Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 14:05:20 -0500
From: "jay rutledge"
Subject: GAsmbly> Empire
To: "teaparty" ,
The Constitution is for a government of Empire as Patrick Henry stated and
the cult of the Constitution worships prosperity and power.
By force of arms and persuasion the government of the Consitution made its
emergency scrip the world's reserve currency, the world's trading currency,
and the world's settlement currency. If a foreign country wants to bank
globally, import, or export or buy American armaments, that country has to
have greenbacks to do so. This has enabled the United States Government in
all its instrumentalities to create a global commercial playing field tilted
to the advantage of Americans. Inflation from US government borrowing is
exported. Foreign resources are purchased cheaply with powerful greenbacks.
Countries that do not play the game according to American commercial
interests are cruise missled, embargoed, and denied grants and loans from
the IMF and World Bank. The foundation of American power is military
capability and this military capability in turn depends on political
stability in the United States of America and on a reliable revenue stream
to service the usury payments due to holders of bonds denominated in
greenbacks. The collection efficiency of American government guarantees the
taxes that pay the bondholders. The result is Empire power and Empire
prosperity.
It was the objective of the Constitution that the government of this
continent be enabled to play this role on the world stage.
Constitutionalists should know the government we have is the one intended by
the document they worship.
So, when someone says "What is the solution ? or Here is the solution.",
first they should state the problem.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 21:19:37 -0800
From: "Doc Farmer" Add to Address Book
Subject: GAsmbly> empire annd constitution
To:
Speaking as a student of history, not as legalist. The Framers
came mostly from two political factions. The northern,
NewEnglanders were heavy into commercial empire. They were
sailing traders, shunting raw materials to england and
elsewhere. And one of their quarrels with the mother country
was over developing domestic industry, which the brits
recognized would become competition by export. They were
Industrial Commercial Imperialists.
The other, Southron faction, the virginiancarolinian bunch,
were slavers. (also depending on sailors.)
It should be no wonder that The Frame, erected by these
Framers, allowed and encouraged, was designed to permit an
expansionist militaristic empire, and slavery. Today, of
course, as in rome before, the slaves are called citizens.
fred oerther m.d.
****************************************************************
More Christian CommonLaw info at: http://www.christiancommonlaw-gov.org
List maintinance Q's at: chuck@christiancommonlaw-gov.org
****************************************************************
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 06:31:57 -0600
From: "Girty" Add to Address Book
Subject: Re: GAsmbly> empire annd constitution
To: "Doc Farmer" ,
>It should be no wonder that The Frame, erected by these
>Framers, allowed and encouraged, was designed to permit an
>expansionist militaristic empire, and slavery. Today, of
>course, as in rome before, the slaves are called citizens.
>fred oerther m.d.
The purpose of the Constitution was to unite some, very much
different, States for the purpose of providing for the common
defense and promoting the general welfare. This was to be
accomplished while preserving the sovereignty of the individual
States. The founding fathers could have chosen to make war between
the Colonies to establish unified law, then form one united state,
but they all needed each other's help to maintain the liberty they
had taken. What the framers allowed and encouraged was free
States. The expansionist militaristic empire is the result of a
standing army where no appropriations were allowed, for longer than
two years. This empire could not continue if the Constitution was
adhered to. War conducted without a declaration by Congress is an
armed asault by order of one man, not an action of the United
States.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:24:14 -0800
From: "Doc Farmer" Add to Address Book
Subject: Re: GAsmbly> empire annd constitution
To: "Girty" ,
Exactly my point. The Framers did not allow free people, but free
states, whose citizens are subjects. Their words are not just
hypocritical, but misleading, since they were, in spite of their
Enlightenment ideals, authoritarians, statists. But of course,
their words seldom mean what they say, since they look to their
bushwah intellectuals instead of their peasants, for definitions.
(As you might guess, I am peasant, altho i did do 22 years in the
fast lane, trying to get along with the bushwah Establishment)
The purposes of the Constitution were many. I do not deny your
interpretation. fred oerther
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subj: GSL> poopoo and the propellor
Date: 4/21/99 10:00:55 AM Central Daylight Time
From: minutemn@internetpro.net (Mike Kemp)
Sender: owner-gsl@admin.listbox.com
Reply-to: gsl@listbox.com
To: gsl@listbox.com
http://resistance.to > http://thePentagon.com/FullBookJacket >
http://GunsSaveLives.com
|
All:
We now see the Hegelian school-shooter method perfected. Of all the
instances we have seen which had the potential for major disaster, the
previous ones were mere warmups. Now we see a huge body count, no perps to
prosecute, and the antis in full cry to disarm America. I can only say that
I am immensely saddened that the cowards in charge and the coward in chief
had to resort to such a heinous method to embolden themselves to carry out
their agenda. Rather than just pass the legislation, or write the executive
order, this Hegelian method was employed to give them political cover.
It's about time. We all knew that the day would come when
circumstances would allow an all-out assault on firearms ownership. Praise
the day.
