Home

THE FORMULA FOR FREEDOM

Leave a comment


Author,
Chuck Frank

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

     History, in the year 1800 gave Americans the blueprint for “limited government” which was spearheaded at that time by none other than Thomas Jefferson who grabbed the Presidential election from Aaron Burr.  Yet, the backdrop of that Presidential contest serves as a reminder of what sadly transpires today in the present U.S. political climate and the contests between the “Progressive/Federalists” and those who favor a limited government which lends itself to more attention given to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and individual freedom across the board.

     California and New York are perfect examples of states that are likened to a federalist type of nation while bringing upon the populace, layer upon layer, thousands of laws and numerous fines, along with endless court proceedings, to where  individual freedoms are vanishing at light speed, along with Constitutional protections that were meant to protect the people with the Bill of Rights.

   Today, Federal and State agencies are sadly responsible for  a reign of power that fully oppresses the people, not only with regard to their basic individual freedoms but also their own livelihoods, families and their finances.  Looking through the window of history and President Thomas Jefferson, he had been very troubled by much that had occurred during John Adams’ presidency and was convinced that radicals within Adams’ Federalist Party were waging war against what he called the “spirit of 1776—goals that the American people had hoped to attain by the Revolution. He had earlier characterized Federalist rule as a “reign of witches,” insisting that the party was “adverse to liberty” and “calculated to undermine and demolish the republic.” More

The Death of the Republic Revisited

10 Comments

by: Gary Rea (c)copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved

_________________________________________

In my article, How the American Republic Died at Philadelphia in 1787 I showed, with quotes from the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, alike, how our original constitution, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (1781) was illegally scrapped and replaced with a new Constitution (1787), which formed a wholly new government – one which was deliberately designed to grow into the fascistic behemoth we see today. Here, I will go into the various ingenious ways in which the Federalists designed the Constitution to achieve that end, all while making it appear as though our liberties were safeguarded.

First, though, I think it is necessary to point out exactly how and why this subterfuge was illegal, in the first place. The best way of doing so is to simply examine the wording of Article VIII, Section 1 of the Articles of Confederation, which says:

“And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state.” More

Getting the Supremacy Clause Wrong

Leave a comment

                                                                                    Tell a Friend 

Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,

by Michael Boldin              

A recent article in the New York Times covered the growth of state-level resistance to a future national health care plan. For example, in 2010, voters in Arizona will have a chance to approve a state constitutional amendment that would effectively ban national health care in that state. Legislators in Florida and Michigan have already introduced similar legislation, and potentially, 15 other states will do so in the 2010 legislative session. More

Gun Control & The False Left-Right Paradigm

Leave a comment

To read the news, lately, it would seem that we have the so-called “liberal left” gun grabbers on one side vs. the “conservative” Republican “defenders of the Second Amendment” on the other, which of course, includes the National Rifle Association (NRA). No other version of the debate over gun control is ever offered or publicized by the corporate-controlled mainstream media. Thus, the debate is framed in a false perspective in which the only options are to either favor gun control or to favor less of it – while leaving the bulk of it in place. What the public doesn’t understand is that this still violates the Second Amendment.

There is a third option, one that lies outside the false left-right paradigm, and that is the Constitutionalist option, which would demand the full repeal of all gun laws. This is the only option that is truly in support of protecting the Second Amendment. Anything else simply allows the Second Amendment to remain eviscerated – if not to remove it entirely.

As I have written before, one doesn’t compromise with our inalienable rights. The moment we begin to do so is the moment we have kissed those rights goodbye. That moment was allowed to occur seventy-five years ago, with the passage of the first gun control law, the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the fallout from that act has been accumulating ever since – with the full blessing of both “sides” of the false left-right paradigm.

While so-called Democrats have historically campaigned openly for more and tighter gun controls – if not the outright banning of guns – thus, playing the role of the “bad guys” in the debate (depending upon which side of the false left-right paradigm you look at it from), the “opposing” side – the so-called “conservative Republicans” – have played their “good guy” role, pretending to be staunch defenders of the Second Amendment, while voting in favor of many gun control laws and never demanding the repeal of the hundreds of existing gun control laws. Thus, the so-called “right-wing,” with its tough-sounding anti-gun control rhetoric, creates a facade of standing up for our constitutional rights, all the while supporting policy that leaves gun control intact and even allows it to continue growing.

As I have pointed out before, the NRA – the nation’s oldest and most vocal (as well as best funded) “gun rights” organization is the tip of the spear on the phony “conservative” side, having pretended for seventy-five years to be fighting against infringement of the Second Amendment while, at the same time, endorsing more laws that violate it. Even when they are endorsing laws that give the appearance of “lifting restrictions” or of “granting rights” to gun owners, they are still knowingly supporting gun control, as that is what these laws truly are. The only thing that is necessary to restore the Second Amendment – and the only action that will do so – is to repeal all the laws that violate it, in the first place. The NRA has never advocated this. Instead, they have played their role in the false left-right paradigm, pretending that asking the government to not infringe the Second Amendment quite so much as they have been is somehow a “victory” for gun owners. It is not. Anything short of full repeal does not serve the interests of anyone but the gun grabbers and until all gun control laws have been repealed, we will always remain vulnerable to the specter of gun confiscation.

While the gun control advocates of the so-called “left” are perfectly obvious (they’re supposed to be. That’s their role), not as obvious and, thus, even more dangerous to our liberties, are those on the so-called “right” who make the pretense of being defenders of the Second Amendment. It is harder for a dumbed-down public to see through their charade and to realize that both “sides” serve the same agenda.

One example of this is Rep. Mary Fallon (R-Oklahoma), who serves my district. I have met Mary Fallon, just before her election to Congress. This was before I had awakened to the horrific fact our own government staged 9/11. Once I was aware of this and had begun researching the New World Order, I found, among many things, that Mary Fallon was among those to have supported the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. Fallon is but one of many in Congress who are engaged in the same sort of subterfuge.

This morning, I read an article by Rep. Fallon, in which she refers to herself as a member of the NRA and pledges that she will “continue to support the Second Amendment to our Constitution.”She is playing her role to the hilt, arguing against the passage of H.R. 45, a massive bill that will greatly infringe the Second Amendment, but then, she’s supposed to argue against it, as the NRA is appearing to do, as part of the act. Later, as usual, there will be an NRA-backed “compromise” version of the bill that will fly through the Congress, mark my words. The result: the NRA and its supporters on the phony “right” will appear to have, once again, gallantly defended the Second Amendment and they will even be lauded for having achieved a “great victory” for the Second Amendment by allowing a slightly less dangerous version of yet another gun control law to come into existence, further violating the Second Amendment. This is how they operate. By pretending to fight against further restrictions, they are actually approving them, and the NRA has been doing this for decades.

Of course, the public doesn’t know enough about “our” Constitution to realize that it is the Federalist Constitution of 1787 that laid the groundwork for the rise of a large central government with a central bank and that our original constitution, The Articles of Confederation, was replaced by it for exactly that purpose. The Articles of Confederation didn’t necessitate any amendments to protect our rights because it was written to protect them all, in the first place and provided a far superior system of checks and balances for doing so. The Federalists, who were agents of the Rothschilds – the international bankers who sought (and still seek) to rule the world through the control of its money supply – had a mission to accomplish for their masters in London and that mission was to scrap the Articles of Confederation and replace it with a constitution that guaranteed the eventual growth of central government power. We see the result of their success all around us today.

Governments have, historically, never relinquished their power willingly and the biggest threat to a fascistic government is an aware, armed populace. The founders knew this and they also knew that, unchecked, our government would become just as despotic as every government before it had. Thus, the Second Amendment was included in the Constitution to secure our existing right to self-defense.

The Bill of Rights was tacked onto the Constitution, not by “the founders,” as we were told in our government run schools, but by the seldom mentioned Anti-Federalists who opposed the Federalist Constitution, to begin with and who insisted upon protecting our rights by adding a Bill of Rights and the ten Amendments to the Federalist Constitution. The two factions fought tooth and nail over this, the Federalists fighting to exclude these additional measures, as they were not aligned with the objectives of their corporate masters in London.

For all we know, the Anti-Federalists may well have been role-playing, just as the NRA and the Republicans are today. They succeeded in getting a Bill of Rights and the ten amendments added to the Constitution, but, obviously, that wasn’t sufficient to prevent the rise of a centralized totalitarian state, for the Federalist Constitution itself laid the groundwork for that centralization, despite the addition of the Bill of Rights and the ten amendments. Perhaps, as today, that was also by design. We may never know the truth.

The Articles of Confederation Reconsidered – Part II

3 Comments

In The Articles of Confederation Reconsidered, I posited that our original constitution, the Articles of Confederation, was wholly adequate and superior to the Federalist Constitution that replaced it and that, had we kept the Articles of Confederation, we could have avoided the tyrannical government we have today entirely.

A reader of one of my articles on the Second Amendment had suggested that I read a rather obscure book titled, Hologram of Liberty, by Kenneth W. Royce (AKA Boston T. Party) and he used the term (coined by Royce), parchment worship while mentioning this book to me. Well, I had already been vaguely aware that there was some sort of intrigue going on back in 1787 when the Constitution was written to supplant the allegedly inadequate Articles of Confederation, and I had heard it had something to do with some sort of scurrilous moves by the Federalists, lead by Alexander Hamilton, who were either infiltrated by Freemasons or were Freemasons, themselves (actually, as it turns out, so were some of the Anti-Federalists). But, that was all I could recall about it, having heard about this, initially, some thirty years ago.

Well, my thanks go out to that reader for reawakening me to this and I have now looked into the book he suggested, though I haven’t yet got a copy of it for myself. I did, however, visit the Javelin Press website, where there is a pretty fair amount of information about the book, including the following, which I have excerpted:

Civic Belief #1: The Congress was given few specific powers. All else was left to the States and to the people under the 10th Amendment. Ample checks and balances protect the Republic from federal tyranny.

Civic Belief #2: The Federal Government has become so powerful only because despotic officials have overstepped their strict, constitutional bounds.

If #1 is true, then how did #2 happen?

“The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it”. Lysander Spooner, No Treason (1870)

Think about that. By either the Constitution’s purposeful design or by its unintentional weakness, we suffer under a federal colossus which takes a third of our lives and regulates everything from alfalfa to xylophones. This is Freedom? So, why aren’t Americans free? Perhaps we weren’t really meant to be!”

“…the 1787 Convention, its Constitution and Federal Government was the most brilliant and subtle coup d’etat in political history. While the majority of Americans then were Jeffersonian in nature, a few Hamiltonian Federalists eradicated our Swiss-style Confederation and replaced it with a latent leviathan. The Federal Government was given several escape keys to the putative handcuffing by the Constitution. Using the “necessary and proper” and “general welfare” clauses in conjunction with congressional powers under treaty, interstate commerce, and emergency, the “Founding Lawyers” of 1787 purposely designed a constitutional infrastructure guaranteed to facilitate a future federal colossus. While such a massive government was impossible to erect in the freedom-conscious 1780’s, the “virus” of tyranny was cunningly hidden within the Constitution to foment the eventual federal behemoth we are burdened with today. The feds take in a third of economic activity and regulate everything from the price of corn to the size of chimneys and it’s all constitutional!” Oh, it’s only ‘constitutional’ because autocratic Supreme Court Justices say it is!,” some would reply.”

“Yes, but the Framers allowed the Supreme Court, without any check or balance, to approve of federal encroachment on the States and on the people. There is no constitutional avenue for overturning a despotic Supreme Court ruling – and it was designed that way. The feds are allowed to “monitor” themselves, like students grading their own tests. Had the Framers wanted to really check the Supreme Court, they’d have at least created an appellate court (activated by petition) staffed by justices from the States. Had the Framers wanted to really hamstring Congress and the President, they would have given the people a “no-confidence” device to remove traitorous officials in midterm. Had they wanted to, the Framers could have (as did the Swiss) easily confined the Federal Government – but they didn’t want to. In their opinion, a strong central government – independent of real popular approval – was best for America. The Framers left the federal fleas in control of their own flea powder, and that’s why we have such an unchallengeable government today.

Most conservatives and libertarians believe that the Constitution and its Framers were Jeffersonian and laissez-faire. They were not, and they never claimed to be. This Jeffersonian gloss is echoic of two things: 1) What the Constitution was sold as to the people through The Federalist, and 2) How the Constitution, according to Jefferson, should have been interpreted under strict constructionism. Add the Red, White, and Blue, July 4th, the Founding Fathers and George Washington and you’ve got a civic religion with its unique parchment worship. There are but three ways to view anything, including the Constitution:

  • The way you see it.
  • The way you would like it to be.
  • The way it really is.

Friends of freedom have gazed dreamily at the Constitution for two centuries, fusing #1 with #2 to create a false #3. We need to snap out of our parchment worship and coldly study the predicament of Liberty–before it’s too late. Liberty-loving folks need to quickly understand that freedom is not well-served by the current Constitution. Neither is tyranny. It is Royce’s firm opinion that the Constitution will be radically amended, if not abolished altogether, by “us” or “them” within 10 years. Royce proves that the States and the people were politically “checkmated” at ratification, and discusses his three peaceful solutions prior the imminent insurrection now brewing. The goal of Hologram of Liberty is to spark an active synthesis of Libertarians, Patriots, and Conservatives to prevent a 21st century Dark Age in America.”

I, for one, will be reading this book and I urge that everyone do so. It is high time that we Americans learned the truth about our Constitution and why it hasn’t prevented a fascistic regime from emerging in America.

Having said that, it becomes even more apparent that I was onto something in suggesting the original Articles of Confederation should have been retained and that we’d all be a lot better off if it had been, in the first place. The thing is, I had no idea how right I was in saying so until I began looking into it further!

It is my firm belief, having looked into this, that, not only could the present state of affairs have been avoided had the Articles of Confederation never been scrapped, but that we need, desperately, to scrap our current fascistic regime and its constitutional underpinnings and start all over again where we left off – with the Articles of Confederation.

%d bloggers like this: