Tag Archives: Barack Hussein Obama

When the Prosecution is the Crime, and the Defendant is Freedom: Terry George Trussell Convicted and Taken Immediately into Custody (But What was Orly Taitz doing in Dixie County just before trial????)

Southern Constitutional Patriot, Common Law Activist, and former Statutory Grand Jury Foreman Terry George Trussell was found guilty of five of fourteen counts today by a Jury in Dixie County, Florida, and taken immediately into custody.  

As much as needs to be said about this event, a full legal discussion will have to wait for another day except for gross generalities and some random surrounding peculiarities and idiosyncratic events.

Suffice it to say, about the prosecution, that it was 100% a political show trial, initiated of the prosecutors, by the prosecutors, and for the prosectors designed to maximize their power as agents of “Big Brother” to control the legal system, in particular the so-called “criminal justice system” in the United States, against any and all claims of right by the people to have a say in social control through law.

As a curious but extremely significant aside (actually a complete “side show”), the trial was closely watched and broadcast by one of the nastiest bunch of lying Communist Sympathizing cluster of hateful sneering legal elitist bloggers in the whole USA, namely the Fogbow, which was cheering and cackling like a bunch of witches and warlock trolls for Terry’s conviction.   

I have been a particular target for the Fogbow crew of anonymous Goblins since 2009 when I participated in and supported the legal challenges to Barack Hussein Obama’s accursedly fraudulent candidacy and election to the highest “constitutional” office in the United Staes, perhaps the world.  

This group of bloggers (mostly establishment lawyers) claims that their noble purpose is to highlight truth and expose lies and deception in the “birther” movement, although they have moved on to attack so-called “Sovereign Citizens” and other constitutional grass roots activists who oppose the centralized state and governmental monopoly on legal process and thought.

Although ostensibly organized to ridicule Orly Taitz and her role in the “Birther” Movement, in effect the group has served to keep  a spotlight of attention on her activities which long since faded from the first, second, or even third page of news reports, and to criticize and attack all those around her.

For a while in 2009-2010, I was very much “around Orly” and I tried to assist her and inform and shape her legal crusade.  The professional side of my relationship with this Dentist-Lawyer-Real Estate Agent-Tai Kwon Do expert was fraught with constant conflict and argument over strategy, although she used some of my writings and took some of my advice.

Orly needed followers and she needed sensation, and she hated caution and careful reflection and would have no part of legal research…. this was strange in a lawyer trying to lead what needed to be the most sophisticated legal challenge against a sitting President in world history.  

But Orly’s need to make radical statements which her uneducated followers could cheer was paramount to anything else, and so in one episode in Georgia, she insisted on disrespectfully challenging the authority of a Federal Judge, and calling him a traitor.

Fogbow founding member “Sterngard Friegen” has been particularly hateful towards me for 7 full years now, and in this latest go round about the Terry Trussell trial, he accused me of taking advantage of  Orly Taitz’ naivetee and forcing her to file sanctionable documents WHICH I HAD ACTUALLY FOUGHT WITH ORLY TO PREVENT HER FROM FILING NIGHT AFTER NIGHT AFTER LONG NIGHT.  

It seemed strange to me that he has always been so obsessed with me and so interested in defending Orly while ostensibly being her greatest critic…. how strange…. Anyhow, I had for a very long time now suspected it was all a show and a fraud, and apparently I was finally vindicated.

Terry’s lawyer Inger Michelle Garcia reported back to me today that Orly was IN CROSS CITY, DIXIE COUNTY, without ever having articulated any interest in Terry’s trial, and that she had revealed herself as one of, if not the primary force behind the Fogbow, as I have suspected from the very beginning.

Ah, the sweet taste of VINDICATIO!  Orly was not the “Queen” but rather the Court Jester, the “Clown Princess” of the Constitutional Eligibility Movement, aka “the Birthers” for the purpose of making the Constitutional Challenge to Obama’s presidency as humiliatingly stupid and ridiculous as could be…. and in this case, Orly’s strategy, performance, and tactics were all brilliantly successful, and the coincidence of her involvement with the Fogbozers in Dixie County is proof positive of this bizarre but brilliant conspiracy of ridicule and comedy as political attack and disruption.  

I am infinitely grateful to my freshman Anthropology professor Victoria Reifler Bricker for introducing me to the importance of ridicule in social control (her doctoral dissertation at Harvard concerned “Ritual Humor” as subversive political dialogue among the Maya of Chiapas under Spanish Occupation).  

From my beginnings studying at Vicky’s brilliant footsteps in New Orleans, I learned later from Sally Falk Moore, Clifford Geertz, Marshall Sahlins, and Valerio Valeri about ritual performances as “reifying” historical myths and “enactments” which prove and confirm stereotypical theories about human behavior which effectively become enactments  and pronouncements of law.  

I now realize more than ever the importance of so deconstructing the rituals of the modern courts, and modern propagandists like the Fogbozers, to revealing the truth about political process, and to make people free from illusion and free from the deception that such ritualized enactments create.  

The manipulative deceptions attempted and in fact achieved by the Fogbow perfectly exemplify the Cultural Marxist methods of Saul Alinsky and others.  These methods must be exposed and, to the extent possible, attacked and dismantled.   It is just sad to think that techniques originally evolved for the degenerates in the big cities have filtered down all the way to poor little Cross City in Dixie County, the least populous and most isolated of all of Florida’s  68 counties…

What does renaming Mount McKinley in Alaska have in Common with renaming Lee Circle & Jefferson Davis Parkway in New Orleans?? It is all part of the purge of everything Traditionally White in the USA.

The ownership of history defines a people and their nation. I am a Southern heir of the Confederacy and the Old South. I will never allow any modern politician to take my grandparents’ love for me or their love for their grandparents’ cause. I spent my elementary school years with a Confederate Flag hanging in my room, and related pictures all over my grandparents’ home and several aunts’ & uncles’ homes. To purge this heritage would mean to purge myself, and, I’m sorry folks, but I just don’t want to be purged.

 I took my son Charlie to Beauvoir (and Confederate Memorial Hall) many times when he was living here with me, when he was little.  I hope that there are enough people who feel as I do to make sure that my great-great grandchildren will still remember and honor the Lees, the Jacksons (Andrew & Stonewall), Davis, Beauregard, Forrest, the Polks (James K. & Leonidas), and all the other Confederate heroes of the war of 1861-65.

There is a Federal Law of Cultural Resource Management built into the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (“NEPA”). In my opinion, the removal of the Four Major Monuments and any other alterations would have a major negative impact on the cultural environment and resources of New Orleans.

It would disturb the management and preservation of all other features of the city to remove these centrally placed and important “monumental” focal points of attention. For all these reasons, removal of the monuments would violate Federal Law and must be opposed in Court if the City Council votes in favor. Oh, and we should campaign vigorously to recall the mayor and all members of the City Council and demand a special election. I, for one, think this is worth fighting for on every front, until the monuments can be secured “for ourselves and our posterity.”

I have to admit, I have NO such similar feelings about President William McKinley. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2015/08/31/if-not-for-a-mountain-what-is-president-mckinleys-legacy/?wprss=rss_business  As the Washington Post article indicates, his only real legacy is the Spanish-American War of 1898, engendered and possibly engineered by the first major “False Flag” event in US History—the sinking of the Battleship Maine in Havana Harbor. 

In that rather inglorious imperialist episode, we conquered Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippine Islands and Guam from Spain.  Of these, we only have Puerto Rico and Guam to show for our efforts now.   The Annexation of Hawaii in the same year, 1898, had almost nothing to do with the Spanish-American War, but what the heck, so long as we were out there collecting Tropical Islands generally and Pacific Islands in particular, right? 

The Annexation of Hawaii was among the most utterly illegal acts ever committed in the name of the United States of America.  Hawaii had been recognized as a sovereign and independent nation, first as the self-governing indigenous Kingdom of Hawaii founded by King Kamehameha, for over 100 years, and then as an Anglo-Saxon Republic after the overthrow of the native Kingship, by all the major powers of the world, including the United States. 

In short, the Annexation of Hawaii was as absolutely and totally illegal as Cousin Abe’s war to suppress his own and his wife’s Southern cousins into submission, abject submission, although the Yankee Imperialist Conquest of Hawaii was bloodless and therefore “benign,” right?  Still, Hawaii has solid grounds for secession and nullification of its relations with the United States.  And I hope that Hawaii will lead the way in the dissolution of the Union.  That way the first shot of the next War of Secession doesn’t have to be fired here in the South this time.

(Oh, and that will resolve all questions regarding Barack Hussein Obama’s citizenship, although I, for one, am fairly convinced he was born in Kenya.  But since Hawaii was illegally annexed, it’s not part of the United States either, so “two birds with one stone.”)(yes, I am grinning as I write this last parenthetical).

But Why is Barack Obama involved in the renaming of Mount McKinley?  Is it because he is bitter about the annexation of his “native” Hawaii?  Well, if so, and as noted, I am too.

But I believe, really and truly, that Obama’s purpose in renaming Mount McKinley is part of a broader purpose and policy which stands as the cornerstone of his administration:  ALL OF WHITE AMERICA MUST BE SUPPRESSED AND DIE.   And McKinley, even if he was a nasty Republican Imperialist just like Abraham Lincoln before him and Theodore Roosevelt after him, was white.   And THAT, my friends, is what I would consider to be the real connexion between the renaming of Mount McKinley and the renaming of Lee Circle and Jefferson Davis Parkway…… One less “Monument” to a Dead White Male on the American map.

Obama claims that his purpose in renaming Mount Denali was to honor the Alaskan Athabaskans (Tinneh or Na Diné), who number approximately 6,400 in Alaska today, according to Wikipedia.   The total population of Alaska in 2013 was 737,259, and Hispanics outnumber Native Americans almost 3 to 1 as a percentage of the population.  http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/02000.html

I have no idea how many of these enrolled tribal members actually speak an Athabaskan language, but I am sure it is less than the 6,400 total, and so it is much less than the generation of millions of Elementary School Students who had to learn their American geography and history together. 

Wipe McKinley off the map?  I would be dishonest and hypocritical to say it were “no great loss”, even though I cannot and do not particularly admire the man or his “legacy.”  Because if traditional historical names can be changed for the benefit of tiny minorities…. well, then the 25,000 of us who have signed petitions to save Lee Circle and the Lee and Jefferson Davis Monuments in this city are indeed in a hopeless position.

State vs. National Citizenship—the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 must be Repealed—Time to Bite the Bullet, Folks!

Donald Trump has won a lot of national support for his position that “anchor babies” are not U.S. Citizens.  https://www.yahoo.com/politics/birthright-citizenship-where-the-2016-127093585661.html

Despite their appetite for socialism and socialist engineering of U.S. Demography, I think it is fair to say that few if any the Radical Republican Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment ever dreamt of or envisioned a situation where millions of “huddled masses” and “wretched refuse ” types of people would come to America just to have babies to enroll in schools and obtain other welfare entitlements. 

No, the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to create a national standard for citizenship and civil rights, and to abolish the notion that the States of the United States were equivalent to the “States” who obtain membership in the United Nations.  

State citizenship was the weakest point of Cousin Abraham’s Northern policy during the War:  while many Radical Republicans wanted to call Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, and every other Confederate Officer and Politician, a “traitor”, these charges simply would not stick for one single reason.  From 1776-1868, the individual states were the ones which established and determined citizenship, and so Lee was right to think of himself as a Virginian (about a 10th or 12th generation Virginian, in fact) by both the doctrines of ius solis and ius sanguinis.  Jefferson Davis might have been born in Kentucky, but he was a “naturalized” Mississippian.  Pierre Gustave Toutant-Beauregard was a 6th or 7th generation Louisianian, like Lee, either by ius solis or ius sanguinis

So Lee and Beauregard were unquestionably citizens of their own home states, and NOT of the United States.  They might have been employed in the armies of the United States, or, like Davis, also officers of the United States Government in its legislative (Senate) and Executive Branches (where Davis was Secretary of War).

But by every pre-War understanding, the Confederate leaders were not CAPABLE of betraying a Country WHICH NEVER EXISTED.  Like the States they belonged to, the Confederate Leaders could resign from the service of the Union, but in no legal or moral sense could they be called “traitors” to it, because (at least before 1868) the UNION WAS NOT A SINGLE SOVEREIGNTY.  Yes, indeed, quite simply, there WAS no such thing as “United States citizenship” prior to the Fourteenth Amendment—just a very generalized “American” citizenship which dependent on the collaboration and contribution of the ratifying states.  And that is why “Birth of a Nation” (by D.W. Griffith) was so correctly named: a collection of closely cooperating and allied free nation-states (small Jeffersonian Democracies) went to war with each other in 1861, and they were, afterwards, at gunpoint, forced into one single new country.

This was the debate that framed Barack Hussein Obama’s Presidency—so long as he could convince (fool?) a majority of the people into believing he was born in Hawaii, he was eligible, under the ius solis doctrine of the 14th Amendment, to be President.  But if a ius sanguinis standard should be applied, Obama’s rather famous Kenyan father stood as an absolute obstacle to his eligibility.  So as Dinesh D’Souza had shown in his brilliant movie Obama 2016, Obama’s goal as President was absolutely to abolish both the identity and nature of American society and culture.  Now the 44th President effects this transformation largely through emotionally manipulative lies and psychological manipulation, rather than democratic process or law.

But, indeed, the language of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “citizenship” clause is clear enough in making “soil” more important than “blood,” and has been consistently applied by the Supreme Court for over a hundred years to mean that literally anyone born in the United States, for any reason, automatically is an American Citizen.  This is obviously a disaster for the Country and many have written about it, including the mad Texan elf of Clearwater, Florida, Robert M. Hurt, Jr.:

Trump Is Right: Anchor Babies Do Not Rightfully Become US Citizens

http://bobhurt.blogspot.com/2015/08/trump-is-right-anchor-babies-do-not.html

What Hurt proposes is essentially changing the law by reinterpreting the law, and this often does not work so well—and could in fact be described as the source of much of modern America’s woes—allowing the Supreme Court to say that night is day and day is night is getting old, 62 years after Earl Warren became Chief Justice, 113 after Oliver Wendell Holmes brought Massachusetts “progressivism” to the Court, paving the way for the New Deal for whose eventual triumph (through popularity over constitutional rigor) Holmes might be considered a kind of Prophet….

Among Holmes’ most famous pronouncements is that, “an experiment, as all life is an experiment” (Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919)).  Allowing, or even encouraging, population replacement—the “Browning of America”—is among the left’s favorite long-term social goals and experiments, and (admittedly) all of us who oppose the Browning of America are classified by Salon.com, the Huffington Post, and the New York Times, among others, as vile racist reactionaries. 

But I can live with that.  As far as the way out, though, as far as how White America can preserve itself, I don’t think that verbal games such as Robert M. Hurt, Jr., Donald John Trump, and many others will work.  

No, I always prefer dealing with issues directly and in taking a “full-frontal” approach.  The Fourteenth Amendment resulted from a massive war of Centralization of Power.  The only politician in MY LIFETIME who ever addressed the problem directly was San Diego Mayor and later California Governor and Senator Pete Wilson: who directly advocated repeal of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment during the 1980s.  He is almost totally forgotten now, but when I was in Law School, I remember thinking his approach was sound.  Repeal of the Citizenship Clause would be clear statement that unlimited immigration and population replacement via “anchor babies” is and ought to be intolerable.

