OUR FREE FALL INTO TYRANNY

“What have you given us Mr. Franklin, a monarchy or a republic?” Benjamin Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it!”

December 6, 2013

Until the founders made their declaration of independence and gave us the Constitution, humanity’s condition was that of ruler and subject. That relationship had changed little for 5000 years. And then, for the first time in history, America’s founders championed the idea that ALL of our rights came from our creator, that the citizen is sovereign, and that government is our servant. To keep the relationship that way, they wrote a contract, our Constitution, with language that would not allow our elected and appointed servants to easily change it.

While the rest of the world was enslaved, died, were slaughtered, starved imprisoned, impoverished, gassed or gulaged under Socialism, Communism, Fascism or Nazism, our Constitution protected our rights: besides life (and the freedom to protect same), and liberty, our founders realized our God given rights included the freedom—not the right—to succeed. For the first time in history it was understood and written in our Constitution that these were inalienable rights, and they came not from a ruler or a king, but from our creator! But what if most came to believe there was no creator—no God?Hold that thought a minute.

For the most part our servants—our elected and appointed representatives—obeyed their oath to uphold the mandates of our contract, and we became the country of “American Exceptionalism.” Free from the stranglehold of oppressive government, we became the economic powerhouse of the world and the singular example of what truly free citizens could accomplish. But now that is changing, and changing rapidly. 

Regardless of a growing history of failure, there are always those who embrace all or parts of those isms. And regardless of all those isms’ history of disaster, there are always those that sell class envy and the promise of: if only they could be in charge they would create a utopia for the oppressed—the little guy. But in America, it was particularly difficult: the Constitution and our history of unlimited opportunity for prosperity stood in the way of their dreams. Worse, unlike elsewhere, the founders, in their wisdom created a high bar to change it in Article V of our contract with them.

So, in the face of unlimited freedom, opportunity for prosperity and a constitution that had served us so well, and the abject failure of every ism in history, would be usurpers of power realized they would have to accomplish their goals by subterfuge—by, as the Marxists Antonio Gramsci wrote and taught his acolytes (Saul Alinsky, et al)—“by a long walk through the American culture. (8)  In order of priority, they would have to obtain hegemony over:

1.      education

2.      media

3.      pop culture and more

They have succeeded beyond their wildest expectations!

Those who would seize power realized there would have to be fundamental change in thinking; if not the words themselves, then what people thought the meaning of the constitution was—hence hegemony at every level of education was paramount and first in priority giving us programs such as Common Core. Hegemony over the media and pop culture was considered a must to popularized progressive ideas from education with the uninformed—with our youth. And so it began—the end game being the total elimination of the greatest political document ever.

Just the highlights of the subterfuge—there is much, much more:

1.      The Constitution is a living breathing document that must change with the times. To change and eventually eliminate the constitution, would-be usurpers realized they would have to convince the population that the constitution was a relic of former times: when rich white men ruled over the rest of the population—that the constitution must therefore change with the times. Even though the Federalists Papers are replete with arguments to the contrary, those desiring to implement their ism teach our children otherwise.

2.      The law is what the judges say it is. Early on, usurpers decided to use the courts—particularly, the non-elected Supreme Court—to find this power by making rather than simply interpreting law and offering their advice to our elected representatives as the founders intended. (1)(5) Once made, the courts would invoke Stare Decisis. (3)When they found new meaning in the constitution a precedent was set, and they made it difficult to revisit that decision.

Before going on, ask yourself one question: Why would we the citizen ever allow our servants—and those entrusted to interpret and enforce our contract—our constitution—to also change it? We didn’t and wouldn’t. (1)The hubris of those that say so is difficult to comprehend. (2) But they did because we the people and our elected representatives let them! Remember Franklin’s words:“You have a Republic, if you can keep it!”

3.      Change the meaning of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. (4) With the assumed power to make rather than interpret the law, representatives circumvented the difficult Article V process to change the Constitution. Now, those wanting unlimited power would interpret the General Welfare clause to mean ‘anything goes’ (5) as long as it was perceived for the general welfare. That change alone would allow our elected representatives to appeal to disparate groups of society and buy their votes under the guise of their general welfare.

In 1937, Roosevelt used the supreme court to facilitate his own brand of New Deal socialism.(5) Our representatives swore an oath they would not allow this to happen, but not enough objected. Power not authorized by we the people was usurped and the precedent was set. (2)(5)

We the people and our elected representatives let them do this! Again, Benjamin Franklin's words: “You have a Republic, if you can keep it!”

Free from the restrictions reserved only for the states, they could now use federal tax receipts for programs never envisioned by the founders nor found in the enumerated powers to solidify personal and party power. Power for pork, power to get re-elected at the expense of unknown opposition without this power. And use it they did to the extent we now owe 17 plus trillion dollars that can never be repaid. At some time in the near future, we will suffer great privation to restore this country.

4.      Over time, eliminate Federalism. Enable un-named bureaucrats (not our elected representatives) to make and write laws that subvert our constitutional rights incumbent not just on federal bureaucracies, but on the states, individuals and their property. Again, in Article 1 Section 8 the courts abrogated the constitution’s all-important limits of the enumerated powersas well as powers reserved only to the states. Perhaps James Madison said it best in a letter to James Pendleton in 1792.

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions." For a history of the original intent see (4) The Federalist Papers are replete with such references.

5.       What came next? Having thus seized this power to make, rather than interpret and advise our constitution’s meaning, the courts were free to interpret the meaning of the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper and other parts so carefully reasoned and thought out by the founders as to almost re-write the meaning of our contract to the extent it is almost meaningless. Just think of the recent Robert’s decision on the ACA. Even though a majority of citizens did not want ACA, and no Republican voted for it, Roberts found law for the administration and K street that will no doubt be challenged and debated for years all at the expense of we the people, and all under the guise of helping the oppressed—the little guy.

Again, we the people and our elected representatives let our servants change our contract! But even at this late hour, “You still have a Republic, if you can keep it!”

6.      Invent a meaning that takes God out of the Constitution and public life. Maybe a clause in the constitution (that does not exist) that says there must be a separation of church and state. Use the courts to re-enforce the notion. From kindergarten through college, use your acolytes in academia to hammer the notion home: no prayer in public places, no Christmas scenes ad nauseum. Use the media and pop culture and political correctness to drive the notion home and make God and religion un-cool.

Far too often, our first term idealistic representative seeking change is bombarded by K street—the not so new 5^th estate of government—and their party’s leadership to support their bill or motion de-jour. If they do, the support for their re-election will magically materialize. If not, the re-election of the new representative will be difficult and probably fail, and business in Washington will continue as usual. Seduced by the power of the federal purse, there is little difference between political parties as there is virtually no restriction on what constitutes “general welfare” beyond the support and power necessary to pass a bill. Both parties want access to that power, and so the practice endures.

A few thoughts: If we are to have the slightest chance for our republic to endure, we must insist that our representatives and appointees adhere to the powers granted to them and nothing more. We must return to the original intent of the founders especially with regard to Article 1 Section 8. Almost everyone understands their must be provisions for the indigent and those in our Republic that cannot care for themselves. Over time, thought, we must phase out government welfare programs keeping only those that we can justify though constitutional processes. We must totally re-think letting faceless bureaucrats make law through the pernicious CFR’s enabling government to promulgate total control dogma such as Agenda 21. Adhering to the original intent of the constitution will greatly reduce the constant pressure from K street to support their program of the hour. Without these measures, business in Washington will continue until our republic collapses under the sheer weight of debt.

Now, for that thought from the beginning: So what might happen if the majority came to believe that there is no God—a thought so assiduously promulgated at all levels of education, pop culture and government? Would it not logically follow that there are no inalienable rights? Would that notion logically suggest that any rights we do have come from government, and therefore may be repealed by government?

The return to the constitution will require education of citizen and representative. No longer can we tolerate representatives whose attitudes and ignorance put the future of the republic in peril. (See (6) for an example) Through our national retreat from god as our creator, and from our collective silence and ignorance of the constitution, we have left the door wide open to usher in the next ism and tyranny! In a little over 220 years, we have almost reverted to the natural state of the previous 5000—the condition of government as master, and we the people as servant. We are in a freefall into tyrannywith judges and legislators leading the way aided by the complicit, the ignorant and the silence of we the people. But right now we still have a choice:“You still have a Republic, if you can keep it!”

These thoughts are my opinions. I have made them after considerable research and a lifetime of observation and engagement.

Louis Stannard

Just a few references: there are many more.

(1) Federalists 78 McLeans edition

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/f/the-federalist/summary-and-analysis/section-xii-judiciary-federalist-no-78-hamilton/section-xii-judiciary-federalist-no-78-hamilton-1

(2) Is the constitution what the judges say it is?

http://hubpages.com/hub/Hughes-Hubris

(3) The argument against precedent

http://www.constitution.org/lrev/glawson/glawson_ccap.pdf

(4) The General Welfare Clause—the original interpretation

http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=15844

(5) Roosevelt Supreme Court interprets the General Welfare Clause

http://constitutionalawareness.org/genwelf.html

(6)The total lack of knowledge and responsibility of our representatives

Pete Stark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1-eBz8hyoE&list=PLF676F5F146D446F5

Congressman Lewis on ACA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COTN349d-4Y

(7) Precedent law http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Advisory+opinion

(8) Who stole our culture? https://fttf.sharepoint.com/Pages/whostoleourculture.aspx

The Founders' Amazing System to Ensure Peaceful Elections

National Center for Constitutional Studies: 

The Founders' Amazing System to Ensure Peaceful Elections

Every two years or so many Americans endure the frustration that comes with elections and the current election cycles that have evolved. Especially in highly contested elections, as some of us have just experienced in primary elections, the feeling is quite general that we just can't wait until all of this is over. It seems ironic that Americans, who value the freedom of the most prosperous nation in the world, have to endure a system that is becoming more and more repulsive.

What most Americans don't realize is that there is a better way—a way that would be much smoother, less costly, generate less contention, and produce more qualified public servants! It is a system developed by our Founding Fathers to avoid the very problems we have today. It is a system they spelled out for us to follow. It is a system we have stopped teaching and therefore stopped practicing. It is definitely a system worth restoring. Let's review this incredible wisdom.

The Founders' Guiding Principles about Public Service

1.  Political office is different than any other activity because it involves power over people and their money. This kind of power often leads to competition for the office and, once obtained, corruption of the office holder. Here is the way Benjamin Franklin explained it during the Constitutional Convention:

"Sir, there are two passions which have a powerful influence in the affairs of men. These are ambitions and avarice; the love of power and the love of money. Separately, each of these has great force in prompting men to action [in private pursuits]; but when united in view of the same object [in political office], they have in many minds the most violent effects. Place before the eyes of such men a post of honor, that shall at the same time be a place of profit, and they will move heaven and earth to obtain it.”

Franklin then went on to say that if such political offices carry high salaries and are seen to wield great power, the wrong people will contend for the job and, if they win the office, will have ongoing enemies trying to dislodge them from office. Said he:

"And of what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable preeminence, through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of characters? It will not be the wise and moderate, the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. These will thrust themselves into your government, and be your rulers. And these, too, will be mistaken in the expected happiness of their situation; for their vanquished competitors, of the same spirit, and from the same motives, will perpetually be endeavoring to distress their administration, thwart their measures, and render them odious to the people."

2.  Public office should never be considered as a job or career but as a service or mission. Because political office involves power over people and money, it should never be looked upon as a long-term way of life or occupation for someone. Political office should only be held for a short period of time by someone who has already proven capable of handling the powers of government by developing a high degree of virtue and talents in his private life. In other words, he has been successful at something—building a successful business, raising a strong family, contributing to the betterment of the community, and living under the laws and regulations passed by others. He has been through the fire of life sufficiently to know how to serve in government to be a protector of individual freedoms. Thomas Jefferson said that our government needs to have a system whereby these people can be identified and asked to serve. He called this process the natural aristocracy:

"There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents.... There is, also, an artificial aristocracy, founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; …May we not even say, that that form of government is the best, which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government?"

