By Earl Lofland
March 22, 2011
I am not interested in liberal nor conserative talking points. and Americans only objective should be to ensure those who take the Oath of office uphold that law, and the other laws of this land, that they are not violated by those in power, (by the way; the oath of office is a US Code, violating it is a violation of the US Code- it is therefore a crime called perjury).
John Kerry, John McCain, Nancy Pelosi, Lindsey Graham, Hillary Clinton, the New York Times and the French Government all support this attack. Constitutionalist understand what’s wrong with that picture.
It is obvious as the nose on ones face. They are all the same rotting fruit falling from the same tree.
In accordance to the Powers of War Act 1973, this administration has clearly committed war crimes by launching an attack on a sovereign country that posed no threat to the US and who did not properly address Congress, other than sending them a "letter" . This action It is not only a violation of the Constitution. It also subverts the very laws that were passed to preserve and prevent such actions from occuring. A person usurping too much power away from the People and Congress.
Though Bush did go to Congress, all he obtaines was an "Authorization for the Use of Military Force", rather than a declaration of war. He cited Section 4 of the POWA which gave him 60-90 days to complete the mission. 7 years later we were still involved in Iraq, (Not quite Constitutional I would say), but better than nothing, At least Mr. Bush did go before Congress. Not to say the Iraq War didn't violate the law, but still when Mr. Bush cited section 4 of the Powers of War Act. If memory serves correctly. This gave him 60-90 days to complete the mission. And after that time expired, he was then acting in violation of the Powers of War ACT, until congress decided to pass a resolution to extend the time of our military involvment. Yet he never gave an accurate exit strategy. And that little photo op "Mission Accomplished" was nothing more than subversion of the definition for use of military forces. The entire administration, in my opinion should have been charged with war crimes by Congress. They falsified records, lied before the UN Counsel, and lied to Congress with the doctored letters that did not show the facts that Saddam Did NOT pose an imminent threat to the US. In violation of Section 2 of the Powers of Wars Act. Just as Obama has clearly done in the illegal use of US military and its equipment against a sovereign country that has not posed an imminent threat of attack against the US.
Despite having a crushing $14 Trillion national debt, and Congress even thinking about raising the debt ceiling, with a $1.5 Trillion annual budget deficit, and a dire 15.9% unemployment rate (using the real but still underestimated u6 rate); the financial drain to help Japan, Obama committed America to yet another war in the Muslim world. Our military and national budget are already stretched to the limit and all he seems to think about is playing with military ordinances which goes completely against the very campaign he ran on to be elected.
Perhaps the Nobel Peace Priz Committee should also consider giving Obama another Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences since he’s driving the U.S. into insolvency.
John Kerry, John McCain, Nancy Pelosi, Lindsey Graham, Hillary Clinton, the New York Times and the French Government all support this duplicitous attack. Conservatives understand what’s wrong with that picture.
The Constitution Party of Delaware openly opposes
America’s involvement in yet another war during these dire economic times. Benjamin Harrison a signer of the Declaration of Independence once said that we are not to be the Police of the world. This includes meddling in a civil war of an Arab country that has little strategic value and for which Congress was not officially consulted.
Benjamin Harrison stated that America serves the world best not as a policeman (or benefactor), but rather as a beacon of hope, liberty and that comes only through the knowledge of Who Christ Jesus is.
None of those missiles and none of those coalition jet pilots will be able to discern the difference between pro-Gadhafi civilians or anti-Gadhafi civilians since they all have weapons. We have no real idea who the rebels are or their true political agenda; some even having ties to Al Qaeda. Obama like his predicessor has no clear objective, no clear definition of victory and no clear exit strategy .
Former first lady Laura Bush Recently, went public with a plea that foreign aid be spared in pending budget cuts. Here is the reason why I oppose republicrats. her lavish banquets and hobnobbing does not qualify her to be statesman (woman) anymore than visiting the NASA Center makes her an astrophysicist.
Like many political insiders, and make no mistake Mrs Bush, you are one, you like the others with a D or R behind your name find it easy to give away other people's money. We should remember, the money we give to foreign lands is borrowed, and to be paid back by future generations with interest. Also, let American voters not forget, contributions to foreign beneficiaries by no means is voluntary - They are forcefully collected through taxes.
As Congressman David Crockett once said Mrs. Bush, It is not yours to give. feel free to donate all the money you wish to your worthy mission...
"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."
Originally published in "The Life of Colonel David Crockett,"
by Edward Sylvester Ellis.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Monday, March 7, 2011
The Science of Deception
The Science of Deception
By Earl Lofland
March,7,2011
Explaining what occurred in the 2010 election is intended to enlighten other conservatives about the reason why Christine O’Donnell did not win. The national leadership of the GOP and its financial backers did not have any interest in Christine O’Donnell, nor other candidates like her to be placed in office. It doesn’t matter if they are running for local, county, state, or federal office. The chain of command still applies. Whoever the National Party doesn’t support, the state Party leadership will not support. If the leadership of the state party changes to more conservative views, the national will provide the least amount of support the states candidates.
Conservative voters should ask what marketing firm was behind the making of the advertisement Christine O’Donnell ran; "I am not a witch" It was obvious to many who know the science of Political selections it was aired to drive down her voter approval ratings, and shift more public interest from the moderate Republican voters to vote for Chris Coons over Christine. Some will find this hard to believe although the evidence clearly shows the National Party and its financial contributors do not hold the same interest as the local conservative voters, especially those in Delaware.
Anyone who studied the science behind political campaigns realizes what occurred with Christine’s campaign, and others like hers. While the majority of their supporter usually work tirelessly, hoping to change things nationally at the state level-- Delaware proved in the 2010 elections,(as well as in 2008) there is little chance to force redirection onto the national party and their financial contributors to side with conservatives on a state level, especially with a state like Delaware and the number of electoral votes it carries in national elections. National leadership always holds higher stakes and thus more leverage in controlling what will occur on the state level in elections especially in Delaware. And the Republican national party would rather have someone like Chris Coons in office compared to a Christine O’Donnell based on the number of moderate republicans who are in office across the country.
There is a political riff between the conservative and the moderate republicans in Delaware due to the political war within Delaware’s Republican Party. The outcome will most likely cause a split in the party, where some members will decide to leave the party. Either to form a new party, or look for another party that best fits their political views. In Delaware, a vast majority of Moderates could end up switching over to the Democrat party in hopes to bring more Blue Dog Democrats in over the social liberal democrats if the Conservative side wins.
However if the Moderates gained control of the Republican party there will be some voters who will look for another conservative party to support. If the Conservatives decided to stay with a party controlled by moderates, many new conservative voters would also see the party having a more liberal dialog, not much different than the Democrat party.
By Earl Lofland
March,7,2011
Explaining what occurred in the 2010 election is intended to enlighten other conservatives about the reason why Christine O’Donnell did not win. The national leadership of the GOP and its financial backers did not have any interest in Christine O’Donnell, nor other candidates like her to be placed in office. It doesn’t matter if they are running for local, county, state, or federal office. The chain of command still applies. Whoever the National Party doesn’t support, the state Party leadership will not support. If the leadership of the state party changes to more conservative views, the national will provide the least amount of support the states candidates.
Conservative voters should ask what marketing firm was behind the making of the advertisement Christine O’Donnell ran; "I am not a witch" It was obvious to many who know the science of Political selections it was aired to drive down her voter approval ratings, and shift more public interest from the moderate Republican voters to vote for Chris Coons over Christine. Some will find this hard to believe although the evidence clearly shows the National Party and its financial contributors do not hold the same interest as the local conservative voters, especially those in Delaware.
Anyone who studied the science behind political campaigns realizes what occurred with Christine’s campaign, and others like hers. While the majority of their supporter usually work tirelessly, hoping to change things nationally at the state level-- Delaware proved in the 2010 elections,(as well as in 2008) there is little chance to force redirection onto the national party and their financial contributors to side with conservatives on a state level, especially with a state like Delaware and the number of electoral votes it carries in national elections. National leadership always holds higher stakes and thus more leverage in controlling what will occur on the state level in elections especially in Delaware. And the Republican national party would rather have someone like Chris Coons in office compared to a Christine O’Donnell based on the number of moderate republicans who are in office across the country.
There is a political riff between the conservative and the moderate republicans in Delaware due to the political war within Delaware’s Republican Party. The outcome will most likely cause a split in the party, where some members will decide to leave the party. Either to form a new party, or look for another party that best fits their political views. In Delaware, a vast majority of Moderates could end up switching over to the Democrat party in hopes to bring more Blue Dog Democrats in over the social liberal democrats if the Conservative side wins.
However if the Moderates gained control of the Republican party there will be some voters who will look for another conservative party to support. If the Conservatives decided to stay with a party controlled by moderates, many new conservative voters would also see the party having a more liberal dialog, not much different than the Democrat party.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Reality Checks Are Not Based Upon Fiat Money
In Bold and or Bold Italics I will Break the article down published in the Delaware State News Titled:
"Demonstrators rally to save ‘American dream’ By Jamie-Leigh Bissett"
DOVER — About 200 Delawareans rallied on the steps of Legislative Hall in Dover on Saturday to "demand an end to the attack on workers’ rights."
Lets put this in a more factual standing. PUBLIC UNION WORKERS
"We're here today to stand in solidarity with Wisconsin workers and American families everywhere," said event organizer Ann Nolan of Lewes. "After a devastating recession and hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, regular Americans cannot take another hit."
Point 2 similar as Point 1 And addendum though. The recession and thousands of jobs lost . Unions Do not care about Non Union Members. Attempt to cross a Picket line and work where they are picketing.
Ms. Nolan and the hundreds of other demonstrators that included teachers and other public sector workers from the First State said the "Rally to Save the American Dream" was part of a national day of action, with events happening in all 50 state capitals.
