REAL ID- MORE Than Just Drivers License Control and Expanding Rapidly

Bookmark and Share Posted by Florida TAC Updates

Written by Mark Lerner

REAL ID is not simply about drivers licenses. The end game is complete biometric authentication of our identifications, our locations and our comings and goings. In this article Mark explains why the entire catalogue of 37 REAL ID benchmarks is the ultimate goal of the federal government. These benchmarks will be included in other bills when necessary to thwart those State attempts that successfully and specifically thwart REAL ID implementation. Information and intrusions realized with benchmark compliance is likely to be shared with other countries in addition to all domestic government agencies. In this admittedly lengthy article, Mark exposes the Orwellian architecture planned by the federal government to know all of our personal information and whereabouts. He also discusses where the States are in the progression of REAL ID and suggest some ways of combating this evil. Watch for our follow up article coming soon… ************************************************************************************************************* The Real ID Act is a symptom, not the disease!!! It is growing like a weed How much can we do in the defense of a free and decent society and remain a free and decent society that is worth defending? — John le Carré I know time is precious to each of us. With that said we expect and want our elected leaders to take the time to read legislation before voting on it. This raises an interesting question; are we as citizens willing to take the time to become informed about arguably one of the most serious threats to our freedom since the founding of our country or do we just want sound bites? Are you willing to spend the time it would take you to cook a steak for a Lifetime of Freedom? “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” –Thomas Paine What is the Real ID status of my state? One of the most often questions I am asked is what is the Real ID status of the state the person lives in who is asking me the question. The following link is to a web-site provided by an organization that fully embraces the Real ID Act 2005. Once on the webpage the link provides, you will see a chart that you can click on to find the status of your state http://www.cis.org/real-id-implementation-report . Review this chart and decide for yourself if Real ID is dead. Underestimating your enemy is one thing but declaring your enemy dead is another. I have read the headlines “Real ID is Dead”, “We have Won”, “Half the States Reject Real ID” and on and on. Few listened and even fewer understood when the Constitutional Alliance, an organization I co-founded, warned all citizens to disregard the headlines and stay focused. Real ID is not dead. In fact it is arguably thriving. This document will provide corroborated information that will allow you to make informed decisions and provides action recommendations Real ID is a symptom, not the disease! It is one example of what our federal governments’ true goal is; to know everything about everybody. You may think I am overstating what the goal of the federal government is. If you believe that to be the case I provide the following link to a video of a conference held by the Aspen Institute http://www.aspeninstitute.org/video/asf-10-luncheon-address-fran-townsend-former-assistant-president-homeland-security-counterterr The video is one hour long but allow me to summarize. People need to “Get over it” when they their personal information is asked for and collected for one reason and then used for other purposes. “Privacy is not important to young people”. I am not sure you would want to watch the video because your beliefs about how our government protects our Constitutional rights would be changed forever. The people that attended the conference are the policy makers of past years, now and will be in the future. On 23 March 2012 our government changed the rules again as the rules pertain to retaining information about innocent citizens http://www.gsnmagazine.com/node/25912?c=federal_agencies_legislative Biometrics Biometrics play a large role in our government’s goal of knowing everything about everyone. Biometric capture or collection is required as the first benchmark that states have to achieve under the Real ID Act 2005. Biometric can defined as measurements of the body. There is both behavioral and physiological biometrics. Fingerprints, iris scans, facial recognition, DNA are examples of physiological biometrics. An example of a behavioral biometric would be a person’s gait; they way they walk. This paper will focus on Facial Recognition Technology. Facial recognition does not require the consent or knowledge of individuals when being used. Facial recognition works by measuring the distance between key facial characteristics of a person’s face. What is the Real ID Act 2005? Since we all vary in our level of understanding of the Real ID Act, I am going to start with the basics and work my way to where we are at today The Real ID Act 2005 is incorporated into Public Law 109-13 (109th Congress) http://epic.org/privacy/id_cards/real_id_act.pdf Real ID establishes minimum federal guidelines for the issuance of state driver’s licenses and state issued identification cards for those that do not drive. After 9/11, the 9/11 Commission made recommendations regarding the issuance of state driver’s licenses. I am not going into great detail of what tactics were used to ensure the Real ID Act 2005 was passed and signed into law by President Bush on May 11, 2005. Suffice it to say there was no debate in the U.S. Senate about the Real ID Act 2005. Real ID was packaged with two other pieces of legislation that were considered “must pass” pieces of legislation; one was military spending authorization legislation and the other was Tsunami relief legislation. This “package” of legislation passed in the U.S. Senate 100-0. Senator Patrick Leahy used the word “bullying” to describe the manner in which DHS (Department of Homeland Security) was coercing states into complying with Real ID http://cqresearcherblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/in-news-senate-panel-criticizes.html Over 600 groups and organizations covering the entire political spectrum opposed the Real ID Act 2005 for a variety of reasons. For example; the type of documents needed to obtain a Real ID compliant driver’s license, mandated biometric collection, First, Fourth and Tenth Amendment issues, and what I find as objectionable as anything else, which is the authority the Secretary of Homeland Security is given to determine at his or hers own discretion what “Official Purposes” a Real ID compliant driver’s license would be required for. Currently these official purposes include “accessing Federal facilities, boarding Federally-regulated commercial aircraft, and entering nuclear power plants.” http://constitutionalalliance.org/work/filemgmt_data/files/Stop%20Real%20ID%20Coalition%20-%20DHS%20-%20DHS%20Real%20ID%20Final%20Rules%20Part%201%20and%202.pdf (page 14) The Secretary of DHS has unfettered authority to add to the “Official Purposes” that require a Real ID compliant driver’s license. Examples include; purchasing a gun or ammunition, picking up prescription medicine, attending public events or anything else the Secretary would like. The Secretary is not required to have the approval of the Congress to add other “Official Purposes”. The following wording is contained in the Final Rules on page 37 of the Real ID Act issued January 2008 by DHS: “DHS does not agree that it must seek the approval of Congress as a prerequisite to changing the definition in the future (except of course to remove one of the three statutorily-mandated official purposes) as Sec. 201(3) of the Act gives discretion to the Secretary of Homeland Security to determine other purposes.” http://constitutionalalliance.org/work/filemgmt_data/files/Stop%20Real%20ID%20Coalition%20-%20DHS%20-%20DHS%20Real%20ID%20Final%20Rules%20Part%201%20and%202.pdf The Constitutional Alliance sponsored an event at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. The event was organized to discuss the Real ID Act. When was the last time anyone can remember when the ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice) and the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) stood side by side to oppose the federal government? It doesn’t happen often but Real ID has a way of uniting a variety of people in their opposition. (You can watch the short 10 minute video which is a snapshot of the hour long event by visiting the Constitutional Alliance http://constitutionalalliance.org/work/ web-site. The video is located at the very bottom of this page.) The ACLU spokesperson talked specifically about protecting the religious rights of Christians. The ACLJ, a Christian legal advocacy group addressed the threat mandated global biometric enrollment presents to all citizens and the issue of international organizations influencing U.S. policy and law. Regarding religious freedoms, I have appeared on Trinity Broadcast Network, The Church Channel and the Daystar television network to discuss global biometric enrollment and the threat is presents to the Church. If you are interested, you can watch a short video that summarizes what I had said about global biometric enrollment and biblical prophecy http://constitutionalalliance.org/work/article.php/20111007231048377 Incorporated into the federal guidelines of the Real ID Act is an international standard for the digital facial image/photograph. AAMVA (American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators) is named the “hub” and “backbone” of the Real ID Act by DHS in the Final Rules for the Real ID Act issued by DHS in January 2008. AAMVA, by its own admission, is an international organization. http://www.aamva.org/ There are 18 material compliance benchmarks states are told to meet by 15 January 2013. Once a state has met the benchmarks, the Governor and the state Attorney General submit a statement affirming the state is in material compliance with the benchmarks and thus Real ID. DHS then approves the state placing a “Gold Star” on the state driver’s license or state issued identification card for those that do not drive. This is the appropriate time to discuss/summarize a hearing that took place 21 March 2012 in the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. It is important for all citizens to know what ideas those that are pushing Real ID are conjuring up to force states to comply with the Real ID Act 2005. This link http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/Hearings%202012/hear_030212012.html will take you to the Subcommittee’s video of the hearing (the hearing was over 1 hour 15 minutes long, it may take a few minutes to download; since I am summarizing the video in this document, you may, if you choose, not watch the video): http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/Hearings%202012/hear_030212012.html 1) One suggestion was made that states payback grant money they have received if they do not meet the 15 January 2013 deadline to be in material compliance. 2) Darrell Williams, the former Program Director of the Real ID Act for DHS admitted that even if citizens did not have a Real ID compliant driver’s license they WOULD NOT be prohibited from flying on a commercial airliner. This implies those without Real ID compliant driver’s licenses will undergo additional screening procedures. One can only be left to think the same will apply for those that want to enter a federal facility. 3) David Heyman, Assistant Secretary Office of Policy, DHS stated there is NO intention to extend the January 2013 deadline for states. 4) DHS expects to have additional guidance ready for states in a couple of weeks. 5) Stuart Baker, formerly with DHS stated that 40 plus states can meet the January 2013 deadline. Mr. Baker also stated that a method/penalty must be found to ensure states meet the January 2013 deadline. A couple of Democrats on the committee had strong reservations about continuing to push Real ID. It is my assessment that Republicans, especially Congressman Sesenbrenner, the author of the Real ID Act, intends to accuse Democrats of being soft on fighting terrorism if Democrats resist Real ID implementation. What if the Real ID Act is repealed? Many citizens would be very happy if the Real ID Act was repealed. I say, not so fast. Real ID is comprised of 39 benchmarks, not just the first 18 benchmarks that states are supposed to meet by January 2013. Those 39 benchmarks are the ingredients of Real ID. Real ID is just the name of the law that is comprised of these 39 benchmarks. Repealing Real ID, the law, would not preclude those benchmarks from being utilized in existing or yet to be developed law. And this exactly what would be done if “Real ID” was repealed http://constitutionalalliance.org/work/filemgmt_data/files/Constitutional_Alliance-39_Benchmarks_to_Full_Real_ID_Compliance.pdf In nearly every instance that states have passed a law or resolution prohibiting participation in Real ID, the states specifically stated “Real ID Act” by name and did not address the issue of the 39 benchmarks specifically. If Congress repealed Real ID tomorrow and moved the benchmarks into new legislation under a different name, all the state legislation opposing Real ID would be neutered. We are now at a point in time this year where it is too late for state legislatures to take up new legislation that would be required if Congress was to repeal Real ID and incorporate the benchmarks into new legislation or by amending section 7212 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act. If this should occur any rulemaking process would most likely be limited to six months; well before most state legislatures would be able to react next year. Keep in mind that the Real ID Act 2005 repealed section 7212 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act of 2004. http://www.nctc.gov/docs/pl108_458.pdf Section 7212 deals specifically with the issuance of state driver’s licenses. If Real ID were repealed, at the very least we would be left again with Section 7212. The first benchmark of Section 7212 is the same first benchmark of the Real ID Act; a digital facial image. The digital facial required by the Real ID Act is not just any digital facial image but one specifically captured/taken (pixel count/resolution) for biometric use or capability such as for facial recognition. Real ID is more than just “national ID” Many people refer to Real ID as national ID. Contrary to the opinion of those that support Real ID, the Real ID Act does create a de facto national ID. Even worse, it creates an international ID as well. I encourage people not to look at Real ID Act as simply a driver’s license issue but more to the point, the centralization of citizen’s personal information via direct electronic access or indirect access to state DMV databases by the federal government and/or the surrogates of the federal government including especially data mining companies. “Law enforcement agencies that rely on DMV databases daily include the US Department of State; the US Department of Justice; the US Department of Homeland Security; the Postal and Inspection Service; the Department of Defense; the US Secret Service; the Department of the Army; the US Coast Guard; the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children; the Department of the Interior; the Veterans Administration; the National Insurance Crime Bureau; the Federal Protective Service; the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; Amtrak; and many others.” http://www.drivers.com/article/971/ The goal of our government and the government of other countries is total worldwide biometric enrollment. On page 68 of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the Real ID Act 2005 released in March, 2007, by the Department of Homeland Security appears a footnote that reads as follows: “17 The relevant ICAO standard is ICAO 9303 Part 1 Vol 2, specifically ISO/IEC 19794-5 – Information technology – Biometric data interchange formats – Part 5: Face image data, which is incorporated into ICAO 9303”. The ICAO is the International Civil Aviation Organization, an agency of the United Nations. There is only one reason for international standards and the reliance of international organizations to implement U.S. law and that is to facilitate global information sharing. Consider these next two quotes. The first quote comes from Robert Mocny, speaking on behalf of DHS: “…information sharing is appropriate around the world…” and DHS plans to create a “Global Security Envelope of internationally shared biometric data that would permanently link individuals with biometric ID, personal information held by governments and corporations.” http://www.gcn.com/print/26_03/43061-1.html Julian Ashbourn speaking as the Chairman of the International Biometrics Foundation believes we need, “a global agency with global powers”. http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/emerging-tech/2005/10/21/experts-call-for-global-biometrics-agency-39232717/ Nlets (National Law Enforcement Telecommunication System) has changed its name to The International Justice & Public Safety Network. This information sharing system/network raises several questions including most importantly who has direct or indirect electronic access to state DMV databases and exactly what information can be shared. http://www.nlets.org/ Interpol, the international law enforcement agency is just one international organization who provides information. Whether law enforcement agencies from other countries have direct or indirect access to The International Justice & Public Safety Network remains a question unanswered. Under the Real ID Act states are required to capture a digital facial image/photo specifically utilizing a standard for use with facial recognition technology/software. Could a foreign country or Interpol use photos in state DMV databases to identify and track U.S. citizens abroad using CCTV and facial recognition software? The following provides some insight what the goal is: “Currently, 27 states are in production to share driver’s license and corrections images, with eight more scheduled for development in 2011-2012. Nlets hopes to further spread this capability to all 50 states and each of the U.S. territories, as the individual states become technically able to do so. This job will not be done and, Nlets will continue working with each state and grant funders until this important capability is implemented in every state.” http://federalcrimesblog.com/tag/lpr/ L-1 Identity Solutions produces nearly every driver’s license in the U.S. and is the largest biometric provider in our country: http://ir.l1id.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=462879 Two years ago L-1 Identity Solutions entered into an agreement with the World Bank to enroll countries, developed and underdeveloped into this global system of identification. Last year L-1 was sold to Safran, a French company owned 30% by the French government, who has an admitted forty year partnership with Red China. Check with your DMV because L-1 has access to some state DMV databases, thus your personal information: http://ir.l1id.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=462879 You may want to know, or at least find it interesting to know, who has been part of L-1 either as employees or as members of their Board of Directors or the company that L-1 morphed from, Viisage Technology. These people include directors of the FBI, CIA, TSA and more including Frank Moss who was responsible for the State Department’s E- Passport (biometrics and RFID) program. They have all been paid in some manner (on Board of Directors or paid employees) by Viisage/L-1. When you have the time, read this article titled “The Revolving Door That Never Stops Turning”. http://constitutionalalliance.org/work/article.php/20110916125127810 By the way – the person who represented Safran, the French company, as their strategic advisor in Safran’s purchase of L-1 Identity Solutions was none other than former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff. “The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. [...] The capacity to assert social and political control over the individual will vastly increase. It will soon be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and to maintain up-to-date, complete files, containing even most personal information about the health or personal behavior of the citizen in addition to more customary data. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.” Zbigniew Brzezinski (1970 book – Titled “Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era) Real ID is mandatory; there is nothing states or citizens can do right? READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE AT: http://constitutionalalliance.org/work/filemgmt_data/files/Real%20ID%20is%20a%20Symptom.pdf Mark Lerner is the founder of http://stoprealidcoalition.com/ He is a recognized expert on REAL ID. Mark has testified before Congress and has also testified before more than twenty state legislatures.

