Category Archives: Constitutional Freedoms
We have set up two phone numbers for Bundy Ranch related issues.
The first number is for those wishing to volunteer for watch and other duties at the ranch and also for those who wish to send supplies to the ranch and need to know how best to send those supplies. Please do not call this number unless you wish to volunteer or send/donate supplies to the ranch. The individual on the phone will have a list of needed supplies. The main point of this number is to be able to establish a tentative schedule in order to best have all positions covered. We need people now but if you can’t make it for a few days or weeks we ask that you still call the line because we WILL have a need long term and we would like to get our roster fleshed out. If you are calling to volunteer be prepared to provide contact info, an estimated arrival date, the length of time you may wish to stay and give us some idea of the skills and equipment you have to offer.
Anyone volunteering for security/watch duty MUST put themselves under the leadership of the on-site security team leader, Jerry DeLemus, an Oath Keeper and the leader of the largest 912 Project group in New Hampshire.
The Watch Roster Hotline number is: 702-793-9217
The second number is to verify or quash Bundy Ranch related rumors. If you are hearing rumors, positive or negative, that are potentially of great importance use this number to get information directly from the folks on site. PLEASE use good judgement before calling this number. If we are overwhelmed with nonsense the line will be of no use.
The Rumor Verification Hotline number is: 702-793-9219
From WRSA: http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/
Aye, fight and you may die. Run, and you’ll live… at least a while.
And dying in your beds, many years from now,
would you be willin’ to trade ALL the days, from this day to that,
for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies
that they may take our lives, but they’ll never take…
Found at RBA: http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/
Found at mm: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
From WRSA: http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/
From mm: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
If a government passes a law, and nobody obeys, what is that government to do?
. When Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) signed the “toughest assault weapons legislation in the nation” last year, his administration estimated between 372,000 and 400,000 firearms would be registered and about 2 million magazines that hold more than ten rounds.
The registration requirement kicked in on Jan. 1 – more than four months ago.
To date, about 50,000 “assault weapons” have been registered – less than 15 percent – and only 38,000 “high-capacity” magazines have been registered – or about 2 percent.
This has liberals – led by the leftist Hartford Courant – in a rage. In a Valentine’s Day editorial, the newspaper said state police should comb the state and federal background check databases to find those millions of scofflaws and… well, arrest them.
The Courant doesn’t say this outright, they argue that the state should find these people, but since violating the new law is a felony, and “felonies cannot go unenforced.”
“A Class D felony calls for a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Even much lesser penalties or probation would mar a heretofore clean record and could adversely affect, say, the ability to have a pistol permit,” they write. “if you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.
What the newspaper is afraid to call for outright is the imprisonment of tens of thousands of gun and high-capacity magazine owners in the state. Throw them in prison for merely owning a weapon or magazine.
Luckily, Gov. Malloy is a little brighter than the good people at the Courant. Sending state troopers descending on thousands of gun owners can not end well. Some folks – even folks in Connecticut – are inclined to believe their Second Amendment Right is inalienable and would react rather negatively if somebody attempted to disarm them.
So that’s out. What about threatening them with criminal charges? That’s out too. The new law already classifies them as felons and they don’t seem to mind.
So what is Malloy likely to do? Nothing. Pretend the law doesn’t even exist and try to move on. Of course, this just proves what we’ve already known: tyrants are toothless against an armed and educated populace.
From TDG: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
. The media’s version of the end of the Bundy Ranch siege is that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) simply “left” the ranch and “returned” the cattle out of the goodness of their hearts. CBS News even outrageously reported that the BLM “released the cattle to help restore order and avoid violence“! This despite widely-seen video of BLM thugs tasing Bundy’s son and shoving a pregnant woman to the ground. And the protesters never threatened violence in any way during the nearly one-week siege.
The real story was that the BLM refused to give back the cattle, and would not leave the property or disarm, to which they had agreed. The result was an epic standoff that reporter David Knight described as being like “something out of a movie.”
Supporters of Bundy advanced on a position held by BLM agents despite threats that they would be shot at, eventually forcing BLM feds to release 100 cattle that had been stolen from Bundy as part of a land grab dispute that threatened to escalate into a Waco-style confrontation.
. ———————————————————————————————————————— .
. Here’s Judge Jeanine Pirro, proving once again that she’s not a part of the “mainstream” news media.
