A Reason for my Activism

Restoring the American Republic

America was founded as a republic with strict limitations of police power and an emphasis on liberty of the individual. The God-given natural Rights of the people were recognized in law and the Bill of Rights was insisted upon in the first Convention, passed by the first Congress, and ratified by the States on December 15, 1791. All sworn officers of the United States and the states are duty bound to respect and enforce those limitations on government power, no matter how inconvenient they may be to their jobs.

Whenever a law enforcement officer enforces an unconstitutional law it undermines our republic; whittling away at everybody’s liberty, usurping our power, and weakening our republic; this needs to stop and the people need to start insisting that it does.

When I was a little boy in Detroit, Michigan, I remember cops in my neighborhood. The officers were always friendly and gave me the sense…

View original post 700 more words


Making a Stand

Thomas Mick is one of my favorite writers, and — as I too often find when considering a topic to write about for my own blog — I find that Thomas has already written a virtual mirror image of my own thoughts!

Restoring the American Republic

The Federal Government is no longer even pretending to honor the agreement of 1787. The enemies of the republic have reached their end game, infiltrating our institutions to such a level as to render the Constitution impotent by their neglect of it and their wanton disregard for the rule of law, constitutional law. There is no duty of ANY citizen of this republic to obey or respect such usurpers of our Rights and liberty.

We need to stop recognizing the foreign usurper Obama as the President because he isn’t… When he swore into the office on January 20, 2009, he did so knowing that he wasn’t eligible for that office. Furthermore, there are hundreds, if not thousands of people in government that knew Obama wasn’t eligible and still imposed his tyranny on us to further their agenda.

We no longer have a legitimate Federal Government infrastructure and our military no…

View original post 624 more words

President Eisenhower Had It All Wrong… We Were Already Slaves.

I just finished reading this article, which is an excellent history of the rise of the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us so stridently against.


However dire seeming was his warning, I would bet that most people simply don’t know that President Eisenhower was the single most responsible President in this escalation of military and industrial cooperation. Just the single fact that, in 1952, when Ike was elected, that America’s nuclear weapon stockpile numbered some 1,000 warheads; but by the time he passed the reins to John F. Kennedy in 1961, it consisted of more than 24,000 warheads, and it rapidly ascended later that decade to a peak of 31,000. So, as exceptional as these two Presidents were in many areas, it would seem that they were actually the most permissive of this marriage of the military establishment and the industrial sector in their unholy alliance that has decimated this nation.

Perhaps Eisenhower was speaking from a desire for forgiveness when, in his farewell address on January 17, 1961, he so fervently warned America to beware of this very entity.

Most people do not know, though, that President Eisenhower espoused a much different view in his little known presentation to the American Society of Newspaper Editors on April 16, 1953 who’s main theme was hailed by many as a blueprint for the end of the Cold War, but condemned by the Russians as a demand for complete and unconditional surrender.

Largely overlooked by most commentators was a second theme that Eisenhower had woven into his text. The essence of this theme was simplicity itself: spending on arms and armies is inherently undesirable. Even when seemingly necessary, it constitutes a misappropriation of scarce resources. By diverting social capital from productive to destructive purposes, war and the preparation for war deplete, rather than enhance, a nation’s strength. And while assertions of military necessity might camouflage the costs entailed, they can never negate them altogether.

“Every gun that is made,” Eisenhower told his listeners, “every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” Any nation that pours its treasure into the purchase of armaments is spending more than mere money. “It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.” To emphasize the point, Eisenhower offered specifics:

“The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities … We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. ”

These literary bookends to President Eisenhower’s two terms show us that this was a president who went into this august office without the belief in a permanent joining of the military with the industrial sector, but left office as a victim of that very complex. This tells me that this “military industrial complex” existed when he entered office and expanded greatly quite out of his ability to control it.

In support of this theory, I present Smedley Butler, a US Marine who later became an anti-war advocate, and talks a bit about the military-industrial complex.
“I’ve spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. ”
Based upon this quotation, which has been verified many times, it would be apparent that the military industrial complex has existed in America for a much longer period of time than President Eisenhower or many others believed.

Of course, that begs the question, “When did this unholy alliance begin?”; I theorize that it actually began at the start of the Civil War, at the hands of one President Abraham Lincoln.

There has been a quotation attributed to Abraham Lincoln; many say that he did not write it, and apparently this 1864 letter cannot be found — or has simply been destroyed? Possibly, but it reads like something a repentant Abraham Lincoln would write, so I believe that there is a preponderance of evidence that he did write this letter.

On Nov. 21, 1864 President Abraham Lincoln is said to have written a letter to Colonel William F. Elkins. He said,
“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”

Friends, would any of you be shocked if, at this point, I made the statement that our nation — and by extension, our Liberty — had been stolen from our forefathers by a group of corporations? Chief among them would be the DuPont Corporation, but there are and were many others.

As a result of President Eisenhower’s farewell speech, most people assume that the start of World War II ushered in the beginning of the military industrial complex.

Actually, it was Abraham Lincoln who first began the integration of the full-time military with the civilian arms manufacturing industry. President Eisenhower misspoke when he stated that until the latest of our world conflicts, the U.S. had no arms industry; the arms industry was a thriving business in America.

President Abraham Lincoln brought in scientists from all over the world to develop military technology. Thus, the American Civil War became known as the first modern war.

Probably the best known technological advancement of the Civil War was the USS Monitor. While it was not the first ironclad ship, it was the first to have a revolving turret. Other Union advances included the Gatling gun and improvements to rail and medical technology.

The South, due to it’s more agricultural economy, had little hope of matching the success of the North in developing military technology, but there were some notable exceptions. The CSS Hunley is considered the first modern submarine.

Additionally, the south produced the finest-quality gunpowder in the world at that time. A huge gunpowder manufacturing facility was constructed; it was ultra-modern for the time. To reduce the possibility of explosions, workers were dressed in white suits with rubber boots to eliminate static electricity discharges. Powder storage buildings were designed to contain and deflect explosions should they occur.

After the war, the DuPont Chemical Company demanded the North destroy the southern plant and buy their inferior-quality gunpowder instead.

The South also developed torpedoes and land mines. Other Union advances included electric fuses and hand grenades. Union scientists improved on the telegraph and aerial recon via balloon was developed too.

So, it was, in fact Lincoln who first began the Military/Industrial Complex which has been the largest purveyor of death and destruction for over a century.

And it is that same military industrial complex which has stolen our birthright in order to ensure itself a steady profit and guarantee it’s continued existence..

Open Letter to State Legislators Regarding the 17th Amendment

Thomas and I usually see eye to eye on Constitutional issues; and this latest post by Thomas is no exception!

Restoring the American Republic

The effectiveness and survival of any government depends upon the people’s confidence in its adherence to the principles to which they’re sworn. When a legislature strays from those principles they begin to lose that confidence and over time find the people increasingly agitated with the laws they’re being expected to comply with.

In America, our will is expressed within the Constitutions of both the state and federal governments; you’re sworn to uphold and follow them as you pass laws in pursuance thereof. If something needs to be changed, a power granted to allow certain legislation, then the Constitution needs to be amended by the people through their state legislatures in order to allow it… this is the proper order of things. The people of the states hold the power in America, not the state. In America the people retained their sovereignty and created the state to help secure the natural…

View original post 506 more words

Does The Supreme Court Interpret The Constitution?

“In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” –Thomas Jefferson

us-supreme-court-1The idea of the federal court system determining the constitutionality of laws has become as common as hot dogs and apple pie in America. Laws are constantly challenged regarding their constitutionality, and inevitably these challenges wind up being decided by a federal court. The common belief is that the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the U.S. Constitution.

The problem is, there is no place in the U.S. Constitution that gives the courts that kind of authority.

The judges of the British judiciary, during the time of the American Revolution, carried nearly as much power as the king. The smug old men wore their powdered wigs arrogantly. Save for the occasional kingly correction, the rulings of the judges were final. They served the aristocracy, and suppressed dissent. The law was interpreted by these powerful judges, especially when it was in accordance to the whims of the monarchy.

GW1782When George Washington was elected president of the United States, the people around him asked what he would like to be called. Your majesty? Your excellency? Your honor?

Washington told his admirers that Mr. President would be sufficient. Like most of the founders, Washington did not desire status for the sake of status. A lust for position was better left to the aristocrats of Britain, as far as Washington was concerned. No American was better than any other. Some were fortunate enough to serve the new country in an official capacity, but that opportunity belonged to anyone that should decide to pursue it. In America there was no aristocracy, no preferentially treated position of privilege, and no elite ruling class.

As a result of the founder’s negative opinion of elitism, the word “uniform” was used often in the U.S. Constitution. “All men are created equal” was more than just a phrase from the Declaration of Independence.

As with today, there were those back then that believed governments run best when guided by a political elite made up of educated aristocrats who have some hidden wisdom that enables them to recognize the presence of a General Will. These folks looked up to the British system of aristocracy, mercantilism, and empire. The only obstacle between these elitists, and empire, was the Constitution, and the vote of the people – which brings us back around to the courts.

The attempt to centralize the United States Government into a system reminiscent of the British system failed. Alexander Hamilton’s Bank of the United States did not work, and the political headway achieved through Adams’ presidency was all but erased when Thomas Jefferson won the presidency in the close election in 1800. Unable to achieve their statist end through political means, Hamilton, and his fellow big government cronies, turned to the judiciary, and more specifically, Chief Justice John Marshall.

During John Adams’ final moments in the presidency, he appointed a whole host of “midnight judges” (appointing 16 Federalist circuit judges and 42 Federalist justices of the peace to offices created by the Judiciary Act of 1801) in the hopes of retaining federalist control of the courts as Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans gained control of the Congress, and Jefferson himself accepted the presidency.

While Adams was still in office, most of the commissions for these newly appointed judges were delivered. However, unable to deliver all of them before Adams’ term expired, some of them were left to be delivered by the incoming Secretary of State, James Madison. Jefferson ordered them not to be delivered, and without the commissions delivered, the remaining new appointees were unable to assume the offices and duties to which they had been appointed to by Adams. In Jefferson’s opinion, the undelivered commissions were void.

supremecourt_imageOne of those judges was a man named William Marbury. He sued, and the case worked its way up to the Supreme Court. After all of the dust settled, on February 24, 1803, the Court rendered a unanimous (4-0) decision that Marbury had the right to his commission, but the court did not have the power to force Madison to deliver the commission. Chief Justice Marshall wrote the opinion of the court, and in that opinion he wrote that the federal court system has the power of judicial review. Rather than simply apply the law to the cases, Marshall had decided based on case law that the courts have the authority to determine the validity of the law as well. This opinion, however, went against all of the limitations placed on the courts by the Constitution.

One of the most obvious fundamental principles of the Constitution is the limitations it places on the federal government. The Constitution is designed not to tell the federal government what it can’t do, but to offer enumerated powers which the authorities of the federal government are limited to. The powers are granted by the States, and any additional authorities must also be granted by the States. The process by which this can be accomplished is through the amendment process. Remember, it takes 3/4 of the States to ratify an amendment.

The power of Judicial Review, or the authority to determine if laws are constitutional, was not granted to the courts by the States in the Constitution. The courts took that power upon themselves through Justice Marshall’s opinion of Marbury v. Madison.

Let’s think about this for a moment. The federal courts are a part of the federal government. The Constitution was designed to limit the authorities of the federal government by granting only a limited number of powers. Judicial Review enables the federal government, through the courts, to determine if the laws that the federal government made are constitutional. In other words, the federal government, through Judicial Review, can determine for itself what its own authorities are. The Supreme Court took that power for itself (and a government that takes power, or should I say “seizes” power, is a tyranny in my book).

Do you think that is in line with the limiting principles the Founding Fathers originally set forth?

So, the idea that the federal courts, or the United States Supreme Court, has the authority to interpret the Constitution, and can decide if a law is constitutional or not, is unconstitutional. The myth has been perpetuated by the courts in the attempt to gain power, and work towards a more centralized big federal governmental system.

Adapted from “The Political Pistachio Blog” By Douglas V. Gibbs

Original available at http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2011/04/myth-4-supreme-court-interprets.html

The Argument For Expulsion Of Islam From America

There are fundamental differences between the people from all nations who immigrated to America — different eras and different peoples… and very different intentions.

Immigrants_Behold_the_Statue_of_LibertyThe immigrants who came to America prior to about 1970, from virtually every nation on earth, came here because it WAS America — the Land of the Free, the Home of the Brave, and the wonderful land of opportunity.  If you worked hard and lived a good life, you could become absolutely anything you wanted to be.  They came to America, proudly learned English, and actually BECAME Americans.  They built America through hard work, determination, and a sense of morals.

1WMLjThe immigrants who came to America during the 1970’s, 1980’s and 1990’s were more of a hodge-podge.  The immigrants from the European and Communist countries still seemed to assimilate well, but then there were others — mainly from Viet Nam and Mexico — who didn’t; these immigrants, in large part, tended to establish small enclaves where they spoke their native languages and made only a token attempt at assimilation into the American landscape.  There were exceptions, but by and large, this was the rule.

Illegal-ImmigrationRecently, ever since the turn of the century, we here in America have seen a shift in the immigrant population — a decidedly negative shift.  Increasingly, immigrants from many nations have made no attempt to assimilate and become a part of the fabric of America.  The Mexican immigrants have virtually given up on coming to this country legally — the number of illegal Mexican immigrants outnumber the legal variety by a ratio of 15 or more to 1.  They refuse to assimilate at all — many, if not most, refuse to speak English; these “immigrants”, where ever they end up at in America, tend to form their own communities where only Spanish is spoken and the scent of chili, beans and other decidedly Mexican foods is the only smell in the “barrio”.

Ggroup of interdenominational religious leaders and their supporters gather outside Islamic Center of America mosque to rally for peace in Dearborn, MichiganThe other problematic group are the immigrants from the Muslim, or Islamic, nations.  These immigrants virtually completely refuse to assimilate into the American culture, forming large tight-knit communities in most American cities.  While most of them learn functional English, they only utilize our language when speaking to an American.  These immigrants also refuse to observe the American system of laws, observing instead their own “Shariah” system of (for want of a better word) “jurisprudence”.

This last group of immigrants pose the most danger to the American way of life.

Hassan NasrallahEven though these immigrants claim to be peaceful, even a cursory study of their so-called “Holy” literature quickly proves that — at the proper time — they are anything but peaceful.  These “immigrants” are, in fact, the advance contingent of a massive invasion force which is in the process of destroying our way of life and turning America into the “Caliphate” that is the goal of all Muslims and followers of “Allah”.

628x471While these immigrants claim that Islam is a religion, in reality it is anything but; Islam is ruled by the law that they call “Shariah” — a compete societal structure, codified over the centuries and interpreted by so-called “Imams” who attempt to compare themselves to the spiritual leaders of actual major religions.

The-Satanic-VersesIn reality, Islam is a cult that can only be considered Satanic; Islam, as a social structure, is bathed in blood, gore, injustice and debauchery.  The “god” that Islam worships — based upon the teachings of the Koran — bears a striking resemblance to Satan in his demands and instructions to his disciples.

Islamic Jihad militants attend the funeral of their comrade Arafat in Khan Younisislam-dominatesThe main tenet of Islam, though, is that all “Infidels” are to be killed if they refuse to submit to their Satanic “god”; an exception to this requirement exists for those “Infidels” who are willing to exist in a condition of stark slavery.  This tenet cannot be denied — their so-called “Holy” men have been teaching this for centuries; it is historically documented fact, and no amount of denial by them can refute the truth of their actions.

America has only two choices.

653034206466482420130205_muslims_pray_capitol_largeAmerica can continue to accept these immigrants at the alarming page at which they have been entering until such time as they become the majority in America.  Once that has happened, these internal enemies will — as they are currently doing in Sweden and other nations — begin violent action to completely take over these nations and turn them into Islamic Republics.

kick-a-muslim-300x270On the other hand, America can wake up now and evict these enemies — by deadly force if necessary — before they become so numerous that they have the upper hand.

But it needs to be done VERY soon, because they are almost at the point of no return.

James Madison Rebukes Nullification Deniers

This is an excellent expansion of my own basic comments!

Publius-Huldah's Blog

By Publius Huldah

This is The Age of Ignorance. Our “intellectuals” can’t think.  Our “scholars” parrot each other. The self-educated fixate on idiotic theories.  Our People despise Truth and disseminate lies.

Nullification deniers such as Matthew Spalding of Heritage Foundation, Jarrett Stepman of Human Events, law professor Randy BarnettDavid Barton of Wallbuilders, and history professor Allen C. Guelzo, say that nullification by States of unconstitutional acts of the federal government is unlawful and impossible. They make the demonstrably false assertions that:

♦  States don’t have the right to nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal   government because our Constitution doesn’t say they can do it;

  Nullification is literally impossible;

The supreme Court is the final authority on what is constitutional and what is not; and The States and The People must submit to whatever the supreme Court says; and


View original post 6,279 more words