People don’t realize it, but prior to the War of 1861-65 between the North and the South, MANY NORTHERN STATES if not most of them, DENIED CITIZENSHIP of any kind to blacks.  (the last state to have such a law was Oregon, which literally made it simply illegal to “be a negro” in the State of Oregon— to enter the state at all, under any pretext, was cause for imprisonment, fine, and immediate removal to the state lines upon release.

While “the Underground Railroad” was very famous, you might ask yourself, “if Abolitionist sentiment was so strong in the North, (a) why was the underground railroad “underground” and (b) why did it end up in Canada?  The answer is that since Northern States had enacted “no black citizenship” laws, being “free” in most places meant nothing. 

The way history is taught and discussed in modern America, it’s not always quite clear, but Chief Justice Roger Taney, in Scott v. Sanford was actually adopting a MERGER of both the Northern and Southern positions in his (plurality against Freedom for Slaves by Crossing State Lines) decision in 1857 (every Justice on the Court rendered a Separate opinion in that case). 

Justice Taney said that no negro could ever be a citizen of the United States.  So he was ALREADY (by usurpation) establishing a Federal rather than a state standard of citizenship—THAT IS WHY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS ENACTED—the whole War Between the States and 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution can be considered an effort to Overrule the “Dred Scott” ruling— but what many people forget is that Taney had already taken the critical first step by attempting to impose NORTHERN standards of Citizenship NATIONWIDE— ironically, this ruling (if it had been allowed to stand) might well, would almost certainly, have had the bizarre effect of “outlawing” or depriving tens of thousands of free (and many slaveholding) blacks in Louisiana of their citizenship, professional licenses, and right to vote. 

So the real problem was Taney’s (1857, pre-War) judicial “stealth” transition from allowing STATES to determine Citizenship to his rather clumsy attempt to impose a NATIONWIDE standard for citizenship.  The Fourteenth Amendment was the “Radical Republican” answer to this. 

Ironic, isn’t it?, that when properly understood, the Fourteenth Amendment was just as oppressive to the Northern States as to the Southern States.  Northern States could no longer ban black people. (Although the remarkable State of Oregon did not repeal it’s African-exclusionary laws until 1926, and only ratified the Fifteenth Amendment until the centennial of that State’s admission to the Union in 1959)(Oregon’s 1844, pre-state, pre-war position on slavery was that all blacks, free or slave, should be whipped and lashed twice a year until they left the territory).

Former California Governor Pete Wilson, by contrast with both Roger Taney and Donald Trump, understood that and would have returned to the individual states the power to determine citizenship by repeal of the “birth clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment.  One can easily imagine, almost too easily, how permitting the states to determine citizenship would be nearly equivalent to allowing secession—because Hawaii, for example, could pass a law decreeing that no “Howlees” (i.e. Anglo-Saxon or other European Whites) could ever be citizens of Hawaii—and so effectively dissolve the ties between that improperly annexed Island State and the rest of “the Union.”  (Hawaii currently has the most radical and politically “real” and active secessionist movement in the USA).

Even if the States COULD determine citizenship, the balance of the 14th Amendment still protected everyone “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States with regard to Civil Rights…. so even if there were no “national standard for citizenship” there could still be a “national standard for civil rights.”
 

Thoughts on State & Federal Immigration Policy,

Charles Edward Lincoln (Edited from Facebook Posts from August 26, 2014):

In late March 2005, it was rumored that US President Bush met with Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian PM Paul Martin at Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, and there secretly planned a “North American Union.”

The meeting was real enough: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/03/images/20050323-5_la6g0997kjjpg-515h.html 

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/…/20050323-5…

President George W. Bush walks with Mexico President Vicente Fox, left, and Canadian Prime…
georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov

But it is very unclear what was actually discussed in the US President’s Crawford retreat: As Wikipedia reports as of today: “In 2005, claims emerged from critics of North American integration that a “North American Union” was not only being planned, but was being implemented by the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. These critics cited the formation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America and claimed it was an attempt to dramatically alter the economic and political status quo between the countries outside of the scrutiny of the respective national legislatures, a critique heightened by the subsequent publication of the Independent Task Force on North America report which praised the SPP initiative and called for greater economic integration by 2010.”

California’s Governor Brown has already shown by his policies since 2010, and recently overtly confirmed, that all Mexicans are welcome in California, legal and illegal alike, without differentiation.  The national policy emanating from Washington seems no different, “come one, come all, the Party (the Democratic Party? aka the greatest and most successful Fabian Socialist/Communist Party in the history of the World?) has only just begun…”

I think Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown’s current immigration policy in California and noted Anti-Colonialist Barack Hussein Obama’s policy nationwide is more-or-less solid proof that the North American Union has in fact already been implemented. Our leaders just don’t think it important enough to inform the people or bother with obtaining that pesky thing called “the consent of the governed”….from which “all governments derive their just powers…”

Texas Governor Rick Perry right now is pretending to be anti-Immigration, but in 2002 it was he who proposed the “North American Corridor” that linked Canada, the US, and Mexico via one big “Superhighway” roughly parallel to United States Interstate 35 (and the old “Pan-American Highway”) running through Texas. I submit the drama between Perry and the Democrats right now is just “shadowboxing” (which Perry will lose) to cement the demographic union of the three nations, which will, very shortly, be cemented by political union. All we “real” Americans can possibly do is to try to reassert leadership in this Country—and in the future, basically “inevitable” North American Union, and replace the Globalist Concept of NAU with the old-fashioned, traditional American Concepts of Manifest Destiny and, perhaps, the White Man’s Burden, whereby the Anglo-American peoples will retake the leadership of the world. Any other solution will just lead to a catastrophic powerless minority status for the founding WASP population of this Country….and I think that would be a great loss…..myself….for ourselves and for our posterity….and for the rest of the world, ironically, as well. We truly have been the “beacon light of democracy and freedom”….to which ideal almost all other peoples, except some in the Communist and Islamic nations, so desperately aspire.

THE DANGERS OF A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, by JERRY O’NEIL, STATE REPRESENTATIVE & FORMER STATE SENATOR, MONTANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DISTRICT 3, COLUMBIA FALLS & KALISPELL, MONTANA

AGAINST AN AMENDMENTS CONVENTION Montana State Representative Jerry O’Neil of Columbia Falls, Wednesday, 26 February 2014—4:05 PM (1 hour ago) Central Standard Time

I am against an “Amendments Convention” as called for by Mark Levin, Rob Natelson and Tim Baldwin. I do not take this position lightly.

Under the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, our President and Congress have taken over our banking, unions, businesses, communications, and education. They have created a secret police/national police (TSA, ICE, Border Patrol, etc), and instituted ObamaCare by which government will control all our health care. They have failed to turn over about 25% of the land area of Montana as was agreed to when we became a state. 

I agree freedom could be advanced with the proper amendments to the U.S. Constitution. As a state legislator, I have attempted several times to amend the U.S. Constitution in order to place some control over, and limits on, the federal government. 

In 2003 I got a bill to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment out of the Senate Judiciary Committee – but it was defeated on the Senate Floor. In the 2005 legislative session I attempted to accomplish close to the same thing by having the Montana legislative caucuses nominate our U.S. Senate candidates to be on the general election ballot. 

In the 2013 legislative session, with Senator Verdell Jackson’s brilliantly executed motion for reconsideration in the Senate, I got House Joint Resolution 3 passed. This is a request for a constitutional amendment to put some sideboards on the “Commerce Clause” of the U.S. Constitution. I presently need some help to get other states to advance this concept. 

Then why am I against an Amendments Convention? Because I don’t believe the majority of the citizens of the United States currently understand or appreciate Freedom. It is not adequately taught in our schools or churches. Even the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church seems to be ignorant of the fact that capitalism has lifted far more out of poverty than socialism and communism ever have. 

Vaclav Klaus, the former Premier of the Czech Republic stated: 

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.” 

While many of us in Montana have known what is happening for many years, we have not hollered loud enough to wake up our neighbors. We have not always supported the candidates who understood the basics of freedom when they were running for our school boards, city councils, county commissioners, state legislatures, judges, congress and president. We have not sent enough letters to the editor speaking up for freedom. 

We have been complacent, attending churches where the preachers would not take a stand on Biblical principals of freedom because they were afraid they would loose their parishioners’ monetary support and their federal tax exemption. Many of these churches would not even mention it to their congregations when they knew a political candidate was in favor of government supported abortions. 

For years we have watched the Supreme Court put forth immoral, anti freedom and statist decisions , including the Dred Scott decision, the Slaughter House Cases, Wickard v. Filburn, Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, Gonzales v. Raich, Roe v. Wade, and Lawrence v. Texas. We have allowed the bigs, such as AIG, General Electric, Bank of America and Monsanto, to choose the likes of McCain and Romney to be our presidential candidates. (Will they choose Chris Christie for us this coming election?) 
We have known for years deficit financing as advocated by Keynesian economists constitutes theft from our seniors’ retirement accounts and supports the big banks. Yet the public supported the Federal Reserve Act in order to “furnish an elastic currency.” 
We have supported our universities where the professors of economics are beholden to the Federal Reserve System as consultants, board members, or for having published their masters or doctors thesis in one of the fed’s magazines. 

We have seen the evidence of how the “bigs”, including the pharmaceuticals, banking industry, insurance, unions and other protected industries and professions own the political establishment, but we have not supported the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment to lessen the bigs’ power and return some semblance of states’ rights. 

We have seen socialism advance but have not challenged the expansion of Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, federal intervention in education, food stamps, ObamaCare, and a whole plethora of other government programs. 

We have seen the installation of the Real ID act, the Patriot Act, and the National Defense Authorization Act, but, because we were afraid, we kept silent. We accept airport screening and government eavesdropping. We take off our shoes at the airports like good comrades. 

The people of Montana believe government can pass laws to make them more affluent. 
In 2006 we 72.7% of the voters passed Initiative I-151 to increase the minimum wage. By so doing we devalued the dollar and deprived many Indian children on our reservations, where unemployment is over 50%, the opportunity to get their first job. The minimum wage effect on those whom age out of our foster care system is similarly devastating. At the age of 26, 46.8 percent of participants responding to one study were unemployed. We need to make it easier to hire the needy, not remove the bottom rung of their ladder to prosperity. 

In our last Montana election we passed initiative I-166 by a 3 to 1 majority. The fuzzy catch phrase with which it was sold to the public was “Corporations are not People.” That was what appeared on the ballot. The rest of I-166, which did not appear on the ballot, called for a repeal of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution! The intent was to abolish the freedoms of speech, press and association that Congress is presently not allowed to interfere with. If I-166 is successful, these freedoms likely will be replaced with statutory rules as Congress sees fit. 

While the public remains asleep to the concept of freedom it is too dangerous to make it easier to change the Constitution. 
Our Constitution contains negative rights, stating what government can’t do to us or take away from us. We are too likely to throw away these “negative rights” contained in the Constitution and Bill of Rights and replace them with “positive rights,” such as a right to: free health care, free child care, living wages, and government controlled food prices. 

Maybe the chance to amend positive rights into our Constitution is the reason George Soros, Common Cause, the Move to Amend coalition and hundreds of other progressive organizations are also pushing for an Article V amendments convention. 

What are we going to do to save freedom for our progeny? When are we going to stop bowing to the socialists, fascists and communists? When are we going to demand our schools and churches teach and advocate for freedom? When are we going to join freedom fighters holding up signs along the highways criticizing the big government statists and asking for freedom? When are we going to stand up in church and speak up for political candidates who will fight for the Biblical truths and freedoms that our founding fathers fought and died for? 

Until the majority of the public understands and believes in freedom an Amendments Convention is more likely to enslave us than to free us. Therefore I am against having one at this time.

The American Dream: a 30 minute introduction in two parts (the role of Communism Omitted)

Watch and enjoy—especially if you have small children or newly arrived Martians in the family, school, or office—this is the story in a clean and easily digestible nutshell.  My thanks to Ellyn Trayne for pointing these out to me—she is truly a Diamond…..vivamus atque vincamus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExBE651_vOY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx7HDTDDopA

The above two short highly “sanitized and family friend” video pieces provide a short introduction to the current American reality—skipping two major steps—the role of Abraham Lincoln and the destruction of the South (“Dixie”land of private banking and true freedom), on the one hand, and the role of Communism in Reconstructing America for the past 165 years, from 1848-2013, from the first refugees from Germany after the failure of the Revolutions of 1848 to the First Year of the Second Term of Chairman Barack Hussein Obama.  

Abraham Lincoln did not really free any slaves, but he DID pave the way for all Americans to become slaves, regardless of race, color, or creed….and now Barack Hussein Obama presides over the final destruction of our constitution—if we let him (and his sponsors).

Darkness Falls at the New Red Dawn of the American Communist State—slowly we turned, step-by-step, inch-by-inch…..

Obama’s Latest Executive Action: If A Child ‘Confesses’ To A Pediatrician That Mommy & Daddy Have A Gun In The House, Feds Can Disarm Parents…June 25, 2013 

AP

AP  (By Michael Connelly, Constitutional Attorney) I have written extensively about the horrendous and ongoing efforts by the Veterans Administration to disarm American military veterans by declaring them incompetent to handle their financial affairs due to physical or mental disabilities. Once declared incompetent the veterans are arbitrarily stripped of their Second Amendment right to purchase, own, or possess a firearm.

This is all being done by broadening the definition of mental illness to the point of absurdity. Often with the VA there is no psychiatrist or psychologist involved in the determination of incompetence. Instead, some untrained bureaucrat reviews the file of the veteran and if they find any mention of PTSD or the use of the word depression they seize on that and make the declaration of incompetence. There is no legal adjudication process involved in this; the veterans have no right to due process as required by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. It is tyranny in its purest form.

Unfortunately, what the VA is doing is not new. The use of phony psychiatry has been a weapon of tyranny for decades. In dictatorships like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Cuba, and China people who opposed the regime would be declared mentally ill and placed in psychiatric hospitals or internment camps. That way no charges had to be filed and no evidence offered that an individual had committed a crime.

For the Nazis it was initially a perfect way to deal with the Jews and other groups that they considered sub human. If you were Jewish you had to mentally defective and therefor you could be put in a hospital and experimented on. It was the beginning of the holocaust. In the Soviet Union anyone who was not a devout supporter of Communism was held in an institution and then often sent on to the Gulag where they could be worked and starved to death.

We have certainly not reached that point in the United States, but we have reached the point where the basic premise is the same. The VA is using declarations of mental illness to disarm veterans and there have been reports of states like California doing the same. If it happening to veterans now how long will it be before it starts happening to other American citizens?

Consider this; soon those stalwarts of integrity who run the IRS will have access to the medical records of every American. They will be able to review them to see if you have ever told a doctor that you were depressed, ever suffered from PTSD after the loss of a loved one or from being in an accident, or even suffered from some minor memory loss. Based on the criteria being used by the VA the IRS could declare you mentally defective and put you on the list of people that can’t legally purchase or own firearms.

You also have to consider the fact that one of the 23 so called executive actions on gun control Obama recently signed called for doctors to ask their patients if they owned a firearm. This is not just directed at psychiatrists, but at all physicians including pediatricians. In other words, if your child confesses that Mommy and Daddy have a gun in the house that could conceivably be considered the actions of mentally defective individuals and you could be disarmed. Once we are disarmed we cease to be citizens and become subjects.

Follow Us: @redflagnews on Twitter

Get the RedFlag app today for Apple and Android devices…


Written by Michael Connelly, Constitutional Attorney

mrobertc@hotmail.com