Turtles and cows have absolutely no relevance to the situation in Nevada. Does the Constitution make provision for the federal government to own and control “public land”? This is the only question we need to consider. Currently, the federal government “owns” approximately 30% of the United States territory. The majority of this federally owned land is in the West. For example, the feds control more than 80% of Nevada and more than 55% of Utah. The question has been long debated. At the debate’s soul is Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which is know as the “Property Clause”. Proponents of federal expansion on both sides of the political aisle argue that this clause provides warrant for the federal government to control land throughout the United States.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States…
Those who say this clause delegates the feds control over whatever land they arbitrarily decide to lay claim to are grossly misinterpreting even the most basic structure of the Constitution.
It is said the Constitution is “written in plain English”. This is true. However, plain English does not allow one to remove context. Article IV does not grant Congress the power to exercise sovereignty over land. Article IV deals exclusively with state-to-state relations such as protection from invasion, slavery, full faith and credit, creation of new states and so on.
Historically, the Property Clause delegated federal control over territorial lands up until the point when that land would be formed as a state. This was necessary during the time of the ratification of the Constitution due to the lack of westward development. The clause was drafted to constitutionalize the Northwest Ordinance, which the Articles of Confederation did not have the power to support. This ordinance gave the newly formed Congress the power to create new states instead of allowing the states themselves to expand their own land claims.
The Property Clause and Northwest Ordinance are both limited in power and scope. Once a state is formed and accepted in the union, the federal government no longer has control over land within the state’s borders. From this moment, such land is considered property of the sovereign state. The continental United States is now formed of fifty independent, sovereign states. No “unclaimed” lands are technically in existence. Therefore, the Property Clause no longer applies within the realm of federal control over these states.
The powers of Congress are found only in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. With the exception of the less than two dozen powers delegated to Congress found within Article I, Section 8, Congress may make no laws, cannot form political agencies and cannot take any actions that seek to regulate outside of these few, enumerated powers.
Article I, Section 8 does lay forth the possibility of federal control over some land. What land? Clause 17 defines these few exceptions.
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 is known as the Enclave Clause. The clause gives federal control over the “Seat of Government” (Washington D.C.) and land that has been purchased by the federal government with consent of the state legislature to build military posts and other needful buildings (post offices and other structures pursuant to Article I, Section 8). Nothing more.
Being a requirement, state permission was explicitly emphasized while drafting this clause. The founders and respective states insisted (with loud cries) that the states must consent before the federal government could purchase lands from the states. Nowhere in this clause will you find the power for Congress to exercise legislative authority through regulation over 80% of Nevada, 55% of Utah, 45% of California, 70% of Alaska, etc. unless the state has given the federal government the formal authority to do so, which they have not.
If a state legislature decides sell land to the federal government then at that point the Enclave Clause becomes applicable and the federal government may seize legislative and regulatory control in pursuance to the powers delegated by Article 1, Section 8.
In America’s infancy, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Founding Fathers’ understanding of federal control over land. Justice Stephen J. Field wrote for the majority opinion in Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe (1855) that federal authority over territorial land was “necessarily paramount.” However, once the territory was organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal ground, the state government assumes sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government retains only the rights of an “individual proprietor.” This means that the federal government could only exercise general sovereignty over state property if the state legislature formally granted the federal government the power to do so under the Enclave Clause with the exception of federal buildings (post offices) and military installations. This understanding was reaffirmed in Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan (1845), Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of the city of New Orleans (1845) and Strader v. Graham (1850).
However, it did not take long for the Supreme Court to begin redefining the Constitution and legislating from the bench under the guise of interpretation. Case by case, the Court slowly redefined the Property Clause, which had always been understood to regard exclusively the transferring of federal to state sovereignty through statehood, to the conservation of unconstitutional federal supremacy.
Federal supremacists sitting on the Supreme Court understood that by insidiously redefining this clause then federal power would be expanded and conserved.
With Camfield v. United States (1897), Light v. United States (1911), Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976) and multiple other cases regarding commerce, federal supremacists have effectively erased the constitutional guarantee of state control over property.
Through the centuries, by the hand of corrupt federal judges, we arrive and the Bundy Ranch in Nevada. The Founding Fathers never imagined the citizens of a state would be subject to such treatment at the hands of the federal government. Furthermore, they certainly never imagined the state legislatures themselves would allow such treatment to go unchecked. The latest updates appear to show that Bundy has won his battle against the feds – for now. However, it remains a damn shame that the state of Nevada would allow for such a situation to arise in the first place.
What does Nevada’s Constitution say about property? Section 1, titled “Inalienable Rights,” reads: All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness (Emphasis added).
In Section 22 of the Nevada Constitution, eminent domain is clarified. The state Constitution requires that the state prove public need, provide compensation and documentation before acquiring private property. In order to grant land to the federal government, the state must first control this land.
Bundy’s family has controlled the land for more than 140 years.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which is an agency created by Congress, claimed that Bundy was “violating the law of the land.” Perhaps the agency has forgotten that the law of the land is the Constitution, and the only constitutional violation here is the very modern existence of the agency’s presence in Nevada.
FROM TDG: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
Remember all those promises that were made to sell Obamacare? Like lowering premiums for a family of 4 by $2,500 a year, allowing people to keep their plans and their doctors, not adding a dime to the deficit, and all of that?
Well, let’s just see how much of a striking success “Obamacare” is based on the numbers so far. The Heritage Foundation created these charts based on the HHS’ own numbers, the CBO’s, and the Kaiser Family Foundation’s.
If you’re a young person, you’re pretty much screwed. Not only will you be paying higher premiums to subsidize your elders, you will be paying more taxes over your lifetime to pay back the loans we’re accruing just to pay for this boondoggle. You’re welcome, right?
So… Mr. Smooth was going to save a family of four $2,500 a year in premiums, as promised so many times it’s laughable. About that… a family of four is likely to get an increase in premiums, and in addition, basically anyone who wants to work and live the American Dream will be penalized with higher taxes.
Speaking of taxes, check out these bad boys. Not just one, but 18 new taxes lumped into one giant bill that should be called “Obamatax.” Hey, it’s not a tax! Oh yeah, well, now it is.
You would think from all the hysteria nowadays about Medicaid expansion to the states that this was the main purpose of Obamacare – to spread a huge soviet-style welfare program to as many homes as possible (and let those who are on it tell ya about the amazin’ service while they’re at it!) Anyway, let’s frame some of that left-wing hypocrisy by pointing out Obamacare’s massive cuts to another government program – Medicare.
Now, show him the deductibles, Bob! Average deductibles on the “Catastrophic,” “Bronze,” and “Silver” plans are going through the roof. (No worries if you live in Colorado or Washington, just light up a joint and forget you read this.)
Now here comes the biggie – cost. If you were one of the supporters of this law who thought it wouldn’t “add a dime” to the deficit, I want you to turn to your (theoretical) children and grandchildren and apologize. We’ll wait.
No, tell them the part how you’ll be sticking your kids with your generation’s bills, and how debt is the unpaid portion of the federal budget that gets passed on to someone else.
Still don’t feel guilty? How about realizing that all those taxes coming out of the private sector to pay for this disaster will limit your children’s future, as being evidenced in part by the half of college graduates who can’t find jobs in their fields? Oh, now you feel guilty.
And lo and behold, this healthcare “reform” boondoggle passed through procedural gimmickry with no bipartisan support whatsoever loaded with nonsense and unread in full by most of the nation’s “representation” in Washington still has very little support – beyond those Democrats who would support anything the party told them to.
Boots on the ground seeing this post – please send pix and updates on .gov numbers/equipment/disposition on Twitter to #thisshitstopsnow and @WRSAblog.
Email is email@example.com.
Spread the word.
From WRSA: http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/
. Just imagine sending to the Internal Revenue Service a bill for:
Actual damages for violating the Privacy Act.
The costs of complying with additional demands for information about an application.
Loss of donors.
Loss of membership fees.
Damages for the violation of constitutional rights.
Damages for loss of the benefit of tax-exempt status.
Damages for impairment of constitutionally protected rights.
A case of that kind has been filed, with a request to make it class action. A key proponent explained Friday to WND that the ultimate goal is to uncover what former IRS official Lois Lerner wanted to do and did.
It also seeks to uncover what other “responsible parties” were up to regarding the IRS attacks on tea party and other conservative groups that applied for tax-exempt. Evidence has been presented that the discrimination was coordinated to hinder the effectiveness of the groups when Barack Obama was pursuing re-election in 2012.
