Could you please get this posted on your respective public forum???
Thanks, Mary Dear Members of the Republic: The joint session call last Tuesday night raised critical issues regarding our strategy and
method to create a true republic. I raised the point, as did several others, that this joint
resolution suggested remedies that were needlessly oppressive. The rationalizations
used as an excuse to bring in national to settle a dispute within a state were completely
out of line with our founding principles. The idea that the clause in the constitution that
guarantees a republican form of government could somehow give national the authority
to intercede in an intrastate squabble is not credible. The idea that "national defense"
could be used is even more out of line. I know that those of you who created this resolution mean well and truly have the interests
of our country and your families in your hearts, but this kind of proposed misuse of power
is exactly what has led to the oppression we are trying to eliminate. My suggestion to you is
to drop all the coercive enforcement provisions of your resolution and just let people
know what you would like them to do. Let the states take care of their own problems
and issues. Let the states decide what their priorities are. It was pointed out by one of the national representatives that this was not a top down
resolution because it did not come from national and that it had come from a "committee
of the people." If that is the case national should have immediately let the committee
know that they would have no part of what they were suggesting and that they had gone
way too far in their desire to "force compliance." My concern, however, is not the source
of this joint resolution, it is the results of what it will do to undermine state sovereignty and
the supreme law of the land, which is the bill of rights. Notice that I did not say the supreme law of the land is the constitution of 1791. I was not
mistaken with my wording. That document is a flawed document and in every way the bill of
rights is superior to it. This may be the major reason we are having trouble in this republic,
people know there is something fundamentally wrong but they cannot put their finger on it.
More on this later, please stick with me. As I write in "Common Sense Revisited," it all comes down to the first two paragraphs of
the Declaration of Independence. If there is ever a question about an issue, reading those
first two paragraphs reminds us of the fundamental principle which is the foundation for all
the other documents. Simply stated it says that each individual human being has indigenous
power and the source of that power is our Creator. We are unique in that we have free will,
the ability to manifest thoughts into reality, and unalienable rights. We as individuals are the
only ones with that power and we never give it up, no matter what we have signed or done,
indigenous power does not leave us. The surrogates we create to do things for us have no
indigenous power, only surrogate power. ALL surrogates, because they have people running them, have a tendency to usurp power
they were not intended to have. This is just a manifestation of human nature. When a
surrogate is out of control and begins to use coercion to maintain and increase their power,
then we have the duty and the right to take back our indigenous power. We declare our
indigenous power and then we take it back. And we ALWAYS have the right and duty to
alter or abolish any surrogate at any time that infringes on our indigenous power. This is essentially what is said in the first two paragraphs of the Declaration and this
fundamental principle was well understood by the colonists before the revolutionary war.
If you want to know how well it was understood and how well the colonists understood
the principles of bottom up government you should read "American Insurgents, American
Patriots" by Breen. This book provides us with a blueprint for re-establishing a republic
and a clear understanding of why we need to build this republic back up again from the
local level to the state level. The role of national should be a clearing house of best practices. It should be an enabling
organization and totally non-coercive. We will succeed if we do not divert our attention from
building our jural assemblies, grand juries, local militias, etc. We do, however, have a deeper problem with this particular movement to restore our
republic. By adopting the constitution of 1791 we have adopted a flawed document.
This constitution is not the people's document. It is instead the document of a cabal of
lawyers, moneyed interests, and international bankers who wanted a powerful national
government with a central bank that would be controlled by them. Hamilton was the main
spokesman for this group. The counter group to these nationalists/federalists was made up of people like Thomas
Jefferson, George Mason, Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and Richard Henry Lee. In other
words those who were the most in tune with indigenous power, they were the true
federalists, as the word is defined, in that they believed in a very limited federal government.
They ended up being called anti-federalists because the incredibly devious Hamilton
labeled his group the federalists when in actuality they were nationalists and totally
against supporting indigenous power.
George Mason was one of the most influential delegates at the convention, but when all
was said and done he said he would "cut off his right hand" before he would sign the
final document. Why were Mason and the most powerful and intelligent defenders of
liberty in this country so dead set against this document? First let's look at some of the things Mason said at the convention; "Mr. Chairman, whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly
discovers that it is a national government, and no longer a Confederation. I mean that
clause which gives the first hint of the general government laying direct taxes. The
assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself, entirely change the
confederation of the states into one consolidated government. This power, being at
discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of control, must carry every thing before it.
