1. The Topic of the Month for October is "Make this the Perfect Bugout Location". Please join the discussion in the TOTM forum.

Beware A Beneficent Government

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by Yard Dart, Jun 16, 2014.

  1. Yard Dart

    Yard Dart Vigilant Monkey..... Moderator Site Supporter++

    Beware a beneficent government | Fox News

    It is time for a restoration of the states power & a hefty downsizing of the federal government. Neither of the two parties in power are going to do it on their own. The power is too tasty to give up, like a drug addict, they just want more. Now the bigger question is- are we to late to balance this power shift and if so, what is next?
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2014
    Marck, William Antrum and tacmotusn like this.
  2. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    Were the so-called 14th and 16th amendments properly ratified?

    Answer: No. Neither was properly ratified. In the case of People v. Boxer (December 1992), docket number #S-030016, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer fell totally silent in the face of an Application to the California Supreme Court by the People of California, for an ORDER compelling Senator Boxer to witness the material evidence against the so-called 16th amendment.

    That so‑called “amendment” allegedly authorized federal income taxation, even though it contains no provision expressly repealing two Constitutional Clauses mandating that direct taxes must be apportioned. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court have both ruled that repeals by implication are not favored. See Crawford Fitting Co. et al. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 442 (1987).

    The material evidence in question was summarized in AFFIDAVITs that were properly executed and filed in that case. Boxer fell totally silent, thus rendering those affidavits the “truth of the case.” The so‑called 16th amendment has now been correctly identified as a major fraud upon the American People and the United States. Major fraud against the United States is a serious federal offense. See 18 U.S.C. 1031.

    Similarly, the so-called 14th amendment was never properly ratified either. In the case of Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968), the Utah Supreme Court recited numerous historical facts proving, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the so‑called 14th amendment was likewise a major fraud upon the American People.

    Those facts, in many cases, were Acts of the several State Legislatures voting for or against that proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Law Library has a collection of references detailing this major fraud.

    The U.S. Constitution requires that constitutional amendments be ratified by three-fourths of the several States. As such, their Acts are governed by the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution. See Article IV, Section 1.

    Judging by the sheer amount of litigation its various sections have generated, particularly Section 1, the so‑called 14th amendment is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written in American history. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” is properly understood to mean “subject to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress.”

    For this one reason alone, the Congressional Resolution proposing the so-called 14th amendment is provably vague and therefore unconstitutional. See 14 Stat. 358-359, Joint Resolution No. 48, June 16, 1866.


    That's an excellent write-up by Fox News, but all it serves in the end is to continue the myth of "government" and the seemingly eternal struggle of the people to fight within the system to "vote" for a more worthy candidate. As some of us already know, this false paradigm is about as narrow minded and hopeless as anything could ever get.
  3. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn Mosquito Sailor

    Too important to leave to a link which may disappear at any time. Judge Napalitano knows his stuff.
    The president is an ardent progressive. This dastardly philosophy of government was brought into the American mainstream 100 years ago by a Republican, Theodore Roosevelt, and a Democrat, Woodrow Wilson.
    Its guiding principle is the belief that government -- not individuals -- is the chief engine of human progress. If that means government tearing down rich persons to help poor persons, if that means the massive redistribution of wealth, if it means federal regulation of every conceivable occupation or productive endeavor, if it means fighting an unjust war, progressives are for it.
    Progressivism’s adherents finance the government by borrowing or by heavily taxing only the rich, both of which are sold as being painless to most voters.
    Before the progressives, the dominant political thinkers in America were Madisonians. James Madison, who kept the notes at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 -- notes that eventually formed much of the language of the Constitution -- made clear what the purposes of the Constitution were: to prescribe discrete areas of human endeavor in which the new federal government could legislate; to set forth open-ended areas of human behavior in which no government could legislate; and to leave the remaining areas of governmental endeavor in the hands of the states. The areas delegated to the federal government are only 17 in number and generally are referred to as federal powers.
    The areas in which no government may regulate are infinite and generally are referred to as natural rights.
    The progressives have turned this philosophy on its head. T.R. and Wilson believed that the federal government could regulate any behavior, right any wrong, tax any event and curtail any freedom, subject only to the express prohibitions in the Constitution itself.
    This view of American government not only contradicts Madison, but it also contradicts the language of the Constitution itself, particularly the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which state in writing what Madison said many times throughout his life.
    President Obama, most congressional Democrats and many congressional Republicans are ardent progressives. They view Congress as a general legislature with no limits to its powers -- and they mean no limits. For example, in an area clearly beyond congressional reach, such as in-state highway speed limits, the progressives found a way to extend their reach. They offered money to the states to repave their highways, with the condition that the states adhere to federally prescribed speed limits (only South Dakota declined). Once the courts gave their imprimatur to this assault on the Constitution, the feds realized that by spending taxpayer dollars -- by bribing the states -- they could extend their regulatory tentacles to any extra-constitutional area they chose.
    Progressivism’s adherents finance the government by borrowing or by heavily taxing only the rich, both of which are sold as being painless to most voters. Yet, the former merely delays the due date of bills until tomorrow for goodies consumed today; the latter takes cash out of the free market today, where it could contribute to growth and jobs tomorrow, and puts it into the hands of the mindset that runs the Post Office and the Department of Veterans Affairs.
    Progressives hate the states because they can be laboratories of less government. They love central government and all of its creations, such as the cash-printing Federal Reserve, the wealth-stealing progressive income tax, and the concept of a federal safety net for all persons.
    None of this, except the income tax (which Wilson promised would not exceed 3 percent of adjusted gross income), is authorized by the Constitution.
    Yet today, we are witnessing a government that is beyond ideologically progressive.
    Does Obama understand that progressive ideas have consequences and that governmental behavior often has unintended consequences? It would appear not, as his long train of incompetence and indifference, grounded in progressive thought, keeps picking up speed. It is crushing human freedom, destroying human wealth and even taking human lives.
    Under his presidency, the government saddled us all with a three-sizes-fits-all version of compulsory health care (which caused more than five million persons to lose their coverage and their doctors); it has been spying on all Americans all the time (and we sleepily permit it to do so); it allowed our ambassador in Libya to be murdered (after it destroyed the lawful government there); it told illegal aliens they need not worry about deportation (and thus encouraged the immigration of hundreds of thousands more -- even unaccompanied children -- to our shores); it neglected veterans to the point of death in government hospitals (demonstrating conclusively that the feds cannot deliver health care); it released assets material to terrorist organizations into the theater of war in the Middle East (ostensibly in a prisoner swap to save a weird military bird who once embraced his captors); it has claimed the power to kill Americans it views as a threat to others and yet too troublesome to arrest and bring to trial (all the while claiming it has a secret reading of the Constitution and American law that somehow justifies this); and it has added $6 trillion to government debt (with no plans to repay it).
    What’s going on? The modern presidency is blinded by a conceit that says it can do no wrong. This is partially the result of the passage of power from the states to the feds and from Congress to the president and partially the fault of a president who relishes telling us all how to live. In Obama’s hands, all this power produces the vast unhappiness and government recklessness we now see every day.
    The same Madison whom Obama rejects warned 200 years ago against the Obama mindset: “Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
    Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. He joined FNC in January 1998. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is “Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom.” To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2014
    oldawg likes this.
  4. VisuTrac

    VisuTrac Ваша мать носит военные ботинки Site Supporter+++

    If your government is big enough to give you everything, then it is big enough to take all you have.
  5. William Antrum

    William Antrum GunMetal Monkey

    Give unto Caesar what is his......
  6. Yard Dart

    Yard Dart Vigilant Monkey..... Moderator Site Supporter++

    A perversion of that quote does not justify the excess taking of our, and our children's earnings ....
    Sapper John likes this.
  7. kellory

    kellory An unemployed Jester, is nobody's fool. Banned

    That is the single most misquoted line IN the Bible. It was a trap laid to trip up Jesus, which he sidestepped. It is not what it appears to be.
    William Antrum, Yard Dart and oldawg like this.
  8. William Antrum

    William Antrum GunMetal Monkey

    I was trying to make the point that no matter how you think or feel weather you own or work for it someone else will find a way to take what is yours. I am not dependent on things.I can make them I may have sentimental attachment to somethings but if something happened would not be able to move them so I got into the habit of recreating them later when things calm down.
    kellory likes this.
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary