Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Stealing property, supreme Courts lies, and government controlled school agendas

Why are the people so freaking stupid?

Oh, yea. The government controls the schools and the education of the masses through those required schools.

The theft of property and the supreme Court decision allowing such have gone all but untouched by the people. The people ahave been inculcated with a specific value, that value is the belief that the supreme Court has the last say in all decisions concerning law and the Constitution. This could not be further from the truth. Now my truth may be new to you and as such it will be difficult to accept. But my truth is not new and was recognized as early as the 17th century. Of important note, my truth was discussed in Sir William Blacksonte's Commentaries on the Laws of England, and was followed up in numerous documetns including the Declaration of Independence. We the People have the final say. If We the People do not like a decision of any court, We the People merely override the decision with a simply majority. We the People do not follow the restrictions and limitations of the Constitution for the United States of America. Those are our restrictions on our government not restrictions on ourselves.

Blackstone said it thusly:
"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 Declaration of Independence contains the following:

"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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

But the government run schools have kept this knowledge from the position that this knowledge should have. The government can't have the people making new rules and changing things. That would place those in government who continuously steal power in precarious positions. The People just might decide to rid themselves of the bastards and start over.

It is high time for the People to wake up and to stand up. Get some cajones and hold your elected public servants collective feet to the fire. They are not in charge. They are not the ones who make the rules, unless a wussy, wimpy populace allow them to. Those in power in Washington are not our leaders. Make a commitment today to never use that term again. The people we elect and hire in government jobs are public servants. Keep it that way.

Now set down and write out your override to the Kelo decision of the supreme Court wherein the Court decided states and local government could steal your property and give it to another private party under the so-called "takings" clause of the 5th amendment. This decision was one of the worst that the supreme Courtever made. It goes against everything the Founding Fathers fought for. Do not let their deaths become worthless by giving up your rights. The truth you think you know, i.e. that the supreme Court is the final arbiter, was foisted on you by the government schools. You were lied to, you were brain-washed into believing that crap. Wake up, stand up, and get some courage. It is high time We the People behaved like the ones in charge. Alone we are vulnerable. Together we are invincible.


Monday, January 08, 2007


With the upcoming trial on gun charges of a man in Arkansas, the internet is filled with discussions of the meaning of the Second Amendment.

First, one must look at what a right is and who has rights.

According to the Framers, Rights were/are endowed upon individuals by the Creator (see Declaration of Independence). Rights therefore can only belong to an individual. Rights cannot belong to an inanimate entity such as a state or corporation or group.

The proper term for the so-called "rights" of states, corporations, or groups is privilege. Privilege is generally defined as "a right granted by law". This definition violates the proper construct of Creator/created and true "rights". A privilege is granted by law, one man to another, one governmental agency to another.

The Constitution grants no rights. The Constitution recognizes, through an enumeration, rights that pre-existed the Constitution, rights endowed on humans by their Creator. For the God-fearing, we know who the Creator is. For all others, call the Creator Mother Nature or whatever, it is the same. Rights devolve upon humans by virtue of being born.

Thus the argument over the Second Amendment is moot. Rights cannot belong to the state or to the militia. Rights only legitimately belong to individuals, coming from the Creator. The beginning clause of the second amendment is merely a clause stating why the individual right to keep and bear Arms cannot be legitiamtely infringed. Not a single word in the beginning clause even makes the slightest implicit claim that the right being discussed is a group right. But recall, groups have no rights. What groups have are privileges, granted by law, that give some sort of exemption from the law (immunity) or the authority to perform some specific act under the law (driving).

My advice: Get off your arse. Get some books (a copy of the Constitution and any of the many books written at the time the Constitution was developed) and read. Quit regurgitating what the talking heads spew forth. The judges do not have the final say, We the People retained that power. We have the authority to override any and all judicial decisions and congressional legislation. The judges are NOT on your side. Innocent until proven guilty is not a part of our judicial system and is not guaranteed in the Constitution. Watch your arse because they with the biggest guns win.


Thursday, January 04, 2007

What authority?

This is a note for all those in government, and out also, who believe that the Congress, the President, and the Judiciary have quite unlimited powers, especially in extraordinary times. Read the f---ing Constitution. If it ain't spelled out explicitly and textually, you are lying about things and stealing authorities not granted. There are no between the lines powers. There are no extra "extraordinary times" powers. The Constitution is the Creator of government and of the three branches. Through the Constitution, We the People tell them, the government, what they can and can't do. Quit being such a f---ing idiot and learn just how limited the government is by reading the Constitution. Read the damn thing and look for specific grants. If you can't find it, it was not granted.


Recall power

I was thinking about the issue of recalling elected representatives to the US House and Senate so I began a quick DOGPILE search on the subject. (Now I recognize that 99% of info on the internet is BS so one must look at a number of sources before coming to a conclusion.)

One of the first documents I located discussed this issue coming to the conclusion that since the Constitution did not specifically contain language allowing recall and mentioning that the Framers had discussed recall but failed to include it in the Constitution, stated that the power of recall does not therefore exist since the Constitution does not explicitly authorize such.

The document also states this "Under Supreme Court constitutional interpretation, since individual States never had the original sovereign authority to unilaterally change the terms and conditions of service of federal officials agreed to and established in the Constitution, such a power could not be “reserved” under the 10th Amendment."

Other online discussions tended to the same conclusion.

I however being the naysayer that I am recognize that most persons are restricted in their abilities of independent thought. Most persons have no concept of just what the Constitution is. So I must first educate the reader with respect to that point.

The Constitution is the set of rules that the Creators of the Constitution (We the People) hammered out and wrote down in order to restrict and manage our creation (the Federal government). Thus only those points which relate to how the government is to operate or function need be included. The rules do not apply to the States, except in specific explicit instances as spelled out in the Constitution, nor the the People. A key phrase in understanding the relationship of the People to the government is found the Declaration of Independence. There one finds the following:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

The reason that the right of recall was not included in the Constitution is that the right of recall belongs solely with the People. The Constitution grants nothing to the People. The Constitution is the rules and delegated powers for the government and only necessary measures, such as the power of explusion of members, need be placed in the document. The People retain all authority over their government at all times because government derives is legitimacy from the assent of the governed.

Thus contrary to what any of the idiots on Capitol Hill believe and contrary to the garbage spewed by the Courts, the People have the right, the authority, to recall any elected person any time a basic majority of the People decide to do such.


Tuesday, January 02, 2007

Just how stupid R we?

I read a lot. I read books. I read newspapers. I read blogs. I read online news.

I find a consist lack of intellect among these various sources. All too often every source has been coopted by the educational system of the U.S. and/or other governments. All too often everyone repeats the same garbage about this or that.

One area in which I consider myslef EXTREMELY well read is the area of the Constitution for the United States or America. I have literally read thousands of pages in hundreds of books on the subject. I do so with a passion above most everything else.

Today I read a number of ignorant ravings (news article by the so-called reputible news organizations) concerning Constitutional matters. One invovled giving the people of the District of Columbia voting rigts in Congress. The article impled that the correct opinion was that Congress could do so without a Constitutional amendment, citing the power delegated to Congress granting exclusive legislative power over the seat of government. A second involved the supreme Court holding the McCain-Feingold legislation to be valid but allowing for challenges based on the implementation of the law.

To the First article, I reply: The exclusive legislative power delegated to Congress must be evaluated correctly. Many ignorant persons see this delegation as "exclusive" of all control, even "exclusive" of the Constitution. But this position cannot stand. If the power delegated is "exclusive" of the document that delegates the power, then the power does not/can not exist. Without the Constitution, there is no Congress, no seat of power, no delegation of powers. Thus the power of "exclusive" legislative capacity must be "under" the auspices, limitation, controls, etc of the Constitution for the United States. In order to make any changes, Congress must ask permission from the People through the amendment process.

The "exclusive" provision of Article I Section 8 was "exclusive" of State powers. The area that became the seat of government originally belonged to the States, those states providing the area having legislative authority over their respective portions of the area. In order to stop problems that might arise from dual legislative powers, the Framers adopted the option of giving "exclusive" (exclusive of any other governmental control) legislative authority to the Congress. This was no "absolute" legislative authority. Thus the Constitution for the United States of America with all its requisite requirements, protections, and limitations functions fully in control of Congress' actions in the District of Columbia as elsewhere.

The second issue concerns the supreme Court's theft of authority. The supreme Court is attempting to expand their powers over the People, the Government, and life in general by rationalizing a system in which they are the ultimate arbiter of all things. First, one must understand the the supreme Court, in fact the entire government of the United States of America, is a creation of the Constitution. Without the Constitution, there is no government. This may seem like an overtly obvious statement but the Courts and the uneducated populace do not properly understand things. One must recognize that in the instance of our government, the People are the Creator and the Constitution our creation. Then the Constitution becomes the Creator and the various branches of government its creation. The branches of government, including the supreme Court, are the created and the created is precluded under fundamental law theory from deciding the extent of the Creator. Thus the supreme Court cannot interpret the Constitution because, quite simply, the Constitution creates the supreme Court. The supreme Court is subordinate to the Constitution.

Now that the the position of Creator/created has been established, we must look at the true capacity of the Court to "interpet" the Constitution. There is but one and that is textually. And the interpretation must be the interpretation that the common man would make based solely on the words of the Constitution. Thus in the case of the McCain-Feingold law, the First Amendment comes into play. The First Amendment prohibits completely, absolutely any action by Congress. It does not prohibit actions by State and Local governments. Those actions would have to be covered under the State constitutions. But under the Constitution for the United States of America, Congress is completely forbidden from passing any laws that conflict with the simple, direct wording of the First Amendment. And there is no place in the entire Constitution where the Courts are granted authority to "read between the lines" and invent some interpretation that transfers more power to the Courts. The People have been lied to and made ignorant through the government schools so that the People would believe that what the parts of government, especially the Courts, have the approbation of the Constitution.

The preamble of the Bill of Rights and the clear, clean, concise wording of the Bill of Rights Amendments provide absolute evidence that the Bill of Rights supersede and circumscribe all powers previously delegated. Common law also states that latter legislation overrides prior legislation. Thus the restrictions written in the Bill of Rights cover anything and everything that the government is authorized to do, so long as what the government is doing is found in through strict textual analysis of the words of the Constitution.

And no the Constitution is not a living document, changing with the times. Were that so, the entire amendment process would be moot and unnecessary. (But isn't that just what the purveyors of the "living" document want. That pesky amendment process is difficult and we can't get the changes we want easily enough through amendments so lets just make up a "living" document theory and change the meanings of the words however we who are the smartest, bestest desire. Besides we know what's best for everyone.) Those who adhere to the "living" document theory are telling us the Framers were a bunch of ignorant idiots who didn't understand the document they were creating and thus the Framers spent many hours of discussion and writing on the amendment process that was totally unnecessary since the Constitution is a "living" document that changes with the times.