Wednesday, June 29, 2005

flag burning amendment

The flag burning amendment (actually flag anti-burning amendment) is NOT a good idea. One must understand that Constitutions are NOT rules for the People. Constitutions are rules for government. The US Constitution sets rules for what is allowable and what is not both for the federal government and in certain instances, the States. The US Constitution enumerates rights that all governments MUST respect but in no way does the US Constitution set down rules for the behaior of the People. Allowing the government to set rules for the People will hasten the enslavement of the People. Nothing should be added to the Constitution that restricts actions of the People. Only controls on government legitimately belong in any Constitution.

State constitutions follow the same pattern, enumerating the rights of the People that MUST be respected and setting in a formal manner the functions, capacities, and allowable actions of each State government.

Laws may be passed in accordance with the Constitution that benefit all members of the society equally. To pass a law otherwise is not legitimate.

NBoC

Freedom

All too often humans seem to be out of touch with reality. You cannot export freedom as we are trying to do in Irag. It failed in Vietnam. It failed in Korea. It failed everywhere we have stuck our nose. You cannot go into someone else's home and give them freedom. You cannot simply eliminate one government and replace it with another. Those whom are freed have no concept of what they are being given. Their existence has been under the prior form and the new form is unknown to them. They will fall back into the government form with which they are most familiar.

Even where the government itself tries to give freedom to the people under it, the change fails.

Freedom taken by force, directed by the inner desires of the people, is the only sustaining freedom. So long as the desire burns bright, freedom is alive. When the flame dims, freedom will wane.

One cannot even maintain freedom through many generations. From the beginning, there was a slow trickle washing away our freedoms quietly in the background while we became complacent and apathetic. That trickle has become a flood and we are on our way back to bondage. Every day we are less free. There are always those who desire power over others. The servants become the masters.

Freedom is born in the heart of man. The drive, the desire for freedom must be maintained in each person's heart. But humans will accept enslavement, stolen freedoms in exchange for a warm, fuzzy feeling. We in the US are headed there. We can no longer speak our minds. We can be arrested for our thoughts. We have to ask permission to exercise God given rights. And now our property is no longer ours but belongs to the person with the most political pull. Sure sounds like nobility on the rise in the US; a return to how we were before the great revolution.

Those few who speak up are generally viewed as strange, even crazy. There are always conspiracies to evslave others. Today we have subtle slavery in the form of easy loans, the ubiquitous credit card. Most people only think they own things. But none of us truly owns anything. The government charges us rent (they call it taxes) on our vehicles, our homes.

Get out of your box. If you want your God given freedoms, you must take them but to keep them you must stay out in the cold. The warm, fuzzy feeling is the flame of bondage.

NBoC

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Will the real 1st Amendment please stand up?

Before you jump down my throat and tell me I'm full of shit, have you EVER read the discussions that occurred during the development of the first set of amendment to the US Constitution? Have you ever read the actual 1st Amendment? Have you ever read the 12 offered amendments? Have you read the 14th Amendmnt? Have your read the discussions surrounding the 14th Amendment? Have you read Berger's Government by Judiciaty?

If not go read those BEFORE you attempt to criticize my words.

First of all, the 1st Amendment was NOT the first amendment and is not the most important. The current 1st Amendment was the third amendment and those who created the US Constitution will tell you the right to Arms is the palladium of all rights. [Go look up that one.]

Next, look closesly at the exact wording of the 1st Amendment. It has nothing, absolutely nothing, nada, to do with state and local governments. Can you show me the word State or City or County government in the 1st Amendment? No! Why not? Could it be that the Framers of the Bill of Rights left us the reasoning in the discussion that were had back in the 1790s? Could it be that the Framers said they were leaving religion, free speech, control of the press, etc to each State according to the constitution thereof? Duh!! No wonder is says "Congress shall make no law...." Every think that maybe, just maybe, you were either too ignorant or were unwilling to recognize the truth. Of course, it's bothersome to have to give up somke of what one believes it the truth, that freedom of speech and of the press and of one's religious beliefs should be protected at the Constitutional level and they are. Just not at the federal Constitutional level. The Bill of Rights does apply and binds the States, but only in those areas where the Framers left the points wide open. In the case of the 1st Amendment, which was really the third amendment and which was specifically marked asa applying ONLY to the federal govedrnment, the Framers left control of religion, the press, assembly, and free speech to the States under their own constitutions.

