Home

Whistleblower Reveals That A UN-Planned Invasion By Refugees Into The US Is Already Underway

4 Comments

Need To Know News

US: A Missouri woman is interviewed by radio-show host, Josh Tolley, and tells how she became involved in her state’s refugee-immigration program and how the program is far more extensive and advanced than most people realize. She describes how the UN, under the heading of Agenda 2030, is planning immigration into the US similar to what is happening in Europe. The goal is to create chaos and lay the foundation for breaking the US into smaller political units with equal UN representation – and the end of America as a sovereign nation. -GEG

Radio show host Josh Tolley interviewed an unidentified American woman from Missouri who learned about her state’s refugee immigration program by attending UN-sponsored meetings and participating in the programs.  She said that refugees are brought into the US in alliance with the UN Refugee Resettlement Organization Offices of Refugee Monitoring out of Washington, DC.  In her state, Missouri Social Services administers the refugee programs that provide welfare for housing, food stamps, and medicare, in addition to cash and jobs.

The refugees receive US passports and Social Security numbers so they can receive Social Security benefits.  They are screened and, where possible, encouraged to apply for lifetime disability benefits under Social Security.

Many refugees are allowed into the US who have communicable diseases such as tuberculosis, leprosy, and smallpox. More

Advertisements

The sovereign citizen movement and ideology is now being enforced within the courts of Minnesota and its federal courts!

1 Comment

It is best to hear it from their own mouth:

Published on 10-20-2016 by The American Herald International Public Notice

The Government of The United States of America is now accusing Minnesota for violations of Human Rights and charges are expected to be file within the Human Rights Tribunal as early as today.

Allegedly, Minnesota nor any of the other 49 states can prove that their union is legal that was created after the civil war. This means that the states are notwithstanding on anything they are doing under any compact agreements that have been made. The Compact Agreements made by and between the states are not regulated in anyway by anyone. More

The Occupation of America

5 Comments

strip banner

new-logo25Marti Oakley   © copyright 2014 All rights reserved

______________________________________________________________________

In essence, this Act formed the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. Note the capitalization, because it is important. This corporation, owned by foreign interests, moved right in and shoved the original “organic” version of the Constitution into a dusty corner. With the “Act of 1871,” our Constitution was defaced in the sense that the title was block-capitalized and the word “for” was changed to the word “of” in the title. The original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers, was written in this manner:

“The Constitution for the united states of America”.

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

ababaaThe people of the United States of America are the subject of massive domestic terroristic activities perpetrated by the federal government and its agencies which have, in most cases, been militarized against us.

The Constitution limits the type of property the federal government can own and occupy. And, if our Constitution was in force, and the federal government had not been incorporated in 1871, the Bureau of Land (mis)Management and other federal sub-corporations would not be an armed and occupying force within the geographical boundaries of the states.

  • The wild horses and burros would not be illegally rounded up and slaughtered,
  • our forests would not be allowed to deteriorate and then to burn,
  • our water would not be contaminated with industrialized chemicals, fracking chemicals, drilling residuals,
  • our public lands within the states would be far better managed and maintained locally,
  • Desperately needed revenues from state assets would remain in the states and would not be funneled to the federal government via its corporate agencies.

Instead, our state legislatures have, in the past, contracted with the federal corporations to allow them to establish and implement their business plans, taking land, water and resources at the expense of the public. Even today, state legislatures continually enter into agreements with federal corporations that adversely affect the people. Everything is for sale, including “we the people”.

Now, under Obama’s promise of constructing an massive inland police force, federal agencies are assembling military style forces for use inside the geographical boundaries of the states and have begun attacking private citizens and businesses. The FDA and USDA have “swat teams” that include tanks, grenade launchers, AK-47‘s, military helicopters and “troops” the size of military battalions. The recent stand-off with rancher Clive Bundy revealed a threatening display of agency “military” force. These forces were constructed to by-pass local law enforcement and state laws.

We are no longer a free country

More

American Politics with John Wallace: THE 10TH AMENDMENT AND STATE SOVEREIGNTY ISSUES:

Leave a comment

AMERICAN POLITICS RADIO SHOW – SHOW REMINDER: 

 
TOPIC: THE 10TH AMENDMENT AND STATE SOVEREIGNTY ISSUES
  

If you have specific questions, on this or any other subject, please call the show while it is on the air (646-200-0326) and or email your questions or opinions to me and I will read them on the air.If you, or a member of your organization, would like to be on the show, or you would like us to dedicate a show to a specific topic of interest, please email me at: John@TeaPartyRep.com

 
For Liberty,
John
______________________________
John Wallace
American Politics with John Wallace
Chatham, New York 12037
www.JohnWallaceRadio.com

Click on the link below for more information about the show and or to listen to the show.

www.blogtalkradio.com/john-wallace

This week I will be talking about the U.S. Constitution, the 10th Amendment Movement and State Sovereignty issues. We will also take a look at the Federal Judge’s ruling that takes some of the teeth out of the Arizona Illegal Immigration law. We might also have a chance to talk about the upcoming New York State Sovereignty Rally that is being held at the State Capitol in Albany, New York on August 7th at HighNoon. As always, Listeners are encouraged to call in.
 
