Leave a comment

new-logo25Author, Chuck Frank

The sovereign states of the West are no more and States Rights are gone. They have been lost to a conniving and corrupt federal bureaucracy that is intent upon filescacoaali_002establishing their own land baron footprint through a maze of un-constitutional and environmental legalism that is meant to isolate western lands for the purpose of controlling people, water, precious minerals, oil and wood products.

And while livelihoods are destroyed, thriving communities become ghost towns and families relocate for the sake of their own survival. But, let’s not forget, it is being done by design, compliments of Washington D.C. which now lords their authority over the western states without listening to the voice of the people. Federal agency “hearings” are but superficial and are a staged formality that is only meant as a sideshow.

Now, let’s just look on the map at the State of Nevada which is right next to California and see how much “sovereignty” is left. The Bundy family and the rest of the other Nevadians know the score. It’s the same game plan that mother Russia and the Soviet Union used on the Ukraine in 1933 when 7 million men, women and children lost their livelihoods and were forced into starvation and died under the tyrannical rule of Joseph Stalin.

No Longer Will We Stand Idly By

Leave a comment

Bookmark and Share  

by Andrew Nappi, Florida Tenth Amendment Center 

The following is based off a speech given at Nullify Now! Orlando on 10-10-10

Isn’t it incredible that, despite all the historical evidence to the contrary, that anyone can still believe that the founders would’ve fought a long, cruel, bloody war just to exchange one central, overpowering government for another? And yet, these guys sitting on the courts want to define the limits of our freedom for the extension of greater government control. That is not the founders’ legacy. That’s not why we’re here today.

For these out of touch elitists, the Bill of Rights is just a historical curiosity – it’s quaint and doesn’t mean anything. But we know that the Bill of Rights is the very essence of state sovereignty. That’s why it was created, and that wasn’t lost on the founders.

In fact, at the North Carolina ratifying convention Samuel Spencer said, “It appears to me that the state governments are not sufficiently secured and that they may be swallowed up by the great mass of powers given to congress.” Was that prophetic? Just look what we have today… More

It’s Not Just Obama, It’s the System

Leave a comment

The Tenth Amendment Center


by Timothy Baldwin      04. Dec, 2009 

Bookmark and Share

Let us assume for the moment that it became revealed that Barak Obama was not a natural born citizen of the United States, proving that he was ineligible to be President of the United States. Ok, now what? Would Obama be removed from office? Perhaps. Then what? Joseph Biden would be our next President. Ok, then what? Would the United States be freer? Would the States and the people regain their sovereignty stolen by the federal government? Would America’s form of government revert back to its original nature and character of 1787? Would self-government, the consent of the governed, limited government and federalism once again become the guiding principles throughout these states united? Would the ideals and principles of freedom once again become popular, accepted and advanced by the people and their agents in government? Read More:

United Nations plans to emerge as the controlling government: How declaring a pandemic enlarges the United Nations power.


PPJG Original Article  Author: Marti Oakley (C) Posted August 22, 2009 at  2:33CST


copsoldiers_deesIn 2005, the Inter-Governmental Working Groups (IGWG) of member states, a United Nations group, created what was to become the International Health Regulations, 2005.  This initial plan was revised in 2006, 2007 and again this year 2009.

Inter-governmental Issues     *Although these articles date from the original 2005 draft, they have remained unchanged through various revisions and remain as originally proposed in 2001.


*Article 21 of the WHO Constitution

The Health Assembly shall have the authority to adopt regulations concerning:

(a) Sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures to prevent the international spread of disease;

*Article 22 of the UN Constitution

Regulations adopted pursuant to article 21 shall come into force for all members after due notice has been given after their adoption by the Health Assembly except for such members as may notify the Director General of rejection or reservations within the period stated in the notice.  (Few members did notify; without result) More

The Articles of Confederation Reconsidered


In contemplating the recent move toward the states declaring their sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment, I’ve been doing some reading of the Articles of Confederation and, in particular, how they compare with the Federalist Constitution we wound up with and, with the benefit of some hindsight about the two and, in light of where we have wound up today, I have to say there are some things about the Articles of Confederation that are not only preferable to our Constitution, but which may very well have avoided the situation we now find ourselves in.

One of the main criticisms of the Articles of Confederation has always been that the United States and each of the several states was empowered to coin their own money, thus leading to a situation in which each had its own currency. The objection to this was that it was allegedly an unwieldy system in which disputes often arose between states over the relative exchange rate between the competing currencies.

However, I find this to be the main strength of the Articles, in that, it would have made the silent coup by the international banking cartel impossible. It was the Constitution’s provision for a single currency that made us vulnerable to the criminal overthrow of our nation in 1913 – which was the ultimately successful final attempt at such a coup, after several previous attempts by the moneychangers to establish a central bank. A central bank would be impossible to establish under the Articles of Confederation, as there was no centralized economy under the Articles. This is a significant strength and the main reason the Articles were actually superior to the vision of the Federalists. In fact, there is evidence to support the contention that the Federalists were agents of the British Rothschilds and that they were deliberately steering the United States toward a centralized government for exactly the purpose of paving the way for a central bank.

Aside from this key difference, there are some other features of the Articles that would have helped to prevent the current police state from ever forming. Among these was the fact that, under the Articles, there was no President. There was only a unicameral Congress. Admittedly, the bicameral Congress we’ve had since 1788 provides more checks and balances than a unicameral Congress did, however, without a chief executive, this is a minor point, as there was no opportunity for a dictatorial leader to emerge under the Articles of Confederation.

Another feature of the Articles of Confederation was that there was no Supreme Court. Disputes between the several states were adjudicated by Congress. If we had retained that system, it might very well have prevented the corruption we’ve seen occur with a Supreme Court.

Yet another strength of the Articles was that any amendments to the Articles had to be agreed to by all the states, as opposed to our present Constitution, which can be altered by agreement between only three fourths of the states – a situation that is, basically, tyrannical toward the remaining one fourth of the states.

Although our Constitution supposedly prohibits an income tax by requiring that all taxes be apportioned according to population, as we’ve seen, this was subverted quite easily by the international banking cartel in 1913 when they established – by illegal means – the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution in order to pay the interest on our Federal Reserve currency, which goes directly to the bankers. This situation might have been avoided entirely by the Articles of Confederation, which provided for all taxes to be apportioned by Congress and collected by the states. In addition to this provision, the unanimity of the states required to amend the Articles, as stated above, would have prevented any possibility of an income tax being created at all and the fact that the states collected taxes would have prevented the bankers’ collection agency, known as the Internal Revenue Service, from ever existing.

Given all this, we can see, in hindsight, why the Rothschild/Freemason/Illuminati agents who steered us into a Federalized government in 1788 were so adamant about doing so. Had this been prevented and had we kept the Articles of Confederation, the history of the United States, as well as the world, would have been entirely different – and, most likely, entirely better, as well.


%d bloggers like this: