The "General Welfare" Clause, Justification for Obamacare?

/in /by

The federal government has assumed great responsibility to tax and provide for our citizens under the interpreted authority of the general welfare clause in the Constitution. Our Departments of Transportation, Education, Agriculture, and Interior are all justified by the general welfare clause. Most recently one of the main justifications of the Healthcare Act is that Congress has authority to create such a law because of the general welfare clause. But how Constitutional is this assumed authority? What would our founders say about this current view of federal power?

Since James Madison is called the Father of our Constitution, it makes sense that we would look to him for clarification on this point. Madison discussed this very issue in an argument he was making against subsidizing a cod fisherman in 1792.

“I, sir, have always conceived — I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived — it is still more fully known, and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived — that this is not an indefinite government, deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers — but a limited government, tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms.” James Madison, On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties 1792

Madison was very simply explaining that the clause “common defense and general welfare” was not meant to expand the power of the government beyond its limitations, but to describe the purpose of the power delegated within strict confinement of those boundaries. How we have flipped this nation on its head! We have allowed our government to take the description of the purpose of its power and turn it into its very power. This aberration of our founder’s intent is not without consequence. We cannot have it both ways; it is either a limited government or one completely without limits.

It is clear that the framers purposefully and intentionally created a federal government that was to be limited in power and scope. Extremely limited.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. The [powers of the federal government] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. Fed. 45

Simply speaking, if it is not war, peace, negotiations and foreign commerce, the federal government is not supposed to be involved in it. Period. And, further explanation will show, that they are not even supposed to have the power to tax and subsidize, unless it is attached to those four things. Madison knew such misinterpretations would unleash Pandora’s Box.

“There are consequences, sir, still more extensive, which, as they follow dearly from the doctrine combated, must either be admitted, or the doctrine must be given up.” James Madison, On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties 1792

Although our founders may not have known about all our great technological advancements and the needs of our modern day society, they knew that human nature remains the same. They did not have to know where we would end up, because they knew where they had come from.

“I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.” Patrick Henry St. John’s Church, Richmond, Virginia, March 23, 1775.

With astounding foresight Madison describes what an America, that ignores and distorts Constitutional meaning would look like.

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may a point teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties 1792

Madison and the framers knew that if the government would become more than they had intended, it would control the very lives of the people and we would be reduced to “tributary slaves.” The current use of the general welfare clause, outside of the intent of our founders, is unconstitutional and it will create slaves of freemen. It is irrelevant how any modern court has determined otherwise. If the courts have failed to follow the direction of the drafters of this contract, they have failed to follow fundamental principles of law and their decisions are void of authority. The truth is, night has fallen on the garden of America, and we have been betrayed by a kiss.

“And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss” Patrick Henry St. John’s Church, Richmond, Virginia, March 23, 1775.

However, all is not lost, the solutions to our current crisis lie within their warnings. We must, as Thomas Jefferson alluded, become attentive to the public affairs.

“If once [the people] become inattentive to the public affairs, you & I, & Congress & Assemblies, judges & governors shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions;” Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Edward Carrington Paris, Jan. 16, 1787

We must reengage ourselves, not simply as watchers and commentators, but as doers of the word as well. We must hold all accountable regardless of the sweetness of their “kiss.” We must be willing to sacrifice and restore a standard of excellence for our representatives. Too long we have said that the best candidate is the one that is simply better than the other guy. We must believe that the ONLY candidate is the one who will stand, with integrity, for the Constitution and the principles of Liberty for which our founders died for.

We must work to restore the limitations of government. The breach of these boundaries are the source of the corruption, as told by the warning, now prophecy, of John Adams in his inaugural address of 1797.

[If the government is]Negligent of its regulations, inattent[ive] to [the people’s] recommendations, … disobedience to its authority, … soon appeared with their melancholy consequences– universal languor, jealousies and rivalries of States, decline of navigation and commerce, discouragement of necessary manufactures, universal fall in the value of lands and their produce, contempt of public and private faith, loss of consideration and credit with foreign nations, and at length in discontents, animosities, combinations, partial conventions, and insurrection, threatening some great national calamity.

Until we force our current government to work within the boundaries set by our founders: war, peace, negotiations, and foreign commerce, we will suffer all of the corruption the Adams foresaw. We have to be an engaged citizen government that says the limitations are more than just recommendations, our recommendations are more than just rhetoric, and separation of powers must be viciously protected by all parties! This is the disease of our nation and we must cure the disease or it will be the death of Liberty.

The gentle kiss of a promise of peace and prosperity as provided by the all-powerful, all-knowing federal government has deceived us. We have allowed the powers of the federal government to expand far beyond what our founders intended, to the point that their warnings have become prophecy. We cannot allow this to continue. For the sake of our children, we must reign in this unconstitutional proclamation of power. We must once again hear the warnings of our founders and heed them, or suffer the inevitable consequences.

“Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.” Jefferson’s statement in Notes on the State of Virginia

“Were we directed from Washington when to sow, & when to reap, we should soon want bread.” Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography

“If we do not stand against tyranny today, our children will bow tomorrow!” Mercy Otis Warren

Senate Bill 1813: Power to Confiscate Your Proof of Citizenship

/in /by

What if you had to make a business trip overseas tomorrow only to find out that, even though the IRS does not issue your passport, the IRS has revoked your passport? This is a possible reality if Senate Bill 1813 passes through Congress.

SB 1813 is titled, Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Act of 2012. But, just like the NDAA, this bill has become a Trojan horse for an assault on the constitutionally protected rights of the people of this nation. Inserted deep within this bill, in section 40304, is a provision that gives the IRS the power to revoke your passport for a “seriously delinquent tax debt in an amount in excess of $50,000.” There appears to be no requirement for a judgment by a court; no conviction for fraud or evasion is required, only a “certification by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue”. This is a violation of your right to due process. There is also no provision for Congressional review or approval, therefore this removal of your passport is facilitated by an unelected official who is completely immune from political control of the people. This is a prime example of Legislation without representation. Sure the Senate and House must pass it, but after that the people’s representation is completely removed and a regulatory agency becomes the dictator of the common born rights of Americans.

What does the IRS have to do with your passport? How can non-payment of taxes be the impetus to remove your proof of citizenship or your right to freely travel? Doesn’t the removal of your passport practically affect the status of your citizenship? Are we now forced to believe that common rights of Americans, inherited from our Creator and the blood of our forefathers, are bought by our taxes? If this is true, we have been truly removed from the character of freemen to the state of tributary slaves.

For if our Trade may be taxed why not our Lands? Why not the Produce of our Lands & every thing [sic] we possess or make use of? This we apprehend annihilates our Charter Right to govern & tax ourselves– If Taxes are laid upon us in any shape without our having a legal Representation where they are laid, are we not reduced from the Character of free Subjects to the miserable State of tributary Slaves? [Samuel Adams, May 15, 1764, Boston Record Commissioners’ Report, vol. 16, pp. 120-122, emphasis added]

Consistent with recent legislation attacking our Constutionally protected rights, this section is infested with overbroad and vague language. What does “seriously delinquent tax debt” mean? The language seems to imply that it is limited to debts of $50,000, but is it really? Must a debt be “seriously delinquent” in time AND be at least $50,000 in debt? There is no official definition to make this limitation. How long before we see the limits of the term “seriously delinquent tax debt” further expanded? If the monetary threshold is $50,000, what does it take to accrue a debt of $50,000 to the IRS? I personally know of a man who owed $10,000 to the IRS through no fault of his own; he received bad advice from his bank. His debt remained unknown to him for 3 years until the IRS sent him a notice that his original $10,000 debt is now upwards of $25,000.00 with fines and penalties. This man is no millionaire, but a middle class retired blue collar worker. And if the IRS can establish that $50,000 is the price of your rights, how long before that price becomes $20,000 or $10,000?

When the IRS can take 3 years to notify someone of a debt, what happens when 3 years now equates to “seriously delinquent?” What if your livelihood requires this type of travel, does this not become a “debtor’s prison” law that will prevent you from paying back your debt? There are fundamentally no limitations to the level of tyranny to be inflicted by this arbitrary and capricious law.

In addition to the obvious constitutional violations of this law, I believe it is also an unconstitutional establishment of a Bill of Attainder. Bills of Attainder are unconstitutional by direct reference in the Constitution.

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, shall be passed. [Article I, Section 9; Clause 3]

A bill of attainder is an act of the legislature declaring a person or group of person guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a judicial trial. This bill is a bill of attainder. There is no requirement of conviction of fraud or evasion, no requirement of judicial judgment of debt before these rights are taken away. It is completely reasonable to believe that someone’s proof of citizenship can be revoked by the IRS even in cases of disputed debt. Bills of attainder are considered to be not only a revocation of habeas corpus but also a violation of separation of powers. These allow the legislative body to circumvent the judicial system in determining a person or group of people guilty of a crime. THIS LAW is even worse. Not only is it a violation of separation of powers, but Congress is transferring their power to an executive branch regulatory agency! The legislature is stealing power from the judicial system and then handing that stolen power to the executive branch for unrestrained, arbitrary, and capricious enforcement.

I understand that “all experience hath shewn (sic) that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” [Declaration of Independence] But the blatant actions of our congress have become completely tyrannical in nature and, if I may borrow language from the English Bill of Rights, have become an attempt to overturn and completely destroy the laws and liberties of this country. Borrowing language from our Declaration of Independence; “A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” When will we have suffered enough of the long train of abuses?

We must contact our Congressmen NOW! Tell them to vote against Senate Bill 1813, or we will consider them enemies of the Constitution. Our representatives must understand that we are a government of the people, by the people, for the people. If they do not, we will quickly become a government of elected officials, by Washington DC, for the good of the government.

There Are Some Things Caesar Cannot Have

/in /by

I just finished working 14 hours on my own and over an hour with my accountant trying to comply with today’s tax laws, so I am a little irritated at the level of corruption and power our current government wields in the form of taxation. Inevitably, my accountant and I begin to rant over the abuses of the tax system and how we work non-stop so others may live comfortably off our labour. I told her about my best friend’s recent experience.

My friend was in line at the grocery store, and the man in front of her had a cart packed full of hot dogs and buns. Curious my friend sparked a conversation to find out that this man had a hot dog stand on the beach and invited her to come sample his cooking. The conversation ended and the man began to purchase his hot dogs and buns, and much to the amazement of my friend, he pulled out an EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer-welfare assistance) card to pay for goods. In absolute shock, my friend realized this man is running a full scale business using the welfare system. My accountant had several stories of her own and I am sure that many have similar experiences to share.

In light of tax season and the frustrations that we, the productive portions of society, have, I am sharing with you an article written by my husband. This is my first “guest” post, so I hope that you enjoy it. Remember, our founders were not just Taxed Enough Already, they were above all, Tyrannized Enough Already!

Happy April 15.

By Pastor Chris Hall http://www.irbconline.com

Having been asked a question about taxes in Mark chapter 12, Jesus tells the Pharisees “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s

While declaring the government’s right to collect tribute, it is clear in Jesus’ statement that some things DO NOT BELONG TO THE GOVERNMENT. I’d like to suggest to you that THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT CAESAR CANNOT HAVE.

Caesar cannot have our religious Liberty. Our Liberty is a gift from God and was purchased by the blood of our forbearers throughout the centuries. Our religious Liberty cost too much and we will not surrender it. Not now, not ever.

In the 1630’s religious wars heated up all over Europe. Believers were murdered and executed for having opposing religious views. Charles I, going against the 500-year-old Charter of Liberties of 1100 and the Magna Carta of 1215, was trying to bend the Church to his will and a ragtag band of the persecuted made their way to the shores of America. And, as reflected in nearly every Charter and every State Constitution, they settled this land for the Glory of God.

The problem was that they brought the Old World model to these shores and set up State Churches. Not all faiths were represented in the State churches and some ministers who would not take a license were beaten, tarred and feathered, fined and imprisoned. Some even died because of their ordeals. Obadiah Holmes is said to have spent seven days on his hands and knees due to his public beating; simply because he would not submit to the state in religious matters. Our forefathers lived through the devastation of having the government in control of religion. Even on the soil of America blood was spilled as the government attempted to enforce religious dictates.

So when Virginia had to ratify the Constitution, demands were made by John Leland and others that religious liberty be protected. The Constitution was ratified and the First Amendment was adopted with the Bill of Rights, putting the government on notice that it had no authority to force churches or individuals to go against their conscience in matters of religion.

2 John 1:8 says “Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.” We have lost our history and our morality and as a result America has lost its way. Today we must renew our commitment to stand for the Liberty of ALL Americans to practice their faith – free from government intrusion or coercion.

John Adams said “Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood.”

Caesar did not purchase my Religious Liberty therefore Caesar CANNOT HAVE my Religious Liberty.

In Matthew 25 the Bible says the master delivered to his servants his goods. He gave one: 5 talents, one: 2 talents and to the other: 1 talent. The first two prospered what the master had given them. The last servant buried what the master had given him in the sand.

Upon the master’s return, he demanded that the servants give account as to how they had prospered the master’s goods. The servant who let the talent sit idle in the dirt was told by the master that he was a wicked and slothful servant. The one talent he had was taken away and given to another.

Liberty is a gift from God and the Bible says we are to be good stewards of God’s gifts – to whom much is given, much is required. We cannot stand idly by while the gift of Liberty that God has given us is attacked and eroded. We must protect and prosper this precious gift; else it will be taken away and we will never get it back.

One day the Master will return. One day we will give an account.

Thomas Jefferson, in hisNotes on Virginia, writes “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the men that these liberties are a gift of God?”

Our founders understood that God is the Author of Liberty and that its fate rests on the people’s awareness that of that fact. Let us, as did our founders, pray to God for His providential deliverance and guidance. Let us pray for boldness to stand for the precious and precarious gift of Liberty.

Our founders did their part, let us do our part. Our forbearers sacrificed life, fortune and sacred honor to preserve Liberty for us. What will we sacrifice to preserve Liberty for future generations?

If we will not stand for our Faith, what will we stand for? Rest assured, that as Mercy Otis Warren declared before the revolution of 1776, “If we do not stand against tyranny today, our children will bow tomorrow!”

Caesar can’t have our Liberty! And Caesar can’t have our children! The Bible says, Children are a heritage of the Lord. It is my responsibility to raise my children, not the government’s. Today because of immoral and irresponsible leadership, the government is spending our children into slavery. They are destroying the future we had hoped to provide for them. This must stop. We must stop it, because there are some things that Caesar just cannot have.

Caesar can’t have our children And Caesar can’t have us; we belong to God! We are enjoined by Scripture to obey and submit to legal authority, but in the same context the government is given the duty to be a minister of good. This government is pursuing unrighteous ends and is rewarding evil. We will work within the system to correct this wrong. We will not go along with evil because we belong to God. And there are some things that Caesar just can’t have.

The Taxation That Our Founders Hated

/in /by

In light of all the distortions and half-truths that are constantly repeated, let’s be clear –what sparked the ire of our founders was not taxes; it was tyranny. Their theme was not simply Taxed Enough Already – it was Tyrannized Enough Already. Their tolerance for tyranny was taxed to the max – that’s the taxation the founders could no longer take.

The original tea party was not just about money and the driving force toward American independence was not simply taxation. At the crux of the matter were the PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT that created the taxation – taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. It was about government eliminating the common rights of the people. The motivation behind the tea party event was Great Britain’s attempt to remove the people’s right to electively engage in trade, by mandating purchases only from the government…

But if our Trade is to be curtailed in its most profitable Branches, & Burdens beyond all possible Bearing, laid upon that which is suffered to remain, we shall be so far from being able to take off the manufactures of Great Britain, that it will be scarce possible for us to earn our Bread…? [Samuel Adams, May 15, 1764, Boston Record Commissioners’ Report, vol. 16, pp. 120-122]

Sam Adams went onto explain that the act of arbitrary taxation makes slaves out of a free people:

For if our Trade may be taxed why not our Lands? Why not the Produce of our Lands & every thing [sic] we possess or make use of? This we apprehend annihilates our Charter Right to govern & tax ourselves–It strikes at our British Privileges, which as we have never forfeited them, we hold in common with our Fellow Subjects who are Natives of Britain: If Taxes are laid upon us in any shape without our having a legal Representation where they are laid, are we not reduced from the Character of free Subjects to the miserable State of tributary Slaves? [Samuel Adams, May 15, 1764, Boston Record Commissioners’ Report, vol. 16, pp. 120-122, emphasis added]

Sam Adams saw the big picture. He knew that if the king assumed the power to lay taxes contrary to the common rights of the colonists, without giving the people any voice, there would be no limit to the power of this government.

This current government feels it may force the citizens to purchase healthcare based entirely upon the condition of being alive. If the government is granted such power over the people, ignoring the voice of the people and denying their proper representation, then where are the limits to this power?

Adams, attempting to make this point very clear, emphasized that “among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.” [Sam Adams, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence, to the Boston Town Meeting, Nov. 20, 1772]

Was it the money that caused our founders to demand independence? No. It was the erosion of Liberty. The violation of sound principles of government. One quick look at the Declaration of Independence will tell the tale.

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

It was not money; it was the King controlling the entire government, eating away at the separation of powers and coercing Parliament into submission, creating a government ruled solely by the whim of the King. How does this compare to the government we see today?

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. •He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. •For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. [Declaration of Independence]

America now has a Congress that is unwilling to fulfill their solemn oath to stop the current “Kingly” administration from usurping legislative power. Instead, we are subjected to empty words and political gamesmanship like the ones from Sen. Mitch McConnell and his great petition of the people to grovel before Obama and beg him to stop stealing legislative power. This Congress has never stood with “manly firmness,” but this King has none-the-less dissolved their power by their own cowardice and has forced them into compliance through their own negligence.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. [Declaration of Independence]

America now has a Congress and King refusing to protect the people. Although protection from invasion is actually one of the delegated powers of the Federal Government, our federal government has refused to provide for America’s protection. Instead of dealing with the threats, they argue that limiting the people’s Liberty is the way to keep America safe. And the “State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.”

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. [Declaration of Independence]

America has a Congress who will not respond to the King’s veiled threats and open chastisement of the Supreme Court? Are not these actions an attempt at obstructing the Administration of Justice and an open declaration that he will refuse to assent to the law?

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. •He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: [Declaration of Independence]

America has a Congress who will not reign in Executive Regulatory Agencies? How many NEW regulatory agencies, czars, and regulations must we suffer before Congress acts? What about the regulations and government intrusions by these arms of the King that are literally “harassing our people and eating out their substance?” Do we just dismiss the raids on the farms and co-ops over raw milk? Do we forget that Abner Scheonwetter spent 6 years in prison after a regulatory agency prosecuted him for violating an unconstitutional foreign law? Do we allow the EPA to override the Bill of Rights and enforce THEIR OWN law upon the people without due process as they did to the residents of Bonner County, Idaho, among others?

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: [Declaration of Independence]

America has a Congress that will not only do NOTHING to stop the usurpation of power by the King, but contributes to and enables this tyranny through laws like the Patriot Act, sections 1021 and 1022 of NDAA, and The Federal Building and Grounds Improvement Act [HR347].

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. [Declaration of Independence]

America has a government that attempts to regulate out of existence our right to bear arms. Where will the power of the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA end? When will Congress step up and become the “sure guardians of our Liberty” as demanded by James Madison? Our Congress has failed to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people. It has become a government of the King.

For our founders, it was never just about the money and it was always about the tyranny of a King and his government that felt the “good of the Kingdom” was more important than the common rights of men. For more than a decade, they continued to speak and continued to be ignored.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. [Declaration of Independence]

We have been ignored too long, but we will not be silent. We will continue from now until November and beyond. We the people will recover our nation. We will not quit. We are resolved to give our last breath in the defense of Liberty. It is time America, to declare that these princes and their King are unfit to be rulers of a free people. It is time America, to put Liberty FIRST. It is time America to reclaim the once great nation our founders sacrificed all to give to us. It is time America to determine that we will once again be a government of the people, by the people and for the people. It is time America, to save our children from the burdens of tyranny and the price to be paid for Liberty. It is time to continue to identify the hypocrites and cowards. It is time to support TRUE CONSTITUITONAL CONSERVATIVES, ones who have proven themselves by actions, not by idle words. It is time to fire the rest of them, regardless of their personality, their former occupations, or their charming good looks. Do we want Liberty or do we want slavery. The choice is just that simple, because it is NOT about the money.

Real Women Worthy of Recognition

/in /by

Many who would rewrite history, would have us to believe the women during the revolution were oppressed subservient wives of overbearing husbands who dictated policy in the home. Nothing could be further from the truth. The founding women of our nation carried themselves with dignity and strength; believing with their hearts and souls the value of Liberty was worthy of their families’ sacrifice. These were women of principle, of courage, and of great resolve, willing to sacrifice all so that their children could be free.

Many will recognize the men for their contributions, but true history will reveal that the wives of these men were just as important to the battle for freedom. We all have heard the jest that “if momma isn’t happy, then nobody’s happy.” That is not something that is said just because it’s funny. So why would we think that human nature was any different in 1774? The women of our founding nation were just as involved as the men, and often times bolder in their assertions.

When Parliament and King George began attempting to recoup the money spent during the French and Indian wars by imposing unreasonable taxes absent any representation for the people of the colonies, outrage was the response. Our founding families relied on the goods imported from England to conduct their everyday lives. The taxes imposed upon these goods and many others were seen as a form of slavery and oppression. When petition after petition to the Parliament and the King were ignored, more drastic measures were required. George Washington asserted that a boycott of English goods may be a more effective way of getting the government’s attention.

Abigail Adams and Mercy Otis Warren

To stir patriotic sentiment even hotter, patriotic newspapers offered suggestions about colonial substitutes for imported teas, including sassafras, raspberry and mint. In support of these protests countless women gathered in private homes for spinning parties or participated in public spinning contests. Two women, whose names should be recognized, were Abigail Adams and her historian friend, Mercy Otis Warren. These were women of position, with husbands of reputation, yet they shunned tea and proudly wore homespun garments in lieu of British finery.

James Warren was the president of the Massachusetts Provincial Congress and member of the Sons of Liberty, but it was his wife, Mercy Otis Warren, whose patriotic efforts encouraged the war efforts. Mercy was a prolific author of anti-British propaganda plays and an historian of the American Revolution. Her friend, Abigail Adams, said in 1773 that Mercy was “a sincere lover of [her] country” It was said that Mercy was so grieved by Great Britain’s actions that she felt her nation to be “oppressed and insulted”.

Mercy Otis Warren was a vocal contributor to the independent efforts of the colonies and great pen pal to John Adams. John Adams often took great comfort from the words and advice of Mercy. In one letter, Mercy voices the sentiment of the American people.

“America stands armed with resolution and virtue; but she still recoils at the idea of drawing the sword against the nation from whence she derived her origin. Yet Britain, like an unnatural parent, is ready to plunge her dagger into the bosom of her affectionate offspring. But may we not yet hope for more lenient measures!”

Hannah Winthrop, wife of Dr. Winthrop, describes Mercy in January 1773 as “That noble patriotic spirit which sparkles must warm the heart that has the least sensibilities, especially must it invigorate a mind of a like fellow feeling for this once happy country. How often do we see people blind to their own interests precipitately maddening on to their own destruction!” As we look around today, I know that we can certainly empathize with Hannah’s frustrations.

Hannah Winthrop, Penelope Barker and Elizabeth King

Shortly after Samuel Adams and his men threw tea up and down the coast of America, a second Tea Party protest erupted within the hearts and minds of the women. A great revolutionary heroine by the name of Penelope Barker wrote a public statement in which she endorsed a boycott of tea and other British products, such as cloth. Ten months after the famous Boston Tea Party organized by men, Barker led a “Tea Party” on October 25, 1774, in the Edenton Home of Elizabeth King. She and fifty other women signed the protest statement. At the meeting, Barker said, “Maybe it has only been men who have protested the king up to now. That only means we women have taken too long to let our voices be heard. We are signing our names to a document, not hiding ourselves behind costumes like the men in Boston did at their tea party. The British will know who we are.” The women of this Tea Party signed a declaration that stated, “We, the aforesaid Ladys will not promote ye wear of any manufacturer from England until such time that all acts which tend to enslave our Native country shall be repealed.”

The amazing part of this public protest and notice sent to parliament and the King was that these were women whose husbands and fathers were men of reputation. Many of the men related to these women were English merchants. The fact these women signed their names to a document of protest showed their courage and their dedication to the principle that the Liberty of their children was more important than a paycheck or even their lives.

On Jan. 1st, 1774, Hannah Winthrop’s patriotic spirit cries out.

“Yonder, the destruction of the detestable weed, made so by cruel exaction, engages our attention. The virtuous and noble resolution of America’s sons, in defiance of threatened desolation and misery from arbitrary despots, demands our highest regard. May they yet be endowed with all that firmness necessary to-carry them through all their difficulties, till they come off conquerors. We hope to see good accounts of the tea cast away on the Cape. The union of the Colonies, the firm and sedate resolution of the people, is an omen for good unto us.”

Elizabeth Adams

These brave women of resolve did not simply support the efforts of the men fighting for Liberty; they themselves sacrificed everything for Liberty. They were outcasts to the Loyalists. They were called “harlots” and “loose women,” and were literally chased from their homes, sometimes as their homes burned to the ground. Elizabeth Adams, wife of Samuel Adams, had to hide in a small cottage far from the city, since her father was an English Merchant. In a letter to Samuel, she does not chastise him or berate him for his neglect of their family. Instead she reassures him that all is well at home and that he should concentrate on the battle at hand. She writes;

“I beg you would not give yourself any pain on our being so Near the Camp; the place I am in is so Situated, that if the Regulars should ever take Prospect Hill, which God forbid, I should be able to make an Escape, as I am Within a few stones casts of a Back Road, Which Leads to the Most Retired part of Newtown …. I beg you to Excuse the very poor Writing as My paper is Bad and my pen made with Scissars. I should be glad (My dear), if you shouldn’t come down soon, you would Write me Word Who to apply to for some Money, for I am low in Cash and every thing (sic) is very dear.” Feb 19 1775

Mary Bartlett

Mary Bartlett wife of Dr. Bartlett, was as ardent in her patriotism as her husband. When their home lay in ruins and the family were driven to seek shelter and safety elsewhere, she fled to their little farm, which she managed from then on, leaving her husband free to devote himself almost entirely to the fight. In all her letters to her husband and her children, there is not one word of regret for his situation or pity for herself, left alone to bear the duties forced upon her by the tyranny of the British government. She had no complaints, only a spirit of loving, helpful sympathy for everything that her husband was going through.

These women believed their sacrifice was just as much a fight for Liberty as the lives lost on the battlefield. These were women of courage and resolve, willing to give everything for Liberty. Mercy Otis Warren wrote, they were “…ready to sacrifice their devoted lives to preserve inviolate, and to convey to their children the inherent rights of men, conferred on all by the God of nature, and the privileges of Englishmen claimed by Americans from the sacred sanction of compacts.”

Mercy was amazing at voicing the feelings and fears of these brave women in the battle for Liberty.

“I have my fears. Yet, notwithstanding the complicated difficulties that rise before us, there is no receding; and I should blush if in any instance the weak passions of my sex should damp the fortitude, the patriotism, and the manly resolution of yours. May nothing ever check that glorious spirit of freedom which inspires the patriot in the cabinet, and the hero in the field, with courage to maintain their righteous cause, and to endeavor to transmit the claim to posterity, even if they must seal the rich conveyance to their children with their own blood.”

There is a story told, about a British officer reporting to British General Cornwallis of the progress of the war with the colonies.  As it is told, the British have become very frustrated and even discouraged by the opposition of the colonists.  In relaying the affairs of the troops, the British officer says to Gen. Cornwallis, “Sir, we may destroy all the men in America, and we shall still have all we can do to defeat the women.”  You see, by that time, the colonial women had nearly decimated the British linen industry with their boycott.

We could learn a great deal about what real women act and sound like from the words and deeds of these great heroines. And, as I am sure you can now see, the revisionists have been lying to us for many years. These women were not oppressed by their chauvinistic husbands to the point of servitude. They were bold and brave women of resolve. They were dedicated to the cause of Liberty and the battle against tyranny. In her display of patriotism, Hannah Winthrop uttered the following battle cry,

“And be it known unto Britain, even American daughters are politicians and patriots, and will aid the good work with their female efforts.”

These women believed in their hearts and in their souls that without Liberty, life was not worth living. They supported their husbands and gave everything they could to ensure that their children would live free. As Mercy put it, “We will stand against tyranny today or our children will bow tomorrow.” How can we deny these great women their due? These are the women of Liberty and they are heroes worthy of recognition. Without them, America would not be the shining city on a hill and the last bastion of hope. We should honor what these brave women have done not only for America, but for the world.

Exclusive: Secret Group Helping Obama Destroy the Constitution

/in /by

On March 2, 2012 I gave a legal analysis of HR347/S1794 (which included some links to frightening government abuses) and how it unquestionably violates the First Amendment.  Upon hearing numerous reports the following week, I realized that the people are not getting the whole truth.

For those who have not read my blog, please do so, but here is a brief summary.  HR 347 and S 1794, the ‘‘Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011” has nothing to do with improving landscaping around federal buildings.  This bill is being presented as a No Trespassing bill.  Reasonable people understand that restrictions and protections are needed for government officials and government functions.  However, this legislation makes it a federal crime to simply DISRUPT the ORDERLY CONDUCT of government.  The violator doesn’t have to be on the grounds where the government business is being conducted, just within the vicinity of the so-called business. The law is not limited to buildings or locations as the title suggests, but seems to be “roving” and follows persons protected by Secret Service wherever they go. The language could be interpreted to refer to an official who is eligible for Secret Service protection and not protected by them at the moment of the alleged violation.  How long before we hear the argument that federal officials are “protected” by secret service even if secret service is not present at the time? The bottom line is: Your First Amendment right to peaceably assemble – is now a federal crime.

In one particular report on this bill, Fox News focuses the blame almost entirely on the President.  The report even leads off with the headline, “Suppressing Free Speech? President Signs Anti-protest Bill.”  The report includes an interview with Judge Napolitano where he gives a brief review of the potential impact of this bill.  The entire focus is again on Obama’s signing of this bill and what he will do with it.  The fact is that there is a group of individuals that played a much more significant role in this and it is becoming one of the greatest cover-ups going on today.  I will now do what no one else seems to have the guts to do.  I will tell you their names.  Are you ready?

A quick look at the roll call for this bill will show you that only 3 Republicans in the House voted against this Constitutional atrocity: Ron Paul (R-Tx), Paul Broun (R-Ga), and Justin Amish (R-Mi).  That means that every other “conservative” House member that thought it important enough to show up and vote, voted for this bill and against the Constitution.  Who was your “Tea Party” favorite in 2010?  Who did you elect on the promise to uphold the Constitution and Constitutional Principles?  Was it perhaps Allen West, Michele Bachmann, Jeff Landry, or Joe Walsh? “I am a patriot,” they say.  Yet, how did they vote when the Constitution was on the line?

What about the Senate?   You don’t have to work hard to decipher the roll call for S1794 because the vote in favor of putting government over the Constitution was UNANIMOUS!  Again, who was your “Tea Party” favorite in Senate?  Perhaps Jim Demint, Jerry Moran, Mike Lee, Ron Johnson or, dare I say it, Marco Rubio?

How will they answer when you question them on this?  Will you hear, “security over liberty” arguments?  Will they tell you that the threat against our representatives deserves greater consideration than our Constitutionally protected rights?

One vote is no big deal right?  Maybe, but some votes are not inconsequential when they destroy the very safeguards of Liberty.  But it is not one vote; there is a pattern forming here.

Look at the roll call for HR 1540, The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.  This is the bill that authorizes indefinite detention of US Citizens and repealed the law against bestiality in the military.  Do not believe the lies from Congress, this bill does authorize indefinite detention and if you still don’t understand it, watch this legal analysis video, it will help you.  It is a direct assault on our rights protected in the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments.

In the roll call for the Constitution-shredding bill HR 1540, we find some familiar names:   Allen West, Jeff Landry, and Joe Walsh among other “Tea Party” favorites.  You see only 43 “conservatives” voted against this bill and for the Constitution.  But what about the Senate side?  Did your “Tea Party” favorite vote to indefinitely detain US Citizens?  It is quite likely, because only 3 Senators knew enough about the Constitution to vote against giving the President that kind of power.   That means once again Jim Demint, Jerry Moran, Ron Johnson and, dare I say it, Marco Rubio voted against the Constitution!

What about the debt ceiling vote?  Who were the “Tea Party” members in the house that voted to send our children into financial slavery?  Ooops, there we have those names again… and guess who is 3 for 3? Allen West.

And finally, what about the Patriot Act?  You know that act that gives the federal government the authority to seize property, records, and even people without a warrant that complies with the 4th Amendment and then hold them in violation of the 5th Amendment?  Whose names will we find on that roll call?  Allen West, Michele Bachmann, Jeff Landry, and Joe Walsh, among others.   When the House voted again on this bill, only one member from this list changed his vote, Allen West.  What about the Senate side?  Only Rand Paul and Mike Lee voted against this bill and for the Citizens of America.  Yes, you guessed it, that means that Jim Demint, Jerry Moran, Ron Johnson and, dare I say it, Marco Rubio are all in favor of defeating the 4th and 5th Amendments of the Constitution.

To summarize, we have seen direct attacks on our Constitution perpetrated NOT by Obama alone, but aided and abetted by our Congress.  HR 347/S1794 is a direct assault on our First Amendment. Sections 1021 and 1022 are violent attacks on our 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments.  And the Patriot Act, the beginning of it all, shreds our right to be secure in our persons, property, and papers, all in the name of security.  What security would that be, by the way?  The security of knowing that the President is devising secret law and secret legal interpretations of these laws to create further Constitutional abuses as uncovered in the letter to Eric Holder from Senators Wyden and Udall!

This battering of our Constitutionally protected rights does not rest on the shoulders of the progressives; nor, does the responsibility belong to one man.  The destruction of our Constitution rests firmly on the heads of the men and women in Congress – “R” AND “D” – Senate AND HOUSE!

Those we trusted with the Liberty of our children have betrayed us on the highest level.  Which one of these men and women do you want to be president or vice president?  Which one of these men and women do you want in charge of being the guardian of Liberty for your children?  When we elected them, they were given fair warning that they MUST PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION. They accepted that charge and THEY HAVE FAILED miserably.  Are YOU willing to stand by your word and make these traitors unemployed?  Are you willing to make the sacrifice necessary to preserve the blessings of Liberty for our posterity?  Look at these roll calls.  Find out who voted Against the Constitution and DO NOT SUPPORT THEM.

Let me remind you: These are not the principles our founders died for!  These are not the principles for which Crispus Attacks was shot in the streets, or for which Richard Stockton was tortured, or for which Thomas Nelson Jr. destroyed his own home.  These are not the principles about which Phyllis Wheatley or Mercy Otis Warren wrote.  These are not the principles for which Washington’s men left bloody footprints in the snow!  This despicable, spineless group of egotists in OUR government is a disgrace to the legacy of Liberty!  They must all be dismissed at the earliest opportunity!

Our founders would have never allowed the government’s desire for orderly function to outweigh the right of the people to speak, assemble, or air their grievances!

  • Use your voice while you still have it!  Build your influence while you still can!
  • We must continue to rally the forces of Liberty!
  • We must continue to stand against corruption!
  • We must continue to expose the spineless and the hypocrite!
  • We must inform the ignorant and fire the incompetent!
  • We must not retreat, we must not surrender!  Liberty is worth the fight!

Justice Ginsburg Violates Her Oath

/in /by

If you are wondering what causes the destruction of America, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, may give part of the answer to this question.

Al Hayat TV in Egypt interviewed Justice Ginsburg asking her for the advice she would give Egypt in writing the Constitution for their newly formed government. Her reply to this question gives insight into this her thoughts and understanding of the very Constitution she has given an oath to support and defend.

“I can’t speak as to what the Egyptian experience should be” she said, “because I am operating under a rather old Constitution, the United States in comparison to Egypt is a very new nation, yet we have the oldest Constitution still in force in the world…”

Immediately, Ginsburg diminishes the value of our Constitution because it is the “oldest Constitution”. She is completely ignoring the fact that it is the oldest Constitution because of the very foundation and principles it espouses. Our founders, although wise and possibly geniuses, were not making up things as they went along, they built a nation upon 700 years of experience with human nature, tyranny, and Liberty in mind. Our Constitution is not over 200 years old, but in reality, its principles and practices are over 1,000 years old. And it IS its age that gives it its credibility. It IS the tried and tested principles and practices that make America the shining city on a hill and the envy of the world.

But Mrs. Ginsburg’s criticism of our Constitution doesn’t end there. When asked by the reporter if Egypt should look to the US Constitution as an example to form their own, her response is shocking.

“You should be aided by all the constitutional writings that have gone on since the end of World War II, I would not look to the US Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.”

Yes, you heard right, she is telling Egypt to disregard our Constitution when drafting theirs. She offers up, rather, the Constitutions of South Africa and Canada. She even strongly suggests the European Union’s Human Rights statement as a BETTER example of Constitutions.

“I might look at the Constitution of South Africa, that was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights; [they have] an independent judiciary, it really is, I think a great piece of work that was done, much more recently than the United States Constitution. Canada has a charter of rights and freedoms that dates from 1982. You would most certainly look at the European convention on human rights…”

Can we glean from these statements that Mrs. Ginsburg does not believe OUR Constitution was a “deliberate attempt to embrace basic human rights”? I am really beginning to wonder what Mrs. Ginsburg actually KNOWS about our Constitution. After all, how is a nation founded upon the principles that “All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” not deliberately attempting to embrace basic human rights? Maybe she missed Sam Adams’ explanation of the rights of the colonists when he said they were “First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.” I guess in Mrs. Ginsburg’s books, those are not principles of basic human rights. In this interview, Mrs. Ginsburg says she is “a very strong believer in learning and listening to others”, unfortunately she never took the time to learn and listen to the men and women who founded this nation.

Mrs. Ginsberg does acknowledge the wisdom of our founders but points out the absence of women at the Constitutional Convention:

“…we were just tremendously fortunate in the US that men who met in Philadelphia were very wise, it is true they were lacking one thing, that is there were no women as part of the Constitutional Conventions, but there were women around, who sparked the idea…”

It is interesting that even if it is just in passing, Mrs. Ginsberg does acknowledge that women were involved in the foundational “ideas” of this nation. Yet she does a great disservice to the women of that era by completely ignoring the magnitude of their input. Her perpetration of revisionist history even becomes part of her advice to the country of Egypt.

“John Adams who was one of our first presidents, and instrumental in the Constitutional Congress, his wife Abigail was very well known, intelligent, said “Now John when you write that Constitution, please remember the ladies.” And he wrote back something amusing, he said, “are you suggesting that women should be part of the political community, look if we do that everyone will be claiming the right to vote, 12 year old boys will be claiming the right”, he treated like a joke…”

The internet is an amazing thing. It was not difficult to find the letters between Abigail and John that she references and John Adams said NOTHING like what Mrs. Ginsburg claims. Most historians not in the business of rewriting history are quick to acknowledge that John Adams held his wife in very high regard and often relied on her wisdom. Additionally, most of our founders felt the same way about the strong women in their lives. To suggest as Mrs. Ginsburg does, that the men excluded women from this process because they were tyrants and oppressive husbands, is as ridiculous as her rendition of the letters she quotes. Liberty, as John Adams describes in this letter is contagious. Our founders knew that with patience and proper focus on Liberty, in time, all would enjoy as much or as little Liberty as they wished to obtain. This is a valuable point Mrs. Ginsburg would do well to point out to a newly forming nation.

The truly puzzling thing is that she admits that our founders were “wise” and calls them “genius” and even admits that women had a role in sparking the “idea” of Liberty. But she then immediately perpetuates the liberal lie that our founders were not interested in women’s rights and wanted slavery to remain a guiding principle in this nation. May I remind Mrs. Ginsberg that the Declaration of Independence states “ALL” men are created equal. Not all men of a particular race, color or creed, or not even just all AMERICANS, but all men. In my dictionary “all” means “all”. In “listening and learning” from our founders they made it clear that slavery was something that must be abolished. It is precisely why they set a “sunset” for the institution of slavery. Maybe Mrs. Ginsburg doesn’t understand that provision since our current government doesn’t respect “sunset” provisions and simply votes to perpetuate them.

To our founders, who were focused on Liberty, creating a union of states was the most important aspect to ensuring that Liberty would prosper. They knew they could not plow new fields overnight and if they tried to change the world in one move, the union would never have a chance, and Liberty would not have its way in all the states. They understood the fundamental aspect of Liberty, that if the focus of a society is on Liberty, that Liberty will be contagious. People who observe others enjoying Liberty will always want to enjoy it for themselves. Our government was established as a Republic so once that desire for Liberty began to spread, a minority group could have a society-changing voice. Our founders deliberately did not establish a democracy, because in that form of government, the majority would always choke to death the desire for Liberty of a minority. Yet another point that Mrs. Ginsberg might be wise to share with Egypt instead of encouraging them to strive “to achieve a general democracy…”

The dichotomy of her praise and criticism of our founders and our Constitution shows that she is greatly misinformed of both. The fact that she would lift up the European Union’s Human Rights statement should greatly concern us. But the finality of her statement to a newly forming nation, that they should NOT look to the wisdom of our founders and use our Constitution as a guide gives us the greatest insight into what she believes about the founding of our nation and the supreme law of the land.

I have begun to understand that those in our government repeatedly take oaths that they do not understand do not actually believe. Taking an oath and not understanding what that oath means, is the equivalent of taking no oath at all. Mrs. Ginsberg is a great example. Here is the oath every Supreme Court Justice takes:

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

According to an online dictionary the word “support” means to keep from weakening or failing, to strengthen. Synonyms for this word are uphold, back, advocate, champion. According to the same online dictionary the word “defend” means to keep safe from danger, attack, or harm, to ward off an attack. It seems to me, that putting down our Constitution and lifting up others above it is a very strange way to keep it from weakening, to advocate for it, and to ward off attacks against it. This justice, whose entire job depends upon the definition of words, seems to have forgotten the meaning of these vital words. Mrs. Ginsburg might do well to pick up a dictionary and put down her distorted Constitutional law books.

Mrs. Ginsburg did make one statement that was right on. When asked her ideas on how to draft a constitution, her reply should cause every patriot to sit up and take notice.

“A Constitution, as important as it is, will mean nothing unless the people are yearning for liberty and freedom if the people don’t care, then the best Constitution in the world won’t make any difference, so spirit of liberty must be in the population.”

Bravo, Mrs. Ginsburg, you have the fundamental foundation for being a patriot. Now, put down your law books, put down your revisionist history, set aside your agendas and REALLY “learn and listen” to the men you called genius. Learn WHY they were able to pledge their lives, their fortune, and their sacred honor so ages and millions yet unborn could live in the greatest nation on the planet protected by the greatest human rights statements ever drafted. You may just then begin to understand the pledge you took, and the principles embodied in the document you are supposed to support and defend. You will then be qualified to maintain that seat on the Supreme Court. May I be so bold as to suggest a really great book for you to get started? Not A Living Breathing Document, Reclaiming Our Constitution.

Expatriation – No Citizenship, No Constitutional Rights

/in /by

At the risk of sounding like an alarmist, again, here comes another dangerous tool aimed at avoiding Constitutional restrictions in the name of fighting terrorism.  It is clear that our Congressmen believe that the pesky Constitution severely limits them in their noble efforts to keep us poor defenseless little citizens safe.  Members of Congress vehemently defended their vote for NDAA by stating that US Citizens were specifically excluded from detention under the counterterrorism provisions.  Although we know that to be doubtful, Senators Joe Liebermann and Scott Brown along with Representatives Charles Dent, Jason Altmire, Robert Latta and Frank Wolf are working to make that defense irrelevant – eliminate the person’s citizenship and he HAS no Constitutional rights – problem solved.  These men have submitted for review S. 1698 and H.R. 3166, bills that will be better known as the Enemy Expatriation Act.

Interesting how the words of our founders still come back to haunt us.  In the Letter from a Federal Farmer 8, the author warns us that:

Men may always be too cautious to commit alarming and glaring iniquities; but they, as well as systems, are liable to be corrupted by slow degrees.

That is exactly what has happened.  The elimination of Constitutional rights of US Citizens are being eroded by slow degrees. Consider the following:

Immediately after 9/11, Congress passes the Patriot Act, legislation that in part allows the FBI to conduct warrantless searches and seize people and property without probable cause and without judicial review.

Next we have Janet Napolitano issuing in an OFFICIAL REPORT of the Department of Homeland Security stating that soldiers returning from Iraq and those who oppose abortion, along with others who hold conservative American values are the real potential terrorists.

Recently, in April of 2011, the Government Accountability office reported that State Department and DHS officials could not agree on “what degree of ‘association’ with a terrorist is sufficient to render an applicant ineligible for a visa.”  Through this report we know that our US Visa offices are and have been granting legal resident status to citizens who have documented terrorist affiliation.  We also know that these legal residents have been granted full citizenship in spite of their documented terrorist affiliation.  Case in point; consider Faisal Shahzad, the failed Times Square bomber, who was granted a student visa and then full citizenship all the while being on a terrorist watch list.  Because of Faisal Shahzad’s terrorist attack on America, Eric Holder went on a campaign, not to fix our immigration system or to limit the real terrorists, but to declare that OUR Constitutional rights should be “more flexible” so we can combat terrorism.

Every move that has been taken by this government moves us closer and closer to the death of the Constitution in the name of combating terrorism.

Next, the National Defense Authorization Act declares an indefinite worldwide war on terrorism and makes provision for the indefinite detention of those whom the government labels terrorists, or belligerents, or hostiles, or…?

Congressman after Congressman has declared that these sections EXCLUDE US Citizens.  They ignore section 4 that authorizes open and unchecked waivers of any established limitations. They claim that the language of this Act, “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States” gives that exclusion, even though telling a government agency they are not required to do something is not the same as prohibiting them from doing it.  Not even close.  We have declared open and undefined war on the nebulous enemy – “terrorism”, and we have given the President the ability to detain US Citizens indefinitely. Never fear, while admitting that NDAA grants such authority, the current President has promised he will not use that power.

Obama will never have to keep that promise if the Enemy Expatriation Act passes, since this act will strip US Citizens of their citizenship for simply being suspected of association with terrorist activity.

The Immigration and Nationality Act establishes guidelines of how a citizen can “lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality”.  The act then proceeds to list seven ways someone can relinquish their citizenship, among those acts is treason.  The Enemy Expatriation Act adds an additional criteria, language straight out of those troublingly worded sections of NDAA that we were told were not aimed at US Citizens.  According to Senator Leibermann and others, citizens both by birth and naturalization do not deserve their citizenship if they are suspected of:

engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.

We should be asking ourselves, why do we need this language in addition to the crime of treason already listed as a way to lose citizenship.  The key may lie in the definition of treason in the Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist of only levying war against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving Aid and comfort.  No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Constitution and the provisions in the Immigration act both require a conviction of treason in court.  The standard of engaging in or purposefully and materially supporting, as stated in the Enemy Expatriation Act contains no requirement for CONVICTION of these activities.  The Patriot Act allows the government to build their suspicion upon information obtained using warrantless searches.  The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice have made it clear who they think the enemy is and that they believe these “enemies” deserve no Constitutional rights.  But I guarantee, those in favor of the Enemy Expatriation Act will claim that they have now defined “hostilities” and this will protect those citizens who have “nothing to hide”.  The act declares “hostilities” for THIS SECTION means, any conflict subject to the laws of war.   This does not define “hostilities” for any other document in effect.  We must remember NDAA has declared open and continual war on terrorism.  This “limitation” is no limitation at all.

Do not be fooled.  Arm yourself with the truth!

Will a Spineless Congress Allow More Obama Lawlessness?

/in /by

About six months ago I gave REAL reasons why Obama should be impeached. Now as part of President Obama’s fundamental transformation of America, this lawless tyrant is intent upon completely overturning one of the most fundamental characteristics of our Republic; Separation of Powers. The checks and balances in the American system were instituted for the express purpose of combating the rise of a tyrannical and oppressive government.

Nonetheless, on December 31, 2011 Josh Earnest, White House deputy press secretary said, “the president will have a larger playing field. If that includes Congress, all the better,” But, he added, “that’s no longer a requirement.” The president did not waste any time in thumbing his nose at the rule of law. Just today, the President announced the “recess appointment” for the controversial Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three new members to the National Labor Relations board. So what is the problem? Congress is NOT IN RECESS. The President has made a complete end run of Congress and has violated his limitations in Separation of Powers. But what is the big deal about Separation of Powers?

James Madison points out in Federalist 47 that,

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

Our founders spent a great deal of time discussing separation of powers and believed that such separation was essential to the protection of our liberty. The discussion of the time was not whether these branches SHOULD be separate, but to WHAT DEGREE they should be separate; the founders knowing, as Madison points out, that a separation of the three branches of government was necessary to preserve Liberty. They all agreed that the accumulation of all powers by one person or a single group of people is the very definition of tyranny. “Where the accumulation of power is possible, no further argument is necessary” to support a division and separation of those powers. Madison declares: “…by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places. “

Our Founders also believed that a certain amount “blending” of these departments was necessary to prevent one Branch from usurping power over the other. This blending is what we know as checks and balances. Madison understood that simply enumerating powers and identifying boundaries on paper would be an insufficient barrier “to the encroaching spirit of power.” Liberty cannot be preserved unless you allow for departmental oversight. Madison made this point very clear:

”But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government.”

The abuses of this President definitely need to be controlled. The absolute amazing thing about this entire scenario is that a President was IMPEACHED for the very thing that our current lawless Executive is doing. On March 3, 1867 Congress enacted the Tenure of Office Act over the veto of President Andrew Johnson. The Tenure of Office Act was designed to prevent the President from removing any office holder appointed by a past president without the advice and consent of the Senate. Johnson did not acknowledge this limitation and publicly declared the 39th Congress was not a Congress at all. He then removed the then Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton from office and appointed Ulysses S. Grant in his place. On February 24, 1868 the House of Representatives brought 11 articles of impeachment against Johnson according to article 2 of the Constitution. Ten of these articles were dedicated to Johnson’s ignoring this Separation of Powers. Johnson was successfully impeached by the House, but was acquitted after trial. Although several Governors had been impeached in the colonies, this was the first sitting president to be impeached. Most impeachments have occurred due to the executive branch ignoring its limitations through separation of powers.

In this case, unlike today, Congress fulfilled their responsibility in the “checks and balance” aspect of the Separation of Power and impeached Johnson. Our founders knew that these checks and balances MUST be utilized to prevent the natural course of men who wish to be tyrants. Madison explains:

“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

If such strong checks were and are necessary to resist the tyranny of men, then why are these checks not being employed? History and experience prove not only that Obama’s attempts to completely destroy liberty must be stopped, but that Congress has the ability to stop him. What has happened to the integrity and resolve of the men and women we have elected to protect Liberty? I believe much of it has to do with a complete ignorance of history and a complete lack of understanding of the Constitution. The House of Representatives, by their complete inaction, will allow another dangerous precedent to eat away at America’s Constitutional foundations. The House must begin the impeachment process and end this unconstitutional usurpation by the executive branch, TODAY. We cannot allow this tyranny to continue. Congress must know if they will not stand for Liberty, WE WILL. Just a reminder, Congress, YOU WORK FOR US. Your job obligations and responsibilities are clearly identified in the law, in the Constitution and in the “operator’s manual” written by those who wrote the Constitution. If you don’t understand them, I am more than happy to come and teach you. But do hear us, Congress… Do your job or be fired!

Step up and defend Liberty.

The Inalienable Right to Life

/in /by

It seems to be growing increasingly popular to use the 10th Amendment to justify carte blanche legislative authority within the states. Even some Presidential candidates have implied that because of the 10th Amendment, states can “pass whatever laws they want.” Recently, others have said that if a state wants to legalize abortion, the 10th Amendment gives the state the power to do so. I would like to assert that some issues cannot be legislated by the states and in particular abortion is NOT a state’s rights issue, and here’s why:

We cannot fully understand the 10th Amendment until we understand of the 9th Amendment as well. The 9th Amendment says:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And to understand the 9th Amendment we must understand the debate that produced it. The debate was over the incorporation of the Bill of Rights into our Constitution.

Alexander Hamilton was not in favor of incorporating the Bill of Rights. As he states in Federalist 84,

I go further, and affirm, that Bills of Rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. (emphasis added)

It was Hamilton’s belief that the Constitution was very clear as to the limitation of powers for the Federal Government. His greatest fear was that by incorporating a “list” of rights, it would provide those in power the opportunity to spread tyranny and liberty through interpretation and regulation.

They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the National Government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for Bills of Rights. (emphasis added)

In other words he is saying that those in power would see the enumerated list of rights as areas that the branches of government must define and regulate – else why would they be listed?

In the end James Madison felt he had the solution to this problem.

It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution. (Emphasis added)

Madison, when speaking of the “last clause of the fourth resolution,” was referring to what we now know as the 9th Amendment. He was telling all of those who were not comfortable in ratifying Bills of Rights, that the 9th Amendment would solve all those problems. Madison believed that specifically stating that the Bills of Rights do not in any way give the government more power than was already given and reaffirming that these rights belong to the PEOPLE and not the government, would create a barrier of protection against encroachment of these important rights belonging to the people.

The key to the 10th Amendment is understanding that our Founders went out of their way to make sure it was abundantly clear that the Rights enumerated belong to the PEOPLE and not to the Government – neither state nor federal. So when the 10th Amendment says, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, our founders were NOT creating three separate seats of power in the United States: the Feds, the States, and the People. They were saying, in conjunction with the 9th Amendment, hey United States, hey States, these rights belong to the PEOPLE through the States. The founders never intended for the States to disparage these rights, any more than they intended the Federal government of the United States to disparage them.

Our Founders never intended to invest in the states the power to remove someone’s right to bear arms, for instance, otherwise the Second Amendment would not say,

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If a state could have power to eliminate the right of its citizens to bear arms, the objective of maintaining a free state would be defeated and that state would become a tyrant over its people. Our founders never intended for the States to have the ability to violate someone’s free speech, right to religious liberty, or takes someone’s person, property or life without due process, else the states again, would be the tyrant over its people. While there are many things, in fact most things, that the States should legislate, there are certain inalienable rights that cannot under our Constitution be legislated away.

Life is not something that should be legislated away. Life is an inalienable right. That this right begins at conception is a biological fact. This fact was not “overturned” by science in Roe v. Wade, but by manipulation of facts through law. If real science had been used and not legal manipulation, denying life in the womb at conception would have failed. The argument of viability, as established by Roe, is based upon the argument that if you remove the fetus from the womb at a certain point, that fetus (or if you prefer those cells) would die and therefore was not alive and not a person. Logically speaking, by admitting that this life will die implies that it was alive at some point. Using this same logic to determine that life never existed does not hold up in science either. There are many single celled organisms that will only survive on a particular growth medium. You will be hard pressed to find a microbiologist tell you that these organisms were never alive, because they failed to live outside their nutrient rich medium. Additionally, by the very definition of abortion, you must admit life exists at the time of abortion. You cannot abort an action that has never begun. Therefore, Roe is not only unconstitutional, but logically and scientifically unsound. Even the judge in Roe admitted if it would be established in court that life began at an earlier stage, this life would have rights. This error is not a matter of science, but a matter of incompetent legal argument.

Finally, to use the 10th Amendment as an excuse to deprive someone of life is a misapplication of Constitutional principles. Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are both very clear as to the founder’s understanding of the right to Life. If we do not have life, we have neither Liberty, nor an opportunity to pursue happiness. In fact, our founders repeatedly declared that they were pledging life, fortune and sacred honor for “ages and millions yet unborn.” Abortion is not a state issue as assigned by the 10th Amendment, nor is it a “social” issue not to be discussed; it is that very matter of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness upon which our Constitution is based. A state cannot adopt laws to eliminate free speech and cannot pass laws to legalize murder and the 10th Amendment cannot be used to justify abortion. To claim to be a Constitutionalist and say the 10th Amendment permits a state to legalize abortion is to misunderstand the Constitution and the 10th Amendment itself.

Some would use the same Constitutional argument against the death penalty. Just like abortion, one may be morally opposed to the death penalty, but there is a difference in these two issues from a Constitutional perspective. You have the ability to forfeit your Liberty, through the application of due process, by committing a capital offense. Abortion, however, is sentencing someone to death who has committed no crime, without due process.

We must remember that Liberty is not only freedom, but freedom fettered by morality. Some “social” issues that touch on morality are a matter of Constitutional relevance, and are essential to maintaining Liberty. Sadly, we live in a society that increasingly believes, as Suhas Sreedhar, 26, an engineer working in a computer company in Manhattan who states in a USA Today article, “God? Purpose? You don’t need an opinion on those things to function.” You do, however, need to have an opinion of these things to maintain Liberty.

Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? -Thomas Jefferson.