June 29, 2017

Maine Governor Says 3 Ballot Questions are “Unconstitutional”

According the Maine Wire, in an article written by Governor Paul LePage, he states: “As Governor, I am sworn to uphold the Constitutions of Maine and the United States of America. I take this responsibility very seriously. In fact, I carry a copy of the Constitution in my suit pocket every day.

In Maine, I believe three of the questions on the November ballot are unconstitutional. If they pass it will be impossible to uphold my oath of office.”<<<Read More>>>

To claim something to be “unconstitutional,” isn’t it a bit of an over-used excuse? One might even argue it a cliche. I am no constitutional scholar, and even though I did stay at a Holiday Inn once, I can’t say that qualifies me to be an expert. I am, however, perhaps a bit more versed in constitutional history than your average Joe – no offense intended to Joes everywhere.

I would assume that to declare that a law or proposed law to be “unconstitutional” it must be directly in opposition to the constitution of the state being referenced – in this case Maine, or the Federal Government. The author also says that he believes some of the ballot questions, if passed, would violate the U.S. Constitution as well. Would it?

First, a fundamental error often made by lay people, like myself, is lack of understanding between what might be considered “unconstitutional” and what could be “without precedence.”

In the case of the Maine Governor’s claim of the unconstitutionality of three ballot questions, I suppose we must take a look at the Maine Constitution first. Article IV, Third Part, Section 1, in part reads: “The Legislature, with the exceptions hereinafter stated, shall have full power to make and establish all reasonable laws and regulations for the defense and benefit of the people of this State, not repugnant to this Constitution, nor to that of the United States.” Reads like a lawyer’s dream come true doesn’t it?

In this day and age of immorality, where wrong is now right, where bad is good, the end justifies the means, etc. what and who determines what is “reasonable” and “not repugnant?” Surely you understand that the Maine Constitution gives the Legislature the power and authority to “make and establish” any and all laws they deem in the best interest of the Maine (P)?people.

But such a delegation of power is not just found in the Maine Constitution. The U.S. Constitution states the same. In Article I, Section 8, we read: “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.” Read that one a few times.

Is it not appropriate to question whether such constitutional statements give the Congress of the United States, and in this case, the state of Maine, authority to create and establish any law(s) they deem within the “reasonable,” “necessary,” and “proper” within the limiting (or not limiting) terms of the sections of the constitution?

If, in Maine, Question 3 is in violation of the Maine Constitution, Article I, Section 16, “Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.”, then perhaps the petition for citizen referral process is faulty by allowing “unconstitutional” proposals to find their way to a public vote. Cannot the Maine Legislature, upon acknowledgement that Question 3 violates Article I, Section 16, veto the law should it pass? Or does Article IV, Third Part, Section 1, of the Maine Constitution and U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, have legislative power over any and all other laws if deemed necessary by a partisan legislature?

But constitutional proclamations are not the only law of the land. Precedence and Policy, especially in this day and age of corrupt politics, certainly disregards any constitutional guidelines or regulations. We regularly are witness to the establishment of “Policy” with each successive administration voted into office.

Many of us recall when Speaker of the U.S. House was asked if the newly passed “Obamacare” was constitutional, her reply was “you’re kidding right?” Not that I think Nancy Pelosi is actually intelligent enough to understand what she was saying beyond her own ignorance, can there really be any questioning a passage of a law, that many of us do think is “unconstitutional” when the Legislative Branch of the U.S. Government can operate under Article I, Section 8. With such authority, Congress can enact any law they well please, with perhaps some push back from the people to deal with. This push back only matters when it vote gathering time.

If there is any hope of fighting against those proposed laws, it is through the battle against Precedence and Policy and the creation of your own precedence and policy, if there is such a thing.

In Maine’s case, and the argument offered by the governor, it is my opinion that, via the referendum process, for what it’s worth, Question 3 goes beyond whether it’s constitutional or not and as such presents a poor argument against the proposal. While in this country Precedence and Policy have altered the Second Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights, and in this case the State of Maine’s Right to Bear Arms, argument should be made about, not only the absolute destruction of an inalienable right, but that in Maine, there is no precedence or policy that dismantles the “never shall be questioned” aspect of Article I, Section 16. In addition, it should be vehemently pointed out that in the most recent Second Amendment voting in Maine, voters opted to begin tearing down the obstacles that destroy the liberty of self protection and the right to keep and bear arms, by passing a, so-called, Constitutional Carry law, in which Maine people, a plurality, wanted to be able to carry a concealed weapon without having to subject themselves to the strong arm of the Federal and State governments.

Now that’s precedence! Unconstitutional is a dead argument.

 

 

Share

Man’s Laws Will Forever Fail

Nothing that man does is guaranteed, nor does he have the authority to assure the right of liberty to anyone, for any reason. It is in man’s nature to be lawless. Only the perfect laws of our Creator, Yahuweh, can place us in an eternal state of liberty.

In Vattel’s Law of Nations, a compilation of documents many believe were the cornerstone in devising the U.S. Constitution and ruling guidelines over much of the world…once upon a time, it is stated that liberty cannot be achieved without laws. The largest problem with this statement is that these are the words of man and the laws of man. They always fail.

In our struggle to “render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar’s, and unto Yahuweh, that which is Yahuweh’s,” we are left dealing with man’s laws and whether those laws directly contradict the Laws of Yahuweh. Regardless of how great and wonderful you think the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are, they are not the inspired words of our Creator. They are man’s words. Because they are man’s words, they are guaranteed to be broken.

In Maine’s debate about Question 3, a proposal crafted by reprobate minds, we see that one man, his billions of dollars and his many blind followers, think of themselves as gods of this world – and as such they probably are. Michael Bloomberg wants to dictate to Maine people, and of course ultimately the world, how, where and when they will be able to adequately, or equitably, defend themselves against the darkness of evil from those who have deliberately turned or been turned into continued lawlessness. Why should he or any other man be allowed to do that by anyone?

In the second paragraph of the Preamble to the United States Declaration of Independence, it states: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, defines “Life” in part: The interval between birth and death.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, defines “Happiness” in part: Comfort, consolation, contentment, ease, enjoyment, pleasure, satisfaction. The constitutional right of men to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity, or develop the faculties, so as to give to them the highest enjoyment.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, contributes four columns, on two pages, defining Liberty. Of particular importance, to me anyway, are the following:

Liberty. Freedom: exemption from extraneous control. Freedom from all restraints except such as are justly imposed by law. Freedom from restraint, under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others… The absence of arbitrary restraint…

The word “liberty” includes and comprehends all personal rights and their enjoyment….It also embraces right of self-defense against unlawful violence.

For whatever man’s laws are worth to you, our own Founders acknowledged, if only for themselves, that “their Creator” (to me that would be Yahuweh) gave to us unquestioned rights – unalienable – among which are Life, Liberty and Happiness. When you examine Black’s Law Dictionary, how and why, then, have we allowed man to limit and destroy unalienable rights, including the right of a creation of Yahuweh to choose how they will defend themselves, their families and their property? What right does Michael Bloomberg, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Barrack Obama or any other man have to pretend to be “their creator” and limit an unquestioned right – one as important as being able to choose the necessary and proper way to defend oneself?

In the debate about Question 3, I have yet to read anybody’s suggestions, opinions or ideas that even come close to expressing the desire to migrate more closely to the unblemished Second Amendment, which must have been founded under the principal that all men are created equal, that they they are endowed by Yahuweh with unquestioned rights, including self-defense.

A Maine representative says that Question 3 is “too broadly written.” He also says everybody he knows will “begrudgingly cough up the cash” in order to “transfer” a gun in the state. That’s nice, but what about the thousands of people who don’t have any cash to begrudgingly give up to a man’s law? Are they now eliminated from, i.e. no longer created equal, the unalienable rights described above. Whoa to the delusional person who also stated that this “inconvenience” (spending money to be subjected to a government spying routine) levied onto law-abiding citizens should be no problem. Inconvenience? This is the value-weighted nonsense that dominates the mindless – even those possessing billions of dollars.

Another says that Question 3 would be a violation of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives law. Maybe, maybe not. To think that one man’s law, of which pays no mind to the foundation of “there can be no liberty without law,” would somehow have meaning to another man’s laws, of which the people did not participate in creating, is a practice in futility – it’s also a bit of insanity.

We can also read an opinion piece about the killing of people, real or staged, in Minnesota, New York and New Jersey, extolling the benefits of having lawful armed citizens in places where more reprobate minds are running loose looking for people to kill. Of the reference here is that places like malls and far too many other places are “gun-free zones.”

If I, as a creation of Yahuweh, as acknowledged in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, have an unquestioned right to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, how then, even when defined in Black’s Law Dictionary that rights are distributed equally among all, is it an equal distribution and opportunity for me to be able to choose how to defend myself against crazies, when man establishes “zones” where I give up my right to choose? And these “zones” are growing rapidly. Bloomberg’s intent is to turn Maine into a gun-free zone. What good is any item for protection if there is no place to lawfully use it?

We can also read the words of a Maine man, former chief counsel of Maine Gov. Paul LePage, explain about how Bloomberg’s proposal “misses the target.” The author states, “if we need to do something, let’s first identify the problem,” and then suggests crafting more laws for specific problems. Are there problems? Who decides what’s a problem. There are no laws that stop criminals from killing somebody that they have a mind to kill. Why is it then we keep pouring on of more and more useless laws? Don’t you get it……YET?

In addition to this political double-speak, the same author says that in answer to hypothetical responses to those who ask, “so, what, we should do nothing?” – his only answer, again, political double-speak, “No one is saying that.”

Well then what are they saying? What are they offering for “solutions” to the “problem?” You’ll never get them because all responses that make the media outlets come only from politicians or people brainwashed by the politicians. It is insanity and we must worship it because it’s everywhere and promoted everywhere.

We hear a lot of mumbo-jumbo, rants and diatribes from both sides – one pitted against the other in attempts to out-rhetoric the other. What a laugh. Meanwhile, regardless of the outcome of the vote on Question 3 in November, I still have lost my right to choose how to defend myself and what defense is left is limited in geographical scope. I will soon live in one giant gun-free zone. Where are any of these limits found in our explanations of unalienable rights?

As insane as the world and the people in it have become, rational thought would be that as a people we would be looking first at what caused the world’s insanity and secondly, how can we further insure that people have the right to decide for themselves? But that is NEVER going to happen.

In Scripture, in Mark 7: 6-7, we read: “This people honoreth me with lips, but their heart is far away from me.

7 But they worship me in vain, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”

Also in Collosians 2: 8 -“Beware lest there be any man that spoil you through philosophy, and vain deceit, through the traditions of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not after Yahushua.”

We see that man pretends to honor Yahuweh with lip service, but outwardly they cling to the laws and traditions of men, even to a point where those traditions and laws directly oppose “that which is Yahuweh’s.” People have come to know nothing but the fake, commandments (lies) of men and willingly find trust and faith in them. It is the focus of their lives and many don’t know it – they are incapable of recognizing it.

I have many times asked why are people all around me so blinded by the lies of men – how could they not see what seems obvious? However, in 2 Thessalonians 2, we read that for those who have not sought to honor Yahuweh through salvation and the keeping of His Commandments, “And therefore Yahuweh shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe lies,

That all they might be damned which believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”

These things were foretold by Yahushua as what it would be like in the Last Days. Surely we are in the last days as the “strong delusion” appears in too many people.

Here’s an example of someone, no doubt, operating under “strong delusion.”

cutoutquestion3sign

Share

The U.S. Has at Least 3.5 Million Gun Laws!

GunControlI hope I got your attention with that headline, and better yet, I hope none of you have cut and run assuming I’m an idiot…although I’ll concede that many of you cut and run quite some time ago.

The Second Amendment was part of the original Bill of Rights. It reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” From time immemorial, the intent of the Second Amendment has always been debated. Was this right granted to the “militia” or to the individual U.S. citizen…or someone else? Some seem to think that question was finally answered, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia, et. al. v. Heller. The late SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the Majority Opinion and wrote: “It held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms…” However, while many in this country was celebrating this statement by Scalia, they chose to ignore, “Of course the right was not unlimited…” In reading Scalia’s opinion, he bases his claim that the Second Amendment can and should have limitations on a presumption that the Founding Fathers, when ratifying the Bill of Rights, knew that in subsequent generations, obviously unforeseen in 1791 upon ratification, certain “things” would call for changes or limitations to the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. My question to Justice Scalia then would have been, if the Founding Fathers were smart enough, with enough foresight to imagine the need for “reasonable limitations” of all the rights, then why didn’t the Founding Fathers write that in the Bill of Rights?

Even though there is little in the Second Amendment text that would cause people to conclude that it has room for “limitations” into the future, how does one responsibly argue against, “shall not be infringed” and Scalia’s claim that the Fathers knew?

I’m not intending to get sidetracked, but this is important information to have and to research and study, if you are really seeking Truth.

If one is to fairly examine rights, as they were written in the Bill of Rights, it is important to take note of the efforts, since 1791, to limit the exercise of each of the original 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. For lack of time and space, I will not venture into all the rights, except to use the First Amendment, specifically the Freedom of Speech right, as a comparison.

If we look at a timeline of the history of freedom of speech, in which certain laws were enacted or attempted to be enacted and failed, we see that about the only limitations in free speech we still experience today deal with obscenity. Obviously that is pretty much overlooked as such “indecent” material is readily available at just about anywhere in the United States. Even consider that at one time the U.S. banned the desecration of the American Flag, only later to have that prohibition overturned. Even though many of us Americans stand up to protect our Bill of Rights, too many of us are guilty of cherry-picking when and where to apply such rights. Perhaps the current debate in progress over whether a professional football player should be punished because he refused to stand during a pregame National Anthem, in protest…peaceably.

In total, there are perhaps a small handful of laws that limit freedom of speech, even though Justice Scalia believed that future generations would find the need for “reasonable limitations” on all rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.

Turning to the Second Amendment, I headlined this piece as there being 3.5 million limitations to the Second Amendment. How absurd is that? Well, I really don’t know how absurd that number is but I can assure you the number of laws, all aimed at limiting our Second Amendment, is substantially larger than a small handful.

On June 18, 1981, President Ronald Reagan, after having supposedly been shot by John Hinckley, Jr. said, “There are, today, more than 20,000 gun-control laws in effect–federal, state and local–in the United States.”

The Media and all political factions, political action organizations, groups, non-profits, etc. are guilty of taking anything they find in writing and becoming an echo chamber to perpetuate it as fact. It is readily assumed that the choice to state 20,000 gun control laws existed, wasn’t and probably still isn’t the truth. But what is? Is it more than 20,000 or less than 20,000?

Wayne LaPierre, head of the NRA, while testifying before Congress in January of 2013, told Congress, “The fact is, we could dramatically cut crime in this country with guns and save lives all over this country if we would start enforcing the 9,000 federal laws we have on the books.” So, was Reagan referring to all gun laws, i.e. federal, state and local? Did LaPierre have knowledge of how many federal laws limit the Second Amendment? Later, a spokesperson for the NRA said LaPierre misspoke, but would never give a source or correct the number.

What are we to think? The Bangor Daily News reports that, “the ATF guide to state laws… is 507 pages long and includes only laws relevant to dealers.” Maybe there are 3.5 million laws limiting a person from freely exercising their guaranteed Second Amendment Right.

We can safely conclude no less that 2 things – There are a lot of gun laws and very few of them are or can be enforced.

If we return to the First Amendment limitations for just a moment, and examine the limitations, even those that were either overturned or expired, can we make a reasonable conclusion as to the reason for the limitations? I think so. Isn’t it about public safety or protecting the public interest, even though some, if not all, laws are political in nature?

What about the Second Amendment? Can there be any other reason to want to limit the Second Amendment than for public safety? Forget the politics for a moment. Everything in life is full of political insanity. The Second Amendment is under attack most vehemently today because of political insanity. Some of that insanity is hidden behind calls for necessary and reasonable limitations on gun ownership because of public safety. After all, it is with every occurrence of a shooting that some in the public, as they are programmed to do, call for more limitations, more laws, more restrictions, all to protect the public. But to protect them from what? It seems the political posturing is of more harm to the public than an armed, unrestricted citizenry would be.

If reasonable people, of which there are few, could conclude that the majority, if not every single gun control law, was proposed and/or enacted, based upon public safety, then the question that remains is quite simple. How has the 100, 1,000, 10,000, 20,000, 100,000 or 3.5 million Second Amendment limitation laws worked out in protecting the public and ensuring public safety? I thought so.

It’s next to impossible to attempt to provide a rational list of data that shows gun crime as it relates to increased gun restrictions, mostly because the criteria changes or is changed to rig the data. A reasonable person, only needing to look around, should be able to see that with 3.5 million gun laws on the books, those laws can’t be doing much for public safety. Maybe it’s time to try something else.

BUT DON’T GO LOOK!

Share

Bill Whittle: Is Hillary Guilty?

Some of what Whittle says is true. The problem is, most people haven’t a clue as to what parts of what he says are true and what are false. Some of the truth he speaks is hidden behind the manner in which he speaks, continuing to direct the people to believe things that are not true by using bits of truth. This the result of ignorance and complacency.

Hillary broke the laws in which the rest of us are expected to obey. She, and the rest in Washington, don’t have to obey those laws, unless, of course, it becomes a convenient way to rid someone not willing to play the game. Some get assassinated.

Share

CONSTRUED: Interpret in a Particular Way

HUH?

SamAdams

Share

Coffee, Tea, or Me?

YearsAgo

Share

PARENS PATRIAE….GOVERNMENT AS PARENT

In the case New Hampshire v. Louisiana and others.; New York v. Louisiana and others, (1) it states that: “all the rights of the States as independent nations were surrendered to the United States. The States are not nations, either as between themselves or towards foreign nations. They are sovereign within their spheres, but their sovereignty stops short of nationality. Their political status at home and abroad is that of States in the united States. They can neither make war nor peace without the consent of the national government. Neither can they, except with like consent, “enter into any agreement or compact with another State.” Art. 1, sec. 10, cl. 3. “The relation of one of the united States to its citizens is not that of an independent sovereign State to its citizens. A sovereign State seeking redress of another sovereign State on behalf of its citizens can resort to war on refusal, which a State cannot do. The state, having been a sovereign, with powers to make war, issue letters of marque and reprisal, and otherwise to act in a belligerent way, resigned these powers into the control of the United States, to be held in trust.”

Source: PARENS PATRIAE….GOVERNMENT AS PARENT

Share

Misrepresenting COTUS

None of your dad’s arguments worked in the courts, Peter, because he was misinterpreting the COTUS and the contractual agreements involved in u.s. corporate taxation. He sought the wrong way of self determining what taxes he wanted to pay and those he did not want to pay, which is a real legal possibility here in the 50 Estates, if the man finds the correct legal path changing his legal status within their codes. They will never help the man do this. If the man cannot decipher the path to diplomatic immunity within this jurisdiction, they feel the man does not deserve it. Freedom is not free. Yes, this beast government will do to your dad what it has done to many men who failed to exempt themselves from its taxation tyranny.

Patriot had a life-long love affair with our nation’s founding principles
by PETER SCHIFF | SCHIFF RADIO.COM | OCTOBER 18, 2015
http://www.schiffradio.com/dea…

Share

Preventing Fascist Rule

FascismThere exists at least two intellectual concepts about the United States Constitution. One is that the charter was crafted for the Rulers, the Posterity, in order to protect themselves and their Interests for the future. The more popular approach, as it was taught us, has always been, right or wrong, that the Constitution was written for the people (small “p”), a government of the people and by the people.

Regardless of which way one opts to regard this document, history tells us that for more than two centuries, man has been taught that the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, was their guarantee against tyrannical rule, assurance for small government and in support of a man’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Since the beginning, powers have been systematically dismantling those teachings and bringing about a form of fascist rule, the end result showing deliberate signs of totalitarian socialism.

We live in and attempt to operate our day to day within a rigged system. Power brokers are operating at frantic speed to steal from you and me our rights, or as the case may be, our perceived rights – what we have been taught from birth.

What should be obvious to most, is how issues discussed and presented for discussion, have changed. This is not happenstance, but deliberate manipulation of the citizenry to achieve necessary (to the Global Power Structure) rule, and thus control, mostly by regulation.

It begins with “Change Agents,” those trained by totalitarian socialists, who devise new ways in which long-standing culture, heritage and rights, even self-evident, God-given rights, are viewed and discussed. Void of any honest scientific research, and/or Biblical Truth, the new paradigms are often referred to as “post-normal” or “post scientific.” The talking points driving this form of fascist rule are based upon the belief that you and I are incapable of making the best decisions for ourselves, and that of what is known as “precautionary principle” – the act of regulation based on the belief that some act might cause public harm. This tactic has worked well over the years. One such instance is by invoking the Commerce Clause. Witness the destruction of the intent of the Endangered Species Act by implementation of the Commerce Clause. This act, as that of precautionary principle, paves the way for illegal “takings” by regulation. The Environmental Protection Agency practices the same fascist rule.

A great example of illegal takings by regulation is the gray wolf, where landowners and livestock growers, among others, are hamstrung by regulation, driven by both a hijacked Endangered Species Act and the precautionary principle, which is propped up through fake, or post-normal, science – outcome based within a rigged system. The effort results in loss of private property rights and illegal takings by the state and federal governments. Note here that all of this would be most difficult to achieve if not for the “useful idiots” who, blindly, seek their own slavery and ultimate destruction.

A late example is now being played out in the form of a Water Compact in Montana between the parties of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT), the State of Montana and the U.S. Federal Government. If the U.S. Congress passes this compact, it effectively places the power and control of water in the lap of the federal government. Not only does this action cause an ever increasing government overreach of power, but also results in loss of property rights along with illegal takings, among other events.

The Fifth Amendment states that: “…private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Because we operate within a rigged system, this compensation clause has little definitive meaning. We think President Ronald Reagan helped us out with Executive Order 12630 by better defining and placing guidelines on decisions concerning private property takings. Reagan stated that: “Responsible fiscal management and fundamental principles of good government require that government decision-makers evaluate carefully the effect of their administrative, regulatory, and legislative actions on constitutionally protected property rights.” Upon further examination of EO 12630, we discover so much legalese and gray areas, how can a citizen rely upon the compensation clause of the Fifth Amendment as some means of protecting their private property? Power brokers, i.e. politicians and government agencies, controlled by higher powers, use this method to gain control over people and their property. This is their well-designed goal.

In an article published by the Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development, of which attorney Lawrence Kogan is heavily involved, says that American citizens’, “…exclusive tangible and intangible private property, and by extension, their guaranteed constitutional rights, are slowly being eroded, controlled, diminished in value, restricted in use and converted into public property.”

We can debate the actual ownership of property, but as taxpayers we should be entitled to certain rights, one of which is a reasonable guarantee that any government cannot simply run roughshod over a property tax payer for something that government deems in the best interest of all. The educating of Americans has told us that government cannot “take” our property without just compensation and yet only the courts can decide when it is proper to do that. What kind of right is that?

Whether we are discussing the forcing of large predator wolves into human-occupied landscapes, including gray wolves of the Northern Rockies, red wolves of the Southeast, Mexican wolves of the southwest, Delta smelts, Canada lynx, desert turtles, climate change, sustainable development and more, the only real hope citizens have is to loudly push back against this kind of tyrannical, fascist rule.

While Americans sit idly by, Policy rules the day. The Constitution is but a moment in history. Executive action, combined with Court-recognized implementation of Policy, has led us into slavery. If by only the threat to a politician or a group of such crooked lawmakers, the loss of your vote for their future gravy train and golden parachute, appears the only presage to a cushy future, the active opposition to continued fascist rule must be undertaken.

For our future, we cannot allow government to control every aspect of our lives.

Share

EDITORIAL Archives – The American Report

This is what we were taught. Is America really losing its sovereignty or is the perception of brainwashed Americans being systematically stripped away?

On July 4, 1776, the Founding Fathers declared their independence from the tyrannical rule of Great Britain. In doing so, they dedicated the newly-founded United States of America to the ideal of Liberty.

Every school child learns these words from the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

Source: EDITORIAL Archives – The American Report

Share