 

 

NEXT SHOW – (THIS FRIDAY) at 5:00PM  EST

Illegal Immigration and Animal Identification : Linked Through Policy If Not Practice

Leave a comment

  

Lynn Swearingen (c) copyright 2010 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

One of the only consistent issues with the current Administration is that their inconsistency keeps one off balance. It is difficult to “know your enemy” if the Rules of Engagement keep migrating.

In line with the plot contained within George Orwell’s Animal Farm, a community is formed based on “freedom for all theory”. Slowly through manipulation of the rules by the “rulers”, enforcers bring to bear unendurable suffering to ensure the “good of all” through the protectionism of the ruling class. When said rulers make errors or mistakes in planning, either the previous rulers are blamed or a mystical outside force is pinpointed as the cause of the faulty administrations failure. In a twist of fate even more damming is the eventual piecing off (or actual sale) of the less powerful members of the ruling party to sustain the greed or power held by the despots. Sound familiar yet? More

Michigan:“Firearms Freedom Act” (HB-5232)

Leave a comment

image

National Expositor

Tenth Amendment Center – Introduced in the Michigan House on August 11, 2009, the “Firearms Freedom Act” (HB-5232) seeks “to make certain findings regarding intrastate commerce; to prohibit federal regulation of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition involved purely in intrastate commerce in [the State of Michigan]; to provide for certain exceptions to federal regulation; and to establish certain manufacturing requirements.”

The bill was authored by Rep. Phillip Pavlov and currently has 44 co-sponsors.

While the HB5232’s title focuses on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment’s limit on the power of the federal government.  It specifically states:

The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under amendments IX and X of the constitution of the United States, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition. 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:

Tennessee confirms state sovereignty

14 Comments

by State Rep. Susan Lynn (TN-57th)

The following is a letter from Tennessee to the other 49 State Legislatures

We send greetings from the Tennessee General Assembly.  On June 23, 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution, was signed by Governor Phil Bredesen.  The Resolution created a committee which has as its charge to:

  • Communicate the resolution to the legislatures of the several states,
  • Assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship,
  • Call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government, and
  • Seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates. More

Sovereignty Hypocrisy – Part III

7 Comments

In part I of this series, I exposed the several phony declarations of “state sovereignty” currently being announced in the media, lately, by pointing out the fact that several of these same states have also been concurrently passing new laws that further violate the Second Amendment, under the pretense of lifting Second Amendment restrictions and “protecting” gun owners from gun confiscations during martial law.

In part II, I went a step farther and pointed out the fact that all of the states “declaring sovereignty” also happen to have FEMA camp locations within their boundaries and that some of them have also played host to martial law training drills for soldiers, police, firefighters and other “first responders” to “emergency” situations like biological and nuclear attacks.

In this part of the series, I shall point out that some of the same states are also either complying with the federal government’s illegal mandate for Real ID, or are currently making preparations to do so.

First, there is Nevada, which has has introduced legislation (SB52) that will bring Nevada into full compliance with Real ID standards. This bill has been introduced by the Nevada State Senate’s Finance Committee.

Then there is Arkansas, which has passed a similar bill (HB 1978), introduced in the Arkansas House of Representatives by Rep. John Edwards (D-Little Rock).

As for the state of Washington, also declaring its “sovereignty,” there seems to be some question as to whether or not its governor’s assurance it would not comply with Real ID are genuine, given the state’s previous apparent acceptance of Real ID.

The same sort of backsliding seems to be occurring in New Hampshire (the state whose motto is “Live free or die”), where there was first an “overwhelming” majority voting to reject Real ID, back in 2006, but in 2008, Governor John Lynch reportedly drafted a letter to ask Homeland Security to merely delay the enforcement of Real ID in New Hampshire. What a difference two years makes.

In Michigan, which also initially said it would reject Real ID, in 2007, the tune has also changed for the worse.

