Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Resistance
See other Resistance Articles

Title: Thomas Sowell: July 4th
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://townhall.com/columnists/thom ... well/2011/06/28/july_4th/print
Published: Jul 1, 2011
Author: Sowell
Post Date: 2011-07-01 18:36:32 by wakeup
Keywords: None
Views: 1977
Comments: 23

The Fourth of July may be just a holiday for fireworks to some people. But it was a momentous day for the history of this country and the history of the world. Not only did July 4, 1776 mark American independence from England, it marked a radically different kind of government from the governments that prevailed around the world at the time -- and the kinds of governments that had prevailed for thousands of years before.

The American Revolution was not simply a rebellion against the King of England, it was a rebellion against being ruled by kings in general. That is why the opening salvo of the American Revolution was called "the shot heard round the world."

Autocratic rulers and their subjects heard that shot -- and things that had not been questioned for millennia were now open to challenge. As the generations went by, more and more autocratic governments around the world proved unable to meet that challenge.

Some clever people today ask whether the United States has really been "exceptional." You couldn't be more exceptional in the 18th century than to create your fundamental document -- the Constitution of the United States -- by opening with the momentous words, "We the people..."

Those three words were a slap in the face to those who thought themselves entitled to rule, and who regarded the people as if they were simply human livestock, destined to be herded and shepherded by their betters. Indeed, to this very day, elites who think that way -- and that includes many among the intelligentsia, as well as political messiahs -- find the Constitution of the United States a real pain because it stands in the way of their imposing their will and their presumptions on the rest of us.

More than a hundred years ago, so-called "Progressives" began a campaign to undermine the Constitution's strict limitations on government, which stood in the way of self-anointed political crusaders imposing their grand schemes on all the rest of us. That effort to discredit the Constitution continues to this day, and the arguments haven't really changed much in a hundred years.

The cover story in the July 4th issue of Time magazine is a classic example of this arrogance. It asks of the Constitution: "Does it still matter?"

A long and rambling essay by Time magazine's managing editor, Richard Stengel, manages to create a toxic blend of the irrelevant and the erroneous.

The irrelevant comes first, pointing out in big letters that those who wrote the Constitution "did not know about" all sorts of things in the world today, including airplanes, television, computers and DNA.

This may seem like a clever new gambit but, like many clever new gambits, it is a rehash of arguments made long ago. Back in 1908, Woodrow Wilson said, "When the Constitution was framed there were no railways, there was no telegraph, there was no telephone,"

In Mr. Stengel's rehash of this argument, he declares: "People on the right and left constantly ask what the framers would say about some event that is happening today."

Maybe that kind of talk goes on where he hangs out. But most people have enough common sense to know that a constitution does not exist to micro-manage particular "events" or express opinions about the passing scene.

A constitution exists to create a framework for government -- and the Constitution of the United States tries to keep the government inside that framework.

From the irrelevant to the erroneous is a short step for Mr. Stengel. He says, "If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it certainly doesn't say so."

Apparently Mr. Stengel has not read the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Perhaps Richard Stengel should follow the advice of another Stengel -- Casey Stengel, who said on a number of occasions, "You could look it up."

Does the Constitution matter? If it doesn't, then your Freedom doesn't matter.

Thomas Sowell Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute

Click for Full Text!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: All (#0) (Edited)

.

~~~~~~~
OneDollarDVDProject.com needs your activist support.
Do your friends and family know what you know?

wakeup  posted on  2011-07-01   18:37:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: wakeup, 4 (#1)

Apparently Mr. Stengel has not read the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Perhaps Richard Stengel should follow the advice of another Stengel -- Casey Stengel, who said on a number of occasions, "You could look it up."

Does the Constitution matter? If it doesn't, then your Freedom doesn't matter.

Bump this!

Thanks, Mr.Sowell.

Somewhere in Kenya, a village is still missing its idiot.

Lod  posted on  2011-07-01   21:49:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Lod (#2)

Does the Constitution matter? If it doesn't, then your Freedom doesn't matter.

Exactly. That is what it comes down to. Either we are a nation of laws or of the arbitrary rule of petty and venal men. Good men, decent men, do not seek to lord it over others and force them to obey their arbitrary dictats. However, petty and small minded men do. In their arrogance, brought on by their stupidity and ego, they think that they and only they are most fit to direct the lives of all.

"Necessity' is the plea for every infringement of human liberty; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." ~ William Pitt

"Most of the almost innumerable books, pamphlets, and other publications issued by the sponsors of the mental health program are purposely and craftily disingenuous, disguising its real and ultimate purpose: ... the ultimate reduction of every individual in this world, except the favored few who conceive of themselves as possessed of an incomparable genius in their ability to direct the affairs of others, into... a common servile obeisance to his master, the State...." Mental Robots, by Dr. Lewis Albert Alesen

Remember The White Rose
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha

Original_Intent  posted on  2011-07-01   22:02:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Original_Intent (#3)

Good men, decent men, do not seek to lord it over others and force them to obey their arbitrary dictats. However, petty and small minded men do. In their arrogance, brought on by their stupidity and ego, they think that they and only they are most fit to direct the lives of all.

Well said, and Amen.

Thank you!

Somewhere in Kenya, a village is still missing its idiot.

Lod  posted on  2011-07-01   22:25:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Lod (#4)

Thank you.

Remember The White Rose
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha

Original_Intent  posted on  2011-07-01   22:55:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Original_Intent (#5)

The flag that flies here, will be upside down.

Rescue US, we're in distress.

Somewhere in Kenya, a village is still missing its idiot.

Lod  posted on  2011-07-01   23:01:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Lod (#6)

We are in a dark time. I try not to get too down though because I don't think, in the long run, that the bad guys will win.

Remember The White Rose
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha

Original_Intent  posted on  2011-07-01   23:23:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: wakeup (#0)

Not only did July 4, 1776 mark American independence from England

I almost stopped reading at that myth.

===============

WERE YOU EVER FREE***CAN YOU BE FREE***WITHOUT OWNING LAND??? THE LAND STILL BELONGS TO THE KING, AMERICANS WERE NEVER FREE

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3497196/THE-LAND-STILL-BELONGS-TO-THE-KING- AMERICANS-WERE-NEVER-FREE

CONFIRMED BY THE HOLY BIBLE:

Genesis 15:13-14 And he [God] said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;

bible.cc/genesis/15-13.htm

He was talking about Christians:

Galatians 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

10For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

12And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 13Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

15Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. 16Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 17And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. 18For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

19Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. 20Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. 21Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 22But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

23But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. 26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

http://kingjbible.com/galatians/3.h tm

Long before there was a CONstitution; before there was even a Jamestown, a cross was planted at Cape Henry, Virginia in 1607, and this land was claimed for Jesus Christ [Psalm 2:6] and as this article put it:

"...We remember the event as the "First Landing," but it might be better known as "Covenant Day" for America.

The rude wooden cross they stuck in the Virginia ground was more than an ebenezer of thanksgiving to God's providence. In fact, it was an actual gauntlet thrown in the face of the enemies of Christianity. It was a legal and spiritual challenge to all comers that declared, "This land now belongs to Christ and His people." ....."

Read more: The enduring legacy of the First Landing

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55421

We have been afflicted as Genesis 15 prophesied, ever since.

THE LAND STILL BELONGS TO THE KING:

"...***My Comment*** Finally America, it does not get any plainer than the facts