If they want to save the AMERICAN DREAM Then they should stop indoctrinations of students with all the Ed Programs Death Ed Sex Ed etc. They also should conduct actual model of learning opposed to the Skinner Pavlovian techniques that have been brought in to the PUBLIC Sector through Non profits like the Carnage Foundation Ford Foundation Rockefeller Foundation et al.
She said the reason behind the demonstration stems from protests in Wisconsin, where workers have been fighting for nearly two weeks against a bill proposed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker that would eliminate a union’s right to collectively bargain for benefits and work conditions.
They should feel fortunate that the governor has not taken on a more Constitutional Ideal to Shut down all Public schools and Transit all students into a private learning system of the parents choice Through a rebate to the tax payer of the existing budget that has been allotted for the PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM. BY the way If this were to occur in Delaware? It would be Constitutional! And As governor. I would impose such a measure.
Gov. Walker said the bill would help solve the state’s nearly $3.6 billion shortfall, while union members believe the bill is a ploy to strip them of their rights.
While the Union fights to keep their right of collective bargaining the Students rights parents rights and anyone elses rights who are not a union member is infringed. This is actually illegal! Laws must be for all or none
"Right now, the American Dream is slipping away for millions of us, and we're here today to say enough is enough. It’s time for our government to work for us, and not just corporations and millionaires," Ms. Nolan said.
The Dream slipped way dating back to the 1980's . The American Dream began right after the WWII and it ballooned and then exploded in the 1980's And ever since Both Democrats and Republicans have been stripping that away Piece by piece. Wake up ! and smell the Hawg slop!
The American Dream became the totalitarian nightmare And Public Unions are as much to blame as the politicians in office. Tytler gave a description of what occurs after about 200 years and the stages of a Democracy.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy
Joanne Cabry, who is a retired teacher from Rehoboth Beach, said even though Wisconsin is hundreds of miles away, their fight is Delaware’s fight.
War is the means to an end, and the end is always governed by Politics.
Sun Tzu said this! in Art of War.
Therefore if this is a FIGHT. This makes it a war. And that war is Union vs non Union.
"Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere," she said, borrowing a quote from the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
And I too will borrow a quote from the same man.
"Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right."
Is this protest right? To answer that; question: is anyone being excluded? Answer: Yes, Non Union workers and students are who are being damaged. Therefore, though it may be popular to mimic the protesting that has occurred the last two years. It may be a safe thing even politic to rally around the very people who support Public Unions (Public Elected officials AKA Politicians) But it does not qualify for being right. Nor does it qualify as a Constitutional RIGHT.
"We're all in this together," added Deborah Schultz of Lewes. "It’s all about power to them.
Incorrect it is about diverting power away from the government. And Government Public workers is still government! and Not the people!
They’re trying to divert attention away from themselves and turn people against each other.
As I said... They are a diversion and manipulating the facts, and what is actually Constitutional in policy and principle.
If the public sector gets less, that doesn't mean the private sector will get more."
And if the public sector gets on board and realizes that the the problem is called FEDERAL RESERVE then maybe we can all do something to actually RESTORE our Constitutional Republic instead of handing it over to Social elites who only wish to demonize those opposed to an Authoritarian Kleptocratic Form of Government.
Jon Holland, a pilot living in Dover, said the whole thing "upsets me. It’s not right to demonize people who are trying to bargain themselves a better life, or to blame our problems on one group of people."
He is absolutely right! And when Union workers demonize non union members what is that? A Hypocritical Comment maybe??
Demonstrators at Saturday’s rally held signs that read, "Cut bonuses, not teachers," "Unions make us strong," and "Like weekends? Thank unions."
Show me where the Public Schools have done anything more than cost Taxpayers more money; where they have produced across the board equal education among all races. and where there is not class warfare not being taught in the classrooms.
This was what No Child Left behind was to solve and Race to the Flop as well. And other programs dating back to the Johnson Years. And all of them failed in doing anything other than cost tax payers more while their children and they receive less for their tax dollar (investments)!
Unions have no place in the publics government. It infringes upon the rights of those who do not wish to be a union member and are forced to send their children to schools that are run by a public Unionized government further indoctrinating them with union propaganda.
Those who came to the rally were people of all ages and walks of life, which was the point, said John Johnson, himself a Local 234 Transport Workers Union of America member.
All were UNION or family members of Unions or Supporters for something that is Unethical in regards to the principles of the Founding documents. to include ALL not some who may be in a union.
"This is not a black issue. This is not a white issue. This is a working-class issue," he said.
Incorrect, It is a UNION ISSUE
Edward "Pedro" Miller of Lewes echoed Mr. Johnson’s sentiments, saying "There would be no middle class without unions."
There is no middle class!!!! It was destroyed a long time ago! Thanks to the Federal Reserve and laws that public elected officials have passed that destroyed the "Middle Class". You are either wealthy making over $100,000.00 a year or you are poor, and living below the Cost of Living. ThanksReagan and each Congress during all 8years of his tenure for that!
He added that the "American Dream will only be a memory if we don't do something.
The American Dream is to restore that which was destroyed, that dates back prior to when anyone at that rally was born! Unless they are as old as Mr. Frank Buckles the Last surviving WWI Vet who just passed away.
"America was once the greatest country in the world. It still can be, but we have to do something about it."
Yes it was! But I have to pour cold water on their hopey changy dream there.
Thanks to both the political parties and their support of Banking Cartel and their Business Plot,that began .. Just about the time of when the War Between the States broke out... Or earlier, all that is now a part of American History that gets very little acknowledgement. Because it goes against the agenda of the very ones who had created the Business Plot to begin with.
Tom Steele, of Newark and an Amtrak 3095 union member, said he is "tired of being manipulated by big business and politicians."
And Americans Private UNION members AND NON UNION members are tired of being Manipulated
He said he is also "mad as hell" about the attack on union workers, to which the protestors loudly cheered in agreement.
Personally I am not against private unions. I realize why they were created. Because of families like the Carnagies and Rockefellers. Fords Getty Schwabs et al would exploit men women and children as slaves to build their empire. That eventually marched on the Campaign platform and on in to local state and federal government seats.
Phillip Bannowsky of Newark, who led the crowd in songs like "Union Made," the lyrics of which include, "You can't scare me. I'm sticking to the union ... ’til the day I die," and chants such as, "Hey, hey. Ho, ho. Where did all the money go? Hey, hey. Ho, ho. Union busting has got to go," said those attacking workers’ rights view those not trying to get rich as the enemy.
Where did all the money go? That is a very good question!!! Again I point back to the Federal Reserve and their illegal henches the IRS
"They view everyone who works for a living as the enemy," he said.
Now that is a real joke. Not everyone who works is a UNION MEMBER And again I challenge anyone to cross a Union Picket line to seek work and see what happens!!!
And though the ralliers on Saturday all strongly believed in what they were fighting for, some, like Skip Paulman of Newark, were disappointed with the turnout.
Hmm Maybe it is because there are still a lot of people who recognize the real problem?
"I expected to see every union worker here today. Where are they? This is our livelihood, man," he said.
Maybe there is a light at the end of this tunnel, and maybe it isn't an oncoming freight train? Maybe some UNION Members realize . Like Martin Luther King said in 1964
But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right."
"Demonstrators rally to save ‘American dream’ By Jamie-Leigh Bissett"
DOVER — About 200 Delawareans rallied on the steps of Legislative Hall in Dover on Saturday to "demand an end to the attack on workers’ rights."
Lets put this in a more factual standing. PUBLIC UNION WORKERS
"We're here today to stand in solidarity with Wisconsin workers and American families everywhere," said event organizer Ann Nolan of Lewes. "After a devastating recession and hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, regular Americans cannot take another hit."
Point 2 similar as Point 1 And addendum though. The recession and thousands of jobs lost . Unions Do not care about Non Union Members. Attempt to cross a Picket line and work where they are picketing.
Ms. Nolan and the hundreds of other demonstrators that included teachers and other public sector workers from the First State said the "Rally to Save the American Dream" was part of a national day of action, with events happening in all 50 state capitals.
If they want to save the AMERICAN DREAM Then they should stop indoctrinations of students with all the Ed Programs Death Ed Sex Ed etc. They also should conduct actual model of learning opposed to the Skinner Pavlovian techniques that have been brought in to the PUBLIC Sector through Non profits like the Carnage Foundation Ford Foundation Rockefeller Foundation et al.
She said the reason behind the demonstration stems from protests in Wisconsin, where workers have been fighting for nearly two weeks against a bill proposed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker that would eliminate a union’s right to collectively bargain for benefits and work conditions.
They should feel fortunate that the governor has not taken on a more Constitutional Ideal to Shut down all Public schools and Transit all students into a private learning system of the parents choice Through a rebate to the tax payer of the existing budget that has been allotted for the PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM. BY the way If this were to occur in Delaware? It would be Constitutional! And As governor. I would impose such a measure.
Gov. Walker said the bill would help solve the state’s nearly $3.6 billion shortfall, while union members believe the bill is a ploy to strip them of their rights.
While the Union fights to keep their right of collective bargaining the Students rights parents rights and anyone elses rights who are not a union member is infringed. This is actually illegal! Laws must be for all or none
"Right now, the American Dream is slipping away for millions of us, and we're here today to say enough is enough. It’s time for our government to work for us, and not just corporations and millionaires," Ms. Nolan said.
The Dream slipped way dating back to the 1980's . The American Dream began right after the WWII and it ballooned and then exploded in the 1980's And ever since Both Democrats and Republicans have been stripping that away Piece by piece. Wake up ! and smell the Hawg slop!
The American Dream became the totalitarian nightmare And Public Unions are as much to blame as the politicians in office. Tytler gave a description of what occurs after about 200 years and the stages of a Democracy.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy
Joanne Cabry, who is a retired teacher from Rehoboth Beach, said even though Wisconsin is hundreds of miles away, their fight is Delaware’s fight.
War is the means to an end, and the end is always governed by Politics.
Sun Tzu said this! in Art of War.
Therefore if this is a FIGHT. This makes it a war. And that war is Union vs non Union.
"Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere," she said, borrowing a quote from the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
And I too will borrow a quote from the same man.
"Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right."
Is this protest right? To answer that; question: is anyone being excluded? Answer: Yes, Non Union workers and students are who are being damaged. Therefore, though it may be popular to mimic the protesting that has occurred the last two years. It may be a safe thing even politic to rally around the very people who support Public Unions (Public Elected officials AKA Politicians) But it does not qualify for being right. Nor does it qualify as a Constitutional RIGHT.
"We're all in this together," added Deborah Schultz of Lewes. "It’s all about power to them.
Incorrect it is about diverting power away from the government. And Government Public workers is still government! and Not the people!
They’re trying to divert attention away from themselves and turn people against each other.
As I said... They are a diversion and manipulating the facts, and what is actually Constitutional in policy and principle.
If the public sector gets less, that doesn't mean the private sector will get more."
And if the public sector gets on board and realizes that the the problem is called FEDERAL RESERVE then maybe we can all do something to actually RESTORE our Constitutional Republic instead of handing it over to Social elites who only wish to demonize those opposed to an Authoritarian Kleptocratic Form of Government.
Jon Holland, a pilot living in Dover, said the whole thing "upsets me. It’s not right to demonize people who are trying to bargain themselves a better life, or to blame our problems on one group of people."
He is absolutely right! And when Union workers demonize non union members what is that? A Hypocritical Comment maybe??
Demonstrators at Saturday’s rally held signs that read, "Cut bonuses, not teachers," "Unions make us strong," and "Like weekends? Thank unions."
Show me where the Public Schools have done anything more than cost Taxpayers more money; where they have produced across the board equal education among all races. and where there is not class warfare not being taught in the classrooms.
This was what No Child Left behind was to solve and Race to the Flop as well. And other programs dating back to the Johnson Years. And all of them failed in doing anything other than cost tax payers more while their children and they receive less for their tax dollar (investments)!
Unions have no place in the publics government. It infringes upon the rights of those who do not wish to be a union member and are forced to send their children to schools that are run by a public Unionized government further indoctrinating them with union propaganda.
Those who came to the rally were people of all ages and walks of life, which was the point, said John Johnson, himself a Local 234 Transport Workers Union of America member.
All were UNION or family members of Unions or Supporters for something that is Unethical in regards to the principles of the Founding documents. to include ALL not some who may be in a union.
"This is not a black issue. This is not a white issue. This is a working-class issue," he said.
Incorrect, It is a UNION ISSUE
Edward "Pedro" Miller of Lewes echoed Mr. Johnson’s sentiments, saying "There would be no middle class without unions."
There is no middle class!!!! It was destroyed a long time ago! Thanks to the Federal Reserve and laws that public elected officials have passed that destroyed the "Middle Class". You are either wealthy making over $100,000.00 a year or you are poor, and living below the Cost of Living. ThanksReagan and each Congress during all 8years of his tenure for that!
He added that the "American Dream will only be a memory if we don't do something.
The American Dream is to restore that which was destroyed, that dates back prior to when anyone at that rally was born! Unless they are as old as Mr. Frank Buckles the Last surviving WWI Vet who just passed away.
"America was once the greatest country in the world. It still can be, but we have to do something about it."
Yes it was! But I have to pour cold water on their hopey changy dream there.
Thanks to both the political parties and their support of Banking Cartel and their Business Plot,that began .. Just about the time of when the War Between the States broke out... Or earlier, all that is now a part of American History that gets very little acknowledgement. Because it goes against the agenda of the very ones who had created the Business Plot to begin with.
Tom Steele, of Newark and an Amtrak 3095 union member, said he is "tired of being manipulated by big business and politicians."
And Americans Private UNION members AND NON UNION members are tired of being Manipulated
He said he is also "mad as hell" about the attack on union workers, to which the protestors loudly cheered in agreement.
Personally I am not against private unions. I realize why they were created. Because of families like the Carnagies and Rockefellers. Fords Getty Schwabs et al would exploit men women and children as slaves to build their empire. That eventually marched on the Campaign platform and on in to local state and federal government seats.
Phillip Bannowsky of Newark, who led the crowd in songs like "Union Made," the lyrics of which include, "You can't scare me. I'm sticking to the union ... ’til the day I die," and chants such as, "Hey, hey. Ho, ho. Where did all the money go? Hey, hey. Ho, ho. Union busting has got to go," said those attacking workers’ rights view those not trying to get rich as the enemy.
Where did all the money go? That is a very good question!!! Again I point back to the Federal Reserve and their illegal henches the IRS
"They view everyone who works for a living as the enemy," he said.
Now that is a real joke. Not everyone who works is a UNION MEMBER And again I challenge anyone to cross a Union Picket line to seek work and see what happens!!!
And though the ralliers on Saturday all strongly believed in what they were fighting for, some, like Skip Paulman of Newark, were disappointed with the turnout.
Hmm Maybe it is because there are still a lot of people who recognize the real problem?
"I expected to see every union worker here today. Where are they? This is our livelihood, man," he said.
Maybe there is a light at the end of this tunnel, and maybe it isn't an oncoming freight train? Maybe some UNION Members realize . Like Martin Luther King said in 1964
But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right."
Monday, February 21, 2011
Public v Private and home schooling
As Americans are witnessing in Wisconsin, soon this will spread into other states as well. The Protest in Wisconsin is a political struggle between the people of the state vs State union workers who are a part of the state operated education system.
Remember, in all things, where there are two or more oppents it should be recognized as a war:
"War is the means to an end . And that end is always governed by Politics".
Sun Tzu.
Just as a sword has two edges, so does political struggles. And what took place when Americans marched on Washington DC and to the town hall meetings opposing bigger government, SEIU, and laws that were being passed without reading the bills, gave a blow to the Train wreck agenda of government attempting to take control over the people.
I am posting a video here .
Pay attention to the footage about 45-60 seconds into the news cast, the upper balcony where you will see a flag hanging over the railing.
Question
Why has someone hung a flag from Puerto Rico over the banister in a Wisconsin Sate Building?
This protest is being managed by a perspective managment team!
The objective for the flag is to generate racial tension against their opponents. It is a tactic that has been used for centuries. by attacking anyone who opposes this movement as discriminating against hispanics or other minorities in order to achieve giving the public this false perception, there has to be something put in place to persuade their argument. (A False flag- in this case the flag of Puerto Rico).
If any governor who faces what is happening now in Madison WI is dedicated at saving their state, he will have to "destroy it in order to save it".
This is a war tactic. That I will explain
The strategy would include dismantling the public school system in the state. By Placing all the students on a temporary vacation, similar to what FDR done with the Banks during the great depression; through the governor(s) signing several executive orders.
Giving the private schools in their state adequate time to hire ample teachers and other staffing,
Also to begin a transition of state school property either purchased or leased to private schools (Creating a boost in the private sector job market growth)
Taking tax dollars that are already appropriated for state funded schools to operate during this and the upcoming fiscal year and transfering those funds into vouchers, for parents and guardians to use for students to be transferred into a private school of the parent/Guardians choice, with as little harmed in the students education.
Keeping the Board of Education in the state only in the capacity of supervising state mandated studies required by the state, and taught in the private charter and home schooling programs.
State employees funded through the states education system would then be terminated effective immediately (with UI compensation for 26 weeks) and given the responsibility of seeking gainful employment within that 26 weeks in a competitive private market. Instead of contributing to the problems related to the ever growing size of government and forcing the state to continually increase in taxes to help pay for the failing public schools system.
Wisconsin could be the first beta test state for such a remarkable idea, that could build and grow in popularity from state to state.
This would also decrease students being "Fundamentally illiterate" as the recent statistics are showing, where over 59 million people in America who have graduated high school, and are either "semi fundamentally illiterate or Fundamentally illiterate".
It has also been proven students who are taught in private schools are at a higher grade level in learning than those in the public schools. While increasing the students literacy and learning skills, this alo would take on the task to downsize the state government; Decreasing the need for higher taxes; targeting these problems at a state level first.
Ground up principles.
This is where Delawareans and other states need to support any governors who would recognize such an idea now. Or, find someone to back as their states governor in 201 who would enact this experiment. It would also be crucial to have an Attorney General who would be supportive of these Governors and this proposed experiment as well.
Earl Lofland
Remember, in all things, where there are two or more oppents it should be recognized as a war:
"War is the means to an end . And that end is always governed by Politics".
Sun Tzu.
Just as a sword has two edges, so does political struggles. And what took place when Americans marched on Washington DC and to the town hall meetings opposing bigger government, SEIU, and laws that were being passed without reading the bills, gave a blow to the Train wreck agenda of government attempting to take control over the people.
I am posting a video here .
Pay attention to the footage about 45-60 seconds into the news cast, the upper balcony where you will see a flag hanging over the railing.
Question
Why has someone hung a flag from Puerto Rico over the banister in a Wisconsin Sate Building?
This protest is being managed by a perspective managment team!
The objective for the flag is to generate racial tension against their opponents. It is a tactic that has been used for centuries. by attacking anyone who opposes this movement as discriminating against hispanics or other minorities in order to achieve giving the public this false perception, there has to be something put in place to persuade their argument. (A False flag- in this case the flag of Puerto Rico).
If any governor who faces what is happening now in Madison WI is dedicated at saving their state, he will have to "destroy it in order to save it".
This is a war tactic. That I will explain
The strategy would include dismantling the public school system in the state. By Placing all the students on a temporary vacation, similar to what FDR done with the Banks during the great depression; through the governor(s) signing several executive orders.
Giving the private schools in their state adequate time to hire ample teachers and other staffing,
Also to begin a transition of state school property either purchased or leased to private schools (Creating a boost in the private sector job market growth)
Taking tax dollars that are already appropriated for state funded schools to operate during this and the upcoming fiscal year and transfering those funds into vouchers, for parents and guardians to use for students to be transferred into a private school of the parent/Guardians choice, with as little harmed in the students education.
Keeping the Board of Education in the state only in the capacity of supervising state mandated studies required by the state, and taught in the private charter and home schooling programs.
State employees funded through the states education system would then be terminated effective immediately (with UI compensation for 26 weeks) and given the responsibility of seeking gainful employment within that 26 weeks in a competitive private market. Instead of contributing to the problems related to the ever growing size of government and forcing the state to continually increase in taxes to help pay for the failing public schools system.
Wisconsin could be the first beta test state for such a remarkable idea, that could build and grow in popularity from state to state.
This would also decrease students being "Fundamentally illiterate" as the recent statistics are showing, where over 59 million people in America who have graduated high school, and are either "semi fundamentally illiterate or Fundamentally illiterate".
It has also been proven students who are taught in private schools are at a higher grade level in learning than those in the public schools. While increasing the students literacy and learning skills, this alo would take on the task to downsize the state government; Decreasing the need for higher taxes; targeting these problems at a state level first.
Ground up principles.
This is where Delawareans and other states need to support any governors who would recognize such an idea now. Or, find someone to back as their states governor in 201 who would enact this experiment. It would also be crucial to have an Attorney General who would be supportive of these Governors and this proposed experiment as well.
Earl Lofland
Saturday, February 19, 2011
PROPRIATORY RIGHTS OF THE BANKRUPT
These united States entered into bankruptcy in 1933 by Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111, and 6260 under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, See: Senate Report 93-549, pages 187 & 594) under the "Trading With The Enemy Act" (Sixty-Fifth Congress, Sess. I, Chs. 105, 106, October 6, 1917), and as codified at 12 U.S.C.A. 95a.
At that time each of the united States pledged faith and credit to the aid of the Federal Government, forming numerous committees, i.e. "Council of State Governments", "Social Security Administration", etc., to manage the contrived economic "Emergency" caused by the bankruptcy. The SSA became Corporations operated under the "Declaration of Interdependence" of January 22, 1937, and published some of their activities in " Book Of The States."
Robert Bork wrote "we are governed not by law or elected representatives but by an unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable committee of lawyers applying no will but their own." (The Tempting Of America, Robert H. Bork, pg. 130)
And it is more worthy to note that there is the "Original" 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution called the "Title of Nobility" Amendment that reads:
"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."
Senator Philip Reed (MD) proposed the "Title of Nobility" Amendment (History of Congress, Proceedings of the Senate, p. 529-530).
On April 27, 1810, the Senate voted to pass the 13th Amendment by a vote of 26 to 1; the House voted to resolve the amendment (87 to 3 in the affirmative).
The resolve was then sent to the States for ratification:
Dec. 10, 1812; Twelve of the required thirteen States had ratified the Amendment as follows:
Maryland, Dec. 25, 1810
Kentucky, Jan. 31, 1811
Ohio, Jan. 31, 1811
Delaware, Feb. 2, 1811
Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1811
New Jersey, Feb. 13, 1811
Vermont, Oct. 24, 1811
Tennessee, Nov. 21, 1811
Georgia, Dec. 13, 1811
North Carolina, Dec. 23, 1811
Massachusetts, Feb. 27, 1812
New Hampshire, Dec. 10, 1812.
Although the War of 1812 began before a thirteenth State could ratify the amendment, interupting the ratification.
The State of Connecticut failed to ratify this original 13th Amendment
on May 13, 1813, leaving it up to Virginia to be 13th required state to ratify the amendment. Whereas Virginia ratified with the March 12, 1819 publication of the Laws of Virginia.
Then Connecticut published this in four separate editions of "The Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut" as an amendment of the U.S. Constitution in 1821, 1824, 1835 and 1839.
Without record or explanation the amendment was mysteriously not added to the subsequent editions, just prior to the out break of the War Between the States.
Nevertheless, Printing by a legislature is prima facie evidence of ratification, and was found printed as part of the Constitution by many of the other states until after the War Between the States and into the Reconstruction period - when it mysteriously disappeared from all subsequent printings. The last official publication found is the 1876 Laws of the Territory of Wyoming Amendment XIII
In order to understnd the full impact of the constitution
This Amendment,upon receivership of knighthood- a title of nobility from another country nullified the citizenship of the following individuals,thus disqualifying them from being in the the several states of the union legally and hold any office og the States or federal government.(Knighted by the Queen)
The Reorganization of the bankruptcy of the United States is located in Title 5 of United States Codes Annotated. The "Explanation" at the beginning of 5 U.S.C.A. is most informative reading. The "Secretary of Treasury" was appointed as the "Receiver" in Bankruptcy. Reorganization Plan No. 26, 5 U.S.C.A. 903, Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5967 Since the bankrupt loses control over his business, this appointment to the "Office of Receiver" in bankruptcy had to be made by the "creditors" who are "foreign powers or principals".
On March 17, 1993, Congressman Traficant stated:
"Mr. Speaker, We are now here in Chapter 11. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government." Vol. 33, pg 1303 Congressional Record
This applies to "Members of Congress,"; the Secretary of the Treasury (as the "Receiver in bankruptcy"); and all state and federal "officials" who act under the de facto authority of that bankrupt Foreign Corporation known as the United States as trustees (foreign agents) for foreign principals.
Trustees work for the creditors of a bankruptcy as agents for foreign principals. In this case the creditors are the Federal Reserve Banks; the International Monetary Fund (the Fund) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the Bank). It is also worthy of note that an Attorney/Representative is required to file a "Foreign Agents Registration Statement" pursuant to 22 U.S.C.A. 611c(1)(iv), 612 & 613), when representing the interests of a Foreign Principal or Power. ( Rabinowitz vs. Kennedy, 376 U.S. 605, 11 L. Ed. 2d 940, 18 U.S.C.A. 219 & 951)
Some Economists suggest that the economic Crash of '29 and the Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve withholding currency from circulation and raising interest rates after an inflationary easy money policy in the early 1920s. Their FED's fear of excessive speculation led it into a deflationary policy in the late 1920s.
The U.S. economy was well past the peak of the business cycle when the stock market crashed in October of 1929. presenting remarkible evidence the Federal Reserve miscalculated terribly by raising interest rates too much, while catapuliting us into the recession they were hoping to avoid.
This "emergency" created several abuses and usurpations, violating the Constitutionally delegated Powers and Authority as clearly stated in Senate Report 93-549 (1973):
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, [78 years now in 2011] freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have in varying degrees been abridged by laws brought into force by statutes of national emergency."
In accordance to American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition, Sections 71 and 82, NO "emergency" justifies a violation of any Constitutional provision. for the sake of argument, "Supremacy Clause" and "Separation of Powers." It is clearly admitted in the Senate Report No. 93-549 the abridgment occurred.
The federal government persuaded the Conference of Governors to pledge faith and credit of the several States of the Union and their citizenry to aid the National Government on March 6, 1933, (Public Papers And Addresses of Franklin Roosevelt, Vol. II, March 6, 1933 pp. 18 - 24) for what they openly admitted doing. Where they encouraged Mr. Roosevelt to ask for, and use extra-constitutional powers during the "emergency" continuing even to this day.
Justice David Davis Stated in an Opinion
"Time has proven the discernment of our ancestors; for even these provisions, expressed in such plain English words, that it would seem the ingenuity of man could not evade them, are now, after the lapse of more than seventy years, sought to be avoided. Those great and good men foresaw that troublous times would arise, when rulers and people would become restive under restraint, and seek by sharp and decisive measures to accomplish ends deemed just and proper; and that the principles of constitutional liberty would be in peril, unless established by irrepealable law. The history of the world had taught them that what was done in the past might be attempted in the future. The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, [71 U.S. 2, 121]and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority. -– Supreme Court (1866) Ex Parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2
Justice Sutherland stated in
HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398
(1934)
'The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism. ...'
Chief Justice Taney, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How, 393, 426, said that, while the Constitution remains unaltered, it must be construed now as it was understood at the time of its adoption; that it is not only the same in words but the same in meaning, 'and as long as it continues to exist in its present form, it speaks not only in the same words, but with the same meaning and intent with which it spoke when it came from the hands of its framers, and was voted on and adopted by the people of the United States. Any other rule of construction would abrogate the judicial character of this court, and make it the mere reflex of the popular opinion or passion of the day.' And in South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 , 449 S., 26 S.Ct. 110, 111, 4 Ann.Cas. 737 in an opinion by Mr. Justice Brewer, this court quoted these words with approval and said:
'The Constitution is a written instrument. As such its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. ... Those things which are within its grants of power, as those grants were understood when made, are still within them; and those things not within them remain still excluded.' [290 U.S. 398, 451]
Also in Accordance to Blaisdell
"Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted IN a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the Federal Government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency and they are NOT altered by emergency." - Home Building & Loan Assoc. v Blaisdell 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
This property, (the faith and credit of the citizenry of the several States), was the collateral accepted by the creditors (foreign principals) so the federal government could continue borrowing Federal Reserve Notes while continuing to operate under reorganization. Mr. Roosevelt issued Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 and 6260 within days of his inauguration Mar 4, 1933.
Each one unlawful, unless someone other than the people owned the people's possessions.
Yet the people are still being pledged as collateral, secured by UCC commercial liens, which are still monetized as "debt money" by the Federal Reserve Banks, to be surrendered if needed under orders of the bankruptcy, thereby depriving the people of clear title to their property under the guise of a contrived "emergency."
These proclamations created 470 provisions of Federal law, and thes statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers that are ordinarily to be exercised by the Congress, affecting the lives of every American citizen in a host of a vast range of unconstitutional powers. Taken together, they confer enough authority to rule the country without any reference to the normal constitutional dur process of law. These powers delegated by mentioned statutes, the President has the power to: Seize property;
organize and control the means of production
Seize commodities
Assign military forces abroad
Institute martial law
Seize and control all transportation and communication
Regulate the operation of private enterprise
Restrict travel and control the lives of all American citizens in numerous other ways.
The several States leaders were either bribed or seduced into this new policy in 1939 when Roosevelted promised federal grants-in-aid. Federal Revenue Sharing (31 U.S.C. ( 6700 et seq.), the modern version of the grants-in-aid program. In return, the states were to agree to uphold and maintain the pledge of life, labor and property of their respective citizenry as surety for the debts and other obligations to the Federal government. State politicians gladly complied, seeomg this as an opportunity to increase their own political power, while kicking the can down to the next generation of office holders, to worry how to fix the long term consequences of their acts.
In May of 1933 Congressman Louis T. McFadden, brought formal charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, the Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of the United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts, including but not limited to, CONSPIRACY, FRAUD, UNLAWFUL CONVERSION, AND TREASON. The petition for Articles of Impeachment was thereafter referred to the Judiciary Committee, and has yet to be acted upon. ( Congressional Record, May 23, 1933, pp. 4055-4058.)
These individuals fraudulently, knowingly and willfully swore an Oath to uphold, defend and preserve the Constitutioon of the United States, which preserves the sovereignty of the Nation and the several Republican States of the Union, therefore violating their solemn duty and honor to protect the People/Citizens and their Posterity from fraud, imposition, avarice and any malichious encroachments. (See: Atkins et al. vs. U.S., 556 F.2d 1028, pg. 1072, 1074, The Tempting Of America, supra, pgs. 155 - 159, also see, 5 U.S.C.A. 5305 & 5335, Senate Report No. 93-549, pgs. 69 - 71, C.R.S. 24-75-101) These basic principles appear be too high a thought concept for our judges, legislators, and public servants, just as "Due Process", "Just Compensation" and "Justice". Honor is earned by honesty and integrity, It is never inherited nor awarded throuh false or fraudulent pretenses. The persons affilitation to a party will not cover-up the usurpations, lies, trickery and deceptions that has occured. Principles such as "Fraud and Justice never dwell together" (Wingate's Maxims 680); "A right of action cannot arise out of fraud." (Broom's maxims 297, 729; Cowper's Reports 343; 5 Scott's New Reports 558; 10 Mass. 276; 38 Fed. 800)
If "public officials" represent the people under the Constitution, then they can only collect, use, and be paid in Constitutional money, (gold and silver). And they can only operate at common law in all criminal matters except for Maritime contracts. Federal Reserve Banks are private banks. For proof all one has to do is compare the government and private pages of the telephone book to see where the Federal Reserve Banks are listed.
When "public officials" use Federal Reserve "Notes," or funds reducible only to Federal Reserve "Notes" in public business, they are using non-redeemable, dishonored, impaired, depreciated, interagency, international bills of debt/credit, and have to be operating a de facto government, which is treason to their oaths of office. Also violating their agency obligations to the sovereign people, for foreign principals.
At that time each of the united States pledged faith and credit to the aid of the Federal Government, forming numerous committees, i.e. "Council of State Governments", "Social Security Administration", etc., to manage the contrived economic "Emergency" caused by the bankruptcy. The SSA became Corporations operated under the "Declaration of Interdependence" of January 22, 1937, and published some of their activities in " Book Of The States."
Robert Bork wrote "we are governed not by law or elected representatives but by an unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable committee of lawyers applying no will but their own." (The Tempting Of America, Robert H. Bork, pg. 130)
And it is more worthy to note that there is the "Original" 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution called the "Title of Nobility" Amendment that reads:
"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."
Senator Philip Reed (MD) proposed the "Title of Nobility" Amendment (History of Congress, Proceedings of the Senate, p. 529-530).
On April 27, 1810, the Senate voted to pass the 13th Amendment by a vote of 26 to 1; the House voted to resolve the amendment (87 to 3 in the affirmative).
The resolve was then sent to the States for ratification:
Dec. 10, 1812; Twelve of the required thirteen States had ratified the Amendment as follows:
Maryland, Dec. 25, 1810
Kentucky, Jan. 31, 1811
Ohio, Jan. 31, 1811
Delaware, Feb. 2, 1811
Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1811
New Jersey, Feb. 13, 1811
Vermont, Oct. 24, 1811
Tennessee, Nov. 21, 1811
Georgia, Dec. 13, 1811
North Carolina, Dec. 23, 1811
Massachusetts, Feb. 27, 1812
New Hampshire, Dec. 10, 1812.
Although the War of 1812 began before a thirteenth State could ratify the amendment, interupting the ratification.
The State of Connecticut failed to ratify this original 13th Amendment
on May 13, 1813, leaving it up to Virginia to be 13th required state to ratify the amendment. Whereas Virginia ratified with the March 12, 1819 publication of the Laws of Virginia.
Then Connecticut published this in four separate editions of "The Public Statute Laws of the State of Connecticut" as an amendment of the U.S. Constitution in 1821, 1824, 1835 and 1839.
Without record or explanation the amendment was mysteriously not added to the subsequent editions, just prior to the out break of the War Between the States.
Nevertheless, Printing by a legislature is prima facie evidence of ratification, and was found printed as part of the Constitution by many of the other states until after the War Between the States and into the Reconstruction period - when it mysteriously disappeared from all subsequent printings. The last official publication found is the 1876 Laws of the Territory of Wyoming Amendment XIII
In order to understnd the full impact of the constitution
This Amendment,upon receivership of knighthood- a title of nobility from another country nullified the citizenship of the following individuals,thus disqualifying them from being in the the several states of the union legally and hold any office og the States or federal government.(Knighted by the Queen)
The Reorganization of the bankruptcy of the United States is located in Title 5 of United States Codes Annotated. The "Explanation" at the beginning of 5 U.S.C.A. is most informative reading. The "Secretary of Treasury" was appointed as the "Receiver" in Bankruptcy. Reorganization Plan No. 26, 5 U.S.C.A. 903, Public Law 94-564, Legislative History, pg. 5967 Since the bankrupt loses control over his business, this appointment to the "Office of Receiver" in bankruptcy had to be made by the "creditors" who are "foreign powers or principals".
On March 17, 1993, Congressman Traficant stated:
"Mr. Speaker, We are now here in Chapter 11. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government." Vol. 33, pg 1303 Congressional Record
This applies to "Members of Congress,"; the Secretary of the Treasury (as the "Receiver in bankruptcy"); and all state and federal "officials" who act under the de facto authority of that bankrupt Foreign Corporation known as the United States as trustees (foreign agents) for foreign principals.
Trustees work for the creditors of a bankruptcy as agents for foreign principals. In this case the creditors are the Federal Reserve Banks; the International Monetary Fund (the Fund) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the Bank). It is also worthy of note that an Attorney/Representative is required to file a "Foreign Agents Registration Statement" pursuant to 22 U.S.C.A. 611c(1)(iv), 612 & 613), when representing the interests of a Foreign Principal or Power. ( Rabinowitz vs. Kennedy, 376 U.S. 605, 11 L. Ed. 2d 940, 18 U.S.C.A. 219 & 951)
Some Economists suggest that the economic Crash of '29 and the Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve withholding currency from circulation and raising interest rates after an inflationary easy money policy in the early 1920s. Their FED's fear of excessive speculation led it into a deflationary policy in the late 1920s.
The U.S. economy was well past the peak of the business cycle when the stock market crashed in October of 1929. presenting remarkible evidence the Federal Reserve miscalculated terribly by raising interest rates too much, while catapuliting us into the recession they were hoping to avoid.
This "emergency" created several abuses and usurpations, violating the Constitutionally delegated Powers and Authority as clearly stated in Senate Report 93-549 (1973):
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, [78 years now in 2011] freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have in varying degrees been abridged by laws brought into force by statutes of national emergency."
In accordance to American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition, Sections 71 and 82, NO "emergency" justifies a violation of any Constitutional provision. for the sake of argument, "Supremacy Clause" and "Separation of Powers." It is clearly admitted in the Senate Report No. 93-549 the abridgment occurred.
The federal government persuaded the Conference of Governors to pledge faith and credit of the several States of the Union and their citizenry to aid the National Government on March 6, 1933, (Public Papers And Addresses of Franklin Roosevelt, Vol. II, March 6, 1933 pp. 18 - 24) for what they openly admitted doing. Where they encouraged Mr. Roosevelt to ask for, and use extra-constitutional powers during the "emergency" continuing even to this day.
Justice David Davis Stated in an Opinion
"Time has proven the discernment of our ancestors; for even these provisions, expressed in such plain English words, that it would seem the ingenuity of man could not evade them, are now, after the lapse of more than seventy years, sought to be avoided. Those great and good men foresaw that troublous times would arise, when rulers and people would become restive under restraint, and seek by sharp and decisive measures to accomplish ends deemed just and proper; and that the principles of constitutional liberty would be in peril, unless established by irrepealable law. The history of the world had taught them that what was done in the past might be attempted in the future. The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, [71 U.S. 2, 121]and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority. -– Supreme Court (1866) Ex Parte Milligan 71 U.S. 2
Justice Sutherland stated in
HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398
(1934)
'The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism. ...'
Chief Justice Taney, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How, 393, 426, said that, while the Constitution remains unaltered, it must be construed now as it was understood at the time of its adoption; that it is not only the same in words but the same in meaning, 'and as long as it continues to exist in its present form, it speaks not only in the same words, but with the same meaning and intent with which it spoke when it came from the hands of its framers, and was voted on and adopted by the people of the United States. Any other rule of construction would abrogate the judicial character of this court, and make it the mere reflex of the popular opinion or passion of the day.' And in South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 , 449 S., 26 S.Ct. 110, 111, 4 Ann.Cas. 737 in an opinion by Mr. Justice Brewer, this court quoted these words with approval and said:
'The Constitution is a written instrument. As such its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. ... Those things which are within its grants of power, as those grants were understood when made, are still within them; and those things not within them remain still excluded.' [290 U.S. 398, 451]
Also in Accordance to Blaisdell
"Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted IN a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the Federal Government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency and they are NOT altered by emergency." - Home Building & Loan Assoc. v Blaisdell 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
This property, (the faith and credit of the citizenry of the several States), was the collateral accepted by the creditors (foreign principals) so the federal government could continue borrowing Federal Reserve Notes while continuing to operate under reorganization. Mr. Roosevelt issued Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111 and 6260 within days of his inauguration Mar 4, 1933.
Each one unlawful, unless someone other than the people owned the people's possessions.
Yet the people are still being pledged as collateral, secured by UCC commercial liens, which are still monetized as "debt money" by the Federal Reserve Banks, to be surrendered if needed under orders of the bankruptcy, thereby depriving the people of clear title to their property under the guise of a contrived "emergency."
These proclamations created 470 provisions of Federal law, and thes statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers that are ordinarily to be exercised by the Congress, affecting the lives of every American citizen in a host of a vast range of unconstitutional powers. Taken together, they confer enough authority to rule the country without any reference to the normal constitutional dur process of law. These powers delegated by mentioned statutes, the President has the power to: Seize property;
organize and control the means of production
Seize commodities
Assign military forces abroad
Institute martial law
Seize and control all transportation and communication
Regulate the operation of private enterprise
Restrict travel and control the lives of all American citizens in numerous other ways.
The several States leaders were either bribed or seduced into this new policy in 1939 when Roosevelted promised federal grants-in-aid. Federal Revenue Sharing (31 U.S.C. ( 6700 et seq.), the modern version of the grants-in-aid program. In return, the states were to agree to uphold and maintain the pledge of life, labor and property of their respective citizenry as surety for the debts and other obligations to the Federal government. State politicians gladly complied, seeomg this as an opportunity to increase their own political power, while kicking the can down to the next generation of office holders, to worry how to fix the long term consequences of their acts.
In May of 1933 Congressman Louis T. McFadden, brought formal charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, the Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of the United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts, including but not limited to, CONSPIRACY, FRAUD, UNLAWFUL CONVERSION, AND TREASON. The petition for Articles of Impeachment was thereafter referred to the Judiciary Committee, and has yet to be acted upon. ( Congressional Record, May 23, 1933, pp. 4055-4058.)
These individuals fraudulently, knowingly and willfully swore an Oath to uphold, defend and preserve the Constitutioon of the United States, which preserves the sovereignty of the Nation and the several Republican States of the Union, therefore violating their solemn duty and honor to protect the People/Citizens and their Posterity from fraud, imposition, avarice and any malichious encroachments. (See: Atkins et al. vs. U.S., 556 F.2d 1028, pg. 1072, 1074, The Tempting Of America, supra, pgs. 155 - 159, also see, 5 U.S.C.A. 5305 & 5335, Senate Report No. 93-549, pgs. 69 - 71, C.R.S. 24-75-101) These basic principles appear be too high a thought concept for our judges, legislators, and public servants, just as "Due Process", "Just Compensation" and "Justice". Honor is earned by honesty and integrity, It is never inherited nor awarded throuh false or fraudulent pretenses. The persons affilitation to a party will not cover-up the usurpations, lies, trickery and deceptions that has occured. Principles such as "Fraud and Justice never dwell together" (Wingate's Maxims 680); "A right of action cannot arise out of fraud." (Broom's maxims 297, 729; Cowper's Reports 343; 5 Scott's New Reports 558; 10 Mass. 276; 38 Fed. 800)
If "public officials" represent the people under the Constitution, then they can only collect, use, and be paid in Constitutional money, (gold and silver). And they can only operate at common law in all criminal matters except for Maritime contracts. Federal Reserve Banks are private banks. For proof all one has to do is compare the government and private pages of the telephone book to see where the Federal Reserve Banks are listed.
When "public officials" use Federal Reserve "Notes," or funds reducible only to Federal Reserve "Notes" in public business, they are using non-redeemable, dishonored, impaired, depreciated, interagency, international bills of debt/credit, and have to be operating a de facto government, which is treason to their oaths of office. Also violating their agency obligations to the sovereign people, for foreign principals.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Timing in an objective can help or destroy
Feb 16, 2011
Earl Lofland
I support eliminating the SBA in the future. However, Mr. Obama's plan to cut the SBA's Recession stimulus may be a little too much, and premature. The 2012 budget proposal aimed to slash the Small Business Administration funding by 45 percent could be disasterous in providing seed investment and small business loan agreements for domestic small businesses that would provide employment and business opportunities to Americans, to own a business that would ultimately decrease the unemployment and underemployment rates of American workers.
Though the SBA isn't the only government department that will have to figure out how to do more with less in the 2012 budget, there are other departments that are more likely to be less dangerous to our nations security, through federal defunding. And departments that are less likely to provide opportunities for rebuilding America's economy.
By reducing lucrative opportunities to Americans to start a small domestic owned and operated business, it also decreases the opportunities to increase gross National Production of goods and services within the borders of the United States. Thus risking the federal government to be in default of its loans to the International banks i.e. Federal Reserve, China, Saudi Arabia, Et al.
That could prove to be more destructive to our national security by being unable to repay all the debts Congress and the last two Presidents already have incurred on the Taxpayers. It is also very probale to add an additional risk to the governmnt repaying future loans that will be added to the already staggering $14 trillion debt, adding an additional $3.7 Trillion debt for this upcoming budget Congress is to decide on.
One of the many less dangerous programs to consider cutting funding to is the Department of Homeland Security, by at least 65% this year, and for Congress to pass legislation with a 2/3 vote to transfer all DHS operations back to the respective departments before it was created. And by the US Congress passing addition legislation do decompartmentalize the other departments would make intelligence gathering for crimes against the states and interstate crimes to be shared with less red tape. This too could be performed through Executive Orders handed down by the President, that focus on the operations of deparments of the government as EO's were originally intended, instead of seizing control of the private sector for the governments use.
When a crime occurs, crossing state lines ,this could be more efficiently managed by a federal court handling the claim, eliminating many of the many agencies that have created compartmentalizing criminal activities, amd making it more difficult for information to be shared from agency to agency due to seperate rules and regulations that were created by the directors of each sepeate agency.
The most logical measure is to do away with the problems of having several Law Enforcement Acencies i.e. ATF, DEA, FBI, DHS, etc and have them all under one agency The DOJ. All issues related to international cirme be placed under the Dept of Navy and dept of Army. With all crimes against the nations money system returned back to the Dept of Treasury. and all interstan Hiway traffic violations to be placedin the hands of the States unless it involves interstate crimes. This is a topic that could be discussed at a later time.
If the federal government is going to continue with special entitlement programs the most benificial for the American people would be to cut spending on programs that provide little assistance to those whom are unemployed or underemployed in reestatblishing the economy and providing to the general Welfare of the government.
Earl Lofland,
2010 Independent- Constitution Party Congressional Candidate (Delaware at Large)
Opinion based upon
Obama Plans to Cut SBA Budget Almost in Half
http://smallbusiness.aol.com/2011/02/14/obama-plans-to-cut-sba-budg...
Earl Lofland
I support eliminating the SBA in the future. However, Mr. Obama's plan to cut the SBA's Recession stimulus may be a little too much, and premature. The 2012 budget proposal aimed to slash the Small Business Administration funding by 45 percent could be disasterous in providing seed investment and small business loan agreements for domestic small businesses that would provide employment and business opportunities to Americans, to own a business that would ultimately decrease the unemployment and underemployment rates of American workers.
Though the SBA isn't the only government department that will have to figure out how to do more with less in the 2012 budget, there are other departments that are more likely to be less dangerous to our nations security, through federal defunding. And departments that are less likely to provide opportunities for rebuilding America's economy.
By reducing lucrative opportunities to Americans to start a small domestic owned and operated business, it also decreases the opportunities to increase gross National Production of goods and services within the borders of the United States. Thus risking the federal government to be in default of its loans to the International banks i.e. Federal Reserve, China, Saudi Arabia, Et al.
That could prove to be more destructive to our national security by being unable to repay all the debts Congress and the last two Presidents already have incurred on the Taxpayers. It is also very probale to add an additional risk to the governmnt repaying future loans that will be added to the already staggering $14 trillion debt, adding an additional $3.7 Trillion debt for this upcoming budget Congress is to decide on.
One of the many less dangerous programs to consider cutting funding to is the Department of Homeland Security, by at least 65% this year, and for Congress to pass legislation with a 2/3 vote to transfer all DHS operations back to the respective departments before it was created. And by the US Congress passing addition legislation do decompartmentalize the other departments would make intelligence gathering for crimes against the states and interstate crimes to be shared with less red tape. This too could be performed through Executive Orders handed down by the President, that focus on the operations of deparments of the government as EO's were originally intended, instead of seizing control of the private sector for the governments use.
When a crime occurs, crossing state lines ,this could be more efficiently managed by a federal court handling the claim, eliminating many of the many agencies that have created compartmentalizing criminal activities, amd making it more difficult for information to be shared from agency to agency due to seperate rules and regulations that were created by the directors of each sepeate agency.
The most logical measure is to do away with the problems of having several Law Enforcement Acencies i.e. ATF, DEA, FBI, DHS, etc and have them all under one agency The DOJ. All issues related to international cirme be placed under the Dept of Navy and dept of Army. With all crimes against the nations money system returned back to the Dept of Treasury. and all interstan Hiway traffic violations to be placedin the hands of the States unless it involves interstate crimes. This is a topic that could be discussed at a later time.
If the federal government is going to continue with special entitlement programs the most benificial for the American people would be to cut spending on programs that provide little assistance to those whom are unemployed or underemployed in reestatblishing the economy and providing to the general Welfare of the government.
Earl Lofland,
2010 Independent- Constitution Party Congressional Candidate (Delaware at Large)
Opinion based upon
Obama Plans to Cut SBA Budget Almost in Half
http://smallbusiness.aol.com/2011/02/14/obama-plans-to-cut-sba-budg...
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Constitution Party Editorial "We Told You So"
-Tuesday, February 15th, 2011-
-Editorial-
"We Told You So," Then...
William K. Shearer
On June 17, 1967 the American Independent Party of California (AIP) was
organized in Los Angeles, CA. [Twenty-five years later, in 1992, the AIP would be
the first, foundational state party to join the new US Taxpayers Party (USTP) which was destined to change its name to the Constitution Party in 1999] The founder of the
AIP (and second national chairman, many years later, of the USTP) was William K. Shearer. Those who worked with Bill Shearer agree that he was one of the
greatest, most unique and exceptional people they ever met. Those who worked against him all agree that he was the most fearsome and able opponent they ever encountered. He was elected to be the first chairman of the AIP on July 8, 1967,
when the work begun at the previously mentioned June meeting was completed. Twenty years later, in the September, 1987, edition of The American Independent,
one of his California Statesman publications, Shearer described the reasons why
the AIP was organized:
"On July 8, 1967, formal organization of California's American Independent Party was completed at a convention held in Bakersfield. A constitution and declaration of principles were adopted, and officers were elected. The declaration of principles proclaimed:
"A new party is urgently needed today because the leaders of the two existing parties, Democrat and Republican, have deserted the principles and traditions of our nation's founding fathers. Both of the existing parties have become the proponents of big government, crushing taxation, dictatorial federal power, waste and fiscal irresponsibility, unwholesome and disastrous internationalism, compromise with our nation's enemies, and authoritarian regimentation of the citizens of this Republic. Control
of the government, under the domination of these two existing parties,
has left the hands of the people our government was created to serve."
The declaration pledged the support of the American Independent Party
to "limited constitutional government, with emphasis on the rights of the several states to govern their own local affairs and educational systems without federal bureaucratic or court interference." As to foreign affairs, the declaration stated that "the American Independent Party supports a foreign policy based on America's best interests, not world opinion," and "preservation of our national sovereignty." (emphasis added)
Sound familiar? Nothing we face now is really all that new. The issues were defined and the gauntlet was tossed way back then. Yet, for 25 years, many people who should have known better opposed this new party effort, pinning there hopes (mostly) on the Republican Party and CREEPS like Richard Nixon, Globalists like Nelson Rockefeller or (and I know some of you won't like this) the soothing, hopeful, but largely empty rhetoric of Ronald Reagan. To their credit, by 1992, these good people finally decided they had enough and chose to form a new national party which would become the Constitution Party, with which the California AIP gladly joined as a charter member.
And, "We Are Still Telling You So"...Now
Now, almost 20 years later (and over 43 years after the formation of the AIP) the Constitution Party is the only national political party carrying the banner for limited, Constitutional government, national sovereignty and an America First Foreign policy. Nevertheless many Americans still seem to pin their hopes on changing one of the existing parties. This is simply an example of the "battered voter syndrome" that Mary Starrett so adroitly identified in one of her articles in 2008. Yet again, as we approach 2012, the siren song is sung for the American people to put faith in the GOP to save us from "Obamanation. So, yet again, apparently, it is necessary to remind Americans of the truth: Neither the Democrat Party nor the Republican Party will solve our problems because...
They ARE Our Problem!
Fortunately, Constitution Party National Chairman, Jim Clymer, has proven himself to be more than equal to that task...
James N. Clymer
That Hope Which Springs Eternal
by James N. Clymer
Chairman, Constitution Party National Committee
“A straggling few got up to go in deep despair. The rest Clung to the hope which springs eternal in the human breast”
These poignant lines from Casey at the Bat speak to the emotions that those of us who follow and cheer our favorite baseball team have experienced countless times. Philadelphia Phillies fans have a reputation for being among the most fervent in professional sports. They can be churlish and cruel, yet they will be loyal to a fault; they exude emotion and expectation yet understand practicality.
What most people don’t understand is what made them that way. Growing up rooting for a team that a few short years ago became the only team in major professional sports to have lost 10,000 games in its franchise history develops a sports character that a Yankee, Braves or Red Sox fan could never understand!
Politics has many parallels with baseball. Those who develop team loyalty see everything through the tinted glasses of their team. So if they are Republican,
the GOP can do no wrong and the Democrats can do no right and vice versa.
Take the vitriol heaped on Barack Obama by most Republicans. He evokes more emotion among the so-called Republican Right than any president in my memory.
He is described by many as the most leftist president in history.
On the other hand, I’ve attended gatherings on more than one occasion during the Bush presidency where loyalist Republicans declared Bush to be the “most conservative president in our lifetime”, in “the last fifty years” or in “the last
hundred years.” I guess you get to pick the absurdity.
Now don’t get me wrong. I believe the current occupant of the oval office is a Constitutional miscreant of immense proportions. He displays greater infidelity to the Constitution than any president since at least FDR. His lack of fidelity started with his refusal to show that he meets the Constitutional qualifications to be president. They are, after all, quite simple. One must be at least 35 years of age, shall have lived at least fourteen years in these United States and shall be a natural born citizen. Why would one spend what has been estimated to exceed a million dollars to keep secret the long form birth certificate that would settle this question once and for all? But I digress.
In fact, George W. Bush showed nearly as much disdain for the Constitution as does Obama. For all the outbursts about Obama trampling on the Constitution and turning us into a socialist state, I wonder what they were smoking while the Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for four years of the Bush II presidency. Bush’s alleged contemptuous remark that the Constitution is nothing but a “g*d d*mn” piece of paper”, was not merely a blasphemous statement; it exemplified an attitude and a policy. I challenge anyone to name one major fiscal, individual liberty or foreign relations policy area where there is a significant ideological difference between the practice of Bush II and Obama. Remember, I’m not comparing the degree to which the policy is taken but rather the ideological justification for the policy.
In the cover story of the December 6, 2010 issue of The New American, Charles Scaliger presents a compelling case for how Obama, despite campaign hype to the contrary, continued the war policies of Bush in both Iraq and Afghanistan, continued the course set by Bush in relations with Russia and in calling for an expansion of NATO, along with ever greater accommodations with the United Nations.
In fiscal matters, Republicans have suddenly discovered a verbal commitment to fiscal restraint and constitutional limitations on the power of the federal government, blasting Obama for his socialized medicine capers and stimulus package bailouts. But where were they when Bush was doing the same sorts of things now done by Obama? After all, it was Bush who pushed through the first stimulus package, a $700 billion dollar bank bailout. As soon as Obama got into office, he started pushing for the second one to compound the disaster but it was not significantly less “unconstitutional” or “socialistic” than the one presided over by Bush.
Scaliger notes that overall federal spending has increased about ten percent per
year during the first two years of the Obama administration which is about the same annual increases that occurred during the administration of George W. Bush.
Obamacare, the gargantuan intrusion of the federal government into the healthcare decisions of every American citizen, is presented as the proof case for Obama’s desire to lead us into socialism. Without disputing the truth of that intent, let’s look objectively at what Bush did in the federal healthcare arena with his massive overhaul of Medicare at an estimated cost of $7 trillion, called “the greatest expansion of America’s welfare state in forty years” by CBS legal correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg.
It was George W. Bush who disdained the privacy rights of individuals that the federal government is supposed to protect under the Fourth Amendment by pushing through the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security along with its progeny of new intrusions on the privacy of American citizens. Although candidate Obama decried these violations of the Constitution, once assuming the office of the presidency, he has continued these policies and has authorized even more draconian policies such as installation of new backscatter body imaging machines that electronically undress passengers who merely want to exercise their right to travel. Those who refuse to have the naked features of their bodies viewed by strangers must face an enhanced groping “patdown” that would constitute a felonious sexual assault if done by anyone other than a government agent in a non-medical circumstance.
So Republicans have gained a substantial majority in the House of Representatives. The pundits are buzzing about the opportunities this new crop of Republicans will have and hope again springs eternal that sanity will be restored in Washington. But if the past is prologue, just as there was no joy in Mudville because mighty Casey had struck out, those pinning their hopes on Republican promises will see their hopes dashed once again. There are already emerging signs that the GOP really only wants to be a better caretaker of the welfare state than the Democrats. I have no confidence that it has any intention of derailing the train to socialism. (emphasis added)
Bill Shearer was right in 1967.
Jim Clymer is right in 2011.
It has been said that, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” It has also been said that "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." In 2012 the American voters have an opportunity to prove that they are sane and
that they have finally learned from history by supporting the Constitution Party with their effort and their votes.
Our job is to make sure that in 2012 Americans all across the nation have an opportunity to: 1) hear about the Constitution Party message; 2) join with and help build the Constitution Party; 3) and, most importantly, vote for Constitution Party candidates for President, Vice-President and other offices across the board.
As we move toward the Spring months of 2011 there is much to do in preparation to ensure that the Constitution Party will be in a position to provide the viable alternative political alternative this nation
so desperately needs. Just as a batter cannot hit the ball unless he swings the bat, we cannot achieve our goals unless we are active and involved in supporting the Constitution Party. Americans no longer have
the luxury of sitting on the sidelines watching others lead our country in the wrong direction. They need to stand up and get involved and we must provide that example!
Will you make it YOUR priority to support your state Constitution Party affiliate? Will you help it financially, attend its meetings and help to do what is necessary to get it on the ballot, if it isn't already on the ballot. Don't stop there! Support the work of the Constitution Party's National Committee with your financial support and plan on being at the important national meetings in Harrisburg, PA in April and/or
in Spokane, WA in the Fall. There is much to do and time starts to move very, very fast. This is not the time to sit on our hands, this is the time to...
Stand Up For America!
Thank you,
Editorial Board
Constitution Party News and Information
Next: Important State Meetings in Delaware, Kansas (2nd notice), Iowa and Pennsylvania.
Upcoming: New Information regarding the Spring 2011 Constitution Party National Committee Meeting and Conference in Harrisburg.
-Editorial-
"We Told You So," Then...
William K. ShearerOn June 17, 1967 the American Independent Party of California (AIP) was
organized in Los Angeles, CA. [Twenty-five years later, in 1992, the AIP would be
the first, foundational state party to join the new US Taxpayers Party (USTP) which was destined to change its name to the Constitution Party in 1999] The founder of the
AIP (and second national chairman, many years later, of the USTP) was William K. Shearer. Those who worked with Bill Shearer agree that he was one of the
greatest, most unique and exceptional people they ever met. Those who worked against him all agree that he was the most fearsome and able opponent they ever encountered. He was elected to be the first chairman of the AIP on July 8, 1967,
when the work begun at the previously mentioned June meeting was completed. Twenty years later, in the September, 1987, edition of The American Independent,
one of his California Statesman publications, Shearer described the reasons why
the AIP was organized:
"On July 8, 1967, formal organization of California's American Independent Party was completed at a convention held in Bakersfield. A constitution and declaration of principles were adopted, and officers were elected. The declaration of principles proclaimed:
"A new party is urgently needed today because the leaders of the two existing parties, Democrat and Republican, have deserted the principles and traditions of our nation's founding fathers. Both of the existing parties have become the proponents of big government, crushing taxation, dictatorial federal power, waste and fiscal irresponsibility, unwholesome and disastrous internationalism, compromise with our nation's enemies, and authoritarian regimentation of the citizens of this Republic. Control
of the government, under the domination of these two existing parties,
has left the hands of the people our government was created to serve."
The declaration pledged the support of the American Independent Party
to "limited constitutional government, with emphasis on the rights of the several states to govern their own local affairs and educational systems without federal bureaucratic or court interference." As to foreign affairs, the declaration stated that "the American Independent Party supports a foreign policy based on America's best interests, not world opinion," and "preservation of our national sovereignty." (emphasis added)
Sound familiar? Nothing we face now is really all that new. The issues were defined and the gauntlet was tossed way back then. Yet, for 25 years, many people who should have known better opposed this new party effort, pinning there hopes (mostly) on the Republican Party and CREEPS like Richard Nixon, Globalists like Nelson Rockefeller or (and I know some of you won't like this) the soothing, hopeful, but largely empty rhetoric of Ronald Reagan. To their credit, by 1992, these good people finally decided they had enough and chose to form a new national party which would become the Constitution Party, with which the California AIP gladly joined as a charter member.
And, "We Are Still Telling You So"...Now
Now, almost 20 years later (and over 43 years after the formation of the AIP) the Constitution Party is the only national political party carrying the banner for limited, Constitutional government, national sovereignty and an America First Foreign policy. Nevertheless many Americans still seem to pin their hopes on changing one of the existing parties. This is simply an example of the "battered voter syndrome" that Mary Starrett so adroitly identified in one of her articles in 2008. Yet again, as we approach 2012, the siren song is sung for the American people to put faith in the GOP to save us from "Obamanation. So, yet again, apparently, it is necessary to remind Americans of the truth: Neither the Democrat Party nor the Republican Party will solve our problems because...
They ARE Our Problem!
Fortunately, Constitution Party National Chairman, Jim Clymer, has proven himself to be more than equal to that task...
James N. Clymer
That Hope Which Springs Eternal
by James N. Clymer
Chairman, Constitution Party National Committee
“A straggling few got up to go in deep despair. The rest Clung to the hope which springs eternal in the human breast”
These poignant lines from Casey at the Bat speak to the emotions that those of us who follow and cheer our favorite baseball team have experienced countless times. Philadelphia Phillies fans have a reputation for being among the most fervent in professional sports. They can be churlish and cruel, yet they will be loyal to a fault; they exude emotion and expectation yet understand practicality.
What most people don’t understand is what made them that way. Growing up rooting for a team that a few short years ago became the only team in major professional sports to have lost 10,000 games in its franchise history develops a sports character that a Yankee, Braves or Red Sox fan could never understand!
Politics has many parallels with baseball. Those who develop team loyalty see everything through the tinted glasses of their team. So if they are Republican,
the GOP can do no wrong and the Democrats can do no right and vice versa.
Take the vitriol heaped on Barack Obama by most Republicans. He evokes more emotion among the so-called Republican Right than any president in my memory.
He is described by many as the most leftist president in history.
On the other hand, I’ve attended gatherings on more than one occasion during the Bush presidency where loyalist Republicans declared Bush to be the “most conservative president in our lifetime”, in “the last fifty years” or in “the last
hundred years.” I guess you get to pick the absurdity.
Now don’t get me wrong. I believe the current occupant of the oval office is a Constitutional miscreant of immense proportions. He displays greater infidelity to the Constitution than any president since at least FDR. His lack of fidelity started with his refusal to show that he meets the Constitutional qualifications to be president. They are, after all, quite simple. One must be at least 35 years of age, shall have lived at least fourteen years in these United States and shall be a natural born citizen. Why would one spend what has been estimated to exceed a million dollars to keep secret the long form birth certificate that would settle this question once and for all? But I digress.
In fact, George W. Bush showed nearly as much disdain for the Constitution as does Obama. For all the outbursts about Obama trampling on the Constitution and turning us into a socialist state, I wonder what they were smoking while the Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for four years of the Bush II presidency. Bush’s alleged contemptuous remark that the Constitution is nothing but a “g*d d*mn” piece of paper”, was not merely a blasphemous statement; it exemplified an attitude and a policy. I challenge anyone to name one major fiscal, individual liberty or foreign relations policy area where there is a significant ideological difference between the practice of Bush II and Obama. Remember, I’m not comparing the degree to which the policy is taken but rather the ideological justification for the policy.
In the cover story of the December 6, 2010 issue of The New American, Charles Scaliger presents a compelling case for how Obama, despite campaign hype to the contrary, continued the war policies of Bush in both Iraq and Afghanistan, continued the course set by Bush in relations with Russia and in calling for an expansion of NATO, along with ever greater accommodations with the United Nations.
In fiscal matters, Republicans have suddenly discovered a verbal commitment to fiscal restraint and constitutional limitations on the power of the federal government, blasting Obama for his socialized medicine capers and stimulus package bailouts. But where were they when Bush was doing the same sorts of things now done by Obama? After all, it was Bush who pushed through the first stimulus package, a $700 billion dollar bank bailout. As soon as Obama got into office, he started pushing for the second one to compound the disaster but it was not significantly less “unconstitutional” or “socialistic” than the one presided over by Bush.
Scaliger notes that overall federal spending has increased about ten percent per
year during the first two years of the Obama administration which is about the same annual increases that occurred during the administration of George W. Bush.
Obamacare, the gargantuan intrusion of the federal government into the healthcare decisions of every American citizen, is presented as the proof case for Obama’s desire to lead us into socialism. Without disputing the truth of that intent, let’s look objectively at what Bush did in the federal healthcare arena with his massive overhaul of Medicare at an estimated cost of $7 trillion, called “the greatest expansion of America’s welfare state in forty years” by CBS legal correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg.
It was George W. Bush who disdained the privacy rights of individuals that the federal government is supposed to protect under the Fourth Amendment by pushing through the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security along with its progeny of new intrusions on the privacy of American citizens. Although candidate Obama decried these violations of the Constitution, once assuming the office of the presidency, he has continued these policies and has authorized even more draconian policies such as installation of new backscatter body imaging machines that electronically undress passengers who merely want to exercise their right to travel. Those who refuse to have the naked features of their bodies viewed by strangers must face an enhanced groping “patdown” that would constitute a felonious sexual assault if done by anyone other than a government agent in a non-medical circumstance.
So Republicans have gained a substantial majority in the House of Representatives. The pundits are buzzing about the opportunities this new crop of Republicans will have and hope again springs eternal that sanity will be restored in Washington. But if the past is prologue, just as there was no joy in Mudville because mighty Casey had struck out, those pinning their hopes on Republican promises will see their hopes dashed once again. There are already emerging signs that the GOP really only wants to be a better caretaker of the welfare state than the Democrats. I have no confidence that it has any intention of derailing the train to socialism. (emphasis added)
Bill Shearer was right in 1967.
Jim Clymer is right in 2011.
It has been said that, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” It has also been said that "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." In 2012 the American voters have an opportunity to prove that they are sane and
that they have finally learned from history by supporting the Constitution Party with their effort and their votes.
Our job is to make sure that in 2012 Americans all across the nation have an opportunity to: 1) hear about the Constitution Party message; 2) join with and help build the Constitution Party; 3) and, most importantly, vote for Constitution Party candidates for President, Vice-President and other offices across the board.
As we move toward the Spring months of 2011 there is much to do in preparation to ensure that the Constitution Party will be in a position to provide the viable alternative political alternative this nation
so desperately needs. Just as a batter cannot hit the ball unless he swings the bat, we cannot achieve our goals unless we are active and involved in supporting the Constitution Party. Americans no longer have
the luxury of sitting on the sidelines watching others lead our country in the wrong direction. They need to stand up and get involved and we must provide that example!
Will you make it YOUR priority to support your state Constitution Party affiliate? Will you help it financially, attend its meetings and help to do what is necessary to get it on the ballot, if it isn't already on the ballot. Don't stop there! Support the work of the Constitution Party's National Committee with your financial support and plan on being at the important national meetings in Harrisburg, PA in April and/or
in Spokane, WA in the Fall. There is much to do and time starts to move very, very fast. This is not the time to sit on our hands, this is the time to...
Stand Up For America!
Thank you,
Editorial Board
Constitution Party News and Information
Next: Important State Meetings in Delaware, Kansas (2nd notice), Iowa and Pennsylvania.
Upcoming: New Information regarding the Spring 2011 Constitution Party National Committee Meeting and Conference in Harrisburg.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)