The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation to a consolidated
government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us.
This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments. Will the people
of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct
powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harassed? These two concurrent
powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: the general government
being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than the state governments, the
latter must give way to the former. Is it to be supposed that one national government will suit so extensive
a country, embracing so many climates, and containing inhabitants so very different in
manners, habits, and customs? It is ascertained, by history, that there never was a
government over a very extensive country without destroying the liberties of the people:
history also, supported by the opinions of the best writers, shows us that monarchy may
suit a large territory, and despotic governments ever so extensive a country, but that
popular governments can only exist in small territories. Is there a single example, on the
face of the earth, to support a contrary opinion? Where is there one exception to this
general rule? Was there ever an instance of a general national government extending
over so extensive a country, abounding in such a variety of climates, where the people
retained their liberty?" Mason and the other "anti-nationalists," the true patriots, knew that the government that
would be created by this document would be used to create an illusion of freedom but that
eventually it would grow to be as oppressive as any government in Europe. For the next
several months the battle was joined. Only the support of Washington, who was primarily
concerned about national defense issues, enabled the constitution to barely win acceptance,
but only with a bill of rights. The bill of rights WAS CREATED at the insistence of the
people and LEGALLY ADOPTED at the people's state ratifying conventions. The constitution on the other hand was created by delegates who were sent to Philadelphia
to amend the articles of confederation. They had no authority to do anything else. They
could not amend the constitution because Rhode Island did not send delegates and the
articles required 100% acceptance by all thirteen colonies for an amendment. These
delegates had no authority to continue their meeting, they should have gone home. They
did not go home. They decided among themselves, with no authority from their state
legislatures, to lock the doors and begin a secret meeting to create a new government.
This is when Patrick Henry, the great patriot and Christian pastor said, "I smell a rat." The key point here is that the bill of rights was truly a manifestation of the people's will
and indigenous power. The constitution was not legally created. The bill of rights
contradicts the constitution in many key areas. The bill of rights is superior to the constitution,
it is the supreme law of the land. It should be the first ten articles of the constitution and
should be recognized as the supreme law of the land. Once the bill of rights was created
they should have changed the supremacy clause in the constitution to "The bill of rights is
the supreme law of the land." Since the bill of rights restricts the government and its
powers under the constitution it also renders the "necessary and proper" clause of the
constitution null and void. Also the judiciary act of 1789 which created our entire federal court system should be null
and void. There is no mention of an attorney general in the constitution. This was rammed
through the congress by the nationalists/attorneys so they could set up and control the
entire judicial system, and ultimately control all three branches. They have in fact
accomplished this over the years due in large part to this unconstitutional act. Recognizing the rightful place of the bill of rights as superior and preceding the rest of
the constitution would allow us to replace the entire corrupt federal legal system and the
corrupt supreme court with a supreme court derived from the jural assemblies and county
grand juries. The people would have a direct influence on the judicial branch of the
government and make it what it was intended to be, a true check on the misuse of
power by the other two branches of government. This branch was also intended to be
a protection of the people's rights and their property. This has all been perverted
primarily by the attorneys. Self serving pit falls have been built in by the lawyers for
their control.
The welfare clause of the constitution has been misconstrued and needs to be clarified.
An updated preamble would make clear the difference between "general" welfare and
"special" welfare. Special welfare being theft and the basis of all forms of collectivism.
The fifth "article" of the bill of rights states that we cannot be deprived of our property with
out due process of law. The government cannot confiscate the property of one person
and give that property to another person. This right also prevents the government from taking action to devalue the currency as that
deprives us of our property more effectively and comprehensively than any other kind of
theft. Article five would therefore allow us to create a provision clearly stating that the
national government can never pass a legal tender law restricting the right of a sovereign
individual from choosing whatever currency he or she wanted to use in commerce. It would
also restrict the government from disallowing competitive currencies from either state or
local governments or from private sources. It would also allow us to state clearly that the
congress can never again delegate its monetary authority to a private group of individual
bankers. The interstate commerce clause has been used to allow the government to interfere in
virtually every aspect of our lives. In the 1780's there was a reasonable argument for the
federal government to get involved in this arena, but 220 years of history has shown that
this clause is one of the major sources of federal government encroachment on individual
and state sovereignty. This clause should be eliminated on the basis that it has led to
numerous violations of individual rights guaranteed to us by the bill of rights. The oath of all military and police should be changed from agreeing to uphold the
constitution to swearing to uphold the bill of rights. This would protect the people
against the government using police and military to unfairly oppress individuals who did
not agree with them or who opposed their corrupt behavior. It would also help us oppose
the government from engaging in endless foreign wars. The bottom line is that we have the opportunity at this point in time to create a future for
our children that would be truly in tune with the founding principles. If we accept, with our
signatures and delivered paperwork, the constitution of 1791 with all its current flaws we
will be doing ourselves and every person in the world a huge disservice. Right now, as it is,
no living individual, has signed a contract and delivered that signed contract accepting the
constitution as having any authority over them at all. It is not a valid contract for those living
today in this country. Read this amazing article by Lysander Spooner from 1870 on the
constitution. It is called "NO TREASON The Constitution of No Authority"
http://jim.com/treason.htm We must support the right founding documents, and we must not support a flawed
constitution that would continue to enslave us all. What I have outlined here in these
last few paragraphs is explained in a book that you must read. It is called "The Constitution
that Never Was" by Ralph Boryszewski. This author spent 27 years as a police officer
fighting corrupt judges, district attorneys and police officers. He has done extensive
research on the constitution, its history and the law. He has given us a legal blue print for
fixing the flawed constitution that has given the lawyers, politicians, powerful special
interests, and especially the international bankers control over our lives and those of our
children. The plan, which his research supports, would allow us to eliminate the corrupt federal
judiciary and replace it with a bottom up judicial system based on natural law. It would
allow us to eliminate the most damaging clauses in the constitution; the supremacy clause,
the necessary and proper clause, and the interstate commerce clause. We could also
eliminate, under the fifth amendment, the clause allowing the federal government to levy
the enumerated direct tax, legal tender laws, completive currency restrictions, etc. The original 13th amendment will disallow attorneys from holding office in any branch of the
federal government. Hopefully every state and county will have a similar provision in their
constitutions. In Florida we have placed an extensive bill of rights at the beginning of our
constitution. I hope all states will be doing the same. Many consider the Virginia
Declaration of Rights, which is the preface do the Virginia constitution, to be one of the
original founding documents. It was written by George Mason, here are the first three articles: SECTION I. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain
inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any
compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty,
with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining
happiness and safety. SEC. 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that
magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them.
SEC. 3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection,
and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of
government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness
and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and
that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a
majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to
reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the
public weal.
These principles are totally in tune with the Declaration of Independence and the basic
principle which clearly delineates the relationship of authority, the individual is the master,
the government, or any other surrogate, is the servant. So what do we really need our
federal government to do for us? At this time we really only need the federal government
to provide for the common defense, that is all. The articles of confederation would be
just fine for us at this time. We have been operating as a union for over 200 years and
virtually every problem we have is a result of the outrageous growth of government,
especially since it became a corporate structure in 1871. The state or local governments,
or private organizations or companies could do everything that the federal government
does for us now and do it much more effectively. The resolution recommended on Tuesday night mentioned the ineffectiveness of the
Articles of Confederation. People have to remember that we have been subjected to
200 years of propaganda that our constitution has given us our freedom and that the
articles were totally ineffective. Remember that under the Articles of Confederation
the colonists defeated the greatest military force the world had ever known.
George Mason and the other individuals who wanted to retain the Articles and not
drastically change the basic structure of governance under the Articles were arguably
the heart and soul of this country.
The "Give me Liberty or Give me death" speech of Patrick Henry galvanized the nation.
Samuel Adams was responsible for the Boston Tea Party and the Committees of
Correspondence. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration, along with John Adams,
and was the galvanizing force for the opposition to the Hamiltonians and the central
bankers. Richard Henry Lee was one of the most brilliant spokespersons for freedom
in the country and was a President of the united states under the Articles of Confederation. Would you rather be a Hamiltonian or a Jeffersonian? Is it top down or bottom up?
Frankly I don't think we could get back to the Articles of Confederation.
I would prefer it, but I think it may be too much of a paradigm shift for most people in
this country. However, I do think we could get people to accept the plan proposed above
which is based on the writings of Boryszewski and Spooner. We simply place the bill
of rights where it should be by law as superior to the rest of the constitution and make
the changes suggested above. People are familiar with the bill of rights and this is a plan
that will gain wide acceptance. Please keep in mind though, that the Articles were never shut off. It is a perpetual union
and the government under the articles just ceased to be inhabited. It could be re-inhabited
and then the three or four key problems with the articles that were addressed at the
constitutional convention could be added as amendments. It would be easier to do that
than to accept a flawed constitution and then have to go back and eliminate the problems. So we really have three choices: 1. Accept the flawed constitution of 1791 2. Follow
the plan described above inspired by Boryszewski and Spooner and make the bill of
rights the supreme law of the land, or 3. re-inhabit the government under the Articles
of Confederation. I don't see how anyone who is serious about restoring our fundamental principles could
accept number 1. above. I know I can't continue to bring people into this republic if we
are asking them to accept and ratify such a flawed document. I hope you will all read the books by Breen and especially by Boryszewski, and the
incredible article by Spooner. I also just ordered "Hamilton's Curse" by De Lorenzo,
the same author who wrote the expose on Abraham Lincoln. This book outlines the
history of the battle between Jefferson and Hamilton. I think if we all read these books it
will give us the knowledge to make the right choice going forward. We cannot afford to
accept the constitution that the Hamiltonians created. We must get this right. By the way I have read responses to Tuesday nights call that criticize those who are not
totally supportive of the coercive tactics proposed under the joint resolution. The major
theme of those critics is that we are under this enormous pressure from the evil forces in
this world and we must rush out and get all these positions filled and documents signed so
we can enlist the support of other nations, funding sources, and the military. I do not underestimate the evil of the ruling elite. I know they are capable of creating great
destruction and upheaval. However we will not get support from divine providence if our
underlying principles are off base. We will not get support from divine providence if we
don't build from the bottom up. We will not get support from divine providence if we forget
that we are all about non-coercion and actually start using coercion to try to force compliance
with what our particular view of the action steps happen to be.
In my view the steps outlined above in either alternative 2 or 3, would elicit the support of
divine providence to a much greater degree than our current direction. I ask those who
consider yourself to be Christians, would Yehowshua want you to support a flawed
constitution which has enslaved us to a ruling elite consisting of lawyers, international
bankers and professional politicians who are devoted to a one world government? Let's focus on the essence of what we are doing here and get right with God's law.
Then let's build our state republics up from the county level one person at a time. We
will find that to be a much easier and faster process than we ever imagined possible when
we get this right. If you would like a copy of "The Constitution that Never was" you can order it from Amazon
for $51.95 plus shipping, OR, if you would like, you can
email denise@commonsenserevisited.com and send her a check for $20 which
includes shipping. I really want you to read this book! In fact if you buy this book
I will throw in a free copy of Common Sense Revisited. From force and fear to freedom and Love, “The principles on which we engaged, of which the charter of our independence is the record, were sanctioned by the laws of our being, and we but obeyed them in pursuing undeviatingly the Thomas Jefferson, to Georgetown Republicans in 1809 More quotes from George Mason from the constitutional convention "popular governments can only exist in small territories" "To a government which, in the nature of things, cannot but be defective, no powers
ought to be given but such as are absolutely necessary" "Gentlemen may talk of public virtue and confidence; we shall be told that the House of
Representatives will consist of the most virtuous men on the continent, and that in their
hands we may trust our dearest rights. This, like all other assemblies, will be composed
of some bad and some good men; and, considering the natural lust of power so inherent
in man, I fear the thirst of power will prevail to oppress the people." |
|
The joint session call last Tuesday night raised critical issues regarding our strategy and
method to create a true republic. I raised the point, as did several others, that this joint
resolution suggested remedies that were needlessly oppressive. The rationalizations used
as an excuse to bring in national to settle a dispute within a state were completely out of
line with our founding principles. The idea that the clause in the constitution that guarantees
a republican form of government could somehow give national the authority to intercede
in an intrastate squabble is not credible. The idea that "national defense" could be used
is even more out of line. |
|
No comments:
Post a Comment