







Isn't it Amazing Isn't it amazing, that three liberals posing as republicans are actually getting any votes at all from other republicans?



... As though their obvious past big government luggage does not exist; and that their present proposals if elected, do not promise to increase even more the already bloated and invasive federal government and to further empower privileged collectives;



Their statements showing clearly a willingness for costly foreign wars and continuation of federal & state mandates on individual business & liberties.



The irony of Patrick Henry's statement over 200 yearsago is ringing true today: Patrick Henry 6-16-1788:



"Who has enslaved the people of Germany, France andSpain? They have been enslaved by their OWN PEOPLE; If it happens here, it will only be as it has been everywhere else ."



In that same Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 it was stated that the reasonthat this occurred in those countries was because the peoples " Lack of knowledg e"and ignorance that produced their own slavery .



Here we have a rare opportunity to vote for someone, Ron Paul , who actually understandsthe Constitution and the limits it has upon the federal government. Who from his past record, we can trust he will do what he says and work to reign in the wasteful spending and remove unconstitutional bureaucracies and wasteful spending.



Why would anyone vote for someone else? Willful or pure ignorance? So sad.



Read, get educated . Vote for and Support Ron Paul TODAY!



FREEDOM 101 1.) Republics, once created, cannot change and are LIMITED to the " ORIGINAL" COMPACT(S) .



Samuel Adams: "When Men enter into Society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of " such conditions" , And " previous limitations" as form an equitable " ORIGINAL " " COMPACT ."



EVERY natural Right not expressly given up or from the natureof a Social "Compact" necessarily ceded " REMAINS "."



2.) Changes in the Federal Government are LIMITED to changes ONLY WITHIN the DELEGATED powers ORIGINALLY granted in the " ORIGINAL" COMPACT ; They CANNOT ARROGATE ANY NEW POWERS; NOR can the states "Ratify" new powers upon them through the "Amendment" process which is LIMITED to changes "WITHIN" the limited "DELEGATED" powers .



Edmund Pendleton, VIRGINIA RATIFYING CONVENTION 6-16-1788: " With respect to the necessity of the ten miles square being superseded by the subsequent clause , which gives them power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, andall other powers VESTED by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in ANY department or officer thereof (Article VI), I understand that clause as NOT going a " SINGLE STEP BEYOND " the " DELEGATED powers" . What can it act upon? Somepower given by THIS Constitution. Ifthey should be about to pass a law in consequence of this clause , they must pursue some of the " DELEGATED powers" , but can by " NO MEANS " depart from them ,



(N) OR " ARROGATE " " ANY " " NEW " powers; for the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the " DELEGATED " powers."



3.) The federal government and all departments, except for forts in undeveloped territories not developed into states (which now all lands are) are limited in AREA to the 10 milessquare of Washington DC :



James Madison, VIRGINIA RATIFYING CONVENTION 6-16-1788: " Mr. Chairman: I did conceive, sir, that the clause under consideration was one of those parts which would speak its own praise. It is hardly necessary to say any thing concerning it. Strike it out of the system, and let me ask whether there would not be much larger scope for those dangers. I cannot comprehend that the power of legislating over a "SMALL district" , which >>> CANNOT EXCEED TEN MILES SQUARE , and >>> MAY NOT BE MORE THAN " ONE MILE ", will involve the dangers which he apprehends. If there be any knowledge in my mind of the nature of man, I should think it would be the last thing that would enter into the mind of any man to grant exclusive advantages , ina VERY "CIRCUMSCRIBED DISTRICT" to the prejudice of the community at large.





4.) The federal government cannot govern any police force within the states outside the Ten Miles Square of Washington DC; Actually, by James Madison's terms, only 1 mile:





GEORGE MASON: "...then observed that he would willingly give them (The federal government) exclusive power, as far as respected the police and good government of >>> THE "PLACE " (APP: THE "PLACE" i.e the 10 miles square of Washington DC ) ; but he would give them >>>" NO MORE " , because he thought it unnecessary ."



Mr. GREYSTON: "...It was often in contemplation of Congress to have power of regulatingthe police of the seat of government ; but they >>>" NEVER " had an idea of exclusive legislation in all cases . The power of regulating the police and good government of >>>" it " (APP: THE "PLACE" i.e the 10 miles square of Washington DC ) will secure Congress against insults . "What originated the IDEA" of the "exclusive legislation" was, some insurrection in Pennsylvania, whereby Congress was insulted, on account of which, it is supposed, they left the state. It is answered that the CONSENT of the STATE MUST be required, or else they CANNOT have such a district , " OR " places for the erecting of forts ..."



(APP Note: the Civil War was begun by the federal government exceeding this limitation of federal power in attempting to refuse a state's Constitutional Right of power of consent to allow or disallow federal forces to keep or occupy a fort within their state - FORT SUMTER)



Mr. PENDLETON .Mr. Chairman, this clause does " NOT " give Congress power to impede the operation of " ANY PART " of the Constitution , (N) or to make >>>" ANY " " REGULATION " that may affect the interests of the citizens of the Union>>> AT LARGE . But it gives them power over the "local" "police of THE >>> PLACE " (APP: THE "PLACE" i.e the 10 miles square of Washington DC ) , so as to be secured from any interruption in their proceedings. Notwithstanding the violent attack upon it, I believe, sir, this is the >>>" fair construction of the clause " . It gives them power ofexclusive legislation in any case within >>> THAT district.



What is the meaning of this? What is it opposed to? Is it opposed to the general powers of the federal legislature, or to those of the state legislatures? I understand it as opposed to the legislative power of that state where it shall BE . What, then, is the power? It is, that Congress shall exclusively legislate there , in order to preserve {440} serve the "police" OF THE >>>" PLACE " and their OWN personal independence, that they may not be overawed or insulted, and of course to preserve them in opposition to any attempt by the state where it shall BE this is the >>> "fair construction"."



-----------------





PEACE IS NOEXCUSE FOR SLAVERY The greatest danger to our freedoms is an ignorant and systematic police and military force that does not know or care of the meaning and limits of our government's powers or the extent of our rights.



This condition allows for these forces to be misguided by the PRETENSE of AUTHORITY from those who direct them.



The result will be, to easily use these forces as a tool of force against the rights, liberty, freedoms and property of the citizens.



The ARROGATED POWERS far outside the limited original delegated powers, now used of the federal government; in which they are EXPRESSLY prohibited from arrogating outside the very limited delegated powers in the Ratifying Conventions that define the Constitution , are presently accepted by police and military without question;



The ignorance of police or military enforcing "ANY LAW" approved by state and federallegislatures is a realand actual danger.



This is even though they have sworn to uphold the Constitution(s) which have already long ago defined the laws we are to be under and no other;



The blind adherence by military and police forces to obey unconstitutional laws and directives of federal and state governments; which have so clearly detached themselves from the people and Constitutional laws and limitations, has long placed the military and police existence potentially at odds with the people they are suppose to serve, as they have with their own oath to office.



To keep from acting without authority, which is toassume the same status as criminal or enemy , those in positions ofpolice and military command need to set limits in policy and act politicallyto reverse the present situation of this steady invasion of rights anduse of power through the Pretense of Authority .



If something is known to be a unconstitutional law they are called out to enforce, they need to learn to say NO.



Even if it means that peace will be ignored.



This is founded in Civil Law and clearly presented by John Locke onCivil Government.



Here John Locke was Clear as to when "the Legislative" of any government or anyone who revolts against its own country's laws put there by the consent and grant of authority given by the people who created the legislative and the laws:







Locke #226 . "Thirdly: I answer, that this power in the people of providing for their safety anew by a new legislative "when their legislators have acted contrary to their trust " by invading their property, is the best fence against rebellion, and the probable means to hinder it.





For rebellion being an opposition, not to persons, "but AUTHORITY ", which is "founded ONLY in the CONSTITUTIONS and "laws of the government" (APP: which must follow the limitations of the CONSTITUTION) ": those, "whoever they be", who, by force, break through, and, by force, " justify their violation of them", are "truly and properly rebels".



For when men, by entering into society and civil government, have excluded force, and introduced laws for the preservation of property, peace, and unity amongst themselves , those who set up force again in opposition to the laws, "do rebellare" -- that is, "bring back again the state of war", and are "properly rebels",



>>>which "they who arein power", "by the >>>" PRETENSE THEY HAVE TO AUTHORITY " , the temptation of force they have in their hands, and the "flattery of those about them" being likeliest to do,



>>>the proper way to prevent the evil is to " show them the danger " and "injustice of it" who are under the "greatest temptation to run into it".



APP Note: Thomas Jefferson did this quite well in the KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS (which see) when he warned thefederal government of further bloodshed if they attempted to grant themselvespowers to prosecute crimes that they were "not delegated" to prosecute.





Locke #227 .In both the forementioned cases, when either the legislative is changed , OR the legislators act contrary to the end for which they were constituted , "those who are" guilty are guilty of rebellion. For if any one by force takes away the established legislative of any society, and the laws by them made, pursuant to their trust, he thereby takes away the umpirage which every one had consented to for a peaceable decision of all their controversies, and a bar to the state of war amongst them. They who removeor CHANGE the legislative take away this decisive power, which nobody canhave but by the appointment and consent of the people, and so destroying theauthority which the people did, and nobody else can, set up, and introducing a power which "the people" hath "NOT authorised", actually introduce a state of war, which is that of "FORCE WITHOUT AUTHORITY"; and thus by removing the legislative established by the society, in whose decisions the people acquiesced and united as to that of their own will, they untie the knot, and expose the people anew to the state of war.



>>>>>>>And if those, who by force take away the legislative, are rebels, the LEGISLATORS THEMSELVES , as has been shown, can be NO LESS esteemed so , when they who were set up for the protection and preservation of the people, their liberties and properties shall by force invade and "endeavour to take them away"; and so they (the LEGISLATORS) putting "THEMSELVES" into a "state of war" with those (the people) who made them the protectors and guardians of their peace, are (the LEGISLATORS) properly, and with the >>>>>>>GREATEST AGGRAVATION, rebellantes, rebels.



Locke #228 . But if they who say it lays a foundation for rebellion mean that it mayoccasion civil wars or intestine broils to tell the people they are absolvedfrom obedience when illegal attempts are made upon their liberties or properties , and may oppose the "unlawful violence" of those who were their magistrates when they invade their properties, contrary to the trust put in them , and that, therefore, this doctrine is not to be allowed, being 'so destructive to the "peace" of the world';



>>> they may as well say, upon the same ground, that honest men may not oppose robbers or pirates



, because this may occasion disorder or bloodshed. If any mischief come in such cases, >>> it is not to be charged upon him who defends his own right, but "on him" that "invades his neighbour's" .



If the innocenthonest man must quietly quit all he has for peace sake to him who will lay violent hands upon it, I desire it may be considered what kind of a peace there will be in the world which consists only in violence and rapine,



and which is to be maintained only for the benefit of robbers and oppressors.



Who would not think it an admirable peace betwixt the mighty and the mean, when the lamb, without resistance, yielded his throat to be torn bythe imperious wolf?



Polyphemus's den gives us a perfect pattern of such a peace.



Such a government wherein Ulysses and his companions had nothing to do but quietly to sufferthemselves to be devoured. And no doubt Ulysses, who was a prudent man,preached up passive obedience, and exhorted them to a quiet submission byrepresenting to them of what concernment peace was to mankind, and by showing[what] inconveniencies might happen if they should offer to resist Polyphemus, who had now the power over them."



Locke #229 . The end of government is the good of mankind; and which is best for mankind, that the people should be always exposed to the boundless will of tyranny, OR that the rulers should be sometimes "liable to be opposed" when they grow exorbitant in the use of their power, and employ it for the destruction, and not the preservation, of the "properties" of their people?



Locke #230 . Nor let any one say that mischief can arise from hence as often as it shall please a busy head or turbulent spirit to desire the alteration of the government. It is true such men may stir whenever they please, but it will be only to their own just ruin and perdition. For till the mischief be "grown general" , and the ill designs of the rulers become visible, or their "attempts" sensible to the greater part , the people, who are more disposed to suffer than right themselves by resistance, are not apt to stir. (Note: Review the Declaration of Independence for these exact words and or meaning) The examples of particular injustice or oppression of here and there an unfortunate man moves them not. But if they universally have a persuasion grounded upon manifest evidence that "designs" are carrying on against their liberties, and the generalcourse and tendency of things cannot but give them strong suspicions of theevil intention of their governors, who is to be blamed for it? Whocan help it if they, who might avoid it, bring themselves into this suspicion? Are the people to be blamed if they have the sense of rational creatures, and can think of things no otherwise than as they find and feel them? And is it not rather their fault who put things in such a posture that they would not have them thought as they are? I grant that the pride, ambition, and turbulency of private men have sometimes caused great disorders in commonwealths, and factions have been fatal to states and kingdoms. But whether the mischief hath oftener begun in the people's wantonness, and a desire to cast off the lawful authority of their rulers, or in the rulers' insolence and endeavours to get and exercise an arbitrary power over their people , whether oppression or disobedience gave the first rise to the disorder, I leave it to impartial history to determine. This I am sure, whoever, either ruler or subject, by force goes about to invade the rights of either prince or people, and lays the foundation for overturning the "constitution" and "FRAME" of any just government , he is guilty of the greatest crime I think a man is capable of , being to answer for all those mischiefs of blood, rapine, and desolation, which the breaking to pieces of governments bring on a country; and he who does it is justly to be esteemed the common enemy and pest of mankind, and is to be "treated accordingly "."





One has only toread the Ratifying Conventions to know without doubt that both federal and state governments have far exceeded their limited powers; and have, in areas too numerous to count, invaded the rights, liberties and properties of the people they are supposed to serve;



Their propensity of granting Exclusive Privileges has corrupted thevery foundations of our governments.



The corruption has grown so obvious and "general" that it is necessary that the police and military deny the legislative, executive and judicial any consideration of any use of their force outside the limited delegated powers of the original compacts; and to yield and side with the citizenry respective of those limitations.



Become educated in the REAL ORIGINAL LAWS of our states and country; Make your choices now as to side; as neither ignorance or voluntary adherence to law without true authority granted by those original compacts will be given any consideration when the time comes to remove all arbitrary burdens.



Wish PEACE?



Show it by educating yourself and others and by making serious changes in your government, laws, practice and policies to RETURN and abide by the original intentof our constitutions;



Remove and or refuse to enforce laws that are clearly unconstitutional;



SHUN State Born Exclusive Privileges such as corporations, Unions, tax supported special interests, federal mandates, undelegated federal and state bureaucracies;



Remove ZONING laws that create "exclusive privileges between citizens" and any other restrictions or regulations on free enterprise and use of property. -------------------

Without the Constitution and Common Law, the practice of Capitolismwill lead to corruption of Conservatism which will be gutted of it's meaning..





























































































































SPECIAL REPORTS #1





Danger! This can Happen to you!...



Britians Loose Their Guns:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkS2BRoCd2I&fea ture=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL312F0F67257 F7132







6 Years Later the British have to BEG to try to reverse the laws!:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKdBxpKqUvs&fe ature=related







--------------------------



"Some Cautious" (see Caution Below) GOOD NEWS IN BRITAIN: UK SCRAPS NATIONAL ID and DESTROYS RECORDS KEPT ON CITIZENS.



Not often is there a glimpse of hope for change in such socialist government policies;



But here is a good lesson in the expensive cost and invasiveness ofthe National ID card that Britain has tried and then thrown out.



And NOTICE that when people in government put their minds on the correct limitations to government and act, that complete bureaucracies can be "shut down";



Though the british people are still under the thumb of their government in far too many other areas that invade their rights, (See bottom video on citizen's guns being destroyed) this "particular instance" was a pleasant surprise:



http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/201101091 12359/http://ips.gov.uk/cps/rde/xchg/ips_live/hs.xsl/1 972.htm



http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/201101091 12359/http://ips.gov.uk/cps/rde/xchg/ips_live/hs.xsl/5 3.htm



http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/201101091 12359/http://ips.gov.uk/cps/rde/xchg/ips_live/hs.xsl/1 691.htm





A "CAUTION" to this news is that other less obvious " departments " canbe used to house the "same or similar" personal information under a different"Title" .



Finances my have made them reverse, but a "socialist mindset" and arbitrary power can re-implement or work toward greater invasions upon personal liberties later... Keep one eye open when you sleep. --------

DANGER ONHORIZON!



EUROPEAN UNION NEWS Socialists Start Takeover of EU Raising political group Threshold status before rival political parties will be recognized;

Watch these videos closely and more than once , so that you can understand what is taking place!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svnf25FUrqw









































Watch as the " socialist party " (the smug and arrogant little instigator in the Red Tie and his counter part) has seduced the councils to ignore and defy European Union rules and procedure to pass for the " second time " a raise in the number of support states that will be necessary before a political party will even be recognized there.



Listen as he attempts to quell their fears by stating that it would not endanger " those parties" " already " " in the Union "... and what about those who are not yet recognized but wish to be!



"Or" if those parties already in the union are caused to fraction to their destruction, that is, loosing the required number of states in which to be recognized, then loosing representation of all those states!



This " threshold limit " purpose is only there to limit the competition and descent thatmay rise up against the will of the larger parties. This is made clear bythose opposing the measure.



There is no other purpose but to destroy the voice and independence of the smaller republics;



What they should have asked this " little socialist " and his little Comrade, is why he saw raising the threshold for a SECOND TIME or even a first time NECESSARY !



There being NO NECESSITY!



They need to find out who is filling his pockets and make ready the TAR and FEATHERS; Stocks and prison.



This steady corruptionis a sure thing to start a war;



This is as the other European nations are already granting themselves advantages in trade over Britain and others.



If you do not think so, look at the next video below " after " reviewing this one thoroughly !

SIMILARITY IN THE UNITED STATES

This removal of political competition exists in our country as well with the very same dangers:



Our country does this much of the same by causing a new party to gather thousands of votes before being "recognized" by astate as "a party"; And as the population and voters increase, so does the threshold to be recognized!



The Corruptionis the same !



This is why all limitations to parties to be recognized should be removed as well as removal of any government funding for candidates.



It should not evenbe necessary to be recognized by anyone;



Nor should thestate be involved with limiting or granting anything based on parties atall.



Simply proclaiming to be aparty should be enough;



Then let the people decide at the voting booth on what party they will wish to support.



The result of party recognition policies is the establishment of:



" EXCLUSIVEPRIVILEGES "



The corruption shown by limiting recognition to only certain parties, is a " Exclusive Privilege" of " Advantage " granted by the state to existing parties; and no where granted in the Constitution(s) as a power.



It is against the freedom of expression, it is also a branch of corruption through the existence of unconstitutional income tax.



It is no excuse to Create a Bar that well financed can can reach, then state, "Well, if you are good enough to reach the bar, then you too can can have your party printed on the voters ballot. " as if a list of party names would use too much ink or paper.



This limits the competition to only the larger and better financed parties who are supported by other " exclusive privileged " organizations and collectives such as Corporations, Unions and Special interests such as Banks, and national/international organizations.



Exclusive Privileges were warned by the founders never to exist in a free country.



See Virginia Declaration ofRights #4:



IV ::That no man , or set of men , are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community , but in consideration of public services; which, not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge be hereditary .





VirginiaRatifying Convention 6-16-1788:



James Madison : "If there be any knowledge in my mind of the nature of man, I should think it would be the last thing that would enterinto the mind of any man to grant exclusive advantages, in a very circumscribed district, to the prejudice of the community at large."



Warning by Greyston in the same convention indicating the granting of exclusive privileges is an abuse of power:



Mr. Greyston : "They may grant " exclusive privileges " to any particular part of which they have the possession. But it may be observed that those extensive countries will be formed into independent states, and that their CONSENT will be NECESSARY. To this I answer, that they may still grant such "privileges" as, in that country, are already granted to Congress by the states. The grants of Virginia, South Carolina, and other states, will be subservient to Congress in this respect. Of course, it results from the whole, that requiring the consent of the states will be "NO GUARD" against this " ABUSE of POWER ".



" ...Adverting to the clause investing Congress with the power of exclusive legislation in a district not exceeding ten miles square, he said he had before expressed his doubts that this {431} district would be the favorite of the generality, and that it wouldbe possible for them to give "exclusive privileges" of commerce to those residing within it. He had illustrated what he said by " European examples ". It might be said to be impracticable to exercise this power in this manner. Among the various laws and customs which pervaded Europe , there were exclusive privileges and immunities enjoyed in many places .



He thought that this ought to be guarded AGAINST ; for should such " exclusive privileges be granted to merchants" residing within the ten miles square, it would be HIGHLY injurious to the inhabitants of OTHER PLACES. "





This is a lesson told over and over in history;

Adequate Representation Needs Small Independent Republics

See our 2008 and following 2009 news letter as to what happens when small republics begin to be consumed and joined into large single nations; note the warning of Brutus;



Brutus: "…History furnishes no example of a free republic, any thing like the extent of the United States.



The Grecian republics were of small extent; so also was that of theRomans.



Both of these, it is true, in process of time , extended their conquests over " large territories of country ";





and the >>> "CONSEQUENCE" was, that their governments were " CHANGED "



(see John Locke on Civil Government regarding legislatives remove themselves from power when they "change" )



"from" thatof free governments



>>> to those of the most tyrannical that ever existedin the world …"



Also review the warnings of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions , that if ever we combine the states into "one nation" we will become a "mixed monarchy".



NOT arepublic, nor republic "s".



Relate this statement by GeorgeMason in the Constitutional Debates to what is clearly happening inthese videos of the European Union:



Mr. GEORGE MASON: " thought that there were fewclauses in the Constitution so dangerous as that which gave Congress "exclusivepower of legislation" within "ten miles square" .



Implication , he observed, was capable of " any extension " , and would probably be extended toaugment the congressional powers."



"But here there was no need of implication. This clause gave them an unlimited authority, in every possible case, within that district. This ten miles square, says Mr. Mason, " may set at defiance the laws of the surrounding states " , (which has already occurred inthe US and in the EU) and may, like the custom of the superstitious days of our ancestors, become the sanctuary of the blackest crimes. Here the federal courts are to sit. We have heard a good deal said of justice. "





The protections defined by the Founders to this danger, was that of the limitation of our federal government to " delegated powers " ;



Which our federal government has begun stepping beyond to allow the corruption we see taking place in " our " country and states from our design of "union"; It has taken 200 years for the peak of corruption to begin in our country because of our state constitutions and jealous protections of them have restrained the progress; Early Corruption in Europe's Union But look how quickly the corruption has taken hold of the European Union in just a few years;



Those who have bided their time, have found the vehicle in the European Union to disarm the nations andstrip what very few freedoms the people there do have (see lower video ofremoving their rights to even the simplest weapons).



Where the only hope they have to retain their sovereignties from being taken over completely by the banking and corporate elite,...



Would be to immediately cast down the Union altogether , or be chained hand and foot to it until their destruction.



And to deny those, if they are not the same in heritage , who would find victory in enslaving their past enemies through the means of finance, debt and dependency; To enslave countries who had in earlier times had defeated them in a justly fought and won, open war.

A Founder's Warning George Mason gave another warning relating to " this type " of take over; and further about giving too much power to a "central group" such as our US congress, which is suppose to be highly limited to the 10 miles square of Washington DC except for forts inthe unclaimed territory until the land was constructed into states who would then take full control and management.



George Mason: "The objection was, that too much power was given toCongress power that would finally destroy the " state governments " " more effectually " by >>>insidious, " underhanded means " , >>>than such as could be openly practiced.



This, said he, is the opinion of many worthy men, not only in this Convention, but in all parts of America ."





Now let us view the Second video of the forces within the European Union granting Exclusive Privileges in trade to some states and not others, listen to the complaint of the British spokesman, Mr. Nigel Farage of the United Kingdom Indepenent Party (UKIP):



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTfv6uOHgqQ



We are looking for complete or Farage's Audio and/or transcript for this video which dad been removed from the video. Please send to this email.



While we work to find an post this, you may wish to look for it as well and other videos at the Multimedia Library of the EP: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/en/multimedia-library









































Creeping EU Totalitarianism:



" Brown Shirt " Tactics on the rise.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVeMBNB0cII&NR=1







































European Sovereignty Called For:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiFFAcfkeOQ&eurl=htt p://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=12817









































END OF EU PREDICTED BY BRITAIN



As Socialists attempt a EU BANK TREASURY to control currancy!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjVH3JcTVRw&featur e=related





































Britains lose their gun rights by not fighting: Need a better excuse to fight for yours?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DilgkjA48Gs















































John Locke: 155 . "It may be demanded here, what if the executive power , being possessed of the force of the commonwealth, shall make use of that force to hinder the meeting and acting of the legislative, when the " original constitution " or the public exigencies require it? I say, using force upon " the people ", " without authority ", and contrary to the trust put in him that does so , >>>is a state of war with " the people ", who have a right to reinstate their legislative in the exercise of their power . For having erected a legislative with an intent they should exercise the power of making laws, either at certain set times, or when there is need of it, when they are hindered by any force from what is so necessary to the society, and wherein the safety and preservation of the people consists, the people have a RIGHT to remove it BY FORCE .



In ALL states and conditions the true remedy of force without authority



is to oppose force TO it.



The use of force "without authority" ALWAYS puts him that uses it into a state of war as the aggressor , and renders him liable to be " treated accordingly "."





John Locke # 201 : "...For exceeding the bounds of authority is no more a right in a great than a petty officer, no more justifiable in a king than a constable."





John Locke # 221 : There is, therefore, secondly, another way whereby governments are dissolved, and that is, when the legislative , or the prince , either of them " act contrary to their TRUST ".



For the legislative acts against the trust reposed in them when they endeavour to invade the property of the subject , and to make >>> themselves , >>> OR ANY PART of the COMMUNITY , masters or arbitrary disposers of the lives, liberties, or fortunes of "the people" .



John Locke # 222 : The reason why menenter into society is the preservation of their property; and the end while they choose and authorise a legislative is that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the society, to limit the power and moderate the dominion of every part and member of the society. For since it can never be supposed to be the will of the society that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designs to secure by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making:



WHENEVER the >>> legislators endeavour to take away and destroythe property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselvesinto a " state of war " with " the people " , who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience , and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence...."





James Madison - Virginia Resolutions:



"...That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the "powers" of the federal government , as resulting from the compact , to which the states are parties; as LIMITED by the >>>" plain sense and intention " of the instrument constituting the " compact "; as " no further valid " that they are >>> authorized by the grants " enumerated " in " THAT " compact ; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous " exercise " of " OTHER powers ", " NOT granted " by the said " compact " ,



the states who are parties thereto , have the RIGHT, and are in DUTY BOUND , to interpose for arresting the progress of the EVIL , and for maintaining within their respective limits , the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them ."





















































































































SPECIAL REPORTS #2



EXPOUNDING

on

GENERAL PHRASES



SUPREME LAW OF THE "LAND"?

DEFINE "LAND".

The Founders defined the term "Land" and the "Supremacy of it, often referring " ONLY" to the 10 miles square of Washington DC .





It is defined in the ratifying conventions that the federal government:



a.) Cannot serve police outside the 10 miles square of Washington DC .



b.) Nor can they prosecute crimes other than the few crimes allowedto be prosecuted by them by the delegated powers and cannot create any new laws or crimes in which they would even have the power to prosecute. i.e. Could Not Arrogate ANY NEW POWERS



See: Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 and the (Virginia and) Kentucky Resolutions #2



c.) Lands in undeveloped territories were not to be used to the prejudice of any existing state; But when any territory became a state, that state was to take full management of all lands within it's borders for distribution to the people who chose to settle within it.



d.) The federal government and "departments" were limited to the 10miles square, except for needful forts in undeveloped territories, only where states gave permission when developed into states.



Problems occur as warned by the Founders, when the Constitution is taken by its single face value and not related the Ratifying Conventions that define the meaning ofthe words written in the Constitution ; And as warned, governments begin to EXPOUND on " GENERAL PHRASES " without stopping to consider the LIMITATIONS of those



>>>" GENERAL PHRASES ":

------------

The PHRASE and

Extent of the word "LAND" When the PHRASE in the Constitution " Supreme Law of the Land " is used, when correctly defined through the Ratifying Conventions, that " LAND " was limited in most places to the 10 miles squareof Washington DC when describing supreme powers within the states , and NOT to be interpreted as a "unlimited power" of Congress over or within all states;



That "Supremacy" was thereby limited to a SMALL AREA in most cases (see James Madison below);



And limited to delegated powers in all others.

----------------- The Declaration and Intent:

Thomas Jefferson

Declaration of Independence 1776: We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in general congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare that these united colonies are, and of right oughtto be, free and independent states;



39.) and that as free and independent states they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.





"And for the support of this Declaration , with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." -----------------

The "Limited" Constitutional Compact:

Constitution 1788: Article VI: All Debts contracted " and "Engagements" entered into (Oaths and Declarations) , before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid >>>against the United States under THIS Constitution as under the "Confederation" . THIS Constitution, andthe Laws of the United States which shall be " made " in >>>" pursuance thereof " ; and all Treaties (Oaths and Declarations) "made " , or which shall be " made " , under the "Authority" of the United States, shall be >>>"supreme Law " of the Land " ...." ----------------

AUTHORITY "Authority " and " Supremacy are " limited " to the " Very Limited DELEGATED " powers; and the words "of the Land " is limited in most cases to mean ONLY within the 10 miles square of Washington DC, and ONLY elsewhere within the " DELEGATED " powers .



It is NOT a "sweeping power", but a exclusive, defined and "very limited" power . It is a >>>" GENERAL PHRASE " NOT to be distorted or "EXPOUNDED " upon to grant unlimited powers: -----------------

MISUSE of GENERAL PHRASES

This misuse of " GENERAL PHRASES " in the Constitution was first stopped by the authors of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution - Thomas Jefferson and James Madison when they wrote the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions in response to the John Adamsadministration passing the Alien and Sedition acts.

-----------------

Virginia Resolution 1798

James Madison: " ....That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret , that a spirit has in sundry instances , been manifested by the "federal government" , to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the >>>constitutional charter "which >>>defines them"; and that implications have appeared of a " design " to



>>>>>>>" EXPOUND " certain " GENERAL " " PHRASES "





(which havingbeen copied from the " very limited " grant of power ,in the former articles of confederation were the less liable tobe misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect , of the "particular" "enumeration" which >>>" necessarily " explains and >>> limits " the " GENERAL " " PHRASES "; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into one sovereignty (i.e. ONE NATION - clearly here establishing something never intended) , the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute,or at best a >>>mixed MONARCHY ".







A wake up call from James Madison's testimony and others, 10 years prior :

Virginia Ratifying Convention

6-16- 1788 :

JAMES MADISON . Mr. Chairman: "... I cannot comprehend that the power of legislating over a " small district" , which >>>" CANNOT EXCEED" >>>ten miles square, and may >>>" NOT be " more than " ONE " mile , will involve the dangers which he apprehends.



If there be any knowledge in my mind of the nature of man, I shouldthink it would be the last thing that would enter intothe mind of any man to grant exclusive advantages , ina " VERY " circumscribed district , to the prejudiceof the community at large .



...... Let me remark, if not already remarked, that there must be a cession, by particular states, of the district to Congress, and that the states may settle the terms of the cession.



The states may make what stipulationthey please in it, and, if they apprehend



>>>"ANY" danger,



they >>>" MAY "



>>> REFUSE it >>> ALTOGETHER ."





Mr. LEE "... Gentlemen had suggested that the seat of government would become a sanctuary for state villains, and that, in a short time, ten miles square would subjugate a country of eight hundred miles square .



(APP: Thisstatement shows that the federalists had no idea of how power corrupts- the federal government has subjugated not only the state butall the states today)



This appearedto him a most improbable possibility; nay, he might call it "impossibility". Were the place crowded with rogues, he asked if it would be an agreeable place of residence for, the members of the general government, who were freely chosen by the people and the state governments. Would the people be so lost to honor and virtue, as to select men who would willingly {436} associate with the most abandoned characters? He thought the honorable gentleman's objections against remote possibility of abuse went to prove thatgovernment of no sort was eligible, but that a state of nature was preferable to a state of civilization. He apprehended no danger; and thought that persons bound to labor, and felons, could not take refuge in the ten miles square, or other places exclusively governed by Congress, because it would be contrary tothe Constitution, and a palpable usurpation, to protect them.



Mr. PENDLETON. "...With respect to the necessity of the ten miles square being superseded by the subsequent clause , which gives them power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers VESTED by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof, I understand that clause asNOT going a "single step beyond" the "DELEGATED powers" . What can it act upon? Some power given by this Constitution. If they should be about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue some of the "DELEGATED powers", but can by "NO MEANS" depart from them,



(N) OR "ARROGATE" "ANY NEW" powers; for the >>>PLAIN LANGUAGE of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the >>>>>>>"DELEGATED" powers". "





(APP: Note thatstate's federal representatives (house and senate) "ratifying" laws outsidethe "delegated" powers is an " ARROGATED " power. The income tax is an " ARROGATED " power; Printing paper money and not using gold and silver as currency is a " ARROGATED " power; Mandates on states is an " ARROGATED " power;



The "ratifying or amendment" process was for correcting and limiting existing delegated federal powers , NOT to be used as ameans of states or federal governments to ARROGATE NEW POWERS "outside" the original DELEGATED POWERS , which clearly the federal and state governments are PROHIBITED from doing (or allowing to be done) by " ANY " " MEANS " . As Edmund Pendletonestablishes)





"Suppose it was contrary to the sense of their constituents to grant exclusive privileges to citizens residing "within >>> THAT place "



(APP Note: Today'scorruption does not limit this to that area and extends far beyond- Corporations, Unions, Tax supported Special Interests, Undelegated - Under the Original Compact - state and federal bureaucracies as well as Zoning grants & restrictions are ALL examples of " exclusive privileges " granted by the state) ;



the effect would be directly in opposition to what he says. It could haveNO operation without the LIMITS of >>>" THAT " district. Were Congress to make a law granting them an exclusive privilege of trading to the EastIndies, it couldhave >>> NO effect the moment it would go without >>>>>>>" THAT " PLACE;



for their >>>>>" exclusive power " is >>>>>" CONFINED " to



>>>>>>>>>>>" THAT " district .



Were they topass such a law, it wouldbe NUGATORY; and " EVERY " member of the community at large could trade to the East Indies as well as the citizens of that district. This " exclusive " power is " LIMITED " to >>>>>>>" THAT " PLACE " SOLELY " , for their >>> OWN preservation, which all gentlemen allow to be necessary. "











Federal Police powers inside the United States are LIMITED to THAT area within the 10 miles square:





GEORGE MASON: "...then observed that he would willingly give them exclusive power,as far as respected the police and good government of >>> THE "PLACE" ; but hewould give them



>>>" NOMORE " , because he thoughtit unnecessary ."



Mr. GREYSTON: "...It was often in contemplation of Congress to have power of regulatingthe police of the seat of government ; but they >>>>>>>" NEVER " had an idea of exclusive legislation in all cases . The power of regulating the police and good government of >>>" it " (APP: THE "PLACE" ) will secure Congress against insults . "What originated the IDEA" of the "exclusive legislation" was, some insurrection in Pennsylvania, whereby Congress was insulted, on account of which, it is supposed, they left the state. It is answered that the CONSENT of the STATE MUST be required, or else they CANNOT have such a district ,



" OR " places for the erecting of forts ..."



(APP Note: the Civil War was begun by the federal government exceeding this limitation of federal power in attempting to refuse a state's Constitutional Right of power of consent to allow or disallow federal forces to keep or occupy a fort within their state - FORT SUMTER)



Mr. PENDLETON .Mr. Chairman, this clause does " NOT " give Congress power to impede the operation of " ANY PART " of the Constitution , (N) or to make >>>" ANY " " REGULATION " that may affect the interests of the citizens of the Union>>> AT LARGE .



But itgives them power over the "local" "police of THE >>> PLACE " ,



so as to be secured from any interruption in their proceedings. Notwithstanding the violent attack upon it,



I believe, sir, this is the " fair construction ofthe clause " .



It gives them power of exclusive legislation in any case within >>>>>>> THAT district.



What is the meaning of this? What is it opposed to? Is it opposed to the general powers of the federal legislature, or to those of the state legislatures?



I understand it as opposed to the legislative power of that state where it shall BE . What, then, is the power? It is, that Congress shall exclusively legislate there ,



in order to preserve {440} serve the "police" OF THE >>>>>>>" PLACE " and their OWN personal independence, that they may not be overawed or insulted, and of course to preserve them in opposition to any attempt by the state where it shall be this is the



>>>>>>> "fair construction" . POWER TO PROSECUTECRIME

" LIMITED " to the DELEGATED POWERS ONLY

The powers of " prosecuting crimes " are limited to " ONLY THOSE CRIMES listed in the delegated powers granted the federal government under the >>> ORIGINAL COMPACT - i.e. the >>> ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION:







Thomas Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolutions makes this abundantly clear:



"#2. Resolved , That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to:



a.) punish treason,

b.) counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States,

c.) piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and

d.) offenses against the law of nations, and



>>>>>>>" NO OTHER " CRIMES ,



>>>>>>>" WHATSOEVER ";"





FBI, CIA, DEA,ATF etc. are all undelegated federal powers within the states; and all "other""crimes" which the federal government now prosecute outside these limiteddelegated powers are the true responsibility of the individual state's within their own territory.



(illegal aliens etc. are a states responsibility)



" and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people ," therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States ," as also the act passed by them on the day of June, 1798, intituled " An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States," (and " ALL " their OTHER acts which >>> ASSUME to >>>create, >>>define, or >>>punish crimes , OTHER than those SO ENUMERATED in the Constitution ,)



are >>>" ALTOGETHER " >>>" VOID ", and of >>>" NO FORCE " ;



and that the power to create, define, and punish such OTHER crimes is RESERVED , and, of right , appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States ,



>>>>>>> each within its OWN territory ."









THE ORIGINAL INTENT:

Declaration of Independence 1776:



37th Grievance: "We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in general congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions , do, in thename and by the authority of the good people of these colonies , solemnly publish and declare that these united colonies are, and "of right" "ought to be" , free and "independent" states;"



39th Grievance: "and that "as" free and independent states they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of RIGHT do."







The original "General Welfare" or purpose of the Constitution was to provide defense against obvious foreign aggression and the setting of standards between states for orderly commerce, limited within the "delegated" powers.



ALL other powers were reserved by the states and no less to the people;









PARTY COMPARISON

We are often asked why patriotic parties are so fractured.



To illustrate, we will compare probably the closest party to our own, the Constitution Party.



The major difference between our party and the Constitution party, as well other "patriotic" parties, is that the Constitution party still seems to start from the Constitution at face value without referring to the Ratification Conventions that quite necessarily define the meaning of the GENERAL PHRASES in the Constitution and LIMITATIONS set by the Founders of and writtenin that constitution.



We have not seen much in the way of any other party presenting the limitations established both in historical Common Law that are still in effect as preexisting claim to rights; or those limitations to the Constitution defined in the Ratifying Conventions;







George Nicholas: 6-16-1788: "....But the "COMMON LAW" is " NOT EXCLUDED". There is " NOTHING " in "thatpaper" (APP Note: referring to the USConstitution being considered) to warrant the assertion. ....A bill of rights is only an acknowledgment of the preexisting claim to rights in the people.



>>> They belong to us as much as if they had been inserted in the Constitution."







It seems that though the Constitution Party promotes that they are for states rights, they tend to lean toward still enacting laws from congress outside the delegated powers over all the states; Rather than giving it to states and counties to decide so enforcing state and county laws to NULLIFY undelegated powers both federal and state; or to leave states, counties and people to empower themselves;



The Constitution Party also still seems to promote the Federal Constitution as unlimited in power often quoting "supreme law of the land" as an absolute power, which it is not in the way they present it; Or as a means to promote goals in the states through the constitution or federal legislative not delegated to them in some areas of >>> their interest.





We are unconvinced, though the Constitution Party has many good features, that the Constitution Party (or other party) would simply remove the federal hand from the states to such the extent as was clearly intended by the Founders (though some of CP's state parties might follow others lead to do so).



Expecting the federal government to act on undelegated powers, empowers the federal government to act outside the delegated powers;



The Constitution Party, as with other parties, by expecting a "national" decision, create their own opposition!



Instead of removing undelegated federal powers and presence from the states, so that local communities can enforce their own laws without national opposition and interference!



Manipulationby State

Exclusive Privileged Groups.

Nor are we convinced that if in power that the Constitution Party or other party except our own would act to remove "exclusive privileges" that the founders insisted should never exist in the states .



Corporations;Unions; Tax supported Special Interests; Undelegated - Under theOriginal Compact - state and federal bureaucracies; as well asZoning grants & restrictions; are ALL examples of " exclusive privileges " granted by the state;



If you have to ask the government to do something, someone else is prohibited unless they too ask, it is an exclusive privilege;



Stating that someone else can have an exclusive privilege if they ask the state, or are fortunate enough to acquire from the state, as may be an argument, is no excuse for allowing that which should not exist .



Other Differences

APP goals also aim to remove the ill effects of distant legislatures by reducing the size of states as set forth in our 2008 Newsletter ;



Yet another of our many goals we do not believe any other party would even consider, but is critical in strengthening and empowering local representation and local control;

Ultimate Solution

Nullification by the states of ALL undelegated federal powers, bureaucracies and federally mandated state bureaucracies within their state borders, as well as relinquishing their own state powers by granting all counties within their state , full statehood for adequate local representation; as well as federal acknowledgment by each state's federal representation as directed by the Constitution for new states.



We hope to have these and other comparisons when we complete our Compare page as well as discuss the misuses of the term "Freedom of Contract" and free trade when "exclusive privileges" are allowed to exist. Education

Directing others to learn the true intent of the founders by having them read the Ratifying Conventions of 1788 (full day debate 6-16-1788 witha link at bottom of page into all the conventions at constitution.org) which define the meaning and intentof both the Constitution and Federalist papers , is the first step to regaining control of this country.



Voluntary ignorance of those who simply refuse to read these documents is our greatest enemy.



Fractured Patriotism

The reason many so called "patriotic" parties are so "splintered" is much from this ignorance and confusion brought about by "blind undefined nationalistic patriotism"; Instead of knowledgeable, historically correct and "factually based patriotism" which is clearly defined in the documents.



These issues need to be remedied before so called patriotic partiescan support one another.



So long as parties:



a.) try to place the pulpit or other undelegated issues in a federal position, where NO power to do so was ever delegated;



b.) attempt to make "onenation" out of nation of independent states; Which was never intended;



c.) or refuse to simply empower the states and local communities were the power was reserved and best served;



...then they will continue to allow all the combined states,and general national and international opinions to dictate over the individual states and communities and continue a power over us, which was neverdelegated to them, or to congress to do so.

NULLIFICATION

THE RIGHTFUL REMEDY

Nullification by State or County Resolution or Local Judicial Judgment of ALL undelegated federal andstate powers and bureaucracies not listed under the Original Compact by any and every local county or state judge , or county or state legislature , is the first step:







George Nicholas 6-16-1788:



> ...that this " general welfare " was united, " NOT " to "the general power of legislation" , but to the > particular power > of laying and collecting taxes, imposts, and excises,



>>>FOR THE PURPOSE of paying the debts and providing for the " common defence " ,



that is, that they could raise as much money as would pay the debtsand provide for the "common defence", in "consequence of this power". The clause which was affectedly called the sweeping clause (Article VI) contained " NO new grant of power" . To illustrate this position, heobserved that, if it had been added at the end of every one of the enumerated powers, instead of being inserted at the end of all, it would be obvious to any one that it was " NO " augmentation of power .



If, for instance, at the end of the clause granting power to lay and collect taxes, it had been added that they should have power to make necessary and proper laws to lay and collect taxes, who could suspect it to be an addition of power? As it would grant " NO " new power if inserted at the end of each clause, it could not when subjoined to the whole.



He then proceeded thus: But, says he, who is to determine the extent of such powers?



I say, the same power which, in >>>>>>> ALL well-regulated communities , determines the " extent " of "legislative" powers.







If they exceed these powers , the " JUDICIARY " WILL declare it " VOID ", or else "the PEOPLE" will have a " RIGHT " to declare it " VOID ".









Kentucky Resolution1798 Thomas Jefferson:



".....that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is " NOT " for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this commonwealth is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in



>>>" NO " " MAN ", or " BODY of MEN "



on EARTH:



that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy;



>>>>>>> BUT , where powers are assumed which have NOT been delegated ,



a >>>" NULLIFICATION " of the act is the " RIGHTFUL REMEDY "



that every State has a natural RIGHT in cases not within the compact , (casus non fœderis) to NULLIFY of their OWN AUTHORITY " ALL " assumptions of power by others within their limits:



that without this " RIGHT " , they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them :"





Local and State Judges who do not Nullify on a regular basis any and all undelegated federalpowers and bureaucracies are the first problem to be removed; andreplaced with those who will.















SPECIAL REPORTS #3



Federal Government and Socialists Demonizing

that which should be exalted and Confusing that which was clearly written .



Speeches and Videos

to Remind Us .



Dwight D. Eisenhower's

Secretary of Agriculture,

Ezra Taft Benson



Speech entitled



"Stand Up For Freedom."



PART 1



Direct Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTd-CnCMK-8 PART 2 Direct Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUu0prLE9no PART 3



Direct Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raAxdZrSwhU Below are two subjects, The firstis where the Executive organizes others in government to do his ownbidding; and Second, the practice past and present, to use such confusionas mentioned in the above videos, to demonize those things that in freedomwe should be exalting. In this subject, the MILITIAS.

See the below VIDEO of Obama creating a special branch in government of his own making, and purposes; So to exceed his authority.



A Warning from John Locke about the Executive verbally establishing his intentions to dictate powers not delegated to him:



See also Locke 140, 141, 168, 222

John Locke 168 : The old question willbe asked in this matter of prerogative , "But who shall be judge whenthis power is made a right use of?" I answer: Between an executive powerin being, with such a prerogative , and a legislative that depends upon his will for their convening, there can be no judge on earth .



As there can be none between the legislative and the people, should either the executive or the legislative, when they have got the power in their hands , design, or go about to enslave or destroy them , the people have no other remedy in this , as in " ALL other cases " where they have no judge on earth, but to >>> appeal to Heaven; (APP Note: This Appeal to Heaven is clearly written in the Declaration of Independence) for the rulers in such attempts, exercising a power the people NEVER put into their hands, who can NEVER be supposed to consent that anybody should rule over them for their harm, do that which they have NOT a right to do.



And where the >>>body of the people, or ANY SINGLE MAN , are deprived of their right, " or " are under the >>>" exercise of a power WITHOUT right " , having no appeal on earth they have a liberty to appeal to Heaven whenever THEYjudge the cause of >>>" SUFFICIENT MOMENT "."



John Locke 222 : "...He (the Executive) acts also contrary to his trust when he employs the force, treasure, and >>>offices of the society to corrupt the representatives and gain them to his purposes , when he openly pre-engages the electors, and prescribes, to their choice, such whom he has, by solicitation, threats, promises, or >>> otherwise , won to his " designs " , and " employs them " to bringin such who have promised beforehand what to vote and >>> what to enact... .



(APP: Relatethis to below video Obama creating a new branch to incarcerate indefinitely those who " He or the legislative " deems dangerous)>>>



...To preparesuch an assembly as this , and endeavour to set up the declared abettors of his own will , for the true representatives of the people , and the law-makers of the society , is certainly as >>>GREAT a BREACH OF TRUST, and as perfect a declaration of a " DESIGN " to SUBVERT the government, as is possible to be metwith .



To which, if one shall add rewards and punishments visibly employed to the same end , and all the arts of perverted law made use of to take off and destroy all that stand in the way of such a >>" design ", and will not comply and consent to betray the liberties of their country, it will be



>>>>past doubt what is doing.



What power they ought to have in the society who thus employ it contrary tothe TRUST that along with it in its FIRST institution (Original Compact i.e. Constitution and limited delegated powers) , is easy to determine; and one cannot but see that he who has once attempted any such thing as this >>>cannot any longer be trusted. " -------------------- See this in the Declaration of Independence " ... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object , evinces a " DESIGN " to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their RIGHT, it is theirDUTY , to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security " and compare Locke 223-226)





Review again Thomas Jefferson's in the Kentucky Resolution #2; "No other Crimes Whatsoever ":



Thomas Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolutions 1798 :



"#2. Resolved , That the Constitution of the United States , having delegated to Congress a power to:



a.) punish treason,

b.) counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States,

c.) piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas (only) , and

d.) offenses against the law of nations, and



>>>>>>>" NO OTHER " CRIMES ,



>>>>>>>" WHATSOEVER ";"



---------------------

2.) Government Demonizing

that which should be EXALTED . LOCAL MILITIAS



George Mason ten years earlier warning of the demonizing of the militia by governments illustrated the dangers:

Mr. GEORGE MASON (Virginia Ratifying conventions 6-16-1788): "asked towhat purpose the laws were read. The objection was, that >>>too much power was given to Congress power that would finally destroy the state governments more effectually by insidious, >>>underhanded means, than such as could be openly practiced .



This, said he, is the opinion of many worthy men, not only in this Convention, but in all parts of America . These laws could only show that the legislature of this state could pass such acts. He thought they militated against the cession of this power to Congress, because the state governments could call forth the militia when necessary , so as to compel a submission to the laws; and as they were competent to it, Congress ought not to have the power.



George Mason then Warns of the danger:



The meeting of three or fourpersons might be called an insurrection, (APP: by the federal government) and the militia (Now it would be standing army under control of congress) might be called out to disperse them. (i.e. against the people and their liberties for "the federal or state government's" own purposes)



He was not satisfiedwith {416} the explanation of the word "organization" by the gentleman in the military line, (Mr. Lee.)



He thought they were not confined to the technical explanation , but that Congress could inflict severe and ignominious punishments on the militia (APP: then, ALL the people) , as a necessary incident to the power of organizingand disciplining them . The gentleman had said there wasno danger, because the laws respecting the militia were less rigid in theother states than this. This was NO conclusive argument . His fears, as he had before expressed , were, that grievous punishments would be inflicted, in order to render the service disagreeable to the "militia themselves" , and " induce them " to wish its abolition, >>>>> which would afford a >>>>" pretence " for establishing a " standing army ".



(APP Note: This has already happened)



He was convinced the STATE GOVERNMENT" S " ought to have the control of the militia , except when they were absolutely necessary for general purposes. The gentlemanhad said that they would be "only subject to martial law when in "actualservice". He demanded >>>>what was to hinder Congress from >>> inflicting it always, and making a >>> general law for the purpose.



(APP Note: This has already happened)



>>>> If so , said he, it must finallyproduce, most infallibly, the annihilation of the state governments. These were his apprehensions; but he prayed God they might be groundless ."



--------------- RELATED VIDEO The below video has poor audio due to the person creating it having recorded music for effects; Best if volumeis lower to reduce static noise.



The presentation is however good and underscores the fact that government has created their own issues by stepping outside the limited delegated powers and have imposed upon the people burdensome taxes, caused by the creation and support of Exclusive Privileged organizations such as:



a.) Unions , with dictated maximum wages - salaries (prevailing wages) in and out of government forcing citizens to pay them through arbitrary, unconstitutional and unconsensualtaxation;



* See Rights of Colonists "Governors have NO right to seek what theyplease "



b.) Corporations , and "exclusive privileged" government contracts that limit competition by actual individuals under the guise of free trade; Paid both exaggerated profits and also maximum wages & "professional" salaries (prevailing wages) through those contracts;



c.) Undelegated laws accepted by states in the form of " mandates " formed by Special Interests Groups created and paid through tax dollars assisted from a unconstitutional income tax that allows tax write-offs when moneys are given to "so called" "Non Profits" insuring steady flow of capital for support; Such " laws placing undo and arbitrary burdens upon the people and their properties;



Further aggravated by Corporate funds to establish environmental lawsthey can benefit by, that limits outside competition;



and " land trusts " taking land out of private ownership and placing it into government hands so that it can only be accessed through large corporate exclusive privileged contracts.



d.) Undelegated (under the original compact) federal and state bureaucracies



As a result, harsh and unconstitutional regulations have been established without constitutional authority as a result of such laws and bureaucracies never delegated to any government through the constitution;



Therefor, as Thomas Jefferson has presented in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions such laws and regulations are " VOID " and of " NO FORCE ".

----------------- Below VIDEO Includes:

CSpan Coverage of Special Congressional panel and conference with Militias



Obama's Unlimited Detention Plan for those who would oppose his will even BEFORE they commit a crime; Proclaiming rule of law and yet defying the rule of law in one breath:



Review again Thomas Jefferson's words in the Kentucky Resolutions - #2 limiting the federal government to prosecuting only those crimes delegated to it and: " No other crimes whatsoever "





Militias Training to Protect the Constitution as it was written andintended.



Remember, that the correct definition for militia are those local citizens, individuals or groups, defined by James Madison: "Officered bymen chosen among themselves "; If not, it is not a militia. All other definitions are fabrications. If chosen by government, they are a standing army .



George Mason on the definition of militia: Warns of the now present dangers if they change from being what they were; That is that: "They are the whole people ." Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia, if they be not " the people " of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, by OUR representation? I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the "whole people " , except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes , high and low, and {426} rich and poor; butthey may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to thehigher classes of the people. If we should ever see thatday , the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected.Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject to militiaduty (APP: "Local") . Under such a full and equal representation as "OURS", there can be no ignominious punishment inflicted. But under this " national ", or rather "consolidated government", the case will be different. The representation being so " small and inadequate ", they will have NO fellow-feeling for the people . They may discriminate people in their own predicament, and exempt from duty all the officers and lowest creatures of the "national government". If there werea more "particular definition of their powers", and a clause exempting themilitia from martial law except when in actual service, and from fines andpunishments of an unusual nature, then we might expect that the militia wouldbe what they are.



But, if this be not the case, we cannot say how long all classes of people will be included in the militia. There will not be the same reason to expect it, because the government will be administered by "different people". We know what they are now, but know not how soon they may be altered. (for more see full day debate) Direct Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycmFVxtTa30 Mr. JOHN MARSHALL asked if gentlemen were serious when they asserted that, if the state governments had power to interfere with the militia, it was by implication. If they were, he asked the committee whether the least attention would not show that they were mistaken. The state governments "DID NOT derive their powers from the general government"; but each government derived its powers from the people , and each was to " actaccording to the powers given it " . Would any gentleman deny this? He demanded if powers not given were retained by implication. Could any man say so? Could any man say that this power was not retained by the states, as they had not given it away? For, says he, does not a power remain till it is given away? The state legislatures had power to command and govern their militia before, and have it still, undeniably , unless there be something in this Constitution that takes it away.



For " Continental" purposes Congress may call forth the militia, as to suppress insurrections and repel invasions. But the power given to the states by the people is " NOT taken away "; for the Constitution does NOT say so . In the Confederation Congress hadthis power; but the state legislatures had it "also". The power oflegislating given them within the ten miles square is exclusive of the states,because it is expressed to be exclusive. The truth is, that whenpower is given to the general legislature, if it was in the state legislature before, both shall exercise it; unless there be an incompatibility in the exercise by one to that by the other, or negative words precluding the state governments from it. But there are NO negative words here . It rests, therefore, with the STATES . To me it appears, then, unquestionable that the state governments can call forth the militia, in case the Constitution should be adopted, in the "same manner" as they could have done BEFORE its adoption. Gentlemen have said that the states cannot defend themselves without an application to Congress, because Congress can interpose!



Does not every man feel a refutation of the argument in his own breast?



I will show {420} that there could not be a combination, between those who formed the Constitution, to take away this power.



All the restraints intended to be laid on the state governments (besides where an exclusive power is expressly given to Congress) are contained in the 10th section of the 1st article.



This power is NOT included in the restrictions in that section . But what excludes every possibility of doubt , is the last part of it that "no state shall engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."



When invaded, they "CAN" engage in war, as also when in "imminent danger". This clearly proves that the STATES can use the militia when they find it necessary ." ------------------- James Madison: ".....He saysthat one ground of complaint, at the beginning of the revolution, was, thata standing army was quartered upon us . This was not the whole complaint. We complained because it was done without the " LOCAL Authority" of this country without the CONSENT of the people of America. As to the exclusion of standing armies in the bill of rights of the states, we shall find that though, in one or two of them, there is something like a prohibition, yet, in most of them, it is only provided that no armies shall be kept without the legislative authority; that is, without the CONSENT of the "community itself". Where is the impropriety of saying that we shall have all army, if necessary? Does not the notoriety of this constitute security? If inimical nations were to fall upon us when defenceless, what would be the consequence? Would it be wise to say, that we should have no defence? Give me leave to say, that the only possible way to provide against standing armies is to make them unnecessary.



The way to do this is to organize and discipline our militia , so as to render"them" "capable" of defending the country against external invasions andinternal insurrections . This organizing, was not to create a new form of organized militia, or a standing army, but to organize and arm ALL the people to empower themselves .



------------------- Lets review other words of James Madison with regards to militias and standing armies; The purpose and the power ratio between them:



James Madison who wrote the Constitution together the Bill of Rights:



"The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth (1/25th) part of thenumber able to bear arms.



This portion would not yield , in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.



To " these " would be opposed



(APP: indicating that the "militia" is to be a " opposing force " to the "standing army" as well as that of "foreign enemies" )



a militia amounting to near half a million CITIZENS witharms in their HANDS ,



"officered by men chosen from"among themselves" ,



(not by government or the standing army)



fighting for "their" (the citizen / militia's) common liberties and united and conducted by government "S" possessing their (the citizen / militia's) affections and confidence.



It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a " proportion " of "regular troops";



(i.e. standing army : - i.e. Idiots proclaiming " ours is not to reason why " as some kind of worship to a mindless metaphor, or simply those who do not read what it is they should be fighting for, and don't ask;



Can you just imagine any of the Founders making a statement "ours it not to "reason why"??? Of course not.



Thereby through voluntary ignorance such blind soldiers become the Tyrants ultimate weapon, and his expendable fodder to be consumed for his arbitrary will as they fight against what they think they are fighting for; Feeling powerless having given oath to something that has been so completely corrupted, to do anything else but to "obey orders"; or fearful of retribution through it, falling prey to the " false notion " in believing anyone has a power ofcasting off his own consent; and must simply "comply". See John Locke - consent: 16, 17,138, 139, 168, 172, 175, 179, >>>186, ... )





Besides the advantageof being armed , it forms a barrier against the " enterprises of ambition " , more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.



The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms.



If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny , as America did .



Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors." --------------------------- Below is a video giving you a lesson of what "debased subjects of an arbitrary government" are;



Britons lose their gun rights by not fighting: Need a better excuse to fight for yours?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DilgkjA48Gs





--------------------

The below was forwarded to us from one of our state chairs and is circulating the internet; Having some good quotes we thought you may enjoy them. A few points, additional quotes and founders references we have added.



More Founders quotes on the Right to Bear Arms can be found at far left column, bottom . Remember "arms" are not simply guns;They are any form of power that maintains the "power ratio"of 25 to 1 civilians over the standing army.



During the revolution, citizens and privateers owned powder and cannon on ships and on land that could sink ships and level seaside forts and cities; and in war they did; They asked "permission" from no one.



The Right is to secure freedom absolutely; To possess freely whatever tools necessary so to accomplish and to maintain that end.



FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE 1. "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." - Thomas Jefferson



2. Those who trade liberty for security have neither . - John Adams



3. Free men do not ask permission

to bear arms.



4. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.



5. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.



6. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control. (Power)



7. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.



8. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.



9. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive. (and stay free)



10. Assault is a behavior, not a device.



11. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.



12. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved. Common Law, all rights reserved. States Rights, all Rights Reserved.



13. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignorethe others.



14. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you NOT understand?



15. Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians.



16. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.



George Mason 6-14-1788 Virginia Ratifying Convention: "To disarm the people; thatit was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."



17. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control. 18. APP: A historical fact; Peaceable law abiding citizens can kill tyrants and their armies a thousand fold and still be Peaceable law abiding citizens. Samuel Adams, during Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention in 1788:



"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people ofthe United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping theirown arms."



Thomas Jefferson: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government."



Part of the proposed Virginia Constitution , in 1776: " No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. "



------------------ John Locke 228: " But if they who say it lays a foundation for rebellion mean that it may occasion civil wars or intestine broils to tell the people they are absolved from obedience when illegal attempts are made upon their liberties or properties, and may oppose the unlawful violence of those who were their magistrates when they invade their properties, "contrary to the trust "



(i.e. relate the limited delegatedauthorities granted to the federal government in the Original Compact - theConstitution as this "TRUST")



put in them , and that, therefore, this doctrine is not to be allowed, being 'so destructive to the "peace" of the world';



>>>they may as well say, upon the same ground, that honest men may not opposerobbers or pirates,



because this may occasion disorder or bloodshed. If any mischief come in such cases, >>> it is NOT to be charged upon him who defends his own right , BUT "on HIM " that >>>" invades his neighbour's ".



If the innocenthonest man must quietly quit all he has for " peace " saketo himwho will lay violent hands upon it, I desire it maybe considered what kindof a " peace " there will be in the world which consists only in violence and rapine,



and which is to be maintained only for the benefit of robbers and "oppressors ".



Who would not thinkit an " admirable peace " betwixt the mighty and the mean , when the lamb, without resistance, yielded his throat to be torn by the imperious wolf ?" ----------------------- Locke onDissolution of Government John Locke 238. "The other case is, when a king makes himself the "dependent of another", and subjects his kingdom, which his ancestors left him, and the people put free into his hands, to the dominion of another. For however, perhaps, it may not be his intention to prejudice the people , yet because he has hereby lost the principal part ofregal dignity -- viz., to be next and immediately under God, supremein his kingdom; and also because he betrayed or forced his people, whose liberty he ought to have carefully preserved, into the power and dominion of a foreign nation .



By this, as it were, alienation of his kingdom , he himself loses the power he had in it before , >>> without transferring any the least right to those on whom he would have bestowed it; and so by this act sets the people free, and leaves them at their own disposal. One example ofthis is to be found in the Scotch annals."



(APP Note: Relate this to a nationalgovernment (Locke also relates this to legislatures) who places its peopleinto the hands of a world government (or organization), or under the controlof foreign treaties - then Review the APP news letter on the Constitutional Debates , what must occur, and what arethe protections of the states, with regard to when a national government becomesdisingenuous to its " original compact ".)



Locke 239 : In these cases Barclay, the great champion of absolute monarchy, is forced to allow that a king may be resisted, and ceases to be a king . That is in short -- not to multiply cases -- in "whatsoever" he has no authority , there he is no king ,



(i.e. no president and no congress)



APP Note: Thisis easily related to powers that are not delegated; Read the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions re-establishing ALL undelegated (meaning "not authorized") powers, laws and acts are " VOID and of NO FORCE. "



(Locke continued)and may be resisted: for " wheresoever " the " authority ceases ", the king ceases too, and becomes like other men who have "NO AUTHORITY" . And these two cases that he instances >>> differ little from "those above mentioned" ( which see ) , to be destructive to "governments", only that he has omitted the principle from which his doctrine flows, and that is the " breach of TRUST " in not preserving the >>>" form of government agreed on " , and in not intending the end of government itself, which is the public good and preservation of property . When a king has dethroned himself , and put " himself " in a STATE OF WAR with his people ,



what shall hinder them from prosecuting him "who is no king" ,



(i.e. relate: "who is no president", "no congress", "no legislature", "no military"; as they have not been delegated the powers they are presently exercising; Nor had been agreed to in the Original Compact or "Original Constitution" "which defines them" )



as they would any other man , who has put " himself " into a state of war with them,..." -----------------









SPECIAL REPORTS #4







Federal Reserve

Private Bankers

Corruption



































Danger!

Privatization! Do not confuse PRIVATIZING areas of government that are not essential government activities, to privatizing areas of government that are and should always be government responsibilities.



There is a dangerous lean to privatize prisons and police forces in the US;



Not only is the argument that privatization saves money false, the entire argument is corrupted because the inflated government costs in the first place is brought about by Maximum Union "invented prevailing wages" and "excessive Corporate Contracts";



It also removes the responsibility of governments to remain as a servitude answerable to localtheir community's consensually established wages to keep costs low;



and NOT to create state established professions and privileges that create or pacify public servant's or Union representative's calls for inflated and exaggerated salaries and benefits.



The involvement of private corporations in law will empower state born exclusive privileged private entities - Corporations and Unions;



It mingles them into government where only those elected and answerable by local societies should be employed.



It also allows foreign governments and foreign interests that own stocks and shares in those entities to become involved in areas that should only have American local representation, interest and control.



It places those that donot have local interests and sympathies in mind, into local communities.



Armed police directed ultimately by foreign or private interests.



See John Locke on the Dissolution of Government.















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































SPECIAL REPORTS #5



TAX BURDEN



Understand this.



This is a Lesson.



1.) FAIR = JEALOUSY



2.) It is NOT about WHO pays the tax;



.... But it is WHAT the tax is paid FOR .





To illustrate why any tax that uses fairness i.e. Jealousy to tax the wealthy, simply taxes the POOR harder and keeps them poor;



as well as eventually financially enslaves them.





First you need to recognize your ENEMY, and that enemy is " YOU ".



1.) Ignorance

2.) Jealousy







Now to recognize it in yourself, I will make you not only jealous of me, I will make you hate me.



First I will tell you I am rich, filthy rich (I am not, but that iswhat I'm using to make you recognize jealousy i.e. your worst enemy whichis YOU).



Next, I will make you hate me: "You miserable pathetic poor person!I have everything I want! EVERYTHING! More Money, Cars, big house(S), boats, I'm always on vacation because I never need to work! I make so much money! HA HA but YOU! You pathetic little poor person, you will always be poor! Working for little to nothing! What is more, you will never get my money! Because I am RICH! HA HA RICH! And I will keep you poor by being so RICH! I will pay you nothing just so to KEEP YOU POOR!"



Feel that little enemy called "Jealousy"? good.







Now let us examine why taxing because of jealousy of the wealthy will never work, and why taxes need to be directed at what a tax is FOR ; and



Why taxing the wealthy only taxes the poor by passing on the " BURDEN " of the TAX:



Let's say I am a wealthy shoe maker, and there is no income tax; I make a shoe for .50 and sell it for $1.00 for a .50 profit.



Now lets say a Jealousy tax (income tax, sales tax, Flattax, Fairtax or other) is created on my shoe of .25;



As a good business man, I will look to maintain my .50 profit;



A good business man will attempt to absorb override ANY expenses by including them in the selling price, this INCLUDES "TAXES" .



Below illustrates what happens when you attempt to tax the wealthy harder because of JEALOUSY i.e. fairness.



Cost of Manufacture: .50

Profit: .50

Tax: .25 then .55

Final Cost of product: 1.25 then 1.50

Who pays the tax via "tax form": Shoe Company

Who pays the actual BURDEN of the tax: You the Consumer.

Who benefits: Government-Unions-Corporations





Now lets say that this makes you MAD, and you don't think that this is "FAIR" You are so "JEALOUS" that you want to force them to pay taxes that will reduce their profits; So you tax them harder! (brilliant) You tax them.75 on every shoe!



The Shoe manufacturer realizes that he cannot sell the shoe on the market for 1.75, so to maintain his profit margin, he makes his shoes for less, either by reducing quality, reducing number of workers i.e. "downsizing" or becoming more efficient.



Cost of Manufacture: .25

Profit: .65

Tax: .75

Final Cost of product: 1.65

Who pays the tax via "tax form": Shoe Company

Who pays the actual BURDEN of the tax: You the Consumer.

Who benefits: Government-Unions-Corporations





Now your really MAD! (in more ways than one - as in insanity); So you Tax them even harder!!! 1.00 a shoe!



The Shoe maker cannot manufacturer the shoe in the United States and maintain his profit margin; So he fires his workers and produces his shoes in China and also increases his profit margin.



Cost of Manufacture: 05

Profit: .70

Tax: 1.00

Final Cost of product: 1.75

Who pays the tax via "tax form": Shoe Company

Who pays the actual BURDEN of the tax: You the Consumer.

Who benefits: Government-Unions-Corporations





This makes you HATE the shoe company; and in your Jealous insanity, you tax them 1.25 on every shoe!



The shoe maker closes shop,retires or invests in something different that is taxed less. Chinamakes the shoe for .02 (manufactured in India) and is happy to make.73 per shoe.



Cost of Manufacture: .02

Profit: .73

Tax: 1.25

Final Cost of product: 2.00

Who pays the tax via "tax form": Shoe Company

Who pays the actual BURDEN of the tax: You the Consumer.

Who benefits: Government-Unions-Corporations-China





Now the Consumer is stuck with paying 2.00 a shoe and a tax and bloated government that continues to create more BUREAUCRACIES that impose greater taxes to support their dependency on tax money;



To support their job dependency, they create more REGULATIONS that reduce free trade further.



This is how socialism advances.



Now you think the story ends here....



It gets MUCH better .



See all that FLAT PERCENTAGE , " FAIR ", UNENUMERATED tax money?



The Shoe maker creates a Corporation (state born exclusive privilege of cartel) with a few Union officials and lobbies congress for a military shoe contract using mostly India labor and produces a army boot for .05 and sells it to the military for 49.95!!!



You might argue that a graduated income tax would make the company pay more taxes, but that would only compound the problem by giving more money to government, government contracts, Government Unions, Tax supported special interests and undelegated state and federal bureaucracies;



A flat set percentage sales tax would only guarantee increase to government with an increase in the private sector with no oversight or enumeration before it is collected.



Cost of Manufacture:.05

Profit: 48.20

Tax: 1.75

Final Cost of product: 50.00

Who pays the tax via "tax form": Shoe Company

Who pays the actual BURDEN of the tax: You the Consumer.

Who benefits: Government-Unions-Corporations-India





Now do you understand why trying to tax WHO is futile;



This is because it is NOT taxing for the REAL PURPOSE of what taxesare "FOR";



The REAL PURPOSE of Taxes are "WHAT" the tax is paid "FOR" is for NECESSARY SERVICES;



That means ENUMERATED for actual cost of those services ONLY ; ..... and " BEFORE " " CONSENSUALY " (Very important) giving it togovernment.



This LIMITS the amount everyone has to pay.



NOT to throw a "flat" percentage "arbitrary" "tax amount" from either sales, income or propertythat is collected far in excess of that necessary for needful services,only to create more and more governmentdependency upon it.







The Democrats use Jealousy to increase Union government bureaucracies and tax supported Special Interest groups;



and the Republican's (those that are corporate capitolists) use the money derived from that jealousy to lobby for large government contracts as well as Union Contracts (private or government).



All are State born "Exclusive Privileged" and undelegated cartels which should not even exist in a free country. ------------



Some important understanding is that:





1.) You cannot base taxation on who pays taxes simply through a "tax form" given to the government, without considering who will actually pay the "BURDEN" of the tax.



2.) Often income tax only creates the role of tax collector on the part of who it collects taxes from, distorting who actually pays the "BURDEN" of taxation.



3.) Where taxes are considered by a service provider, retailer or manufacturer, which is almost considered by every business man, "EVERYONE" pays taxes;



4.) This absolutely discredits any reports that attempt to establish there is a percentage of people who pay Most or ALL the taxes in the United States; as tax forms are far from the exclusive determinator of who pays taxes.



5.) This also discredits any reports that there is anyone who does not pay taxes simply because they do not fill out a tax form;



6.) " ANYONE "who buys a product, hires a service, rents, buys gas, or other, fromanyone or ANY entity who considers his own taxation so to establish a pricehe will receive for that product or service so to be able to pay it, which ANY business man does, PAYS TAXES;



7.) "ANYONE who does ANYTHING" to spend money within the United States "PAYS TAXES";



8.) Those end users of the system will pay the highest percentage of their earnings in this way, as they will be unable to Write-off the tax or 