 

Your Vice President spells our state thusly, Road Island; others in the same administration spell America as it is spelled in the title. DON’T BELIEVE IT? –  READ THEIR OWN LETTERS AND WHITE PAPERS. This should raise a red flag.

For those of you still in denial or fear, so much so that you just throw you hands up in the air and say “what can I do about it?” or, “that’s just what government does”, or, “I don’t want to get involved” – WAKE UP AND BE AN AMERICAN. We’ve reached the eleventh hour regarding our freedom here in Rhode Island and across the country and still I hear these cowardly excuses for not taking action. IT IS YOUR DUTY AS AN AMERICAN TO TAKE ACTION AND BRING FORTH CHANGE FROM A GOVERNMENT THAT’S OUT OF CONTROL IN THEIR MANIPULATION OF OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENTS AND IN NEAR TOTAL CONTROL OF ALL OF US WITH THEIR UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS. The remedy is in our Declaration Of Independence, Constitution and in our hands. READ THESE DOCUMENTS, then go look in the mirror, grow a pair and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. This blog exists for the people, if you’re not sure what to do, contact us. If you still remain on the sidelines, then you’re part of the problem.

 

SAMPLE RESOLUTION TO BE INTRODUCED TO GOVERNOR CHAFEE

AND THE RI GENERAL ASSEMBLY

 

RESOLUTION FEBRUARY 15, 2012

WHEREAS, many citizens across the United States and Ocean County have raised

concerns that the United Nations Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of extreme

environmentalism, social engineering and global political control initiated at the

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de

Janeiro, Brazil in 1992; and

WHEREAS, these citizens are concerned that the United Nations Agenda 21 is being

covertly pushed into local communities throughout the United States of America

through the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) through

local "sustainable development" policies; and

WHEREAS, Agenda 21 attempts to erode the local control found in our communities

across the nation, and turns home and regional rule over to a global agenda set by

the United Nations, and

WHEREAS, this United Nations Agenda 21 plan of radical so-called "sustainable

development" views the American way of life of private property ownership, single

family homes, private car ownership and individual travel choices, and privately

owned farms; all as destructive to the environment; and

WHEREAS, critical issues such as the environment and green energy, should remain

within the purview of the local governments of the United States, elected by the

people, with a strong knowledge of local concerns and issues, not within the

confines of a bureaucratic international treaty developed by the United Nations, and

WHEREAS, according to Agenda 21 policy, social justice is described as the right and

opportunity of all people to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by

society and the environment which would be accomplished by socialist/communist

redistribution of wealth; and

 WHEREAS, according to the United Nations agenda 21 policy, national sovereignty is

deemed a social injustice.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS of the COUNTY OF

OCEAN, STATE OF NEW JERSEY hereby joins concerned citizens in recognizing the

destructive and insidious nature of United Nations Agenda 21 and urges the U.S.

Senate to abandon any potential consideration to ratifying such a plan, which would

ultimately destroy the sovereignty of the United States of America.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the U.S. government and no state or local government is

legally bound by the United Nations Agenda 21 treaty in that it has never been

endorsed by the U.S. Senate.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the federal, state and local governments across the

country be well informed of the underlying harmful implications of the

implementation of United Nations Agenda 21.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certified copies of the Resolution shall be forwarded to

President Barack Obama, Governor Chris Christie and the N.J. U.S. Senators and

Congressmen.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk7FIdwAM88&feature=related

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRm3c8PXLF4&feature=fvwrel

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0mCMfC8UmI&feature=related

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Declaration of Independence states in its second paragraph that “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.” When it comes to the Rights of the people, our Declaration of Independence is the founding document to follow. In our Republic – “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” When it comes to powers delegated by the people to “any Form of Government,” it is both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that apply. The Declaration institutes governments among men, the Constitution enumerates powers delegated to those governments with Life,Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness forged in the pursuit “to form a more perfect union.” While the title of this essay may be offensive to some, they should be reminded that to live inAmerica carries an individual responsibility to not only secure our rights, but to enforce the delegation of powers we have consented to governments. Lastly, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”

Knowing our founding documents removes a plethora of misunderstood issues by the American people as a result of Supreme Court rulings in violation of Separation of Powers. Congress has abdicated its’ responsibilities under our Constitution to the executive branch and both have abdicated to the Supreme Court in many, different ways. Recognized as the ‘greatest case of the twentieth century’, Brown v. Board of Education, 1953 was the culmination of years of litigation that proved to be the defining event of modern American Constitutional law. In MSNBC’s piece by Melissa Harris-Perry, she accuses Republican presidential candidates Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich of “sly racism” because of their campaigning on the tenth amendment. “States’ rights becomes a cover for talking about the ability to remove the rights of some American citizens,” she said here and on MSNBC’s Politics Nation. First of all, Ms. Harris-Perry, states don’t have rights, people do; states have powers, given them by the people. Secondly, you are contributing to the destructive ends of dividing the people by claiming that states ‘rights’ are somehow responsible for the removal of some rights of American citizens. Rights can’t remove rights, but rights can remove powers. In our Constitutional Republic, under both the ninth and tenth amendments, the people retain their rights, granting the states certain powers; which the people are responsible for monitoring. Had Ms. Harris-Perry bothered to review history, she may have stumbled upon Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 decision that declared the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment satisfied by a Louisiana (a state) law that required equal but separate accommodations for black and white railroad passengers. Since that time and until Brown, much of the litigation came from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); and was designed to persuade the Supreme Court to overrule the 1896 Plessy decision. How odd!

Reverend Al Sharpton declares: “Last time I checked, the federal government trumped states’ rights — and good thing they did or else we would still be sitting in “separate but equal” facilities, and still be barred from participating in much of society.” Apparently not reverend, as shown in Plessy; but there’s more the reverend is missing. Our founding is based on the states agreeing to a compact (our Constitution) that delegates powers to a federal government, which the states created for expressed purposes (Article I, section 8); and under the Tenth Amendment, all powers not delegated are reserved to the states or to the people. The question must be asked then, why would the NAACP, at a state level (see Sharptons’ argument below) seek to overturn Plessy which ruled favorably on equality? Furthermore, why would Austin NAACP president Nelson Linder back a white Republican Congressman? What is the NAACP trying to accomplish – more division among the people? Why not just follow what’s stated in our founding documents, in particular the Declaration of Independence?

Ditto to Reverend Sharpton who speaks here of “the values that we hold so dearly” as Americans. Sir, the values that we hold so dearly are contained in our founding documents; so the question is, why do you not even mention the Constitution or Declaration of Independence in your argument? If, as above, you truly subscribe to these “values”, you would be arguing in favor of our founding documents, not divisive Supreme Court rulings over the last 150 years that have violated our Constitution, circumvented the very authority entrusted to them and are therefore also in violation of the Separation of Powers clause. You see, this is all very simple, We The People must enforce a return to, not reform of our founding documents.America is not broken, it is being taken over.

With regards to the healthcare issue Reverend, again We The People refer you to the Constitution, not the Supreme Court. The purpose of the Constitution charges We The People with its’ enforcement and does not permit the federal government to force the people to buy anything; i.e. the individual mandate in Obamacare. If “creating affordable options” is what this is all about, competition and freedom for the individual to choose in a free market is what will bring premiums and healthcare costs down. Why continue to divide the people in this way when close to 80% of the American people have rejected Obamacare (rejected here and lack of confidence of individual mandate here)? We The People need to ask ourselves why neither Ms. Harris-Perry or Reverend Sharpton ever once mention our Constitution or Declaration of Independence. Could it be because they are in opposition to them? All of their arguments would seem to indicate exactly that, yet one NAACP chapter president apparently sees it much differently.

Reverend Sharpton talks about another case making its way to the Supreme Court and wonders why our nations highest court is becoming more and more conservative. Again without referencing the Constitution, if he’s really concerned about “the values we hold so dearly,” it baffles the mind how he could support attorney general Eric Holder, who last October came under investigation for his alleged part in gun trafficking (Fast and Furious) to Mexican drug cartels in exchange for bringing drugs into to United States. Reverend, why do you think Arizona governor Jan Brewer took her immigration bill, S.B. 1070 to the Supreme Court? Our southern borders are practically wide open, the U.S. attorney general is under investigation for this and other high crimes against the American people, the federal government is ignoring Article I, section 8 of our Constitution and you say: “Make no mistake, these two Supreme Court cases are clear attempts to diminish our federal government and lay the groundwork to give states more authority to do as they please.” He goes on to say, “These two Supreme Court cases are an attempt by some to slowly undo the very foundation of justice and equality in the country.” Reverend, you had ‘equality’ under Plessy and the NAACP backed reversing that decision. History has a way of making fools of those who don’t read it.

In conclusion, Americans need to be Americans; not blacks or whites, not liberals or conservatives, not Democrats or Republicans. Our founders understood what that means, which is why they drafted first the Declaration of Independence, then the Constitution. Separation of Powers must also be understood and deferring legislative and executive powers to the Judiciary will only continue to divide us. When the ‘fourth branch of government’, the establishment media frames their propaganda in divisive ways, ask yourself why. We The People are on to the establishment agenda, which is why they are frantically trying to remove the last of our God-given rights. This is about control of the individual, so learn the responsibility that goes along with being an American. Remember Sally Louisa Tompkins, “the little lady with the milk-white hands” (b. approx. Nov 9, 1833) who opened her home and heart to the wounded soldiers (black and white) of the war between the north and south at a time when women were discouraged from such actions because of the horrors of war. Now there’s an American.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-al-sharpton/supreme-court-federal-rights_b_1192511.html

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/msnbcer-gop-appeals-1860-segregationist-past/309846

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by Tenth Amendment

• 
• EmailShare
• Share on Tumblr
• inShare

By: Doug Berge

Apparently Rick Santorum is cut from the same fabric as Barack Obama when it comes to congressional declarations of war, as required by the Constitution.

On Jan. 9, Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum spoke outside MaryAnn’s Café in Manchester, N.H. Once inside, the former Pennsylvania senator told one customer that he would use a strategic military strike against Iran, claiming that this strike would not be considered an act of war. When the customer asked Santorum if he would ask for authorization from Congress to initiate a military strike, Santorum said he would consult Congress, but didn’t need to ask permission because Obama didn’t need permission to strike Libya.

Santorum engages in some “fuzzy math.” He apparently thinks two wrongs somehow make a right. Santorum sounds more like a third-grader justifying his position to little Jonnie regarding the rules in the playground. Only this is about American soldiers’ lives and Americas’ future. And the last time we checked a “strategic military strike” was an act of war.

Article I, section 8, clause 11 of the United States Constitution says, “The Congress shall have power…To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” Nothing in our Constitution gives the president the power to unilaterally order a strategic military strike the way we’ve seen in recent years.

A good offense might make a good defense, but the Constitution is the Constitution, and a good offense requires a declaration of war from Congress.

The War Powers Act of 1973 states in section 2, paragraph (a), “It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.” Paragraph (c) states; “The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

The first question that immediately comes to mind here is: if the War Powers Act was really passed with the intent stated – “It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States” – then why even bother with the Act? Just follow the Constitution. If The War Powers Act is the document that Obama and Santorum argue justifies their actions, then why do they violate, or in Santorums’ case advocate violating, paragraph (c) numbers one and three?

Obama defiantly violated the Constitution when he initiated offensive military action against Libya without a declaration of war. Santorum clearly intends to follow the same path with Iran. After all, it must be OK. Obama did it. This raises the question: what difference exists between Obama and Santorum.

Answer: none.

Two peas in a war  pod.

A look at Obamas’ and Santorums’ voting records reveals a fundamental similarity between these two supposed antagonists. They both repeatedly violated the Constitution.

The “fourth branch of government,” aka the establishment media (in this case the NY Times and here and here) justifies their actions, declaring that “more power has lodged in the white house than on capitol Hill.” Funny thing, this was clearly not the intention of the framers.

James Madison expressed his distrust of the executive branch, especially in the realm of war powers, many times. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, Madison wrote.

“The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature.”

As with all unconstitutional acts, executive orders and provisions buried in lengthy legislation, designed to circumvent the Constitution, sponsors and supporters of these bills seek a ruling in their favor from the Supreme Court of the United States to justify their position. Further, when the Supreme Court rules in favor of these unconstitutional Acts, all three branches of government are in violation of our Constitution.

So much for balance of power.

Pundits constantly play up the supposed conflict between the two parties, portraying them as polar opposites. But when it comes to violating the Constitutional delegation of war powers, they generally draw up their strategy from the same playbook. Obama and Santorum illustrate this reality.

Two peas in a war pod.

Doug Berge [send him email] is the state chapter coordinator for the Rhode Island Tenth Amendment Center.

                                                            

                                                           Debates Revisited

 

                                                       

For true American patriots who believe in our U.S. Constitution, you must be thoroughly outraged by one particular event that occurred this past Saturday night during the GOP debates inManchester,NH. And as a true American patriot, you know that it is a sworn duty for a president (or any elected or appointed rep, military, police, etc.) to uphold his oath to the Constitution. So the first question is…Would you vote for a candidate for president who all but admits not knowing the Constitution well enough to answer a question that he may have before him if elected? Embarrassing? You bet, but more importantly, frightening. As the race for the GOP nomination heats up, it becomes more and more apparent who the true American Patriot and Constitutional candidate(s) are. All the candidates should be scrutinized a great deal by the American public, regardless of their positions or beliefs. While those elected have a duty to uphold their oaths they swore to the Constitution, we the electorate also have a duty to inform ourselves sufficiently about each candidate, primarily through his voting record. It is on this basis, not on party or ‘electability’ or ‘being presidential’ that we decide who we think will uphold the principles and values upon which this country was founded. All the remaining candidates are or have been in public office, which means they all swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and defendAmericafrom all enemies foreign and domestic. To stray from this criteria of our founding indicates a false patriot who obviously sides with big government and control of the people.

 

If you are following the campaigns and perhaps the debates, you have already discovered who the frontrunner is in some of the polls. And if you’re really listening and watching what’s going on, you would know that it was the frontrunner, that’s right, Mitt Romney, who deferred, on stage, to one of his colleagues on the Constitutional question of states’ ‘rights’ regarding contraception. Journalist George Stephanopoulos’ question was, “Do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception or is that trumped by a Constitutional right to privacy?” To start with Mr. Stephanopoulos, states don’t have rights, people do. States have powers. Also, the Constitution doesn’t establish rights, so a “Constitutional right to privacy” (Stephanopoulos) is an inaccurate statement. The Constitution prevents the government from infringement upon the peoples’ right (among others) to privacy without probable cause or a warrant. Romneys’ answer: “There’s no state that wants to do so… and I don’t know of any candidate that wants to do so if you’re asking if it could Constitutionally be done…we can ask our Constitutionalist here…uh.…” (pointing to Ron Paul next to him). So the obvious question is, do we want a president who does not know and therefore probably does not understand Americas’ ‘law-of-the-land’ when it comes to the peoples’ right to privacy? What about Americans’ other rights? How could he possibly work towards what Americans want and need most if he doesn’t understand their rights and the document that restricted government therefore enablingAmerica to grow to the most prosperous nation in the world in the shortest time period? Wouldn’t it follow, then, that the former governor of Massachusetts, who wrote the template for ‘Obamacare’, which close to 80% of Americans reject; could not possibly understand or work towards what America needs and wants now? Further, don’t you just love the way Romney speaks passively about job creation, as though it is the governments’ responsibility to create jobs in the first place? It wasn’t government that built this country, it was its’ citizens and their creative ideas. A little bit of a history lesson is all it takes to recognize that one man nor any government can’t fix Americas’ problems since IT IS the government that created the problems in the first place; too much government intervention in our lives.

 

The common thread throughout the manufactured collapse ofAmericahas been a gross lack of understanding our Constitution, both by government and the people (as demonstrated by Stephanopoulos). It is the people who have the right to do something about it, but in many cases don’t even know they do. Whether it’s jobs, spending, limited government or individual rights, Americans have the capacity, in fact it is a responsibility, to maintain their freedom, create ideas, obtain wealth and keep it. The ONLY restriction We The People must enforce on ourselves is to not allow infringement on anothers’ rights. We’re all aware of the Golden Rule and as free and sovereign individuals who want to remain so, it is our responsibility to treat each other fairly, with respect and dignity and as equals. The Constitution is also our responsibility to enforce and if you think about it, it is certainly in our best interest to do so since it was designed to limit governments’ intrusion into our lives. A free Republic cannot survive otherwise, so those who can’t live by the Declaration of Independence should leave; just like a government at any level that doesn’t uphold its sworn oath to our Constitution should also leave, or be removed from office.

 

As regular readers of this site know, we are dedicated to discovering the truth about this and every issue it cites, while helping inform the people as to how to go about documenting and finding evidence that backs it up. And while truth is stranger than fiction, it is also much scarier and shocking. That doesn’t mean that every American who truly cares about his country and the future of their family is afraid or avoids the truth. But as has been repeatedly pointed out here, many just don’t want to discover the truth for fear of it or are more comfortable staying on the sidelines, therefore remaining ignorant and uninformed. On a positive note, more and more Americans are starting to wake from their government and media induced trance to take action. THAT’S what builtAmericaand what it will take to take it back. Look in the mirror and if you don’t like whatAmericahas been turned into, do something about it.

 

A final note on Mr. Romneys disturbing gesture and juvenile behavior last Saturday. The REALLY sickening part of witnessing this ‘abdication’ of potential future responsibility to American citizens was the simplicity and utter disregard with which such an important responsibility was so easily dismissed. HeyMassachusetts, did your former governor show you the same disrespect for your rights and freedoms under the Massachusetts Constitution? Do we really want a potential future president to be one who is ignorant of our countries’ Constitution or constantly defending his position and record because he doesn’t tell the truth?

                                                  

                                                    Understanding Intent

 As Americans continue to fight for their freedom and civil rights, it is imperative that they read, understand and come to know their rights under our Constitution and Declaration Of Independence. With that, We The People must also understand the intent our founders envisioned when they debated and wrote these documents; as well as the intent of legislatures and judiciaries following the founders. InAmericas’ short and controversial history, it has been and will continue to be a thorough understanding of this intent that will enable us to keep our Republic and our civil rights. Case precedent time and again indicates that when the people assert their rights, courts uphold them. Of course, an understanding and the subsequent maintenance of our rights by each generation is necessary to uphold them. It is really very simple. In aConstitutionalRepublic, it is the responsibility of the people to understand and enforce their rights if they wish to keep them.

 While much of our focus has been on the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, it is important to also understand the attempted dismantling of these documents which began within days of their signing. What has happened toAmericacan be summed up easily by the following: “Americais not broken,Americahas been overthrown.” Ben Franklin said, “It is a Republic, if you can keep it.” It is these two statements which summarize the situation we’re in as a nation and which this piece will focus on, as well as how We The People take it back.

The short answer as to how we restore, NOT reform, ourConstitutionalRepublic: “We The People!”

Americais not ‘broken’ means that we have and have had in place since its’ founding everything we need to keep our freedom and civil rights. Again, what must be understood is that all We The People have to do is assert those rights. That was the founders’ intent. The rights we have as Americans are not broken but the understanding of them and our ability to exercise them is. The Constitution states that it is each persons’ responsibility to know their rights; in fact, it is their duty. After that it’s up to us to enforce them. Who else is going to do it? Governments at the behest of the greedy corporatists and banksters have overthrown our rights, or at least it appears that way. It appears that way because the people don’t know their rights and therefore how to keep them.

Perhaps it is the peoples’ will that is broken? Saying that “someone has to do something” is an excuse because it is each persons’ responsibility to know their rights and assert them. If that’s your attitude, look in the mirror for the answer. If you knew what your rights were in the first place, don’t you think it would be easier to enforce them? History and study after study has shown that when people assert their rights, oppressors back down. Think about it, we vastly outnumber them. Do you really think that governments at any level can legally take or overthrow our rights? It would be political suicide. So how do they do it? History shows time and again that it is done by deception and lies. Governments tell us we can’t do this or that (exercise our rights) because it will lead to financial collapse or compromise our safety. Finances and safety are a personal responsibility anyway. Why would we trust anyone or group who tells us that we have to give up our rights (our responsibility) in order to be safe? That’s absurd! We live in the information age, at least some of us do; and the information that is important is the truth, not the latest Hollywood gossip. This is an information war about truth and for control. Why would each and every one of us not do what was absolutely essential to keep our families safe, our businesses productive and our rights intact? 

This is an appeal to the people of Rhode Islandand Americato use their minds, open their minds and be willing to research and find the truth, frightening as it may be. Ask yourselves this: Would you rather find the truth about what’s going on so that you can protect yourselves and your family or continue as is towards the police state now being implemented across our nation?

So, if enough of our rights still exist to reclaim our Republic and it is only our will that is broken, then we have less to fear than we know. It is our responsibility to know what we don’t know when it comes to defending and keeping our rights as Americans. This writer was once afraid too and didn’t know his responsibility as an American regarding freedom. From first-hand accounts and experience, I can tell you that it is extremely liberating and empowering to discover the truth and overcome ones’ fears. After deep soul-searching, I found out that I didn’t like the direction that we continue to go in and that finding the truth outweighed any fears I had. Later I discovered that my intuition was confirmed, so having been somewhat prepared for what I might find made it easier to accept and explore further. Today, I have no fear (of the unknown) and that which I cannot control I leave in Gods’ hands. It is a tremendously healthy, happy lifestyle that I live today because I have taken control of that which I can and have promised myself to continue to find the will to research, understand and spread the truth.

This is about all of us discovering the truth, so I will share with you some resources to research so you can find out for yourself and decide what you think the truth is. One thing I did discover in my journey was that unless I participated in researching, asking questions and actively pursuing the truth, it wasn’t going to fall in my lap. God wants us to do for ourselves and our families that which will ensure us a healthy, happy and safe life on this earth. We The People should learn to recognize that it is a personal responsibility, which if taken for granted and passed off to another or group, will lead to its’ usurpation. If we don’t learn history, we are doomed to repeat it. Learning about corrupt governments of the past will help unlock the minds’ aversion to finding the truth about todays’ tyrants. Keep in mind that there are no accidents, everything happens for a reason. Also, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Lastly, “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is freedom.”

 

Find the Truth at….

 www.lewrockwell.com

 www.infowars.com

 www.drudgereport.com

 

 Why Iceland Should Be in the News, But Is Not

By Deena Stryker

Date posted: 15 August 2011

An Italian radio program’s story about Iceland’s on-going revolution is a stunning example of how little our media tells us about the rest of the world. Americans may remember that at the start of the 2008 financial crisis, Iceland literally went bankrupt.  The reasons were mentioned only in passing, and since then, this little-known member of the European Union fell back into oblivion.

As one European country after another fails or risks failing, imperiling the Euro, with repercussions for the entire world, the last thing the powers that be want is for Iceland to become an example. Here’s why:

Five years of a pure neo-liberal regime had made Iceland, (population 320 thousand, no army), one of the richest countries in the world. In 2003 all the country’s banks were privatized, and in an effort to attract foreign investors, they offered on-line banking whose minimal costs allowed them to offer relatively high rates of return. The accounts, called IceSave, attracted many English and Dutch small investors.  But as investments grew, so did the banks’ foreign debt.  In 2003 Iceland’s debt was equal to 200 times its GNP, but in 2007, it was 900 percent.  The 2008 world financial crisis was the coup de grace. The three main Icelandic banks, Landbanki, Kapthing and Glitnir, went belly up and were nationalized, while the Kroner lost 85% of its value with respect to the Euro.  At the end of the year Iceland declared bankruptcy.

Contrary to what could be expected, the crisis resulted in Icelanders recovering their sovereign rights, through a process of direct participatory democracy that eventually led to a new Constitution.  But only after much pain.

Geir Haarde, the Prime Minister of a Social Democratic coalition government, negotiated a two million one hundred thousand dollar loan, to which the Nordic countries added another two and a half million. But the foreign financial community pressured Iceland to impose drastic measures.  The FMI and the European Union wanted to take over its debt, claiming this was the only way for the country to pay back Holland and Great Britain, who had promised to reimburse their citizens.

Protests and riots continued, eventually forcing the government to resign. Elections were brought forward to April 2009, resulting in a left-wing coalition which condemned the neoliberal economic system, but immediately gave in to its demands that Iceland pay off a total of three and a half million Euros.  This required each Icelandic citizen to pay 100 Euros a month (or about $130) for fifteen years, at 5.5% interest, to pay off a debt incurred by private parties vis a vis other private parties. It was the straw that broke the reindeer’s back.

What happened next was extraordinary. The belief that citizens had to pay for the mistakes of a financial monopoly, that an entire nation must be taxed to pay off private debts was shattered, transforming the relationship between citizens and their political institutions and eventually driving Iceland’s leaders to the side of their constituents. The Head of State, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, refused to ratify the law that would have made Iceland’s citizens responsible for its bankers’ debts, and accepted calls for a referendum.

Of course the international community only increased the pressure on Iceland. Great Britain and Holland threatened dire reprisals that would isolate the country.  As Icelanders went to vote, foreign bankers threatened to block any aid from the IMF.  The British government threatened to freeze Icelander savings and checking accounts. As Grimsson said: “We were told that if we refused the international community’s conditions, we would become the Cuba of the North.  But if we had accepted, we would have become the Haiti of the North.” (How many times have I written that when Cubans see the dire state of their neighbor, Haiti, they count themselves lucky.)

In the March 2010 referendum, 93% voted against repayment of the debt.  The IMF immediately froze its loan.  But the revolution (though not televised in the United States), would not be intimidated. With the support of a furious citizenry, the government launched civil and penal investigations into those responsible for the financial crisis.  Interpol put out an international arrest warrant for the ex-president of Kaupthing, Sigurdur Einarsson, as the other bankers implicated in the crash fled the country.

But Icelanders didn’t stop there: they decided to draft a new constitution that would free the country from the exaggerated power of international finance and virtual money.  (The one in use had been written when Iceland gained its independence from Denmark, in 1918, the only difference with the Danish constitution being that the word ‘president’ replaced the word ‘king’.)

To write the new constitution, the people of Iceland elected twenty-five citizens from among 522 adults not belonging to any political party but recommended by at least thirty citizens. This document was not the work of a handful of politicians, but was written on the internet. The constituent’s meetings are streamed on-line, and citizens can send their comments and suggestions, witnessing the document as it takes shape. The constitution that eventually emerges from this participatory democratic process will be submitted to parliament for approval after the next elections.

Some readers will remember that Iceland’s ninth century agrarian collapse was featured in Jared Diamond’s book by the same name. Today, that country is recovering from its financial collapse in ways just the opposite of those generally considered unavoidable, as confirmed yesterday by the new head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde to Fareed Zakaria. The people of Greece have been told that the privatization of their public sector is the only solution.  And those of Italy, Spain and Portugal are facing the same threat.

They should look to Iceland. Refusing to bow to foreign interests, that small country stated loud and clear that the people are sovereign.     

That’s why it is not in the news anymore.

 

 

 

 

 

  As readers of this blog know, this is a site dedicated to education, truth and responsibility in fighting the tyranny that has been infiltrating our states and country from within. One need only review the true history of theUnited Statesto discover how we’ve reached this point. The dedicated historian can identify the same pattern demonstrated throughout the history of man how peoples who do not maintain a system of checks and balances of those in government end up slaves. Inevitably, lust for power turns those in governments into despots who rule simply by taking rights away incrementally, under the cover of darkness and in the name of safety. That’s how rulers get away with it, selling their mandates partially through bought-off media outlets in exchange for keeping the slaves safe. So once again, look in the mirror and ask yourself, do you want to be free or safe?

   If you are a responsible person and accountable to yourself and family, then providing lifes’ necessities like food and water are as critical as shelter and safety. Why is it so easy for so many to take these individual responsibilities and others like health and personal finances for granted, by turning them over to a government that always ends up abusing that trust? Aren’t all of these necessities important to a decent standard of living? Ever seen a Western movie? Ever notice how the men of the house provided all these things that today are taken for granted? And when an out-of-control authoritative mayor and/or businessman of a western town declared, “This is my town” the men of the towns’ households got together and brought him to justice. You see, it is the peoples’ responsibility to provide for their own food, health and safety, no matter where the threat to these necessities comes from; “foreign or domestic.” Fortunately inAmerica we are seeing more and more of this independence as people tire of being told what to do all the time. This grassroots effort is taking hold across the nation. Sadly, many who do not embrace it will not survive; at least that’s what history has demonstrated for thousands of years.

 

 A Changing Of The Guard

   An awakening by the American people to the atrocities perpetrated against them by their own government and saying “NO” is all that is necessary for a once-free America to return to its’ founding principles of Independence and Freedom. All people want to be free, but because this principle is taken for granted as noted above, the peoples’ responsibility for and enforcement of it is voluntarily given up. How do you expect governments to act if you don’t tell them you are dissatisfied with something? The corporatist oligarchs and banksters transfer wealth away from the people to themselves through bailouts and other measures, while the people transfer their responsibilities to their elected representatives, who march to the banksters beat. By giving up sound money in 1971, a debt system becomes a debt prison that uses fiat Federal Reserve Notes created out of thin air and transactions created by the push of a button; and your wealth is stolen right out from under you. In return, the crooks who stole your money ‘provide for your safety’; something that you should be providing for yourself and family under our Constitution, especially the Second Amendment. Meanwhile, your visit to the election polls every two and four years is, in your minds’ eye, your only justification required to provide what was promised you. Can you see that it is here that the responsibility begins? Don’t think for an instant that you are fulfilling your responsibility as an American citizen just by going out to vote. VOTING IS YOUR DUTY! An American citizens’ responsibility continues after election day and we are all duty bound to keep checks and balances on those candidates we chuse to represent us. And what is this notion of voting for the candidate expected to win based on poll information all about? Are We The People that sad that we have to make ourselves feel better about ourselves or associating with the winner by voting this way rather than making a conscience decision to vote for the candidate that has a solid record of upholding his Oath to the Constitution?

   The great American empire is crumbling under the weight of its’ own ignorance. As we witness the collapse of Americaas we knew her, it is important to remember not what it was like, but rather what it was intended to be. Most Americans are now aware that much of the propaganda we hear from government and in the establishment media is designed to distract, distort and confuse the population from the truth. How can this or any nation expect to be free when they keep believing the lies? Stay tuned to this blog for the next feature which will focus on the many “lies they told you” and how they are designed to control you.

 

Beware The False Prophets and Promises

   One often hears the establishment media or a politician referring to American society as a democracy. IT IS NOT, it is aConstitutionalRepublic(this blog is dedicated to education through participation, so go look it up, lest you be fooled again). Most of the disintegration of American values and principles is directly attributed to the unwillingness (ignorance) of its’ people to commit to understanding our countries history. If We The People don’t understandAmericas’ founding values and principles enumerated in Constitution and the Declaration Of Independence, how can one understand when something is unconstitutional? Again, it is each Americans’ DUTY to know and understand  these documents and their intent as framed by our founders. It then becomes easy to accept responsibility for and provide all those necessities your family needs without relying on a government that lies to you about providing them for you in some speech to get elected.

   It is also important to listen to entire stories and read entire articles and not just the headlines, as often lies are identified later in the piece by sources who really know what they’re talking about (see here). If not truthfully informed, it seems logical then that one would not, could not know when one is being lied to regarding what a candidate or representative can or cannot do and therefore can or cannot promise. There are those in and outside of establishment media who say that some Americans like to be lied to by politicians and are willing to accept their lies because they believe they will be kept safe; or for some other ignorant reason. Others say that tradeoff screams of stupidity and just plain cowardice. What do you do when the establishment media spins something by saying, “He didn’t tell the truth, but it was the right thing to say?” What do you do with that? Well, if you’re a person of principle and values, you research the situation, find out its’ origin and intent and if it affects your life you do something about it. Sitting on the sidelines no longer is an option.

  Whatever side you’re on, the more important issue here is that our First Amendment affords us the Freedom of speech and of the press to have this debate; just as it affords the Occupy Wall Street movements to peaceably assemble in America. Some ignorance can be removed through beginning the debate; but you must participate and understand or you remain ignorant. Again we draw upon history to be our guide in recognizing the lies, lies, lies and identifying the ‘false prophets’ who promise change. Still, there is the bigger picture of the peoples’ willingness to go along with campaign promises and program benefits in the name of safety. You’ve gone to the polls and voted and now you expect to get the promises and the benefits. What if you get neither? You’ve entrusted your and your childrens’ future on what someone says, not on what they’ve done or even can do under the Constitution. This too is taking for granted the responsibility each American should be accepting, that of researching a candidates voting record and what they stand for. If what they have done in the past regarding the position or office they seek or hold is inconsistent or certainly unconstitutional, then why would you expect them to uphold any promise they make? The old saying: “If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge for sale.” By the way, if you believe that the Constitution is outdated, then you’re living in the wrong country.

  

Dependency

 Over fifty percent of the people in America(notice I didn’t say Americans) receive a check from one program or another each month from the government and most of those are wholly reliant on those checks. Once again, recognizing and understanding the truth means that you realize that it is not the government that provides these funds but the hard-working, responsible taxpayers trying to provide for their families. Fair? Not if freedom is your choice. If governments steal from Peter and Paul to pay Mary, both the ignorant taxpayer and the welfare recipient as beneficiary are part of the problem; and neither is free. Among other things, it creates a massive separation between the wealthy and the slaves, a desired outcome. Competition has a tendency to bring out the best in individuals and some will always do better than others. But the more important bigger picture is the moral question of whether it’s right to force some to pay for what amounts to anothers’ responsibilities. Ignoring (there’s that word again) or refusing to accept ones’ responsibilities should not entitle that person to a handout, especially one mandated through fear by a government or agency not authorized to do so. Not to mention the un-Constitutionality of the issue, which pertains to the false belief that the sixteenth amendment to our Constitution was properly ratified. So how do we balance this extremely unbalanced, unfair, unconstitutional takeover ofAmerica?

 

The Solution: God, Gold, Guns and Groceries

  The solution is simple and we all have the capacity to reach it. Become or return to a responsible individual, know your rights and hold your government accountable to their oath to the Constitution. Through taking that responsibility and utilizing a Constitutional right called Nullification, We The People will once again be free. This is all about your CONSENT: A LAW THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS NULL AND VOID AND OF NO EFFECT. A recent Supreme Court ruling signifies that the American Judiciary system is finally realizing that a return to checks and balances is the only way to saveAmerica. The rest is up to We The People. The Declaration Of Independence and the Constitution give We The People unalienable rights to God, Gold, Guns and Groceries. If you give up your Constitutional rights to possess these, then you’re playing right into the hand of tyranny and you get what the oligarchs want. Knowing your rights gives you the understanding, courage and fortitude to say four simple words; “I DO NOT CONSENT!”

  Right now governments at all levels and especially the establishment media  are scrambling to redact previous lies through trying to portray themselves as telling the truth about what’s going on in America; and the world for that matter. Dick Cheney, on the other hand, among others, along with the establishment media, continues to lie about their involvement in and cover up of dozens of heinous crimes against humanity and the Constitution. The establishment media and government figures past and present are becoming desperate and when a criminal, psychopath or sociopath becomes desperate, that makes for a dangerous situation. That does not diminish We The Peoples’ responsibility to inform one another of their crimes, expose them in a united platform and stand up to them when they use fear and intimidation as a weapon against us under the guise, rather, lies, of safety. Once you become educated on the Constitution and your rights, it becomes easy and comforting to overcome your fears. You will be amazed and relieved at how much complication and stress is removed from your life. The only way good succumbs to evil is for free men to do nothing.

 

 

 

 

Federal officials have made war on the People

                                         Sign Petition by going to ‘Comments’