While Missouri has recently announced it will reject Real ID, after all, it had originally approved funding to put into place a “verification hub” to accommodate Real ID, in 2008. Can they be expected to reject Real ID, or will they flip-flop again and use those funds as planned earlier? Given that it is the Missouri Information Analysis Center (directed by the governor and the Missouri State Highway Patrol) that has recently released to police officers and highway patrolmen an “alert” branding all patriots – including supporters of third party candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr – as “militia members,” to be feared as enemies of law enforcement in Missouri, it seems probable.

Oklahoma – first to “declare sovereignty,” has also taken a less than certain stance on Real ID, first approving of it, then appearing to back away from that decision. But, as I pointed out in Part II, Okahoma has several FEMA detention centers, including the main federal inmate transfer center west of the Mississippi, right here in Oklahoma City. So, again, what are we to believe about the sincerity of Oklahoma legislators’ intentions?

California, another of the states alleging to declare its “sovereignty,” has apparently caved on Real ID, first passing a law complying with it in 2006, then passing an initiative that prepares for it in 2007.

Georgia, also pretending to declare state sovereignty, has never seemed to have a problem with the contradictory approval of Real ID for its unwitting citizens, even going so far as to deny its citizens access to the Hartsfield-Atlanta Airport if they did not comply.

Indiana, another state supposedly declaring its sovereignty from the federal government, was among the first states to eagerly adopt Real ID. So much for that “sovereignty.”

As of 2007, Kansas, yet another of the several states “declaring sovereignty,” said it had no problem with Real ID, either.

Alabama, another “early adopter” of Real ID, has since also appeared to (maybe) flip-flop on the issue, making the pretense, later, of rejecting it, but, being among those states that has FEMA detention facilities while “declaring its sovereignty,” what are we to believe is the truth?

Maine, after pretending to stand against Real ID, in 2007, has, as of 2008, caved in to it. Sovereignty? Yeah, right.

As for those “sovereignty movement” states that appear to be rejecting Real ID, as I pointed out in Parts I and II, there are other concerns which make it doubtful that they will, ultimately follow through with their rejection of Real ID.

As with the so-called “sovereignty movement,” the “rebellion” against Real ID appears to be all for show – a contrivance to lull Americans into a state of false security, believing their states will protect them from the fascist federal regime, while, at the same time, those same states are preparing for the implementation of martial law in America.

If you have any further doubts of this, look into each of the “sovereign” states’ recent legislative track records and ask yourself if the blizzard of laws they are all feverishly passing lately either rejects or supports the rise of a fascist police state. If you actually bother to read those laws, I think you will find more support for it than rejection.

Ultimately, when a government tells you it will voluntarily limit its own powers, you can be sure that’s a warning that the opposite is about to occur, for no government in history has ever willingly relinquished its power – and none, once they have it – ever will.

Sovereignty Hypocrisy – Part II

2 Comments

Continuing my investigation into those states that are supposedly declaring their “sovereignty” from the federal government under the Tenth Amendment, I have added further to my case that the so-called “sovereignty movement” is a farce used to conceal the several states’ cooperation with an increasingly fascistic federal government.

This additional evidence comes in the form of the various martial law drills and exercises that have been conducted in recent months across the nation.

Colorado, one of the states declaring it’s “sovereignty,” was host to martial law drills in Denver during the 2008 presidential campaign, as well as in Colorado Springs. Colorado has two FEMA camp locations.

Alabama hosts a company named Body Guard and Tactical Security (BATS), which supplied personnel for the martial law takeover drill in New Orleans following Katrina (see the eighth paragraph of this article). In addition, Alabama is host to six FEMA camp locations.

The town of Helena, Arkansas was under martial law in the summer of 2008. Arkansas is among the states declaring its sovereignty. Arkansas also hosts several FEMA camps.

California has held martial law and FEMA camp drills since 2001. California’s governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger is an admitted admirer of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, as well as being the son of a Nazi police officer who was in the SS in WWII. California is also among those states now supposedly declaring it’s “sovereignty” from the federal government. California has several FEMA camp locations, including Vandenberg Air Force Base.

The Third Infantry’s 1st Brigade, which returned from Iraq in October 2008 to police the United States in violation of the 1876 Posse Comitatus Act, is under the command of NORTHCOM (also a violation of Posse Comitatus, as well as the Constitution) and is stationed at Fort Stewart in Georgia. Georgia is also a state alleging to declare “sovereignty” from the federal government. Fort Benning, among several other locations in Georgia, has a FEMA detention center.

Recently, there were martial law drills in Hayden, Idaho. Idaho is yet another of the several states declaring its “sovereignty.” Idaho also has a probable FEMA detention camp.