above. Unless you can hold your hand up to the government when they come to take your land, and say: stop, "you cannot come on my land", and the government turns away and never comes back, to bother you or your heirs again, the arguments you may have with what I said above are bogus, because the nexus between allodial and Freeman cannot be overcome. America is there any hope of your waking up, why must you be hit over the head over and over with truth? Still you make bogus claims in the courts, just to have the judges admonish you for your foolishness? Do you have to go to jail before you say "Damn, something is not right here, things are not as they appear, black is white, white is black"? As long as you don't know the enemy, nor the weapons used against you in this warfare, how in God's name do you think anything will change? Much of America, the Christians are waiting for Jesus Christ to come back and take care of the problem. Christians unless you can figure a way to force Christ off His Throne, before His enemies are destroyed, thereby forcing Him to violate His Word, you are going to have a very long wait, and continue to go down the crapper while you wait. Why the strong admonishment, because I'm tired of America accepting a lie, to acquiesce for the easiest path, rather than facing up to the facts of their legal and financial enslavement, because only when you face up to a problem will you do anything about it. As long as you wish to accept voluntary slavery, which is legal, the remedy will never be learned or used. I have said all the above to say this, there is a way to change this, and I am not talking of armed rebellion or insurrection. In fact, it is the only way of reaching the level of freedom we seek, and what we have a right to demand, thereby removing the yokes from around our necks. The answer does not lie in a civil remedy, as I stated several times above in dealing with mans physical attempts to do it his way. Our Freedom has to do with a Trust granted by our Father in Heaven, I am working on a short paper, that will explain how we can regain our freedom through His knowledge, thereby exercising our rights provided in our Trust, as the legitimate heirs of Christ's Kingdom, the neat thing is, just as with the worldly kings system, no one has access to our Trust, except the heirs of Christ, until then keep the faith.***End Comment*** James Franklin Montgomery 07-26-00 "

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3497196/THE-LAND-STILL-BELONGS-TO-THE-KING- AMERICANS-WERE-NEVER-FREE

http://kingjbible.com/psalms/2.htm

http://kingjbible.com/micah/4.htm

=============

Genesis 15:14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. bible.cc/genesis/15-14.htm

THE UNITED STATES IS STILL A BRITISH COLONY, EXTORTING TAXES FOR THE CROWN [The Ultimate Delusion] www.apfn.org/apfn/queen.htm

"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2011-07-02   9:15:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Lod, Original_Intent (#4)

Good men, decent men, do not seek to lord it over others and force them to obey their arbitrary dictats. However, petty and small minded men do. In their arrogance, brought on by their stupidity and ego, they think that they and only they are most fit to direct the lives of all.

".....The political aristocracy who wrote the Constitution did not intend for the masses to take part and become the sovereigns you think you are. No, neither you nor your ancestors were ever party to the contract called the Constitution of any of the colonies nor of the United States. I have quoted the case in my New History of America which I quote only a small part here,

"to this: that the States, in making the Constitution, intended to give up the power of self preservation."

Lastly, the Court at page 491, said this of the People who made the constitutions:

"The people of the States who made the Constitution, considered themselves as the sovereign, and the Government as the subject. They were the principal -- it the agent. That this is also true none will dispute."

We all know it is not us people who made the Constitutions but the select few as stated by the Court at page 520, to wit:

"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. If they do they are entitled to redress. Or they may waive the right to complain." END OF QUOTE.

The only way to control the masses is to institute constitutional war powers to institute a different, but constitutional, set of parameters upon the people. Once the war powers are adopted they can change the statutes to fit the ends they want to achieve. They do it slowly so as to not give a clue to the masses. The war powers act of 1862 allowed the President and Congress to constitutionally change the statutes that guaranteed the people, in juries, to rule on both the law and the facts. Not only were the statutes changed that took away the power to judge the law but it also took away the right to be judged by your peers. The meaning of peers will be very evident when reading the next part of Whiting's Book and shows why today you have no such protections because the enemy can have no such protections. Even to the point that the jury is not aware of the slow indoctrination over the years that they really do have the right to judge the law, but not under the Rule of Necessity in the Rules of military Rule.] ......"

[Turning to Whiting's separate section Titled, The Return of the Rebellious States to the Union, we see the mindset of government, our enemy, as so aptly stated by Albert J. Nock in his book, Our Enemy, The State. It shows that the people of the south and the north became enemies of the United States, AKA Congress, because the southern states could not be admitted back into the Union and have disabilities different to the north. So Congress overrode President Johnson's veto of the War Powers after Johnson decreed the War Powers over, and then Congress declared that in order to have all states on equal footing they would continue the emergency war powers to include ALL the people in the States of the Union to be enemies, subject to the Confiscation Acts of 12 Stat 319. The section on Reconstruction of the Union shows that the southern States were forced into submitting to the United States, thereby showing, for all to see, that the Constitution is of "No Authority" as stated by eminent Jurist Lysander Spooner.

The south had sought to be free from the Union as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, that whenever government ceased to be what it was supposed to be, they had the right to secede. Such was not the case and shows the fraud of the Constitution for what it is. For if the abuses could not be remedied the South sought to only do what the Constitution stated, and that was to form a new government. They did not want to overthrow the old government. This also proves that the Treaty of 1783 still is supreme over the constitution which the treaty created. This I brought forth in my book The New History of America by quoting from the First Circuit Court of the United States operating in North Carolina in 1796.] fallacy.htm

FALLACY & MYTH of the PEOPLE BEING THE SOVEREIGN -- And that the Constitution was for the Common Man

www.biblebelievers.org.au/fa llacy.htm [this really needs to be read from the top!]

"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2011-07-02   9:17:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#8) (Edited)

.

~~~~~~~
OneDollarDVDProject.com needs your activist support.
Do your friends and family know what you know?

wakeup  posted on  2011-07-02   13:45:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt, All (#8)

from Mike:

Thomas Jefferson Would Not Celebrate the Fourth of July

Were the old red-head from Virginia with us today, I’m sure he would not be looking forward to celebrating the Fourth of July. Old Tom wouldn’t recognize the country (not nation) he helped start so many years ago. To TJ, this country would more closely resemble the Empire of old King George III.

Jefferson would tell us the country he envisioned back in 1776, when he authored what would be called the Declaration of Independence, morphed into something to which he would be unable to pledge allegiance. After all, the people are taxed to provide money for that which our Founders believed to be the bane of liberty: A standing Army; there are literally thousands of laws restricting the private ownership of firearms and how they can be carried on one’s person; citizens are routinely groped and X-rayed before they can enter a public conveyance, a court or a federal building; he would be absolutely appalled that we have allowed the government to burden ourselves and our posterity with a smothering debt we can never repay.

Were Jefferson to be one of those “I told you so” kind of guys, he would be able to rant for years about how we ignored his advice so completely; after all, he pledged “ his life, his fortune and his sacred honor ” to bring us a limited government operating under the “ consent of the governed ” and we have flittered it all away, and for what? He could say, “I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious,” and I said that over 200 years ago.

He would be most upset that the powers he envisioned the States and the People retaining against the usurpations of a corrupt government had been removed and/or ignored by the branch of government he feared the most; the Judiciary. He would tell us again of his warning of 1821, "The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary: an irresponsible body, (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow,) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little to-day and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one.” He would rail against Medicare, Obamacare and the FDA; he would remind us of his warning, “ Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.” He would care nothing for the Department of Agriculture, "Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread."

He would care little for the Welfare State and Foreign Aid, "It is a duty certainly to give our sparings to those who want; but to see also that they are faithfully distributed, and duly apportioned to the respective wants of those receivers. And why give through agents whom we know not, to persons whom we know not, and in countries from which we get no account, where we can do it at short hand, to objects under our eye, through agents we know, and to supply wants we see?"

Mr. Jefferson would be greatly concerned with modern day interpretations of the Constitution and would certainly enjoy debating those of our lawmakers and judges who have found mysterious meanings and rulings in that document, "On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

Jefferson would certainly be saddened at the destruction that was allowed to be visited on this great country and his home state of Virginia in the form of what historians refer to as the Civil War. Jefferson would have stood firm with Jefferson Davis and others against the tyranny of Abraham Lincoln as they stood for the rights of the States and the people. His words in the Kentucky Resolution would ring loud and clear throughout the land, “ Resolved , That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self- government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

Jefferson would want to know why we do not teach our children about the beginnings of our country and why we do not follow the guidelines that were left for us; guidelines that many among our ancestors fought and died so as to guarantee to their future generations a free and responsible government.

Jefferson would not celebrate the Fourth of July, for he would find nothing in the government we have today that in any way resembles the very limited government he and others envisioned in 1776.

As we stand and cheer what we see as the beginning of our country; enjoy fireworks, hotdogs, hamburgers and baseball games on the Fourth of July, were Thomas Jefferson here to see what we have allowed his and others experiment in liberty to become, he would not celebrate with us but walk away proclaiming “I know you not, for you have become that which we fought to overcome.”

In Liberty
Mike

~~~~~~~
OneDollarDVDProject.com needs your activist support.
Do your friends and family know what you know?

wakeup  posted on  2011-07-02   13:48:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: wakeup (#11)

I considered given Jefferson the benefit of the doubt for the day, but decided against it. The debate goes on whether J. was a Christian or not. I am of the opinion he never quite got there. He maybe would regret where we are today, but he helped get us here.

to post: Jewish Persecution Chapter 18
... or. . . the land of the fee and the home of the slave? ... wrote the Declaration of Independence? or "advised" the Illuminist, Thomas Jefferson? ... www.sweet liberty.org/pers...e/jewishpersecution18.htm

America, the land of the free and the home of the brave? or. . . the land of the fee and the home of the slave? The "American Revolution" is as well known an apparition as is the "War For Independence". Sadly, once again the spot- light is beamed upon a massive lie; in fact this one is a double-whammy. Not only was that war NOT a spontaneous uprising against tyranny, we Americans were fooled into believing we "won" that war......

". . . in Philadelphia, July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was written. A copy was sent to Amsterdam via the small Dutch Caribbean Island of St. Eustatius. The Declaration was intercepted by the British at sea. "An accompanying letter with the Declaration of Independence was also intercepted and sent to London as being a secret code about the document that needed to be deciphered - the letter was written in Yiddish.

We might ask here: WHY was a copy of the Declaration of Independence sent to Amsterdam via the Jews at St. Eustatius? It is likely that the final details of the planned "American Revolution" were worked out from that quarter. We are not privy to the content of the letter that accompanied the document, just the fact that it was written in Yiddish. .....

The Jew, William Morris was an attendee at the treasonous Constitutional Convention in 1787, along with many other Jew and non-Jew lawyers, land barons, money-lenders, etc. In a book titled An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, by Charles A. Beard (Macmillan Co., 1913), a bio was given on all fifty-five men present at that gathering. The end-result of that Convention was to enrich those attendees (and their posterity), and to create a strong central government that would become all-powerful as more and more politicians -- especially those in the several states -- succumbed to the lures of money, power and influence.

The writers of the Constitution knew full well that corporate U.S. Government would one day be controlled -- it was already then as it is today -- by Freemasons and Jews; its function from the beginning was to bring in their New World Order, the unearthly, ungodly plan for World Dominion ruled by cruel, perverted, coldly calculating, heartless creatures whose origin is still a puzzlement for me......

We'll take a short side-trip now to clear up some more lies we've been taught in history concerning the American "victory" over Great Britain. When Cornwallis surrendered to Washington on October 19th, 1781, he surrendered the battle, not the war. Under the Articles of Capitulation, the common British soldiers were held in forts, under conditions that they were fed the same as American troops; the officers -- one for every fifty soldiers -- lived nearby to see to their good treatment, while the officers themselves lived in fine quarters in society being served like royalty; the injured were hospitalized and treated, all at the cost of Americans (as usual).

The war had not been formally ended; and in fact, it was nearly six months later -- in March, 1782 -- that the House of Commons finally settled on a resolution to advise the king that the fighting part of the war should end. . . to be continued to this day, under cover, with silent weapons for quiet wars. From The History of the American Revolution, Vol. 2, Ramsay, 617-9, we read:

". . . Dec. 12,1781, it was moved in the House of Commons that a resolution should be adopted declaring it to be their opinion,

"That all farther attempts to reduce the Americans to obedience by force would be ineffectual, and injurious to the true interests of Great Britain."

The resolution failed at that time. Then:

"General Conway in five days after (Feb. 27), brought forward another motion expressed in different words, but to the same effect with that which he had lost by a single vote. This caused a long debate which lasted till two o'clock in the morning. It was then moved to adjourn the debate till the 13th of March.

". . . together with other suspicious circumstances, induced General Conway to move another resolution, expressed in the most decisive language. This was to the following effect that,

"The house would consider as enemies to his majesty and the country, all those who should advise or by any means attempt the further prosecution of offensive war, on the continent of North America, for the purpose of reducing the colonies to obedience by force."

"This motion after a feeble opposition was carried without a division. . . This resolution and the preceding address, to which it had reference, may be considered as the closing scene of the American war."

In other words, the good ol' boys got together and decided to stop the fighting. They had other ways to control their subjects (slaves) in America other than by "force", via the Rothschild banking cartel. It's interesting to note, too, that although the fighting stopped in 1781, the actual Treaty of Peace was not finalized until 1783.

Under this treaty the King, his heirs, subjects, etc. were allowed to keep, in perpetuity, any property they owned in America, without having to become American citizens; as well the King (and his heirs and successors) was to retain mineral rights: one third of all gold, silver and copper mined in America. The King granted fishing rights even designating where the fishermen could clean and dry their fish. To the victor go the spoils? .......

The furor over Jay's Treaty occurred nine years after the alleged victory by American patriots who had "won the War of Independence". One more telling quote should appear here, in case our reader has a lingering impression that Americans are freemen. The Paris Treaty (Peace Treaty of 1783) begins with this description of the King of England as the "prince elector of the United States of America":

"In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.

"It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch-treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America. . . " Paris Peace Treaty 1783

_____________________________

For all intents and purposes, this chapter was finished. . . I thought. During the research on these last two chapters we stumbled across the following, relating to the French Revolution. A short excerpt for our reader. Can you see the "signature" here, once again, bringing us from those turbulent times to our present turbulent times? Obviously, this piece is written by one of their own minions. Read this:

"If the guillotine is the most striking negative image of the French Revolution, then the most positive is surely the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, one of the founding documents in the human rights tradition. "The lasting importance of the Declaration of Rights is immediately evident: just compare the first article from August 1789 with the first article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights passed by the United Nations after World War II, on 10 December 1948. "They are very similar, though the UN document refers to 'human beings' in place of 'men'. (Did "men" mean women too in 1789? As we shall see, this was far from clear.) Maybe those words were differentiated in the UN document because, as we discovered in the Talmud, only Jews are "human beings", the goy considered as no more than animals. Lets look at each of these articles for ourselves. But first, let's look at the authors of the French Declaration, and no wonder we see the same signatures! The question we must ask is: "Who wrote the Declaration of Independence? or "advised" the Illuminist, Thomas Jefferson? From the website at www.constitution.org/fr/fr_drm. htm at the bottom of the text of the French Declaration, we read:

"The above document was written by The Marquis de Lafayette, with help from his friend and neighbor, American envoy to France, Thomas Jefferson. Lafayette, you may recall, had come to the Colonies at age 19, been commissioned a Major General, and was instrumental in the defeat of the British during the American Revolutionary War. He considered one special man his 'father': George Washington. French King Louis XVI signed this document, under duress, but never intended to support it. Indeed, the Revolution in France soon followed, leading to the tyrannical rule of Napoleon Bonaparte." Napoleon Bonaparte, a tyrannical ruler? When a leader is vilified by the 'victors', we automatically ask: How did they become a threat to the priestly sect, and its plan for World Dominion? From the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, Approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789:

Article 1: Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good. From the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. It all sounds so good, so benevolent, doesn't it? It's meant to sound good and benevolent; it must in order to seduce the uninformed and naive masses into supporting their planned enslavement and ultimate demise. We see "by their fruits" that the architects of this plan do not practice what they preach. We'll return now to the French Revolution, a short excerpt:

"When the French revolutionaries [Jews/Freemasons] drew up the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen in August 1789, they aimed to topple the institutions surrounding hereditary monarchy and establish new ones based on the principles of the Enlightenment, a philosophical movement gathering steam in the eighteenth century. 1789. . . the year the treasonous Constitution for the United States of America was ratified.

"The goal of the Enlightenment's proponents was to apply the methods learned from the scientific revolution to the problems of society. Further, its advocates committed themselves to "reason" and "liberty." Knowledge, its followers believed, could only come from the careful study of actual conditions and the application of an individual's reason, not from religious inspiration or traditional beliefs. "Liberty meant freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom from unreasonable government (torture, censorship, and so on). Enlightenment writers, such as Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Rousseau, influenced ordinary readers, politicians, and even heads of state all over the Western world. Kings and queens consulted them, government ministers joined their cause, and in the British North American colonies, American revolutionaries put some of their ideas into practice in the Declaration of Independence and the new Constitution of the United States. "The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen of 1789 brought together two streams of thought: one springing from the Anglo-American tradition of legal and constitutional guarantees of individual liberties, the other from the Enlightenment's belief that reason should guide all human affairs. "Enlightenment writers praised the legal and constitutional guarantees established by the English and the Americans, but they wanted to see them applied everywhere. "The French revolutionaries therefore wrote a Declaration of Rights that they hoped would serve as a model in every corner of the world. Reason rather than tradition would be its justification. As a result, "France" or "French" never appears in the articles of the declaration itself, only in its Preamble. chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/chap3a .html

Now, we continue to chapter 19, which has been written and posted for months, awaiting the insertion of these past three. I will have to read that one again to see if we have maintained or lost continuity in the stream of thought.

The thought I've had is that we've taken a magnifying glass to just one little piece of history from two hundred years ago -- the settling of America, the Revolution, the restructuring of the whole mechanism of government via the treasonous Constitutional Convention -- looking through that glass and scrutinizing many of the details that heretofore have been outside of our scope of vision. We come away from that examination with a clearer understanding of the whole play and its nefarious plot, along with the writers, producers, directors and especially the actors/players.

We can then use that little piece of history as a pattern, knowing it has been repeated over and over and over again, from eons ago up to today, from countries all over this planet. I no longer "believe" America was founded to bring in the final stages of the New World Order. I "know" it.

That doesn't necessarily mean they will prevail. They've been at it for hundreds of centuries and have fallen flat every time. ......"

www.sweet http://liberty.org/pers...e/jewishpersecution18.htm

www.sweet http://liberty.org/pers...e/jewishpersecution18.htm

Patrick Henry was a Christian, and he "smelled a rat" and refused to sign the CONstitution. www.america-betrayed-1787.com/us- http://constitution.html">www.america-betrayed-1787.com/us-constitution.html

My biggest problem is with George Washington. Reading the papers of the presidents [the volume on G. Washington] and what he did regarding the Whiskey Rebellion, is possibly what first made me wake up and smell the rat.

[sorry if the links are messed up....i hate this new computer]

"...as long as there..remain active enemies of the Christian church, we may hope to become Master of the World...the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown - B'nai B'rith speech http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm / http://bible.cc/psalms/83-4.htm

AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt  posted on  2011-07-02   15:43:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: All (#0)

deleted

The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." ~ Ben Franklin

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.” ~ Patrick Henry

Eric Stratton  posted on  2011-07-02   16:08:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#12)

My biggest problem is with George Washington. Reading the papers of the presidents [the volume on G. Washington] and what he did regarding the Whiskey Rebellion, is possibly what first made me wake up and smell the rat.

George Washington had some of his deserting troops executed to stop the trend, I understand. I have a problem with that. Maybe we need not treat them all as perfect role models.

~~~~~~~
OneDollarDVDProject.com needs your activist support.
Do your friends and family know what you know?

wakeup  posted on  2011-07-02   17:01:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt, Eric Stratton, wakeup (#12)

Well there were really two schools of thought at play in writing the constitution. There were the Patricians, such as Washington and Hamilton, and then the more liberty minded such as Jefferson and Franklin. So, the Constitution was a compromise and it was only with the addition of the "Bill of Rights" that there were enough votes to pass it in the Several States.

So, yes, the Constitution, as good as it is, has shortcomings, and one of those is the inability of the individual citizen to challenge, in court, the Feral Government, and gain enforcement, for its breaches of the Constitution.

So, while it was a great leap forward it was not without fault. However, a lot of the mischief that has been done has been at the hands of the courts with their tortured interpretations of various clear clauses - the Commerce Clause being the most egregious.

Remember The White Rose
"“Believe nothing merely because you have been told it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.” ~ Gautama Siddhartha — The Buddha

Original_Intent  posted on  2011-07-02   17:32:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Lod (#2)

Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Unfortunately, the question of the Tenth Amendments power to extend to individuals had never reached the supreme court until June 16, 2011. In their 9-0, by far the best opinion they have ever written, Bond v United States, the sups spelled out very clearly that the individual DOES have the right to challenge federal authority on his/her OWN standing under Article III.

Due to one line in a 1939 court case, that the supreme's said they haven't liked for years, ALL people who have challenge the federal jurisdiction in Tax cases, Marijuana cases and almost every "victimless crimes" cases, were denied on "standing" grounds and not even given the opportunity to raise a cause of action.

As I said, this is the best opinion ever by the supreme court. Everyone should read it 5 times. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/bond-v-united-states/

If you really want to get what is being said, read the Merits Briefs Brief for Petitioner Carol Anne Bond.

Zeke  posted on  2011-07-08   16:15:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Zeke (#16)

Thanks very much for this information.

Somewhere in Kenya, a village is still missing its idiot.

Lod  posted on  2011-07-08   16:24:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Zeke (#16)

Unfortunately, the question of the Tenth Amendments power to extend to individuals had never reached the supreme court until June 16, 2011.

thanks, Zeke. i had no idea that this had occurred...a rare good ruling from USSC.

christine  posted on  2011-07-08   17:58:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: christine (#18)

Has Mia started to rule the roost, yet?

Somewhere in Kenya, a village is still missing its idiot.

Lod  posted on  2011-07-08   18:00:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Lod (#19)

she's getting there! we are so pleased at how they are all getting along so well.

christine  posted on  2011-07-08   22:13:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#9)

".....The political aristocracy who wrote the Constitution did not intend for the masses to take part and become the sovereigns you think you are. No, neither you nor your ancestors were ever party to the contract called the Constitution of any of the colonies nor of the United States. [sic]

...The States are the parties to it.

What Constitution of the colonies? Nevermind that. The Preamble says, "We the People"..."and our Posterity" -- not "We the States"..."and a number of State add-ons sometime later".

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2011-07-09   1:13:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#8)

The rude wooden cross they stuck in the Virginia ground was more than an ebenezer of thanksgiving to God's providence. In fact, it was an actual gauntlet thrown in the face of the enemies of Christianity. It was a legal and spiritual challenge to all comers that declared, "This land now belongs to Christ and His people." ....."

Interesting.

As long as you don't know the enemy, nor the weapons used against you in this warfare, how in God's name do you think anything will change? Much of America, the Christians are waiting for Jesus Christ to come back and take care of the problem. Christians unless you can figure a way to force Christ off His Throne, before His enemies are destroyed, thereby forcing Him to violate His Word, you are going to have a very long wait,

What? I don't know where the author got a notion like that bolded text. Doesn't sound anything like this from Psalm 23: Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2011-07-09   1:48:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt, All (#12) (Edited)

the treasonous Constitutional Convention in 1787, [sic] The end- result of that Convention was to [sic] create a strong central government that would become all-powerful

Constitutional Baby Babble from TIME Magazine – Tenth Amendment Center

Stengel: “It was written in secret and in violation of the existing one, the Articles of Confederation.”

Answer: The convention was no secret, but widely-heralded—although the debates themselves were confidential. As I have explained before, nearly all the delegates were fully empowered by publicly-available state commissions to recommend a new document.

Since the Revolutionary War was still going on for two more years after the Articles of Confederation were ratified, you can probably imagine how super- secretive that process was, as those involved with constructing that model of government risked being executed by the British for treason.

I'd like to know, though, how anyone gets the impression that the Constitution is a more centralized government format than the Articles, which were so strongly centralized that there was only one branch of power at the Federal level -- Congress -- which even acted as the Supreme Court. The Constitution de- centralized that conglomeration.

If anyone is really miffed that the Constitution prohibited the so- called "freedom" of States to pass laws retroactively that charged and punished people for "crimes" in the past that weren't crimes yet, I don't know why. How many people here actually believe that the Constitution wrongfully prohibited the States from their practices under the Articles of issuing Bills of Attainder that amounted to a death warrant for the accused -- with no civil rights, with forfeiture of their property, and denial of any claims of inheritance by their families? Charging the Constitution as treasonous just because the author feels like it doesn't make it so. But it does sound rather like a Bill of Attainder.

Edited for spacing.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2011-07-09   3:43:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest