discussions involve such matters as the 2^nd Amendment[vi] to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court[vii] has “Ruled the 2^nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers and individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense,” in District of Columbia v. Heller. In United States v. Cruikshank, the courts view was the 2^nd Amendment “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.” Of course, one case (D.C. v. Heller) wasn’t for criminal enterprise, while the other (U.S. v. Cruikshank) was, yet what is interesting is the wording, “No other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.” But in the case United States v. Miller, Mr. Miller and another person “Were indicted for transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934.” Mr. Miller’s argument was, “That the section of the National Firearms Act regulating the interstate transport of certain firearms violated the Second Amendment.” The U.S. District Court agreed with Mr. Miller, but the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision. The reasoning was, “The absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun…has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Obviously, one has the tendency to believe none of the Supreme Court justices at the time, had ever been in the military. I can only believe with regard to Mr. Miller’s case, as well as present day politics, We the People may as well refer to the Supreme Court as Nine Empty Chairs.

Unlike the U.S. government’s belief in dictatorship, whether it’s Executive, Legislative, Judicial, Federal, State or Local, I personally believe, as I believe many of the founding fathers of this nation believed, the government needs to be restrained by the people for good reason; they cannot be trusted. Let’s take 12 of the founding fathers of the nation, 6 truly believed in a Republican form of government; Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Mason, Wilson and Randolph, but 6 truly believed in a Federalist form of government; Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Morris, Sherman and Jay. Which 6 were correct and which 6 weren’t? All 12 men believed in the U.S. Constitution, the Federalists simply believed in a stronger national government while the others believed in more of a Republican form of government where the individual and not the government maintained the power. Yet to the British, they were all traitors, and none of the founding fathers of this nation believed in an overreaching government or wanted one. The men who fought for Independencerisked their lives, families, wealth, property and their positions for Liberty and Freedom. Now we have just the opposite. We live in a country which is governed by force, the people are fed lies, the economy is a joke, our foreign policy is that of murder and our so-called elected officials are what appear to be Satanists who thrive on killing in order to satiate their thirst for blood.

Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.

Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts[viii]

Just exactly what the etymology of sovereign or sovereignty is, is also a matter of debate, which I will not go into. I have no doubt the Supreme Court or any other court in this nation would argue I know nothing, but what I do know for a fact, is the men who wrote the U.S. Constitution, ordained and ratified it, for the people. But the Hussein Obama administration and the rest of our self-centered narcissistic leaders have apparently once again proved their love for Liberty, Freedom and the People of the United States by awarding ATK[ix]a contract to supply 450,000,000 rounds of hollow point ammunition to the Department of Homeland Security! By all appearances, the U.S. government doesn’t believe in the sovereign individual.

James Madison wrote in the Federalist papers No. 37, “Among the difficulties encountered by the convention, a very important one must have lain in combining the requisite stability and energy in government, with the inviolable attention due to liberty and to the republican form[x].” In Federalist No. 39, Madison posed the question and gave the answer, “Whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican. It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government[xi].” The individual citizen is guaranteed a Republican form of government by the U.S. Constitution, so why does the individual who is guaranteed sovereign status by the Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution, have to seek remedy before the court with regard to his sovereign status? Has the Judicial branch of government violated the very Law which they have taken an Oath to defend, protect and preserve; the U.S. Constitution? The obvious answer is yes, but the Supreme Court with their life-time appointments have, in effect, furtively elevated themselves to what they consider to be the level of Godhead.

It is not only his right, but his duty…to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.

John Adams[xii]

Has the 14^th Amendment[xiii] to the U.S. Constitution been misconstrued and ill applied by the courts? The true purpose of the 14^th Amendment was to ensure a Constitutional guaranteed right was not abridged, such as States enacting “Jim Crow Laws[xiv]” which were portrayed as “separate but equal” but were in effect, “separate and extremely unequal” in order to circumvent the 13^th Amendment. But isn’t the 14^thAmendment which should be viewed as “basic fundamental fairness” viewed as “Federal supersedes State instead?” Federal should only supersede State when the Constitutional guaranteed right of the sovereign individual has been violated by the State or for example, if by some strange reason the State of North Dakota decided to invade either of the Provinces of Saskatchewan or Manitoba. The Federal role in this is merely to assure the State cannot violate the individual, the Federal government has no authority to decide how the individual exercises freedom, nor does the State, unless the individual has committed crimes.

If you consider the fact that in a Republic it is the guarantee given in the U.S. Constitution, that the individual is sovereign and the State is sovereign, the Federal government cannot take away that guarantee; the tail cannot wag the dog, as the Federal government is nothing more than the tail and We the People, which make up the States, are the dog itself. The hierarchy within the United States is the sovereign individuals, which make the sovereign States, which in turn make up the sovereign Nation. The power and responsibility within a Republic is vested in the People, not the government; who serve only at our pleasure. Picture if you will, a pyramid. The triangular point at the top is the Federal government’s three branches, the middle portion would be the States and the bottom portion would be the People. In a democracy, this would be an accurate depiction of the power structure. But in a Republic, where the People are guaranteed a Republican form of government, where the individuals are sovereign and the States are sovereign, the pyramid must be inverted. The portion or base which is at the top is the People, the middle portion the States and the bottom triangular portion is the Federal government. Everything flows down to the State and the Federal levels through the People. And as the People are the power of the United States, it is ourduty to ensure the government, whether State or Federal, are defending, protecting, preserving and furthering the U.S. Constitution which is the Law of the Land or they need to be removed and held accountable for their actions.

But the usurpers of the Republic of the United States are the government officials at every level. They have done nothing more than attempt to destroy our Law, the U.S. Constitution, and this has been done in many ways. The manipulation of our monetary policy[xv]; a weak dollar, low interest rates, excessive debt, unchecked spending, the surreptitious voiding of the gold standard and the creation of a worthless fiat currency, as well as voodoo economics where the belief that wealth trickles down to the people, when the wealth actually trickles down to the State and Federal governments fromthe people. The destruction to our Law has also occurred through a very destructive and misguided foreign policy agenda which clearly debilitates our nation’s stature as well as our wealth and has an appearance based on nothing with any semblance of peaceful diplomacy. The national policy of the United States is one which appears to be, and is in effect, governance by force.

So, are we in the United States sovereign individuals? I believe we are supposed to be, according to the founding fathers of this nation, but in reality, we are slaves to the Federal and State governments. Are we a sovereign nation? Once again, I believe we are supposed to be, according to the founding fathers, but in reality, our so-called leaders are really nothing more than puppets of the Illuminati[xvi]; the destroyers of men and nations and the proponents of a one-world government or New World Order[xvii], where no man is Free and Liberty is non-existent.

We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our selection between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat in our drink, in our necessities and comforts, in our labors and in our amusements, for our callings and our creeds...our people…must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live… We have not time to think, no means of calling the mis-managers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow suffers.  Our landholders, too...retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must...be contented with penury, obscurity and exile…private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance.

This is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering... And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.

Thomas Jefferson[xviii]

God Bless the United States of America. Completed on this 25^thday of July in the year of our Lord 2012.

Brett L. Baker

On_Sovereignty

The Constitution of the United States[i] is much more than just a piece of paper; it is a document written by God fearing men who believed in Liberty and Justice for all who are citizens of this great nation and their Posterity. While the U.S. Constitution is a guide for ourselves and for those who represent us, the U.S. Constitution is much more; it is the “law of the land” and should be viewed as such, as well as considered whenever any of the three branches of government, i.e., Executive, Legislative or Judicial, enact new laws or perform the duties of their respective offices. I also believe every Citizen of the United States should question themselves with regard to their actions; are we Just, are we promoting the general Welfare, are we striving to ensure Liberty, are our actions helping to form a more perfect Union? These ideals cannot simply be for one, they must be for all, as eloquently stated by our fore-fathers, “We the People of the United States.”

On the 17^th day of September in 1787 the ordination and Establishment of the Constitution was ratified. This document gave us reasonable guidelines by which to govern ourselves in a responsible and civil manner and the delineation of the process by which we elect government officials, the formation and function of the three separate branches of government and the duties of each within the boundaries of the Constitution of the United States. Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution also guarantees to each and every State in the Union a “Republican Form of Government,” whereby the individuals as well as the States themselves are sovereign.

Enough cannot be said about the value and intent of the words within the U.S. Constitution itself. Article II, Section 1 clearly states the President shall, “Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Article VI clearly states, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States; shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Article VI goes on to further state, “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.” Undeniably, the framers of the Constitution of the United States demanded the continued preservation, protection, defense and support of the Constitution in perpetuity for the People of this great nation. There can be no doubt the Constitution of the United States is the Law of the Land. Our leaders are bound by the oaths of their offices to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

The U.S. Constitution is a means to promote not only the general Welfare, but to promote an equitable system of governance, through just laws which provide the framework to form a more perfect Union. As stated in Article III, Section 2, “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.” The U.S. Constitution is the conception of an ideal by decent, free thinking men, whose sole purpose was to live a life free of tyranny from those who would oppress us, and to ensure those same ideals existed for their Posterity.

The United States of America is, in effect, not only a conglomeration of people, but of ideas as well. Through the supreme Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution, sovereign citizens of sovereign States, within a sovereign nation act to establish a just and equitable society, where Liberty is unfettered and the government exists to serve the People.

While the art of articulation does not elude me, I find myself unable to match what I consider to be a perfect man-made statement of Truth and Wisdom: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.

This was sent off Sunday night.  Maybe early Monday morning...sometimes the days run together in the many fights we find ourselves in.  No reply from previous contacts yet...I'm not holding my breath :)  At any rate, here is the latest:

Dr. Tom Woods is an author and speaker regarding Our Constitution. I consider him to be a true Patriot and encourage you to check out his website: http://www.tomwoods.com/

If you were enlightened by his books/talks, as was I, pass on his webpage to others.

Well, there is more violence on the border with the U.S. and Mexico this time its on lake Falcon, never heard of it till now.Evidently this lake is another crossing point for drugs and, more than likely, illegals.

I don't understand why we cannot secure our borders.I have a cell phone and with it I can google any part of the world and zoom in on roads and even houses.If I can do that how hard would it be to patrol the border with satelites?-I don't get it!, can somebody please explain this to me!