Indianapolis, Indiana hosted martial law drills in 2008, disguised as “urban warfare drills” for troops going to Iraq. Indiana is also “declaring sovereignty.” Indiana has several FEMA camps.

Missouri’s SB1212 calls for, among other things, “members of the Missouri National Guard [to be] ordered to active duty in the case of a declaration of martial law.” Missouri is another of the states supposedly not cooperating with that sort of thing anymore, having declared its “sovereignty.” Missouri will also host “detainees.”

A U.S. Marine drill sergeant boasted, in early 2008, that the U.S. military is preparing troops to “fire on women and children wherever appropriate, ‘show no mercy’ etc.” and that martial law and FEMA camps are being prepared for in the U.S. and prisoner boxcars are being pre-positioned in Montana for this purpose. Montana is also among those states that has supposedly declared “sovereignty.”

An alleged FEMA camp is located in Northernwestern New Hampshire, near Lake Hampshire. New Hampshire is also among the states now declaring sovereignty.

The states declaring “sovereignty” under the Tenth Amendment also include Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington.  All of these states also host FEMA detention facilities.

So, given the track record of the states “declaring sovereignty,” can any of these “resolutions” be worth the paper they were printed on?

Sovereignty Hypocrisy

2 Comments

I have recently come to suspect that the “sovereignty” being declared from the federal government by several states is a sham – a clever ruse designed to placate the people while their states actually prepare for the coming martial law.

In part, I have based this suspicion on the fact that, among those states declaring their supposed “sovereignty” have been several that have been busily passing new gun control laws that claim to “protect” their respective citizens from gun confiscations during martial law (a very telling statement in itself), while, at the same time, actually facilitating it.

But, there is yet more evidence that some of the same states declaring “sovereignty” from the federal government are otherwise cooperating with the federal government.

Take, for example, the unemployment benefits extended to the states by the new stimulus bill passed by the Obama administration. While there are five states (Alaska, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina and Idaho) whose governors have said they will refuse the acceptance of those funds on principal, the remaining forty-five states have not done so. Among them is Oklahoma, the first state to issue a declaration of sovereignty. It has not only accepted those funds, but is already distributing them, as of February 28th.

While Mississippi’s governor is among those refusing the funds (and Mississippi is also one of the states declaring sovereignty), its SB2036, a law that supposedly prevents gun confiscations during martial law, actually facilitates the confiscation of guns by leaving it up to a police officer’s sole discretion. Considering what we know about cops having been trained to take our guns in recent years, I leave it to you to decide whether this Mississippi law does anything to protect Mississippi’s gun owners or not. Refusing the stimulus funds (at least for unemployment benefits, anyway – we don’t know what other funds Mississippi may or may not be accepting from the stimulus pie), while it may seem aligned with the purposes of declaring state sovereignty, is easily done if the long-term plan is for martial law – a situation in which those extended unemployment benefits will no doubt be revoked, anyway. But, preparing for martial law by hurriedly passing laws that help to implement it – as SB2036 actually does, despite the claims to the contrary, is a glaring contradiction of the entire purpose and principle of declaring state sovereignty, is it not?

As for Louisiana’s record, the Katrina debacle speaks volumes about their willingness to go along with federal plans for martial law – they’ve already done it, during the martial law practice run that was the response to Katrina, during which firearms were seized from the population of New Orleans, leaving law abiding citizens (many of whom were not affected by the flooding) without any means to protect themselves from looters for weeks.

Chuck Baldwin: “Montana has it Right!” But, Do They?

Leave a comment

In an editorial former Presidential candidate (Constitution Party) Chuck Baldwin posted today on his website, he says that “Montana has it right,” referring to their declaration that, if the federal government continues to violate the Constitution, Montana will declare that its contract with the federal government is null and void.

However, when I consider several factors, I have to wonder about Montana’s sincerity in saying so. First of all, focusing on the Second Amendment alone, as Baldwin does in his article, I have to ask the glaring question, why has Montana waited until now to finally say something about this when both the federal government and nearly all fifty states – including Montana – have violated the Second Amendment repeatedly, passing law after law that abridges it – since 1934? Why, indeed, has Montana violated its own constitutional resolution concerning the Second Amendment, which Baldwin proudly states has not been changed since 1884?

If Montana was concerned about the Second Amendment at any time during the past seventy-five years, it certainly has remained mute on the subject until lately.

Even when Montana has made the pretense of concern over the Second Amendment it has been a hollow one, as in its recently much publicized HB246, which was boasted to “protect” Montana’s gun owners from federal infringement of their right to self-defense, while in fact only extending such protection to those few who own firearms made in Montana.