The legal action was filed in Ohio by an organization called Sue the IRS, which was established under the direction of Mark Meckler.
Meckler formerly was with Tea Party Patriots but now is with Citizens for Self-Governance. Its mission is to restore self-governance to America by connecting “warriors in order to take power away from big government and the big money that influences it… and return the power to its rightful owners, the people.”
That will happen, the group says, through shared values, incumbent accountability, dispersed power and engaged citizens.
“The grassroots must be in the town hall, the public square, or the village green to gather Americans who hunger to regain control of their government and their lives,” the group explains.
Meckler said the government has been trying to get rid of the case.
“The interesting thing to me is the federal government… making allegations that Americans have no right of recourse when government targets them and tries to prevent them from speaking,” he said.
That, he said, is absolutely fundamental to what American is about.
The case is pending on behalf of the Norcal Tea Party Patriots, Faith and Freedom Coalition of Ohio, Simi Valley Moorpark Tea Party, Tampa 9-12 project, South Dakota Citizens for Liberty, Texas Patriots Tea Party, Americans Against Oppressive Laws, San Angelo Tea Party, Prescott Tea Party, the Texas Public Policy Foundation and others.
It wasted no time getting to the point. In paragraph two, it states: “Elements within the executive branch of the federal government, including defendants, brought the vast powers, incomprehensible complexity, and crushing bureaucracy of the IRS to bear on groups of citizens whose only wrongdoing was their presumed dissent from the policies or ideology of the administration.
“In other words, these citizens were targeted based upon their political viewpoints.”
Specifically, the IRS and individuals involved “employed an array of tactics, including extra scrutiny, intimidation, harassment, invasion of privacy, discriminatory audits, disclosure of private information,and years of delay.”
The result was predictable: “A chilling and muzzling of free speech and association.”
The case seeks damages for violations of the federal law, damages against individuals, and injunctive and declaratory relief against the IRS and Treasury Department. Named individually are ex-IRS official Lois Lerner, acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller, IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, Chief IRS Counsel William Wilkins, Sarah Hall Ingram of the Tax-Exempt Unit and others.
The case is in the discovery phase in which evidence is being obtained and reviewed.
Some of the facts of the IRS targeting are well known: the agency’s identification of organizations likely to oppose Obama’s policies and the years of delays for the paperwork to be processed. There also were invasive questions, such as the content of prayers.
“The IRS’s knowledge that this discrimination was illegal is evidenced by their scheme to keep the people’s duly elected representatives in the dark about it. When members of Congress asked IRS officials… whether the IRS was targeting certain groups for different treatment, the IRS officials provided misleading and deceptive responses,” the case notes.
Conversely, “there is no evidence that liberal or ‘progressive’ political groups or groups supporting the re-election of President Barack Obama or the election of Democrats were targeted for similar delay.”
Even the IRS referred to the process for “tea party cases,” the lawsuit alleges.
The invasive questions included, in the case of the NorCal Tea Party, details about the board of directors and its activities, copies of all corporate minutes, titles, duties, work hours, names of board members or officers who might run for public office.
The IRS repeatedly demanded information, threatening frequently that if there was no response, “we will assume you no longer want us to consider your application.”
“This conduct has caused irreparable harm to plaintiffs, and there is no other adequate remedy at law. This court may grant declaratory and injunctive relief against the IRS and Treasury Department, …declaring that the defendants’ discriminatory conduct is unlawful and enjoining them from using tax exemption applicants’ political viewpoints to target them.”
Among the questions posed: How did the scheme originate? Who ordered it? Who was involved?
The leadership of Sue the IRS said they intend to “bring those involved in this government overreach and abuse… to light.”
Also in the plan is to recover damages for organizations that were harmed.
And the campaign plans to shine light on the wrongdoing to “deter the IRS and other government agencies from engaging in illegal behavior without the fear of being caught, exposed and brought to justice.”
From TDG: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
From RBA: http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/
March 4, 2014 | Author: LAF Editor
Less than 48 hours after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear their case, sentencing them to almost certain deportation, the Romeike family has received a reprieve.
The Home School Legal Defense Association confirmed today that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has granted the German homeschooling family “indefinite deferred status,”allowing them to remain in the United States as long as they want.
“This is an incredible victory that can only be credited to our Almighty God,” Michael Farris, the HSLDA attorney representing the family, wrote on the group’s Facebook page.“We also want to thank those of [you] who spoke up on this issue—including that long ago White House petition. We believe that the public outcry made this possible while God delivered the victory.”
Read the rest here.
Found at: http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/
Tracked from RR: http://www.rural-revolution.com/
From 90 miles: http://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
(Excerpt of the article: Obama’s terrorists are America’s Freedom Fighters by T.L. Davis)
“Those who believe they have the right to say anything they want; the right to decide what religion they will claim and the right to freely exercise their religious beliefs; the right to bear arms; the right to be free of federal troops occupying their home to spy on other citizens; the right to be free from government searches and seizures without sworn warrant; the right to life, liberty and property unless due process of law has given reason that the person should forfeit those rights; the right to a jury trial of one’s peers; the right to be free of cruel or unusual punishment; the rights to do many other things other than what are specified in the Bill of Rights; the rights of the states to do whatever has not been specifically given to congress under the Constitution are terrorists.”
In order to reclaim these rights, they must fight for their freedom. Obama’s terrorists have become America’s Freedom fighters.
Read the entire article at Christian Mercenary: http://christianmerc.blogspot.com/2014/02/obamas-terrorists-are-americas-freedom.html
By: T.L. Davis
This is just another in a long line of needless lawsuits arising out of an unjust and unconstitutional law, affectionately called Obamacare by Barack Obama, or otherwise given the ironic title of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which accomplishes neither patient protection, nor affordable care.
The Constitutional questions are not questions at all. There is no more clear wording in the Bill of Rights than: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” There simply is no more clear admonition than “Congress shall make no law…” What part of “no” is vague? What part of “congress” is vague? What part of “law” is vague? What part of “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” is vague?
Very clearly, if Congress makes a law, drafts a law or passes a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion, i.e. requires that Christians, in order to obey such law, must violate their religious beliefs against abortion by funding that activity, providing that activity through any means, which violates their admonition from God in the Ten Commandments not to kill, is not unconstitutional, then words mean nothing.
Unfortunately, we have seen all too often that when it comes to federal government power, the federal Supreme Court, has found in favor of the government and against the citizen. It is hostile to religion. It is hostile to liberty.
If it is found that Hobby Lobby is forced to violate their freedom of religion, it is the intent of David Green to close its doors. Realistically, they will probably sell their assets to some other large retailer and the stores will stay open under another name. Christian values, however, will be largely diminished.
There are a long list of reasons Obamacare should have been ruled unconstitutional, not just for the violation of religious freedoms inherent in its language, but the violations of individual liberty wherein a mandate requiring the people to purchase anything, including medical coverage, is a violation of the Constitution.
Finding Obamacare constitutional is an example of how the Supreme Court is acting illegally by failing to uphold the Constitution. It is why every judgment made by this Supreme Court is an affront to justice. Allowing any nine people in the nation to encumber the entire population with unwanted, unwarranted violations of liberty is political malpractice. It changes the very fundamentals of a republican form of government and arrives at a system much more akin to an oligarchy.
Christians must fight back against these abuses of government. They are now involved in the fight and while many Christians find it unpalatable to engage in politics, politics have engaged them. To honor God is not to forfeit His will to bureaucrats because of sloth and a refusal to take up Christ’s defense in the public square. It is the duty of Christians to empty the churches and fill the streets.
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
From 90 miles: http://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
Davy Crockett Explains Why Congress (and certainly not the president) has No Power to Give Away Money to Charity or Poor People
David Crockett Member of Congress 1827-31, 1832-35
One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in it’s support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:
“Mr. Speaker– I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:
“Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.
“The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.
“I began: “Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and—-’
“Yes, I know you you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’
“This was a sockdolager….I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
“Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intended by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest…. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’
“‘I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, For I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’
“‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the back woods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings in Congress. My papers say last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some suffers by fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’
“‘Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve it’s suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’
“‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to anything and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose.If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief.
There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the suffers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditable; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.
“‘So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch it’s power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you…’
“I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, for the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:
“Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head, when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully, I have heard many speeches in congress about the powers of the Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.’
“He laughingly replied: “Yes Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.’
“‘If I don’t,’ said I. “I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbeque, and I will pay for it.’
“‘No Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none.. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbeque. This is Thursday; I will see to getting up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’
“‘Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-by. I must know your name.’
“‘My name is Bunce.’
“‘Not Horatio Bunce?’
“‘Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.’
“It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
“At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.
“Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.
“I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him — no, that is not the word — I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times a year; and I will tell you sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian, lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
“But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted—at least, they all knew me.
“In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying: “Fellow-citizens — I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgement is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’
“I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
“And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
“‘It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.’
“He came upon the stand and said:
“‘Fellow-citizens — It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.’
“He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.
“I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the reputation I have ever made, or shall ever make, as a member of Congress.
“Now, sir,” concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday.
“There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men– men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased — a debt which could not be paid by money — and the insignificant and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
By T.L. Davis
So, let us look at our history in America for a moment. It began as a capitalist experiment (and I have been chided for that term for its derivation from Marx as derogatory, but set that aside as we have never known a free market and likely never will, and no, I will not engage the debate here). It was a trading outpost for Britain, France and Spain, each exploiting different parts of the new continent.
There was liberty. The respective crowns were distant and those who braved the seas to arrive and occupy the land did so at their peril. It made of us a risk-taking lot; it made of us self-reliant; it made of us actors rather than reactors. Centuries passed, frontiers dissolved and we arrived at modern America: a tangled web of misinformation, disinformation and largely disconnected from our history. We are fed fairy tales from the television, always spouting a liberal, leftist, Marxist, totalitarian meme.
We are lost. Those of us who understand our rights, who understand the Constitution and the way it was weaved through an understanding of God as the supreme power, are few. The rest believe what they hear on the news, or newspapers, or general gossip.
Our success as a nation was directly attributable to those qualities: risk-taking, self-reliance and action, but, beyond a certain point, it enabled us to disconnect from the very same values. Those qualities allowed us the supremacy of power. We assumed it would always be so and we would always be safe. It allowed us to take our eye off the ball and become more engrossed in our own trivial lives, ignoring the great evil prowling the darkness of apathy.
Those of us awake see the future for what it is: a disaster to our way of life, our supremacy and our security. Those who work against those American traits promise security without risk, wealth without labor, survival without work. They couch our recipe for success in racist terms, on the backs of others, to the detriment of the poor; without seeing that it was poverty and oppression that put the fire in the bellies of the settlers, who found it so horrific in their homeland that a dangerous, cold, distant continent appealed to them rather than to remain under those conditions.
We ventured out, with the grace of God and determination to settle a new land, to enter into liberty from those distant lands of oppression and nobility.
Centuries of new immigrants, drawn by the success, power and promise of America arrived without having to develop, risk or work. They entered a promised land already set up, provided with goods, like walking into a Wal-Mart. Those who brought their labor and ingenuity to the table were fed amply of the rewards, those who did not; who came to game the system, steal the fruit of other’s labor have also found fertile fields, but for all the wrong reasons. They have learned the wrong lessons of America and so do not hold in reverence those ideals that made it strong.
We are all immigrants, but the nature of immigration has changed; the purpose of immigration has changed. It doesn’t matter where a particular immigrant comes from, because there is no inherent value to any race. We are all humans with all the same failings and blessings. What has changed about immigration is not whoimmigrates, but why.
Without the supporting values of what made America great, it cannot succeed in the future. It needs humans of all sorts, but with particular ideas of what America is and why it is such. Without that there is no continuity to society, there is no common understanding of values and there is no possibility of survival. It was the ruin of Rome and it will be our ruin as well.
To avert that ruin drastic measures must be taken and the election of 2014 is the time. No, I am not suggesting we “vote our way out” of this, that is an impossibility. 2014 is a time for the first salvo in our rebellion against the revolution that has taken place under the very eyes and ears of our people. It is the first step in the counter-revolution.
The first thing that has to go is the Republican Party. The Republicans have no loyalty to the Constitution, or they would not have allowed Obama to go so far down the dictatorial road he has traveled since his inauguration. They would not tolerate a president threatening them with a pen, or a phone. Somewhere they had to stand up for the Constitution and use its powers to rid this nation of such a tyrant, but they would not take the risk to their political lives and to that end have proved that they do not have the values on which this nation was founded and do not deserve to sit in the halls of power.
Then, let the games begin.