Regardless of the style and content of the new restrictions, they
will fall on us in a much different way than all of the previous
abominations. By and large, the previous attempts are of a nature which do
not directly affect current ownership. They address availability, they
simply make the box smaller. The new restrictions will undoubtedly require
overt action by gun owners. We will be required to list and register our
guns, we will be required to go through an FFL holder to sell, ammo and
component will be restricted, perhaps arsenal licenses will be required,
which will involve ATF inspections for owners of collections, etc. We will
be required to publicly bend our knee to King Willy.
Again I say, praise the day. For with their boldness comes our
opportunity. Are you going to *register* your firearms? Are you going to
submit to an arsenal license? Are you going to go through an FFL to sell
your private property? There are upwards of 75 million gun owners. If 1% of
us refuse, then we will have nearly a million refuseniks. Gov.org simply
doesn't have the manpower nor the firepower to enforce their edicts-- unless
we are all sheep.
We are just days past the anniversary of the quintessential AMERICAN
response to gun grabbing. Ol' Sam Adams hung a plum on a tree and dared the
king to snatch it. George couldn't resist, and 273 of his poachers were shot
down in the road. America was born, in blood and pain. Now a new opportunity
approaches. Will we be Americans, or will we be sheep?
William Michael Kemp
--------------------------
GUNSSAVELIVES(TM) IS A PRIVATE, UNMODERATED LIST GOVERNED BY AN
ACCEPTABLE
USE POLICY AVAILABLE FROM GSL-OWNER@LISTBOX.COM.
"The US is probably exactly where many of the founding fathers
would have liked it to have been. Some of them would have set
George Washington up as a king and would have established a new
monarchy. We really can't claim the founding Fathers as a basis
for a limited role of government. Some of them did have the right
idea. That's why we got the Bill of Rights. But the constitution
of the US is basically a flawed document as it did not absolutely
limit the role of government to the protection of individual rights.
It left room for the growth of a centralized government and that
is what the US got. Until a growing number of people in the US
see this, and that there can be no real freedom under a government
set up such as it is, things won't change."
John Robertson
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 99 15:37PM MDT
From: Texaswind@aol.com
To: tc2k@tcrf.com
Cc: PersonalFreedoms@onelist.com
Subject: TC2K Re: From the govt. report at
www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/waco.massacre.htm...
In a message dated 4/25/99 12:42:10 PM Central Daylight Time, Callyberry
writes:
<< SECESSIONISTS AND SEPARATISTS
In fact, the passage of any compulsory national health care program might be
the last straw not only for tax protesters, but for millions of Americans who
still abhor what they consider to be socialist solutions. One indication of
this is an October, 1993 column by libertarian conservative columnist Walter
Williams: "Bill Clinton's efforts to forcibly impose socialized medicine on
our nation has answered a question gnawing at me for quite some time. The
question is whether we have reached a point where those of us who love
liberty, private property rights, rule of law and the Constitution given us
by our Founding Fathers should organize to make preparations to secede from
the Union. . .The fundamental question totally ignored is whether federalized
medicine is authorized by the U.S. Constitution. My thorough reading of our
Constitution found no authorization for Mr. Clinton's plan. . .The only
peaceful resolution is that of secession. . .After all, the right to part
company is the most effective human safety valve, no matter whether it's
divorce, quitting a job or secession. If there's a ban on parting company,
somebody's likely to be treated like a dog. . .I hope that secession wouldn't
be bloody. And it wouldn't be if the nation's socialists adopted the attitude
of live and let live. But if they don't, liberty-loving people shouldn't roll
over, play dead and take socialists' abuses without imposing high costs in
return." [430]
Williams read this column to millions of people when he filled in for
vacationing talk show host Rush Limbaugh during the last week of 1993. During
the show he explained that the moral justification for secession is found in
the Declaration of Independence which contains in its first paragraph the
sentence: "Whenever a government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the
right of the people to alter or abolish it."
On the December 28, 1993 show, Williams described the Utah-based Committee
of 50 states, which is chaired by former governor Jay Bracken Lee. The
Committee has proposed "The Ultimate Resolution," a resolution which--if
endorsed by 38 state legislatures--would dissolve the entire federal
apparatus when the federal debt reaches $6 trillion. The president, Congress
and the federal judiciary would be fired. Each of the 50 states would become
a separate and sovereign nation, free to come together to form a new
confederation. The Ultimate Resolution contains a provision whereby any
attempt to suspend or eliminate the U.S. Constitution would automatically
cause the states to take back all the powers they have delegated to the
federal government. [431] Williams endorsed this resolution.
A number of ideological groups--anarchists, libertarians, greens,
bioregionalists, states' rights-ists and African- American, Hispanic-American
and white separatists--endorse secession or recommend the break up of the
United States into a number of nations or into confederations of communities.
Many citizens of Hawaii, Texas, Alaska, and Vermont already have strong
secessionist sentiments. Should economic and political turmoil increase in
the future, American secessionist movements might grow as well. Should Quebec
break away from the rest of Canada, it doubtless will further inspire
secessionists in this country.
In The Federalist Papers, No. 47, James Madison labels that
arrangement thusly: "The accumulation of all powers,
legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands,
whether on one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary,
self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the
very definition of tyranny."
You don't have to obey ANY constitutional law becauase the Constitution
does not belong to you unless you are a member or an associate member.
ONLY these people are bound by that contract that they claim to be under
via their consent. Think what the court said in the Padleford case and
the Cruden v Neale case and you are on solid groundwhen NOT obeying
a contract that does not pertain to you.
Big Al
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 18:16:20 EDT
From: ANTIFEDGOV@aol.com
Subject:No Reason To Celebrate "Independence Day"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi again!!
The calendar is counting us down to July 4, the 223rd anniversary
of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence.
Sadly, most Americans have no idea why July 4 is a date to
commemorate. To them it means only a day off from work (or,
this year, a three day holiday weekend), barbecues, mall sales,
and the beach.
Nearly as sad, I think, is that most individuals who call
themselves "patriots" don't seem to realize that "Independence
Day," is not a day which merits celebration of any kind.
We tend to forget that the Founders of the United States of
America were not "like us." They both feared and loathed the
common people, i.e. those who depended mainly on their physical
labor in order to get a living.
Throughout the writings of Washington, Madison, Franklin, Adams,
and, yes, even Jefferson are several negative and condescending
references to "the masses."
Independence from Great Britain was sold to the masses by the
Founders as a way for them to gain "freedom," "rights," and
"liberty." The truth of the matter, though, was that the
Founders desired for themselves the monopolies, the privileges,
and the power which was then in the hands of the Crown and the
Parliament of the mother country.
Every purported "injury" or "usurpation" alleged in the
Declaration to have committed by King George III can be traced
back to a desire of the Founders to themselves have the power
and authority to commit these acts rather than let a far away
government commit them.
A mere four years after the treaty of peace was signed with Great
Britain, many of these same Founders became the Framers of a
Constitution which allowed a federal government to do every act
which 11 years earlier they had termed an "injury" or
"usurpation" of a "foreign" government.
For instance:
---If the Declaration said that the people had the right to alter
or abolish their form of government, by arms if necessary...
.....the Constitution said that warring against the United States
was treason, that the federal government could use the militia
to "suppress insurrections," and that the full power of the
United States would be used to protect the states against
"domestic violence."
---If the Declaration said that "these Colonies" were suffering
because the King had refused his assent to certain laws....
.....the Constitution said that it, treaties made under authority
of the United States, and constitutional federal laws only were
the "supreme law of the land"...."anything in the Constitution or
laws of any state notwithstanding."
---If the Declaration said that the King had kept up standing
armies in times of peace without the consent of the colonial
legislatures....
.....the Constitution said that Congress alone, without the
consent of the states, could keep up standing armies in times of
peace.
---If the Declaration said that the King and Parliament
"imposed taxes upon us without our consent"....
.....the Constitution said that Congress could both "lay and
collect taxes," which they could not do under the Articles of
Confederation, without the consent of the states.
---If the Declaration said that the respective colonies were
"free and independent states," and could "levy war, conclude
peace, contract alliances, and establish commerce, etc."....
.....the Constitution said that no state could "enter into any
treaty, alliance or confederation," nor wage war without the
consent of Congress, nor even enter into any agreement or compact
with another state! Also, Congress was given the "supreme"
right of regulating commerce "among the several states."
So, as can be seen by these examples alone "independence" to the
average American really means he has merely exchanged one master,
or parent, for another.
Today, rather than being ruled over by the "Mother England"
spoken about in the Declaration of Independence, we Americans
today are ruled over by the "Big Brother" deliberately created
by the United States Constitution--and the authors of each of
these historical documents intended it to be just that way.
So, please don't celebrate "Independence Day" this weekend--for
there really is absolutely nothing to celebrate.
Sincerely,
Ed Bruning
(ANTIFEDGOV@aol.com)
---------------------------------------------------------------
"When all government, in little as in great things, shall be
drawn to Washington as the Center of all Power,
it will render powerless the checks provided of one
government on another and will become as venal and oppressive
as the government from which we separated."
THOMAS JEFFERSON
1821- In a letter to Gideon Granger. Writings of Thomas Jefferson.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Bruning - The Stock Market is a Fraud
Ed Bruning - The United States Constitution: Exploding the Myths
Ed Bruning - Gene... Fantastic Anti-Federalist Site!
David Neilson - Our Mythology Needs Improvement
David Neilson - What the Bill of Rights Have Become
David Neilson - The Bill of No Rights
David Neilson - The Price They Paid - The Signers of the Declaration of Independence
Gregory at the ekklesia
Side Tracked by Words
What is a Democracy?
Taxpayer's Lament
Rarely Jailed
James Montgomery - Old Emails
Ralph Boryszewski - Preservation of the CONstitution
Burney - The American revolution was a notable change
FEARS OF THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS BECOME REALITY
The "Constitution" Delusion - Part I, by James Hazel
