Back at it.

[₣яэđĸĊ]

I have decided to re-awaken my blog (http://fredsitelive.com/wp/) on Constitutional matters.

My first entry is on all this whining over the DHS document re. "Right Wing Extremists".

It's not the principle of their objections I have trouble with, but the majority of the whining is coming from people who cheered when the pentagon was spying on the Quakers, because they feared being attacked by them. The Friggin' Quakers!!!

Anyway, after a 6 month hiatus (explained in the 2nd post) I am back at it, for awhile.

Fred

[Norval]

It's the Amish they need to worry about. :lol: just kidding

Hi yah Fred,
As a minister or priest, constitutional law gave us rights that are recorded in book 1 (common law) of most states and federal law. If I remember correctly, it's been a long time since I researched that stuff.

After 3 1/2 years of the army I came home from the Nam, not old enough to vote or buy a beer. Sept. of 1971. With a government and legal system that bad and unjust, I have never bothered to vote. That decision has never been regretted. Today my status, in the eyes of the government, is one of diplomatic immunity. At least that is the way I have been treated by any law enforcement agency for the past decade.

While I may not know much about what all has happened about constitutions here in this country, I have learned about, what I guess we could now call, The Intergalactic Constitution, or what is known as the ten commandments. But, with a much more modern understanding and comprehension of what it says without the religious overtones.

The constitution of this country allowed for "freedom of religion", which is pure bull shit when it all boils down to knowledge of our physicality of reality. Religion has been and remains as one of the greatest tactics of division between peoples. Then comes nationalism or political theologies.

Could it be that you are just flogging a dead horse, the US Constitution?

[Gale]

Hasn't the Constitution already been subverted by all the top secret research, organizations, unpublished agreements etc. Isn't it an antiquated document when one considers what is coming?

[Bobbi]

Here's my take on the constitution. It was originally constructed on the basis of "God given rights" to each individual in the hopes of protecting those rights - by the founding fathers and their "religious" beliefs. It's intent was in the best interest of the individual. Eventually individuals merged together into any number of designated groups - towns, districts, regions, states. Even then, it's mandates were in the best interests of the group, but still based on the individual, as afforded each of them in The Common Law.

States were originally independent entities, responsible for their own care and maintenance. I'm not a history buff, but I believe certain states felt it would be better to merge resources and work together as a union, but it was a state's choice.

After the stock market crashed, everything changed. The republics (states) became the United States, some even fradulently, even still today. That was when it all became a Corporation, and the individual was now the property of the Corporation and It's interests far outweighed those of the individual. The Common Law could not address the Corporation's needs, so new laws had to be introduced under the guise of the "continuing betterment of all" and to do so in such a way as to make it appear as though it was simply an extension of The Common Law, all the while violating it's tenets and protections as they apply to the individual. Over time, an entire new set of laws were in place and The Common Law virtually forgotten, even though it's provisions STILL have precedence.

I've watched the individual's simplest rights be trampled on for decades now. Once The Patriot Act took effect, it was all over. Once rights have WILLINGLY been given up, you can't get them back. Too Late.

I've always said that the only way to reinstitute individual rights, at this point, is a global catastrophe. Now I understood why AND how.

[unipax]

Yes, and as explained by JT Coyote at ppforum, the states 10th amendment movement to assert their sovereign authority and put the alien agency (fed gov) back in its place by enforcing the constitution appears to be sound.

The states created the federal agency, and they still have the power to rein it in.


http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=4199.0


THE LAW IS QUITE CLEAR, THE FEDS ARE IN BREACH OF THEIR AGENCY CONTRACT

[Article 9 of the Bill of Rights]

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

[Article 10 of the Bill of Rights]

"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."

I don't believe that it gets much more concise than that.

For years now the point that I've attempted to drive home on this as well as other forums, is that we need to get a ground-swell of people POUNDING the Constitutional facts INTO Congress. An overwhelming call, from the people with special emphasis on the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Bill of Rights, trumps all Federal power... They are in breach of their Article 4 Section 4 "MANDATE" in the Constitution, that the federal government control the border, during times of INVASION! This popular ground-swell would force the feds to stop the "bankrupting of the states". The cost of this war on terror, and the influx of illegal aliens, and the threat of a North American Union... are all De-Facto UNCONSTITUTIONAL "UNFUNDED" FEDERAL MANDATES!!!

[Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution]

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

We all know the logistics of border enforcement and even deportation is well within our means. The problem is getting the politicians off of their dead posteriors! The real enemy are not those poor Latinos and Mexicans... at least not completely... though a few well timed altercations could turn this into a horrible mess which is exactly what the big boys are hoping will happen! Then they could dispense with the Constitution all together and we would really be in the soup! NO, the REAL enemy is in Washington, Ottawa, Mexico City, and the Globalist UNITED NATIONS in New York... fueled by the lust for power of their masters in London and the Banking capitols of Europe...

We must stay COOL and use the tools that the Founders Fathers gave us with resolve... we must remain vigilant... Remember, The WAR on TERROR, the Illegal Alien Problem, the SPP/NAU, and so on, are ALL DE-FACTO UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNFUNDED FEDERAL MANDATES THAT ARE BEING FOISTED UPON THE PEOPLE AND THE STATES! Y'all got that, right?

We... have laws in 1/3 of the states through the adoption of a re-affirming Resolution that demands the accountability of the feds by Constitutional chapter and verse for any federal mandate! In the cases spelled out above, the feds cannot show anything but that they are in unconstitutional BREACH of CONTRACT!

The power against this rests in the states, and with We the People... a majority of states put the feds on notice between 1994-1996 with...
"The 10th Amendment Sovereignty Resolution!" It stated, if mandates didn't pass Constitutional Muster, chapter and verse, which included adequate funding... there would be FIRINGS in Washington... The resolution states, with all certainty, that WE THE PEOPLE of THE UNITED STATES understand what the Constitution and specifically 10th Amendment means, and exactly what it says![/b]

...to be continued.''

--Oldyoti

[Gale]

I've always said that the only way to reinstitute individual rights, at this point, is a global catastrophe. Now I understood why AND how.

Then it will be marshal law and even less rights. Total restriction on the individual.

In this BET world the only rights we humans have is to listen to their lies and die.

[Bobbi]

Actually Gale, marshall law would be impossible to enforce after a global catastrophe anyway. I was referring to Disclosure and the galactic government being put into place. I didn't do a very good job of saying that, did I? Sorry.

[₣яэđĸĊ]

Here is the "dirty little secret". The one everyone in government sneaks past:

"The Constitution does not "give" rights.
Yes, rights are endowed by the Creator.

Plain fact is the people already had all of the so-called "Enumerated Rights" and more!

The phrase "endowed by the Creator" comes from the genius of Thomas Jefferson. A religious man himself, one thing he despised above all others was anyone pushing any religion on another. Even his own. Using govt to do this was even lower, and something to be prevented.

It doesn't matter what notion people have about the nature of their creator, it's covered. Even if you are certain your "Creator on high" was your Mom and Dad, rubbin' on the living room floor, after a bit too much tequila.

However you got here, you were, and are free from that moment. Don't need a piece of paper to "Give you" anything more. Had it already.

For anyone confused by this notion, being part and parcel of the amendments, please go read them again. (http://fredsitelive.com/politics/usconst.htm#amd0)
1st: "Congress shall make no law..."
2nd: "...shall not be infringed."
4th: "...shall not be violated,"
5th: "No person shall be held to answer for ..."

This is NOT a list of things "we get". They were written "in the negative" on purpose. The states wouldn't ratify the document otherwise. As far as the states, and the people were concerned, they were already free! They had no intention of signing a document which left such things to question. They wanted a list of things Government had no power to touch.

So it's a list of things the Federal Government is specifically forbidden from legislating on, unless they repeal one of the amendments. It doesn't say anything about "Lets-throw-it against-the-wall-see-if-it-sticks" bills of any kind, either.

The Constitution is quite literally a contract between a free, sovereign people, and a government they allow to exist. It was also written as both a comprehensive, and enumerative agreement. Means if it ain't in there, government can't do it.

The people did not give up their sovereignty to do this, either. The burden was always intended to be upon government.
That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government By the time you get to the 9th, and 10th (someone else mentioned them too), there isn't any doubt left, in the frame of reference here. Reading them 10th then 9th, it's ironclad!

Amendment X.
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. So "anything" not specifically given to the Federal Gov, or prohibited to the states, belongs to the people.

Again, the Fed's power is enumerative and comprehensive. It has to be named.



My favorite: ;)
Amendment IX.
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Says the fact that certain rights MAY be mentioned in NO way suggests that these are all there are, or in any other way limits the people's rights. Even if nobody knows what those are. Doesn't matter! NOT Govt's.

These last two form the perfect catch-all.

You see, the authors knew scum like
Hamilton, a devout "Statist", (He wanted unlimited power to be held in Washington) and,
Our current politicians would always be with us.
It wasn't us they were limiting, but them.
_______________________________________________

Now back to the sad truth of the "dirty little secret".
The people forgot it. The people forgot who they are.

Almost everyone in the country thinks the source of law, authority, "right to rule", call it what you want is seated in the government. That's Bassackwards!

Accept that and the people who once "allowed" govt to exist now are merely "free on their own recognizance" hoping they're lucky to keep a few rights, so long as it's convenient.

"Government is force."
The only way we can live in peace with our creation is to convince it that we value our freedom more than anything it can offer, or take away. Convince the beast that it must abide by the agreement, or lose it's permission to exist. And govt has to understand that clearly.

This does not necessarily mean violence. But government has forgotten that everything it can "offer or take away" came from us, as well. By will or by force. Government creates nothing, produces nothing, without first taking from someone else.

The rate at which it's incompetence is consuming resources we don't have, and can't afford, has reached the point where government is becoming dangerous. Government has gone through our money, our children's, it's working on our grandchildren's money, and still has "big plans".

The best way to accomplish a return to sanity and control, without violence, is to insist government abide by the agreement. The Constitution is written in plain English. They did that on purpose. It was never meant to be the property of "Constitutional scholars". Nor was it some "plot" hatched on a bunch of "ignorant farmers". The literacy rate, in 1789, was 90% (I looked it up). They hung copies in every bar in the country! It was discussed, concept by concept (hence the Federalist papers (http://fredsitelive.com/politics/fed_papers/00_start_here.html)), word for word (see minutes of the convention, here. (http://fredsitelive.com/politics/fed_papers/00_start_here.php#cal)).

The Constitution means exactly what it says. It isn't a "living document", it's a binding contract. The job of interpreting, and enforcing it cannot be left to only one side "bound" by it. After all, this is how we got here.

Whether we use the approach taken by Adams, and Jefferson (see above), or Ghandi, is a matter of result. What will it take to get government's attention? Once we muster our own, of course. ;)

[Norval]

The best way to accomplish a return to sanity and control, without violence, is to insist government abide by the agreement.

Possibly, "IF" the governments were in the control of mankind. From what I know and have presented, they are not in control. They are in fact, the governments, under the control of bad ETs. If you take that into account Fred, along with the constitutional right to practice ones religion, which in my book is the worst possible "freedom", as it divides peoples needlessly by ideologies, deceptions and lies, do you really want that "constitution" restored?


What will it take to get government's attention?
Do you really want these governments attention?

Just thinking about it a bit. :)

[₣яэđĸĊ]

Yes, I know... it's an optimistic, and principled approach, only a fool would take.





Do you really want these governments attention?Best I can remember, the last time I wasn't sure government would be hunting for me, one day, was back about 1967. Ahhhhh youth.

So if'n I'm gonna get (in)famous (and maybe dead) that way, it might as well be for something worthwhile.

Next:
it divides peoples needlessly by ideologies, deceptions and lies The notion behind the 1st was over this very thing. Some of the restrictions placed on people, either because of their religion, or lack of support for the right religion in some states were amazing. Ending this was it's intent. Or as one Supreme Court justice some years back said,

"You are guaranteed freedom of religion, not from it."Now, the very "neat" part of that statement is includes none at all. (See previous statement about Jefferson's use of "creator")

You cannot prevent people from being assholes, via legislation. There will always be a certain number of people who will pull guns and knives over a Bears/Packers game, religion, who shouldn't have been cut from Survivor, etc. The 1st was intended to remove all that, including "whose God is on who's side" from the realm of government.

Now, I tend to have what most would call an odd concept of religion.

Religion is about one's relation to the "creator of all". The second it becomes about how someone else should behave, it ceases to be religion of any kind, and then becomes something else; politics. All the more reason to want a clear, limiting document, and insisting on adherence to it.

Need to run spybot, so will post and go away, a bit.

Fred

[Norval]

Today my view of government, philosophy, and religion is vastly different from what it was in 1967, and 1972, and 1994, and 2002, and 2008. Information, learning, knowledge and wisdom of experiences have changed my understanding and comprehension of the world we live in today. To learn of an intergalactic governance can change ones views rather drastically, to be able to technologically comprehend that your race of beings were created by the same heads of that intergalactic governance, then, to accept such as truth will really
mess with yer head.

The constitution for this country was a good thing, in concept.
The ten, so called, commandments is a good thing for the universe.

* The first ten Amendments (Bill of Rights) was ratified effective December 15, 1791.
Amendment I.
Is in the trash.
Amendment II.
Is in the trash.

So, I'm a WA state citizen?
I may have been born in the state of WA and thus became a citizen by being born here, but, I was conceived within the universe and they bestow citizenship on you from conception onward. All you have to do is ratify that citizenship. :)

[Gale]

I was conceived within the universe and they bestow citizenship on you from conception onward. All you have to do is ratify that citizenship.

That cannot be bent, folded, mutilated, rectumified or held hostage like the US Constitution or the Canadian Bill of Rights.

[Gale]

Norval
citizenship on you from conception onward

Ever wonder what that citizenship entails?


entails
1. To have, impose, or require as a necessary accompaniment or consequence: The investment entailed a high risk. The proposition X is a rose entails the proposition X is a flower because all roses are flowers.
2. To limit the inheritance of (property) to a specified succession of heirs.
3. To bestow or impose on a person or a specified succession of heirs.

n.

1.
1. The act of entailing, especially property.
2. The state of being entailed.
2. An entailed estate.
3. A predetermined order of succession, as to an estate or to an office.
4. Something transmitted as if by unalterable inheritance.

[₣яэđĸĊ]

I was always kinda partial to P J O'Rourke's notion:

"You have the right to do as you damned well please! And take the consequences of it." ;)

ok, prolly a bad idea for those who refuse to value simple, good manners.

[Norval]

I think Bobbi will greatly appreciate that statement there Fred. :)

[Bobbi]

Damn Straight I Do! It has been a beef of mine for years. Very few people will take responsiblity for their actions. My children were raised from the time they could understand that every action has a consequence, and every action IS a choice. Simple as that.