This frightens and angers many, especially those who want to eat their cake and have it too; that is those who want protections of speech, and the press under the federal constitution but want the religion clause to be different. The Billl of Rights is not a buffet. You have to take it all as it is and you must support it all equally for everyone. Yes, this means States can be involved with religion unless the State constitution restricts them. The States can restrict the press and free speech unless the State constitution protects these rights.

At least according to the written words of the Constitution for the united States, this is the case. However, since the rights in the US Constitution are not grants but are merely recognition of rights that are endowed upon all men by the creator, the rights are equally in force against all governments.

But, because the rights were brought in fornt of the SC for adjudication, the SC can only work from the simple, unambiguous words of the US Constitution and rule that the US Constitution in no way bars religious expression by State and local governments. They didnt because they all have tiny dicks and need so much to prove that they are bigger than everyone else.

And BTW, the 14th amendment has nothing to do with rights. The 14th is about privileges and immunities. These are not rights. Privileges and immunities come from government; Rights come from God. The 14th was about equality in contracting and in courts of law. Read Berger, both books and the 40 law journal articles, then come back and debate.

NBoC

Sunday, June 26, 2005

Cynic 101

I am a cynic. No, I am THE cynic. Everyone wants to impeach the 5 black-robed thugs who stole private property and gave it to another private party, claiming in the aftermath of destruction that a paltry benefit to the town in the way of taxes and a few jobs was worth destroying lives. Now, my cynicism says the other 4 thugs may just have been allowed to vote this way to protect thatie own asses. How do you or I know any of the truth behind how the decisions were made? In any case, the socialists have redistributed the wealth, right back to the nobles. And the serfs are now out on their collective ears.

I have the same cynicism about the Federalist Papers. The Anti-federalist papers are more important to read than are the Federalist Papers. The anti-federalists warned us of the coming demons in the form of the federal leviathan.

No, not for one minute do I believe the 4. Impeach them all.

We the People are the Creator of the Constitution. The Constitution is the Creator of the Supreme Court and all the federal government. We the People determine the meaning of our Constitution and the limits and restrictions on the federal government. You have been brain-washed into believing the SC has the final say. Too bad you are so dumb. Maybe you should get off your butt and read a little of the real documents on the Constitution. Instead of what you think you learned in you classes, or by reading revised BS, you might just find the truth. But because men hold to old truths more readily than they accept new truths you will probably wallow in your ignorance.

Throughout its 200+ year history the SC has more often lied, cheated, and stolen than it has been honest and forthcoming. They are no better than any other lowlife public servant but they, through brainwashing the people in government schools, have been able to get an entire population to tacitly accept their lies.

May God help us.

NBoC

www.rapeoftheconstitution.com

Friday, June 24, 2005

Talk about using YOUR property for private purposes

Now that the taking of private property from one person and the giving of it to another private person is in the news, let me open you eyes a bit wider. The term private property does not mean simply real estate. It encompasses all property, your house, your car, your TV, your food, your earnings from your labor. Just compensation for tax dollars has often been considered the protection you receive from your government against outside force. However, as guilty as the supreme Court is for their destruction of private property rights in the united States, Congress has since the 1930s and possibly a bit earlier been just as guilty of stealing your money and transferring it to private persons. The programs that are illegally operating are medicare, medicaid, social security, disaster aid, farm id, welfare, and every other "good intentioned" but unauthorized program.

In reading the Constitution, one finds in Article I, section 8 that Congress is authorized to spend for three objects. Those objects are the debts, common Defence, and general Welfare of the united States. Note that no mention is made of spending for the debts, common Defence, and general Welfare of the States; nor is the any mention of the debts, common Defence, and general Welfare of the People. In the Constitution, the States, the People, and the united States are three distinct, separate politic units. Congress is empowered solely to deal with things at the federal level. No local needs and no personal needs are covered in this authorization.

In addition, the Fifth Amendment's "just compensation" requirement explicitly states all private property taken MUST be taken solely for public use. Taking money, property, life, or liberty for any other purpose is implicitly denied. There can be absolutely no private use. There is not a single "good intentioned" socialist government activity that is public use. In every case, there are restrictions that limit participation, be they age or what have you. And in every case, priavet property, in the form of taxes, is taken and transferred to a private party.

Expenditures made to any individual, regardless of intent, is not constitutional. Expenditures made to any State are not constitutional. Congress has been no better than the Courts. They steal your property, transfer it to another person, and then say, "Look what I did for you!" A screw job is a screw job no matter how you color it.

NBoC

The Death of Freedom

Effectively, the SC single-handedly destroyed the bastion of freedom yesterday when it ruled private property could be stolen from one party and given to another private party. Public Use is public use and in many court cases of the 19th century it was recognized that no property could be lawfully transferred to another private party. At first, the Court ruled that blighted areas could be taken and given to someone who can better develop it. But blight is in the eye of the beholder. The sanctity of protections for private property go back at least to the Magna Carta. Now money in the coffers of the government is more important than one's right to live unimpeded upon one's property so long as one does no harm to others.

Today those protections are gone. The socialists of the court are working to destroy private property ownership. The wealthy and powerful can now take your home, your business, yes even your church for the "betterment" of society. The nobility have once again made serfs of the people. Property taxes made sure once never truly owned one's property but at least if one paid the extortion monies to the government, one could "keep" one's property. No longer.

I sure each of us could put the other guy's property to better use. I think I've got my eye on your's.

Call your congress person(s) and demand impeachment of these judges for bad behavior, bad behavior in not protecting the individual against assault by elected servants. Bad behavior for interpreting the Constitution. The created is not above the Creator. Just as we are not in charge of the actions of and cannot determine the extent of our Creater, neither Congress, nor the Courts, nor the Executive are in charge of or have any authority to determine the extent of their creator, the People through the Constitution. The Constitution is the creation of the People and the Congress, courts, and executive are the creation of the Constitution. We are in charge. Get off your behind, stop being apathetic, and do something.

Quit calling elected and appointed persons leaders. THEY ARE NOT OUR LEADERS. THEY ARE OUR SERVANTS AND ARE TO DO OUT BIDDING, NOT THEIRS, AND CERTAINLY NOT THAT OF SOME SMALL SUBGROUP SUCH AS DEVELOPERS.

May God take vengeance upon those who sit in black robes and abuse their delegated authority.

How should public use be determined? First it must be truly public use, i.e. for a roadway or other construction that is used by the public. Second, it must be absolutely necessary and no other way of implementing it must be available. The individual is paramount. The individual is first. Without the individual there is no family, there is no society, there is no government. Individuals voluntarily delegate some rights to the family in order to be a member. Some of those delegated rights are transferred to society from the family in order to be a member of that society. Lastly, the society delegates some portion of it rights to the government in order to be a member of that group. In every case, the delegation must be voluntarily made or the association is not valid. When membership is forced, it is not freedom, it is bondage.We are on our way to bondage because we are complacent. We are apathetic. We are unwilling to put what we have on the line for what we believe. The actions of the SC must be a wake up call to those who value freedom, to those who value the individual.

NBcO

www.thelostconstitution.com

Thursday, June 23, 2005

What the hell is wrong?

Too many ignorant people.

Too many lazy people.

Too many greedy people.

Too many apathetic people.

99.9999% of the people in the US have absolutely no idea of how the government was set up to work. 99.9999% of the people in the US are willing to have the government take care of them from cradle to grave because 99.9999% of the people in the US are lazy, greedy bums.

Not one person in 10,000 uses that lump three feet above their ass for anything more than a place to shove in food.

I will give $1000 cash to the first person to show me the "interstate commerce clause", in those word, in the US Constitution. I will give $1000 cash to the first person that can show me where in the US Constitution the Founders established a "nation" known as the US. I will give $1000 to the first person to show me where in the US Constitution that the federal government is explicitly delegated any authority over education.

The federal government is enslaving you. The federal government and the state governments are stealing your property, your freedoms, and like a turd in the toilet you just sit there swirling and happy as you go down the drain. Get off your ass. Get to work and learn how 99% of what government does is not authorized under any Constitution. Learn the truth but don't expect to learn it from school books, the media (newspapers, TV, talk radio, etc). All those talk radio folks are screwing you just as fast as the government but you just smile.

I spent 12 years and a lot of money purchasing books from the 17th through 19th centuries so I could get away from the revisionist history I had been taught. There has not been a Congress seated on this continent that dodn't try to steal some power. But the greatest power grabs have been by the judicial branch.

Think! Who is in charge the creator or the created? Then think about this. We the People created the US Constitution and with it the federal government. We the People also created our state consitutions and with them our state governments. We the People are the creator. Government and all its subparts are the created. All parts of government are subordinate to the Constitution and the Constitution is subordinate to the People. So why is it that you ignorant asses haven't figured out the the supreme Court is not authorized to interpret the constitution because the SC is created BY the Constitution.

God you are all dumb!

NBoC

Serfdom

The SC in one of its most outrageous, incorrect decisions made all property holders in the US serfs to our own elite class. No one's property is safe from legitimized theft. As long as one person has more pull than another, one's home, one's church, or whatever other property someone has their eye on, can be taken from the owner and given to the one who desires the property. What's next our wives, husbands, children?????

The concept of private property ownership, and esp real estate, is one of the rights that separating people in the US from the rest of the world. In most of the world anytime someone with power wanted what you had, they could get it through force. Now for the first time in the US, that can occur with the blessing of the black-robed thieves in DC. The Fifth Amendment was an attempt to protect private property from this kind of thievery. Private property can be taken for public use following due process AND with just compensation. Just compensation is not defined BUT for just compensation to be just, neither part to the action can set the value. The value must be set by an uninvolved party using acceptable methods to determine the value, i.e. current market value or what have you. In no case can due process legitimately circumvent this requirement for just compensation because the two clauses are separated by a semicolon. This simple grammatical construction makes the clauses independent of each other, i.e. regardless just compensation must be made.

Neither is the term, public use, defined. Public use is not private use. Public use is not public benefit as was used today, June 23, 2005. Public use is public use, i.e. to be used for public needs. The SC decided that if somoen else can produce a higher tax base for ther city by using the property, then the city can steal the property and transfer ownership to another private party.

The Fifth amendment prohibits this when it explicitly states "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation". Taking private property for private use is not allowed. Using the Court's illogic, one must only show that one's use of the property would provide more public benefit than the current owner. For example, church property generates no tax income. So if a developer can show that development of the property into a taxable property would provide public benefit, the new ruling would allow cities or other government agencies to take church property and give it to a developer because of the public benefit.

The Framers chose the words "public use" to restrict the taking to "public use", not to allow private use that may attach to some public benefit.

No, if I can build a nicer house on the property that you own, all I need to do is convince my buds at city hall that they would get more tazxes out of me than you and viola, I get a nice new choice piece of property and you can't do anything about it. UBENSCROOD !!!!!

Once again we must return to the understanding that the individual is paramount. That the individual and individual rights trump all others. It is unarguable that first there was the individual and the individual owned whatever the individual decided to call his/hers. Then when more individuals arose, families developed and the individual gave up some rights to be part of the family. The family did not and cannot take those rights. The individual must willfully, voluntarily give up those rights. Even then the transfer of rights comes with restrictions that allow the individual to pick up those rights should the need arise.

After the family comes society, and lastly comes government. Government has no rights. Government has only the authority that members of that government willfully, voluntarily give to the government. The power to act for the common good it part of the delegated authority BUT thatapower is restricted and in order to be just that power must be execised justly. In this case, there is no justice (but then throughout man;s history, justice has existed only in short bursts).

Freedom has been dealt a blow. Private property is no longer protected. The government has become the thief, stealing what little its members have so that those with power have more.

Thank God that in heaven there will be only one judge. Earthly judges will have been sent where they belong.

NBoC

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Judges are not superior to the Constitution or the People

"For whenever a question arises between the society at large, and any magistrate vested with powers originally delegated by that society, it must be decided by the voice of that society itself. There is not upon earth any other tribunal to resort to." - William Blackstone, Blackstone's Commentaries

"The fundamental law theory is based in part upon the proposition that the agencies it creates are subordinate to it and must operate within its confines.

To quote Hamilton again: 'To deny this proposition would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that menacting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.'" - Carey, 1989

First the People through their agents, the States, created the Constitution. The Constitution then created the Supreme Court AND all federal branches of government. Thus the supreme Court, the created, is subordinate to the creator, the Constitution. And the Constitution, the created, is subordinate to its creator, the People and the States.

The supreme Court can in no legitimate manner "interpret" the Constitution because the servant would then be above the master. When Chief Justice John Marshall made his claims in Marbury v Madison he was beginning a theft of power that has been unabated since. Judicial officers following Marshall twisted and corrupted the case which merely stated the SC could determine if a law was constitutional to the point where the court now decides what the words of the Constitution mean (and even these meaning change at the whim of the judiciary).

When the People decide differently than the Courts, the People carry superiorty in their act and the Courts are obliged to obey the People because no member of the Courts, nor the Courts themselves, are superior to the People. No higher tribunal exists on Earth than the People. It is time for the People to resume their rightful position in charge of the United States. When the representatives do not do our bidding as our srevants (they are NOT our leaders), then we the People retain the right to remove them from office as we see fit. And the Courts cannot legitimate decide otherwise so long as the People in their sovereign capacity make the determination.

NBoC

Monday, June 13, 2005

Theft by fiat

The recent revelation of the 9/11 widow about her overspending brought home to me the hit that our government stole millons of dollars from the people and gave it to other people. Now you would probably get your shorts in aknot if the government came, took your home, and gave it to someone else. Why doesn't it bother you that, in direct conflict with the US Constitution, the government takes your money (the government actually has none) ad gives that money to someone else. When Col. Crockett was adminished for some of the spending Congress had approved nearly 200 years ago, it was about the same theft by fiat of which I now speak.

First, Congress may spend only on three subjects: the debts, common Defence, and general Welfare of the United States. Note, the clause does not authorize Congress to spend on the debts, common Defence, and general Welfare of the individual States nor does the clause authorize Congress to spend on the debts, common Defence, or general Welfare of the People. States and the People were left to manage their own issues.

Second, the Fifth Amendment allows the taking of private property, be it real estate, tax money, or what have you, for the express, explicit purpose of public use. Taking provate property for the private use of another or even others IS NOT public use.

While it is a travesty that these people were killed and the families suffered, it is a greater travesty for the government sto steal from the rest of us. When the soldiers and sailors were killed at Pearl Harbor where was the outpouring of monies to the families of those poor souls. But even then, in that situation, the taking of money from one person and the giving of that money to another person would constitute the taking of private property for private use and would be unconstitutional.

And yes, these same arguments hold for welfare, social security, medicaid, medicare, and all other social programs where money is taking by fiat from a private party and gibven to another private party. The government has no authority to pass any law that spends for other than the explicit needs as stated in the Constitution and those limits are restricted solely to the debts, common Defence, and general Welfare of the entity, the United States.

NBoC

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

No interstate commerce clause

The power to regulate commerce among the states is the most abused of all delegatged powers. The Courts have played a key role in lying about the extent and in manipulating the playing field in favor of big, central government.

First, the term interstate does not appear in the constitution so to call the above clause a grant to regulate interstate commerce is modern invention. The delegated power was limited to merely keeping each state from messing up the commerce of the others. Nothing more and absolutely no power to manage commerce within the borders of any state. Chief justice John Marshall was the first to steal away the legitimate power of the states to regulate commerce witin their borders when he created a new definition for the word "among". The word "among" was used because it was proper grammar and nothing deeper was meant. Two states = between. More than two = among. Duh! But the feds are/were always looking to steal more power than the limited grants in the constitution.

That the power to regulate commerce is limited is transparent to anyone with an IQ above 3. I suspect money is quite important to commerce and the regulation of commerce but the Framers, based on THEIR knowledge of the extent of each delegated power, saw fit to delegate the power to coin money separately. A quick persula of the enumerated powers will show that most are related directly to commerce regulations. So, the question is: If the power to regulate commerce among the States is as extensive as the lying, conniving, power stealing judges claim, why were so many blatantly commerce powers granted separately? Duh! Coining money, weights and measures, setting value our money and that of foreign coin.

The latest outrage is the supreme Court's decision that federal antidrug laws trump state laws allowing medical use of a weed. Under another lie, Wickard v Filburn was used to "prove" that the power over commerce extends to your backyard garden. Don't believe me. Go read the court case. Grow too much of something that the government decides affects interstate commerce and they got you. The Framers are spinning so fast they are generating a force field around the planet!!!

If the power to regulate commerce among the States extends to everything within the States, why is it that Congress and the Courts haven't tried to make the smae claim about regulating commerce wiht foreign nations. Hey, under their interpretation, we can make all the other nations on Earth do it our way. BS!

The power to regulate commerce is a limited power that touches only controlling the States behaviors toward one another and nothing more. To believe otherwise is to reduce much of the rest of the Constitution to duplicating grants of power. If only one broad clause was needed, why did all those stupid men(The Framers) repeat themselves over and over with grants that were already made. Duh!

NBoC

Monday, June 06, 2005

Fixing the cost of education

First step:
Begin with the top administrator. Place the individual on 90 days paid leave. If everything works while the administrator is out, fire the person. Start with the next administrator.

Second step:
After removing as many chiefs as possible (and maybe all of them), shift the salary and funding savings from the fired admins to books, supplies, etc in the classrooms and to teacher salaries.

Third step:
Drop all federal funding from all public schools. It is not constitutional for the feds to be involved in education any way and the feds take over control of all funds when a scholl takes one red cent of federal funding. Federal funding usually adds chiefs and since they were fired in step 1, the money isn't necessary.

Fourth step:
Quit trying to teach EVERYTHING in the schools. Teach the kids the three Rs and sit back. It worked for the greatest generation.

Fifth step:
Don't let educators experiment. They don't know shit from shinola about performing and evaluating experiments. Besides the system worked for the greatest generation and all that the baby boomers (my generation) did was to screw everything up.

NBoC

Friday, June 03, 2005

The real first amendment

What we call the 1st amendment is really the third amendment. The first two amendments did not pass at the time amendment 3 through 12 did. The position as third puts to rest the idea that the Framers thought the 1st amendment most important (factually, the Framers considered the 2nd the palladium of all other rights) and it also causes the wording of the 1st to stand out as more important in understanding which governmental bodies are/were affected.

The first amendment begins "Congress shall make no law...." Because of the position within the initial set of amendment, the phrase "Congress shall make no law ..." conclusively determines that the 1st amendment has no bearing on State and local governmental bodies. State and local governmental bodies are controlled solely by their own constitutions. A review of the discussion of the Bill of Rights supports this statement. Thus any claim of violation of one's 1st amendment rights against a State or local offical under the 1st amendment is invalid.

Some will try to claim that the 14th amendment is THE amendment that brings the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to bear on the States. This is outright ignorance on the part of anyone taking such a position. First, no a single one of the rights from the Bill of Rights is discussed in the 14th. Second, the 14th only discusses privileges and immunities, neither of which include rights. In the Framers concept, rights come from the Creator and privilieges and immunities are creations of government. Third, if the 14th amendment held ony sway over rights, the those who ratified it were freaking dumb because it was they who passed the 15th amendment protecting the right to vote for all races. And a later congress was just as ignorant when they passed the 19th amendment granting voting rights to women. Or maybe voting isn't a right but merely a privilege granted at will by those in power!! For more discussion on the 14th, see Raoul Berger's _Government by Judiciary_ (www.libertyfund.org) , his 40+ law articles, and his second book on the 14th available from Oklahoma University Press.

If the freaking ACLU wants to turn this country over to the atheists, it will have to do it State by State because the Constitution for the United States has no protections for religious freedom, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, or any other right enumerated in the 1st amendment. Anyone who has read the documentary history of the writing and ratification of the Bill of Rights knows this to be true. If the supreme Court rules against a State (employee, officer, or whatever), the ruling can be ignored because the SC has stepped beyond its authority.

The supreme Court cannot decide what the Constitution means because the SC is created by the Constitution (Accessorium non ducit sed sequitur suum principale). Only the People hold the power to decide the meanings within the Constitution. The belief that the SC is omnipotent, and omniscient in the Constitution is brainwashing. Read Blackstone's Commentaries and you will discover the truth behind these statements.

It is time for the revolution of knowledge. Quit listening to what you were taught, get out of your box, study, read, learn for yourself. Get away from the government's lies.

NBoC

Thursday, June 02, 2005

Idiots on the altar

The greatest threats to freedom in the US are the ignorance and the greed of the general public. The general public wants anything and everything they can get from teh federal govt but are too stupid to realize they are merely stealing from one another. The govenment has nothing, creates nothing. The govenrmetn can only taked from one and give to another. But the constitution prohibits this redistribution of monies. However, we have long for gotten the truth of the constitution. It no longer contorls our government. Not a single person in government and not a single member of the public has any real concept of the constitution. The people have learned to steal from one another and are willing to steal whatever they wish whenever they wish. No responsibility. No commitment. No ethics. No honesty.

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Why U so dum ??

Government run schools!