If the state of Montana is so uncomfortable with the federal government’s attempts to ban so-called assault weapons, where were they during the Clinton years, when that ban was actually in effect? In fact, where were any of these states, now declaring their supposed sovereignty, when this was happening?

Another question is, why are all these states doing this now, at a time when mainstream media talking heads are now admitting that martial law is coming and that FEMA camps do exist – something they heretofore denied? Complicit in all of this and more are the fifty states, which have gone along with the Federal government on everything from gun control to abortion and many other infringements upon human rights and decency, including recent attempts to corral and control our food supply.

Now that Glenn Beck and Fox News Channel have recently made media denial of the existence of FEMA camps impossible to get away with any longer, how does the “sovereign” state of Montana answer the charge that it has such a facility at Malmstrom Air Force Base? In fact, forty-six of the fifty states have such facilities and many of them have multiple facilities that are to be used for detaining American citizens in violation of their constitutional rights. The only reason it’s not all fifty states is because it hasn’t yet been verified as to whether some of them have such camps.

Can any of the several states be trusted to do what they are now claiming they will do in light of their long history of flirtation with not only federal controls, but with the several secret societies that have long ago invaded and subverted our nation at every level of government? It flies in the face of reason, in the first place, that the same states that have not only tolerated federal abuses for generations, but have, in fact, welcomed many of them in the name of getting federal handouts, are now all of a sudden making these hollow resolutions of sovereignty – none of which have been backed with anything other than hot air and paper, so far. I fear the majority of Americans will be, as after 9/11, fooled again into believing that, somehow, government has their best interests in mind.

Stop The NAFTA Highway in Minnesota

Leave a comment

 

 

 

We are forming a central Minnesota working group dedicated to passing legislation that would make illegal in the state of Minnesota, any efforts by any official, elected or appointed, any business group or interest, or any individual or groups of individuals, to discuss, negotiate, enable or otherwise compel the implementation of the NAFTA super highway through our state.

 

The NAFTA highway will eat up hundreds of thousands of acres of land, much of it farm and small communities.  The actual highway, which will be six football fields wide, will have exits only at specified points where a military checkpoint will be established. 

 

The numerous exits from the existing interstate system will be eliminated effectively establishing a barrier to free travel.  Our country will be split into two sections if this highway system is allowed to go forward.  You will need RFID documentation to enter or exit the highway and will have to state your purpose for either action.  

 

The central NAFTA highway is only one of three planned that will divide the country into sections and effectively cut off unauthorized travel. 

 

The NAFTA highway has been contracted by CINTRA a multinational corporation originating in Spain with ties to Mexico.  As it is, our communities are under siege from illegal immigrants.  This highway, which would come out of Mexico and go all the way into Canada, will only facilitate increased drug trafficking and crime and an increase in illegal immigration. 

 

This highway has been planned for more than ten years and is now incorporated into the Security & Prosperity Partnership and is being facilitated by the many working groups assembled by the current administration in violation of our Constitution.  Also at stake is the sovereignty of our state as declared in the 14th

amendment.   

 

Although several states have passed resolutions forbidding the NAFTA highway construction in their states, Minnesota has no such plans.  Not one of our senators or representatives has put forth any initiative to stop this highway and protect our state.

 

We are looking for people interested in writing legislation prohibiting any agent of any kind, associated with the government or not, from engaging in any activity which would promote this highway. 

 

The self determination of our state is at stake.  If you would be interested in working on this project please contact:

 

Marti Oakley                                                

fireflyari@meltel.net                                   

 

Oklahoma’s Charles Key Vows to Continue the Sovereignty Fight

Leave a comment

In a follow-up to the article “Oklahoma Declares Sovereignty,” I found some answers to readers’ questions regarding the reason behind HJR 1089, and why it is lying dormant in the Rules Committee.

Read article HERE.

Barb

Oklahoma Declares Sovereignty

7 Comments

STATE OF OKLAHOMA
2nd Session of the 51st Legislature (2008)
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 1089

By: Key
AS INTRODUCED

A Joint Resolution claiming sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over certain powers; serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates; and directing distribution.

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

“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.”; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

WHEREAS, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and 

WHEREAS, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

 
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and 

WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE OF THE 2ND SESSION OF THE 51ST OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:

THAT the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

THAT this serves as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

THAT a copy of this resolution be distributed to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state’s legislature of the United States of America, and each member of the Oklahoma Congressional Delegation.

http://www.okhouse.gov/51LEG/Leg_Votesxx.aspx?include=okh01983.txt

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2007-08HB/HJR1089_int.rtf

%d bloggers like this: