The Founding Father's Real Reason for the Second Amendment
And remember the words of 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." See Video of Suzanna Gratia-Hupp’s Congressional Testimony: What the Second Amendment is REALLY For, below (u-tube HERE).
The Leaders Are Here... Palin, Cruz, Lee, Paul, Chaffetz....
T'S A WONDERFUL LIFE
Can You Really Still Believe That None of These People Would Have Done a Better Job???
CISPA, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, is picking up sponsors and it looks like the legislation will make it to the House floor for a vote next week. CISPA emerged from the House Intelligence Committee with an overwhelming vote of 17-1.
When Pelosi says “special interests,” she means the interests of those opposed to establishment Democrats. Clear Channel is a corporation. So is Fox News. There are thousands of websites, newspapers, think tanks and political action committees that Pelosi and the Democrats consider corporations.
In Citizens v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that the free speech of corporations is protected by the First Amendment. Corporations that produce political books, documentaries, and other materials have the same freedom of speech rights as individuals.
Pelosi and the Democrats want a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling. It is part of a “three-pronged strategy that also includes promoting the DISCLOSE Act, which would increase disclosure requirements for organizations running political ads,” writes Terence P. Jeffrey of CNSNews.
In order to sell the scheme, Pelosi and the Democrats have tied it to campaign finance reform.
“We have a clear agenda in this regard: Disclose, reform the system reducing the roll of money in campaigns, and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to use secret, unlimited, huge amounts of money flowing to campaigns,” Pelosi said on Thursday.
In ruling in favor if a First Amendment right for corporations, the “Supreme Court had unleashed a predator that was oozing slime into the political system, and that, indeed, is not an exaggeration,” said Pelosi. “Our Founders had an idea. It was called democracy. It said elections are determined by the people, the voice and the vote of the people, not by the bankrolls of the privileged few. This Supreme Court decision flies in the face of our Founders’ vision and we want to reverse it.”
Pelosi was joined by the usual suspects, including People for the American Way and Common Cause.
Originally Posted April 5, 2012 - By Michael Patrickson – Addicting Info
Congress is trying to censor the Internet, again. Only months after SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act, was defeated by an online popular uprising, a new bill is quietly working its way through Congress; a bill that threatens the future of the Internet, a bill that threatens everyone’s digital rights.
CISPA, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (H.R. 3523), is a draconian measure that would allow the feds and other corporate interests to monitor and even censor online activity without due process or even probable cause.
If passed, the legislation would give companies and the government new powers to monitor and censor communications, all in the name of “cybersecurity.” In particular, the legislation could be used to silence whistleblower websites like WikiLeaks.
CISPA, H.R. 3523, is meant “to provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber threat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity entities, and for other purposes.”
According to a press release issued last week, the bill already has over a 100 congressional co-sponsors. CISPA is currently enjoying wide bi-partisan support, as did SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act, and PIPA, the Protect IP Act, which came before.
“(CISPA) would let companies spy on users and share private information with the federal government and other companies with near-total immunity from civil and criminal liability. It effectively creates a ‘cybersecurity’ exemption to all existing laws.”
Indeed, critics complain the legislation is so broad and vague that almost anything might be monitored and censored in the name of “cybersecurity.” Under CISPA, Internet service providers and other companies could be forced to share user data with government agencies and others with apparently no restriction on what can be collected and how it can be used, provided the action is motivated by “cybersecurity.”
Such entities as Google, Facebook, Twitter and others would be allowed to intercept your emails and text messages, send copies to one another and to the government, and modify those communications or prevent them from reaching their destination, all in the nebulous name of “cybersecurity.”
Congress wants to use the threat of “cybersecurity” to undermine our digital rights. Tell your lawmakers that we won’t stand for dangerous, unsupervised information sharing in this bill or any bill like it. Take action. Follow the link to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and let your Representatives know: Don’t Let Congress Use “Cybersecurity” Fears to Erode Digital Rights.
Please call, fax and email you congressperson today and tell them no on CISPA and then help flood Congress with faxes and calls.
Are you baffled by the wording, timing and bipartisan support of recent legislation such as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Expatriation Act, SOPA, PIPA and ACTA? Are you concerned over the enhancement of domestic security measures that appear to be targeting and incrementally ripping away the rights of law abiding American citizens? Are you concerned about the evolving DHS “domestic extremist” definitions? Have you wondered about the true origins of the financial crises and what appears to be a quickening of events in all sectors of our lives? How about the origins of the current “occupy movement?” When and why everything started? Who and what is to blame? If so, you’re not alone.
We conducted an extensive investigation of the occupy movement to identify the people involved, as well as the money and influence behind it. What we found is that nothing related to the “occupy movement” is what it appears. In fact, nothing from Arab Spring, to DHS policy and beyond is what it appears to be. We found unsettling relationships between people, elected and appointed officials, groups, and organizations that extend back many years.
Investigative integrity demands a deliberate blindness to political party affiliations, but not ignorance to political associations. Consequently, our results will most assuredly anger many on both sides of the political aisle. If it does, we’ll know that we’ve done our job. Our findings might also brand us as conspiracy theorists too. If so, we’ll know that we’ve done our job well. Our findings are bound to make some people nervous. We hope they do, as we will then know that we’ve put our investigative skills and experience to good use.
Based on our investigative findings, we have arrived at a very startling and irrefutable conclusion. We are witnessing the orchestrated destruction of America. Soon, in the streets of the U.S., we will see some of the most violent events in modern history take place, likely to result in the implementation of public curfews, restrictions on travel, and possibly even Martial Law. That appears to be the plan. It is not a new plan, but one that has been in the works since the early twentieth century. We have created an in-depth report that reveals the individuals and groups behind these events, their motives, tactics and methods. The following is a summary of that report and our investigative findings.
“Occupy” is a sophisticated operation
To call the occupy movement a “movement” is to do it an injustice. We have found that it is an operation launched by the very same people who should be the actual targets of the protesters. Instead, it is the one percent global elite who are organizing, directing, and funding the operation behind the scenes. Their purpose is to create chaos and deflect the blame away from the actual financial terrorists to targets of lesser importance.
It is exactly this chaos that served as justification of the recent legislation redefining domestic extremists. The financial looting of America and other sovereign nations by the big banks, politicians and crony capitalists is beginning to unravel. When the curtain is pulled back and the true perpetrators are exposed, there will be rampant chaos in the streets of America. The politicians, bankers, Federal Reserve, and other individuals of prominence and perpetrators know this. Consequently, the U.S. government enacted legislation to in anticipation of the public outrage.
Empathy as a tactic
Most of us can empathize with the 99 percent as we are the 99 percent to the extent that we are not among those societal elites with great wealth, power, influence and who are seemingly above the law are responsible for the ills of our society.
It is not only easy to generate empathy from such a large pool of people, it is the primary tactic of this operation. After all, it is you, the readers, and us, the investigators work increasingly longer hours just to keep up with expenses, trying to pay our bills on time while the elite exhibit unprecedented hubris and vile contempt for the masses. Sympathy for them? Hardly. Accordingly, it is easy to identify with the “99 percent” while setting aside other differences.
Definitions changed
In the case of the occupy operation, definitions of the opposing groups have been deliberately and maliciously changed by the media, social and political commentators, and the orchestrators of the operation. The “one percent” are not those who earn more than $506,000 per year as defined by The Wall Street Journal, but are a much more elite group of individuals. Therein lies the first layer of obfuscation intentionally created and constantly repeated by the covert powers behind the occupy operation.
Additionally, legitimate capitalism, which is the financial backbone of America and has been responsible for the success of our great nation – not its downfall, has been purposely demonized by its merger with crony capitalism. Crony capitalism is the incestuous bonding between business and government, the use of influence, inside information, and other illegal and immoral activity that enriches those in government and private individuals. It is this intentional merging of legitimate and crony capitalism that obfuscates the problem and provides a layer for protection for the crony capitalists themselves.
Perhaps one of the most important factors that must be fully understood is this: crony capitalism transcends political parties and creates some very interesting alliances. Accordingly, one must remove the blinders of political partisanship to understand that the Democrat-Republican paradigm has been successfully destroyed nearly beyond recognition – and perhaps to the point of no return. Unfortunately, too few are willing to do so, claiming that such assertions belong in the bin of historical conspiracy nonsense. Some are unwilling due to lack of investigation or understanding, while others refuse as they reap rewards of financial gain and positions of power.
History is key
Most trace the beginning of the American occupy operation to the September 2011 occupation of Zuccotti Park in New York City by individuals protesting economic inequality. Within a month, similar protests were taking place in nearly 600 communities in the U.S. and 95 cities worldwide.
Much like the inappropriately termed “Arab spring.” we were told by the media that these protests benefited the oppressed, were largely spontaneous and without any leadership or organizational structure beyond the occasional tweet or mention in the social media. While right-wing talk show hosts, pundits and bloggers described occupy group members as human flea circuses in need of discipline and a good shower, the left presented them as courageous people taking a stand against social injustice created by a rigged economic system.
Although there are elements of truth in each description, both sides are guilty of failing to break free of their political bias to provide their respective audiences the unadulterated truth about the occupy operation. As a result, unnecessary polarization among Americans is heightened by their words and writings, many who could relate to the injustices but had little sympathy for those who are denied justice. In some cases, the political pundits have become unwitting participants of the growing social divide, playing directly into the hands of the operation’s architects. In other cases, they are willful facilitators working with them.
All one has to do is to look at history to learn that “the 99 percent” was first referenced in 1947 within UNESCO (an acronym for United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), an arm of the United Nations. It was referenced by the mother of all globalist entities, the UN, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The importance of the slogan as used in the last century through the present cannot be underestimated. We must recognize that the distinction, as well as the general ideology behind it, originates from the same template used by Woodrow Wilson, Colonel Mandel House, FDR, the United Nations, activists of the 1960′s though today.
The financial model that has exacerbated the economic train wreck of America can also be traced to the United Nation’s Monetary and Financial Conference (or Bretton Woods Conference) in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. John Maynard Keynes of England and Harry Dexter White of the United States, drafted a plan to stabilize the world economy. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was drafted and ultimately signed in 1947, and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (a/k/a the World Bank) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) were established.
Keynesian economics, which advocates a strong government role in private commerce and a favorite of globalists, is the current economic model in use by this administration. The path was also paved by such bipartisan financial initiatives as NAFTA, the SPP and the like.
Looking closer at those who were in positions of power and influence during pivotal points in history, and who had and have influence within our government during the passage of such legislation as NAFTA, the SPP, as well as the more draconian legislation such as the NDAA and others laws, both today and in history, we found direct ties to controversial organizations such as the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the attendees of the Bildeberg Group. It is our professional opinion, based on extensive research, timelines and contacts, that these groups exist solely for the “one percent,” and the members set the agenda in the U.S. and globally. One might chuckle at the thought and call it nonsense, but the evidence proves otherwise.
When the operational layers are pulled back, we begin to see that the cries for changing the economic inequities that spawned previous and recent financial crises are actually being made under the umbrella of world governance.
1968: A look into our future
The more things change, the more they remain the same. Remember the riots of 1968? Our findings suggest that they will pale in comparison to what is on the immediate horizon.
The decade of the sixties saw the re-birth of Marxist-Communist groups such as the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), The Weathermen (or Revolutionary Youth Movement), the Progressive Labor Party, the Black Panther Party (BPP), the Communist Party USA (CP-USA), and the Nation of Islam (NOI).
A paperback book published by U.S. News & World Report in 1970 titled Communism and the New Left describes demonstrators embracing leaders such as Che Guevara, Castro, and Mao Tse-tung as the civil unrest of the late 1960′s unfolded. The compilation of magazine reports link the 1968 protests, for example, with the resurgence of Marxist and Communist principles, and further link the leadership of the protesters with those ideologies.
Specifically identified include individuals such as Bernadine Dohrn and Willaim Ayers, names that are very familiar today. Additionally, our research of specific history from the McCarthy era prove that the subversive groups have joined forces, are acting under the same leadership and have many of the same idols as today.
A half-century ago, the protestors and domestic terrorists were Dohrn, Ayers and their associates. They were the exuberant dupes at a time when globalism was still in its infancy.
Today, they are the mid-level leaders, along with some new associates, while working in positions of education and influence. Dohrn, for example, is an Associate Professor at the Northwestern University School of Law.
The occupy operation and crony capitalism: the “perfect storm”
The occupy movement of today would not likely exist were it not for the rampant crony capitalism and various bipartisan legislation of the last century. Crony capitalism is an effective method of ushering in the “New World Order,” to the extent that it is this crony capitalism that facilitates the perceived need for financial globalization, or the centralization of money, power wealth to protect against such exploitation of the financial system. But it is critical to understand that this crisis was engineered from the foundation laid throughout recent history.
It is the perfect linking between the ideology of the globalists with a strong propensity for Keynesian economics, crony capitalism as facilitated in the U.S. by the Federal Reserve, the U.S. Treasury, numerous lawmakers, with the tactics of Saul Alinsky, and the ultimate leadership from the executive branch to Progressive foot soldiers and actual domestic terrorists including, but not limited to William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and others.
Much has taken place that set up the perfect storm of today. From Woodrow Wilson to Nixon, Bush, Clinton and Obama, from the establishment of the Federal Reserve to the repealing of the Glass-Steagall Act, the environment that exists today was made for the looting of America.
One must keep in mind that the stage was set by both Republicans and Democrats, former and current occupants of the House and Senate, along with each President over the last century that brought us to this point. At the top of the domestic pyramid are the very people who are members of the shadowy groups previously referenced. Individuals such as George Soros, for example, who has actively underwritten the destruction of the United States. The agenda is being accomplished through large banks and investment firms, including but not limited to Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and others considered “too big to fail.”
One has to be either intellectually impaired or disingenuous to not see the role Goldman Sachs alumni have played in the financial destruction of America. One glaring example is Jon Corzine of the MF Global crime scene. There are many others.
The Obama factor
One of the final stages of the globalist agenda, however, occurred with the selection of a virtual unknown community organizer from Chicago with a Marxist-Communist ideology and heritage to be the President of the U.S. Barack Hussein Obama, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, was also groomed for his current position by the powers of the CFR and Trilateral Commission. Specifically, it was Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller who served as his foreign policy advisors.
Few questioned who and what was behind the meteoric rise of a virtual unknown junior senator from Illinois. In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to select members of her district at the home of two previously referenced figures: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.
The media was forgiving when it was disclosed that Obama, as an Illinois state senator in 2001, accepted a $200 contribution from Ayers, a founding member of the group that bombed the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon during the 1970s.
The media stood firm that there was virtually no connection between Obama and Ayers, who also penned his memoir, “Fugitive Days” which was published in 2001. They also glossed over Ayers’ comments published in the September 11, 2001 edition of The New York Times when he said: “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.”
The media and Obama “fact-checking” web sites downplayed the fact that Ayers and Obama served together for three years on the nine-member board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago based nonprofit. They also downplayed their joint appearance on two academic panels in 1997 and 2001. Like Dohrn, Ayers served as a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
The media was first absent then forgiving to candidate Barack Hussein Obama when the flag of Che Guevara, an Argentine Marxist revolutionary was hanging in plain view on the wall of one of Obama’s campaign offices in early 2008. They were equally forgiving about the ornament that featured the portrait of Mao Tse-tung hanging on the 2009 White House Christmas Tree. It appeared that few understood the implications represented by that image alone, and the “change” that was intended for the U.S.
The corporate media and progressives in power and public influence deflected any due diligence background investigation of this unknown by frequently calling upon the race issue, which remains a very effective tactic today. Yet, the legitimate questions that have been asked yet never answered have absolutely nothing to do with race, but of concern for our country.
It would do us well to look twice at those who mock and ridicule anyone who questions the legitimacy of Barack Hussein Obama as President. The reader might find this difficult to believe after the onslaught of media assertions to the contrary, but the simple fact is that we really do not know who we have put in the White House, including his legal name. Obama was never properly vetted, and despite claims to the contrary, never submitted an actual hard copy of his long form birth certificate to any legitimate body for review and examination. Just saying he did does not make it so.
Furthermore, why the secrecy surrounding the release of his other records? Passport records, school records, and so on? Why has he spent so much money fighting their release? Ridicule if you must, Obama would not pass any background investigation we would perform for a position on any board of directors of a Fortune 100 company in light of what little he has personally provided, along with his refusal to turn over other records related to his past. Yet, he sits in the White House at such a precipitous time in our history. His placement there was no accident, and his election was not some serendipitous event in U.S. history.
Meanwhile, crony capitalism – birthed by the creation of the Federal Reserve and exploited by career politicians and their financial counterparts- made significant inroads over the last few decades, exacerbating pre-existing societal divides. A “perfect storm” is now brewing.
Now, when the terrorist ideology of the radical left is combined with the effects of crony capitalism, we have a much more fertile environment for orchestrated social unrest than at any other time in history. Add to that an elected president with a communist heritage who launched his political career in the Ayers/Dohrn household, the timing is anything but coincidental, and the path to chaos should be quite clear.
Buckle up, America. It’s going to be a very hot summer.
The Hagmann & Hagmann Report is broadcast live Monday-Friday, from10:00 p.m.- through 12:00 a.m. ET. Watch, listen & interact on the Liberty Broadcasting Network
Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul announced Wednesday that he would filibuster any attempt by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to bring the Protect IP Act (PIPA) to a vote.
PIPA, the Senate version of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), is being sponsored by Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy and pushed by Reid as a “job creator.”
The bills would ostensibly crack down on online copyright infringement, but critics contend that the legislation would also challenge free speech and the ability of large websites to function.
Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, the sponsor of SOPA, announced Tuesday that the bill would continue to undergo markup in the House Judiciary Committee, which he chairs, in February.
An unprecedented online protest by companies opposed to the bills occurred Wednesday. Online encyclopedia Wikipedia, social news website Reddit and the classifieds site Craigslist all blocked their U.S. versions in protest and directed visitors to contact their elected officials.
“Both PIPA and SOPA give the federal government unprecedented and unconstitutional power to censor the Internet,” Paul said in a statement. “These bills enable the government to shut down websites that it deems guilty of violating copyright laws.”
Paul continued: “While we support copyright protections, we are also concerned about websites being shut down without their day in court, and making innocent third parties bear the costs of solving someone else’s problems.
“I will not sit idly by while PIPA and SOPA eliminate the constitutionally protected rights to due process and free speech. For these reasons, I have pledged to oppose, filibuster and do everything in my power to stop government censorship of the Internet,” Paul said.
For local newspaper for publishing as public notice:
PROCLAMATION, NOTICE, AND DEMAND
WHEREAS on December 31, 2011, theacting-president of THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Inc. (U.S. Inc.) signed into law an abomination titled the “National Defense Authorization Act”, also known as the “NDAA” or “S-1867”; and
WHEREAS, according to the NDAA, the territories of these united states of America have been declared a battleground wherein the American people may now be arrested by the military forces of the U.S. Inc. and detained indefinitely without being charged with a crime, without the right to a phone call, without the right to legal counsel, and without the right to a fair hearing or a speedy trial; and
WHEREAS the NDAA specifies that detainees will be treated as enemy combatants and that the military resources of U.S. Inc., personnel, equipment and contractors, may be used on American soil, against the American people, in every city and neighborhood of this now declared “American battleground”; and
WHEREAS said detainees may be tortured, transported, and/or held in detention facilities anywhere in the world, for any length of time; and
WHEREAS Detainees may only be granted a military tribunal at the sole discretion of the military forces of the U.S. Inc.; and
WHEREAS the NDAA circumvents lawful due process in its entirety, violates the Constitution for these united states of America, violates Posse Comittatus, and repeals the Bill of Rights; and
WHEREAS the NDAA effectively creates Martial Law, and creates a Military Dictatorship under the control of the acting corporate president; and
WHEREAS the lawful jurisdiction of the U.S. Inc. does not extend beyond the 10 square miles known as the District of Columbia; and
WHEREAS the U.S. Inc. has repeatedly exceeded their lawful jurisdiction and encroached upon and into the several foreign sovereign states both by physical presence, legislative decree, and unlawful mandates; and
WHEREAS the U.S. Inc. has repeatedly exceeded the lawful jurisdiction and lawful authority authorized to the federal government by our lawful constitution and then violated the constitutional rights of all the foreign sovereign states and their sovereign Citizens with their acts of surveillance, searches, seizures, and arrests therein; and
WHEREAS the U.S. Inc. having confiscated all the real money of the people of this country with the confiscation of the gold in 1934 and having made the use of counterfeit fiat currency produced by private bankers compulsory; and
WHEREAS the U.S. Inc. has allowed our money to be created by, and subsequently borrowed from, foreign private bankers without restraint and charged the interest promised to these private foreign bankers to the sovereign people of the many sovereign states without authorization by either the constitution or the sovereign people; and
WHEREAS the U.S. Inc. has brought onto our shores International Laws of Commerce, aka the U.C.C. code, and created a "legal" system with which to replace the rule of law, aka our constitutional law and the common law of the land in an effort to overthrow our lawful form of government; and
WHEREAS the U.S. Inc. has replaced all our lawful Article III judicial courts with Article I and II courts of summary judgment; and
WHEREAS the U.S. Inc. has made every effort to supplant the natural God given rights of the sovereign peoples of this nation with government granted "privileges" which are granted or removed at their whim and by their decree;
THEREFORE, WE, the sovereign people of these united states of America, FORMALLY DECLARE that the elected officials who signed this treasonous legislation have, by their deeds, created a state of war between the people of these united states and the corporation of THE UNITED STATES, Inc., which is based in the District of Columbia and is a foreign power in relation to the sovereign states and the sovereign people domiciled therein;
THEREFORE, WE, the sovereign people of these united states of America, FORMALLY DECLARE that those federal elected officials, acting as individuals and as a group, have repeatedly and consistently violated the supreme law of this land, have violated their oath of public office, and have, by their acts and deeds, declared war upon the people of this country.
Those elected official trustees, in having signed to pass this unlawful act, have therefore willfully and intentionally acted with malice aforethought in conspiring to overthrow our lawful government and to declare the American people to be enemies of said corporation and they are therefore guilty of Conspiracy, and Breach of Trust as the elected trustees of our nation. They have violated their sworn duty to uphold and defend the Constitution for these united states of America, and are therefore guilty of TREASON AND SEDITION as evidenced by their signatures thereon.
BE IT KNOWN that the rights of the people do not come from any government nor do they come from the Constitution nor from the Bill of Rights. Those documents merely outline and set upon paper a portion of those rights which are the natural or God given rights of all peoples and which are unalienable by any government created by man upon this earth and have been found as such by the courts.
The constitution states very clearly that the only powers authorized to the federal government were those enumerated powers stated therein and ALL others remained with the several sovereign states or to the people themselves. Government derives its few just powers from the people themselves as they are the creator and the source for the creation of government. No creation can supplant its creator. Any attempt by any government to declare they are the "source" of the unalienable rights of the people is an attempt to declare they are God and is an effort to supplant our true creator.
You cannot legalize tyranny by passing an act. Nor do "we the people" recognize such criminal acts as lawful no matter who signs them.
CITE:
"Now all acts of legislature apparently contrary to natural right and justice are in our laws and must be, in the nature of things, considered as void. The laws of nature are the laws of God; whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his laws, we are conscience bound to disobey. Such have been the adjudications of our courts of justice." Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, 114, 1 Va. Reports Ann. 58, 61 (1772) aff'd. Gregory v. Baugh, 29 Va. 681, 29 Va. Rep. Ann. 466, 2 Leigh 665 (1831) And cited 8 Co. 118. a. Bonham's case. Hob. 87; 7. Co. 14. a. Calvin's case
Be it further known that:
Article 6 paragraph 2 of the U.S. constitution:
This is known as the supremacy clause of the constitution. Basically what it says is: "This constitution, and the laws for these united states which shall be made pursuant thereof, and the treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the united states shall be the supreme law of the land. The judges in every state shall be bound thereby. Anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary are not with standing in law. (no standing!)
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) [ one of the leading cases in the history of the united states]
The opinion of the court was: "Anything that is in conflict with the constitution of the united states is null and void of law; clearly for a secondary law to come into conflict with the supreme was illogical; for certainly the supreme law would prevail over any other law, and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis for all laws, and for any law to come into conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as though it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded by a court of law. NO courts are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law, which means it doesn't exist in law."
“...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves....” [Chisholm v. Georgia (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 DALL (1793) pp471_472.]
Schlesinger v Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 US 208, 232-3. “We tend to overlook the basic political and legal reality that the people, not the bureaucracy, are sovereign. … Executives, lawmakers, and members of the Judiciary are inferior in the sense that they are in office only to carry out and execute the constitutional regime.” (as the people we gave them Sovereign powers, but in limited jurisdiction only, never over us. We have absolute sovereignty, they have limited sovereignty.
"'Sovereignty' means that the decree of sovereign makes law, and foreign courts cannot condemn influences persuading sovereign to make the decree." Moscow Fire Ins. Co. of Moscow, Russia v. Bank of New York & Trust Co., 294 N.Y.S. 648, 662, 161 Misc. 903. (any court other than your own is "foreign" to yours.)
"No man [or woman] in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it."
Butz v. Economou, 98 S. Ct. 2894 (1978); United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. at 220, 1 S. Ct. at 261 (1882)
(the "LAW" is not to be confused with Acts, statutes, codes, corporate policy, public policy, but rather the "common law and the supreme law of the land")
The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it". See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821). (They take an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution...not war against it!)
The Constitution is a contract. It is a contract between the people and the government. WE THE PEOPLE decided the terms of that contract before we would allow the federal government to be created. It is WE THE PEOPLE who decide when the terms of that contract have been violated. No court, no justice, no magistrate, no official of that government has a higher nor more legitimate basis for determining the violation of that contract than the people who created it. The people decide and have final say. To accept that the government may decide how, when, or if they can violate OUR contract is to relinquish all power of the people to the state. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that if the state can decide what is lawful under the contract (conflict of interest) that it will become self serving and devolve into absolute tyranny and despotism. The determination of what is or is not constitutional rests with the people not the state or their courts.
“To presume that a sovereign forever waives the right to exercise one of its powers unless it expressly reserves the right to exercise that power in a commercial agreement turns the concept of sovereignty on its head.” [Merrion et al., DBA Merrion & Bayless, et al. v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe et al. (1982) 455 U.S. 130, 102 S. Ct. 894, 71 L. Ed. 2d 21, 50 U.S.L.W. 4169 pp. 144_148]
The above case is important because all the purported adhesion contracts (commercial agreements) signed with federal and state governments including the social security card, the marriage license, the birth certificate, voters registration, all permits and applications, driver's license etc etc are all considered to be "unconditional contracts" with a promise to obey, perform, and be liable. What the above case demonstrates is that the state cannot claim that in signing such purported contracts that our constitutional rights can be considered waived, yet the states and federal government do so claim....unlawfully. Any such claim is void and without merit.
WHEREAS The United States Inc. and our elected official trustees, serving as directors of said corporation and pretending to serve the interests of the people in their corporate charade, have repeatedly violated the supreme law of this land, failed to uphold their sworn oath to uphold and defend it, and warred against it; and
WHEREAS they have refused to address numerous petitions of grievances expressed by the people for their blatant violations of our laws and the rights of the people; and
WHEREAS they now openly declare their intent to war against the peoples of these united states openly and forcefully, and
WHEREAS said acts are unconstitutional and thus ab initio (void at inception), we hereby call upon our state and local elected official trustees to act accordingly as follows:
All public servant trustees who have sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution for these united states shall be held responsible for having read it and for understanding it. The excuse of not having read or understood that which you swore an oath to "uphold and defend" will not be accepted, as "ignorance of THE law is no excuse."
Regarding the personal liability of said official trustees for violations of constitutional rights.
NO IMMUNITY!
DO NOT CLAIM: "Well, we acted in good faith....or We had good faith reliance that you broke the law..."reasonable cause", and of course that means you can't sue us." THAT IS A LIE. See two cases; Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 (1980) and Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 (1980)
Basically what these two cases say: "Where plain language of a statute supported by consistent judicial interpretation is strong, it is not necessary to look beyond the words of the statute."
Both cases were civil rights cases. "The right of action created by statute relating to deprivation under color of state law of a right secured by the constitution and the laws of the united states encompasses claims which are solely based on statutory violations of federal law, and applied to the claim that claimants had been deprived of their rights in some capacity, to which they were entitled.
The supreme court said; "You are deemed to be officers of the law; you are to advise us of the law; you can hardly claim that you were in good faith for willful deprivation of the law, and you certainly can't claim ignorance of the law, because a citizen out there on the street can't claim ignorance of the law. It makes the law look stupid if an officer of the court or some officer of government doesn't know the law and then they go ahead and abuse somebody's constitutional rights."
So, in matters of constitutional rights both these cases uphold one point: If you violate constitutional rights you do so at your own peril. Title 18 Sec 241, 242. says that; upon conviction you are subject to a $10,000.00 fine, 10 years in jail, or both, and if death results, life in prison. They are telling you "Don't violate somebody's constitutional rights." (that is per EACH right violated....)
Title 42 USC sec. 1983, 1985, &1986 clearly establishes the right to sue anybody that does that. There is NO judicial immunity for violating someone's constitutional rights.
Judges beware, you are deemed to know the law and swear to uphold it. You can hardly claim that you acted in good faith in willful deprivation of the law and you certainly can't claim ignorance of the law for it would make the law look stupid for a knowledgeable judge to claim ignorance of the law when a citizen on the street can make no such claim.
City and county law enforcement officers must refuse to obey unconstitutional mandates, acts, laws, or corporate policy operating under "color of law" and nullify the criminal violations of the supreme law of this land and refuse to allow federal corporate troops on the streets of our cities and counties. Willing county residents should be deputized by the constitutional county sheriff to serve as necessary to prevent foreign and hostile federal corporate troops entry therein at any time or for any reason.
State elected official trustees including the legislature, the governor, and the attorney general shall immediately act to refuse compliance, nullify, and prevent unconstitutional mandates by federal usurpers upon the state, the people of the state, or the presence of federal troops within its boundaries and create a state militia of willing state Citizens as outlined in the second amendment to assist in the prevention of federal corporate troops entering upon state territory outside the current military bases therein. No federal corporate military members or contractors operating under federal command shall appear upon the streets of the state in uniform or carrying firearms or weapons of any kind which might be used against the people; nor shall they appear in public in the capacity of federal troops as this shall be viewed as an act of open hostility against the people.
Any public servant trustee serving the people of this state who shall call for, or give approval for, the use of federal troops against the people within the borders of this state whether active duty, reserves, national guard, or mercenary contractors representing federal interests shall be deemed to have committed treason upon the people of this state and shall be held responsible by the people of this state and prosecuted to the fullest extent of THE law.
Be it noticed and declared that henceforth any actions taken to enforce unconstitutional mandates or decrees upon the sovereign peoples of these united states by any officer, official, or public servant trustee shall be deemed hostile, an act of warring upon the people, a breach of trust, a violation of oath, and will not be tolerated. Such actions will be responded to in kind by the people.
THIS IS NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST.
THIS IS NOTICE TO NULLIFY UNDER THE TENTH AMENDMENT AND SECURE THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE AND THEIR RESPECTIVE STATES.
All public official trustees are called upon to honor their sworn oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution for these united states or be recognized as an enemy of the people for having violated the trust and your sworn duty to the people and our constitution. Acts of warring upon the people will not be tolerated and the excuse of "following orders" shall not be accepted as an excuse for violating THE law of this land and your sworn oath to uphold it. The Nuremberg trials determined that following orders is not a valid excuse for violating the rights of the people and will not be seen as such in this country by the people herein.
cc’d to:
Alex Jones
county sheriff
county commissioner
mayor
state legislature
state representative
state senator
state attorney general
speaker of the house
governor
“He who trades liberty for security rarely gets (or deserves) either!” …Benjamin Franklin
As more and more actions are planned in protest of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA), the dual pieces of anti-online piracy legislation moving through Congress, the architects and supporters of these bills have finally begun tiptoeing back.
PIPA co-sponsor Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) on late Friday released a statement saying: “I would not vote for final passage of PIPA, as currently written, on the Senate floor.”
However, Cardin said he would remain a co-sponsor because it would give him “the opportunity to be an active participant in the process of addressing the most serious concerns raised by my constituents.”
Meanwhile, six other Republican Senate co-sponsors of PIPA — Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), John Cornyn (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Tom Coburn (R-OK) — sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on Friday asking him to delay the impending full Senate vote on PIPA scheduled for January 24.
As the letter (which was cc’ed to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)) reads:
Since the mark-up, we have increasingly heard from a large number of constituents and other stakeholders with vocal concerns about possible unintended consequences of the proposed legislation, including breaches in cybersecurity, damaging the integrity of the Internet, costly and burdensome litigation, and dilution of First Amendment rights. Moreover, in light of potential cybersecurity implications, we believe hearing from the Administration and relevant agencies is imperative.
Reid in mid December filed cloture, breaking a block on PIPA that was put in place by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) to prevent the legislation from moving forward. Reid’s move meant that the full Senate would have to quickly vote on PIPA despite the rising tide of opposition to the bill and calls to slow the process down.
As Donny Shaw points out at OpenCongress: The letter marks an “incredible turn of events,” given that support for PIPA seemed so high just a few short weeks ago.
And in perhaps the best sign yet that the onlineprotests started by Reddit are having their intended affect, SOPA sponsor Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and PIPA sponsor Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) both released statements on their official websites over the past 48 hours announcing that they would be at least delaying the implementation of one of the more reviled aspects shared by both SOPA and PIPA, the one that would force Internet Service Providers (companies including AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner) to impose Domain Name Service (DNS) blocking on foreign webpages accused of hosting pirated content. Essentially, the DNS blocking provisions would force ISPs to show an error message when consumers try to navigate to a website accused of piracy.
After hearing from various constituents and industry personnel who pointed out that the provision would essentially break the Internet for U.S. users, both lawmakers decided it is time to put the breaks on at least that part of the anti-piracy effort.
Smith was the more reactive of the two to these complaints, saying he would remove entirely the DNS blocking provision from SOPA.
“After consultation with industry groups across the country, I feel we should remove Domain Name System blocking from the Stop Online Piracy Act so that the [House Judiciary] Committee can further examine the issues surrounding this provision,” Smith wrote in a statement posed on his website Friday. “We will continue to look for ways to ensure that foreign websites cannot sell and distribute illegal content to U.S. consumers.”
Critically, Smith’s statement doesn’t say that the DNS provision will be eliminated entirely, only that it will be temporarily removed until “further examination” occurs.
That would likely entail more hearings involving “technical experts,” aka “the nerds,” Web entrepreneurs and engineers like Reddit founder Alexis Ohanian, who are due to testify in a hearing on January 18 at a separate committee, the House Oversight Committee, which is chaired by stalwart SOPA critic Rep. Darrell Issa.
And the rest of Smith’s statement continues to explain just why SOPA was needed and why it was the perfect solution to cracking down on online piracy. Apparently, it just needed a little tweaking.
Intriguingly, this is actually the second major tweak Smith has made to SOPA on his own volition since he introduced it into the House in late October 2011. Smith also introduced a manager’s amendement in December attempting to narrow the definitions of what could be considered a “rogue” website under the bills, but critics weren’t satisfied, pointing out numerous other problems the remaining over-broad language.
Still, Smith’s turnabout is impressive, and especially rich given that less than 24 hours prior, he gave an interview to Reuters defying his critics and vowing to pass the legislation.
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), sponsor of PIPA, couched his words even more. On Thursday, his office released a statement to the following effect:
“I remain confident that the ISPs - including the cable industry, which is the largest association of ISPs - would not support the legislation if its enactment created the problems that opponents of this provision suggest. Nonetheless, this is in fact a highly technical issue, and I am prepared to recommend we give it more study before implementing it.
“As I prepare a managers’ amendment to be considered during the floor debate, I will therefore propose that the positive and negative effects of this provision be studied before implemented, so that we can focus on the other important provisions in this bill, which are essential to protecting American intellectual property online, and the American jobs that are tied to intellectual property.”
As SOPA critic and IP expert Mike Masnick pointed out at Techdirt, however, “That is NOT removing the DNS blocking provisions. It is merely delaying them.” Still, Masnick was more celebratory about the late Friday developments, writing “All of this, by the way, is because tons of you (tons!) have stepped up and reached out to your Reps. and Senators and let them know that these bills are unacceptable. Let’s see if Harry Reid, Patrick Leahy and Lamar Smith finally admit that they, too, can hear you.”
Markham Erickson, executive director of Net Coalition, a Web industry group that represents Google, Facebook and numerous other leading brands, released a statement Friday applauding the move but saying it didn’t go far enough: “”While we await details on revisions to the House and Senate legislation, we wish to underscore that significant amendments still need to be made. Significant concerns with the private right of action, mandated search filtering, and legal risk and uncertainty still remain.”
Indeed, as Sherwin Siy, deputy legal director of Public Knowledge, an online citizens’ rights organization, said in a statement released to the press late Friday: “While we are pleased that some progress is being made, we are also firm in our opposition to both bills because some very bad provisions remain. The bills are still over-broad in their reach, for example (as in the Senate bill) allowing court orders against anyone a providing ‘directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link.’ Both bills still include a private right of action with few protections from abuse, meaning that sites can be killed without ever being proven to violate copyright.”
And as Andrew Rasiej, Chair of NY Tech Meetup’s Board told TPM via telephone: “If Reid decides to cancel the vote, we’ll turn our protest into a celebration.”
thecommunists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.
Then they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.
Then they came for the trade unionists, I did not protest; I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, I did not protest; I was a Protestant.
Then they came for the Jews, I did not speak out; I was not a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.
Election 2014 - What Is Really At Stake
Help Stop Voter Fraud!! Stand for the Constitution and God
Time to remember that: "We Surround Them", not the other way!
Stand Up Against Voter Fraud... Demand Re-Counts and Verification Until It is Right!! A Little Ink Goes a Long Way Toward Honesty... 1 Person 1 Vote... No More Mickey Mouse or Dead People Voting
"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about IT! --Albert Einstein
Call Congress Today and Tell Them To Vote Against Cap and Trade
The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality -- Dante Alighieri / Often Quoted by Mark Twain
Thanks for calling the Congressional switchboard. Keep up the pressure: "NO on Cap and Trade"!!! "NO Vote on Obamacare", NO on another Stimulus Bill, NO to the never ending parade of "Power Grab Bills", and ABSOLUTELY NO on the Climate Change Treaty in Copenhagen!!
"No" on Cap and Trade and "No" on Government Controlled Healthcare!!! And Keep up the good fight! Keep up the Pressure on both the House and Senate! These are 2-fights the American People cannot afford to lose!!!
If you choose not to go this route… call and fax your Senator and as many of them on the list yourself, but don’t sit idly by!!
United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121
We apologize in advance for any Videos or links that are not functioning in these or other older posts. Internet information... like 'true' history in our student's textbooks are under constant attack by the Progressive Movement and even more so under the present administration. Try to save what you can to your own computer.
"...there comes a time, ladies and gentlemen, when ideology can cause death. I am so tired, so tired, of zealots, primarily on the left, putting their insane personal agendas above the safety of fellow Americans. Do you think the brave soldiers and Marines operating in dangerous areas right now want [unreleased photos of alleged abuse of prisoners] all over al-Jazeera and the terror websites? So let's look out for the military, OK? Nancy Pelosi has an obligation to get the loons in her party under control. If the Speaker can't do that, she doesn't deserve her position." ... Bill O'Reilly
Updated:If you'd like to contact Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, here's the contact information that you'll need.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), sponsor of the 'Stop Online Piracy Act.'