3.  Ideally, to assure independence and the spirit of service, public officials should have a separate means of support . In the specific case of legislators, this will have a tendency to keep legislative sessions to the absolute minimum so they can return to their livelihood. This will insure the concept of a citizen-legislature. Of course, the Founders recognized that some full-time officials, such as executives, may have to be given a minimum salary to sustain them during their brief period of full-time service. The early constitution of Pennsylvania contained the following provision to emphasize this principle. Notice it also contained a suggestion of what action should be taken if too many people would apply for the job:

"As every freeman, to preserve his independence, (if he has not a sufficient estate) ought to have some profession, calling, trade, or farm, whereby he may honestly subsist, there can be no necessity for, nor use in, establishing offices of profit; the usual effects of which are dependence and servility, unbecoming freemen, in the possessors and expectants; faction, contention, corruption, and disorder among the people. Wherefore, whenever an office, through increase of fees or otherwise, becomes so profitable, as to occasion many to apply for it, the profits ought to be lessened by the legislature."

4.  Public service should be considered a call to serve, therefore necessitating no campaigning for the office. Listen to one of America 's most honored public servants, George Washington, who never campaigned for the office:

"I should unfeignedly rejoice in case the electors, by giving their votes in favor of some other person, would save me from the dreaded dilemma of being forced to accept or refuse."

"If I should receive the appointment and if I should be prevailed upon to accept it, the acceptance would be attended with more diffidence and reluctance than I ever experienced before in my life."

"It would be...with a fixed and sole determination of lending whatever assistance might be in my power to promote the public weal, in hopes that at a convenient and early period my services might be dispensed with, and that I might be permitted once more to retire, to pass an unclouded evening after the stormy day of life, in the bosom of domestic tranquility."

5.  With the welfare of the nation or state in mind rather than the power of the office, if another good candidate is willing to accept the request for temporary service, it is a mark of true patriotism and statesmanship to step aside and let the other serve. How many times have we seen candidates so forcibly aspire to office that they will participate in denigrating an otherwise good person during an election campaign. Such conduct finds no justification in Christian principles or Holy Writ. Washington expressed:

"The presidency...has no enticing charms and no fascinating allurements for me,....Let those follow the pursuits of ambition and fame who have a keener relish for them, or who may have more years in store for the enjoyment."

The Founders set an example of how to choose good and wise public officials

One of the most debated items in the Constitutional Convention was how to choose the president. Over 60 different suggestions and straw ballots were had among the delegates. They finally decided on a unique plan to ensure the best possible choice for president. Here is the way it was designed to work. It has come to be called the electoral college. It may also be called a council of electors.

Electors would be chosen every four years in each state according to the number of Senators and Representatives in each state. Note that less populated states would be weighted slightly more. This lessens the possibility of control by the vulnerable masses. Also, no government employee or office holder can be an elector. The electors would meet in their respective states and, by secret ballot, each would nominate two persons, one of which could not be in the same state. Note that there would be no national conventions to emotionalize the choices.

The ballots would then be tallied and a list of candidates with the number of votes for each would be transmitted to the President of the U. S. Senate. The lists would be opened in the presence of the Senate and House and the votes tallied and a list made according to the total number of votes from all the states. The one who received the most votes, if a majority of the total number of electors, would be president. The next highest would be the vice-president. Note that only on a rare occasion would this step produce the final decision, because there would likely be many candidates nominated, most probably being “favorite sons.”

If two or three received the same number more than the required majority, the House of Representatives would make the decision. If no one received a majority, the House would make the decision from the five names receiving the most votes. In either case, the voting in the House would be by state with each state having one vote. Note that under the Founders' plan, the House would probably make the decision most of the time. Also note that the president would not be a leader of the masses of people, as in a democracy, but instead would be the leader of a union of united, sovereign states, as in a republic. Hence each state, regardless of its population, would have one vote in the choice.

Notice how this system avoids the pitfalls of political parties, national conventions, emotional appeal to the masses, empty promises, charges and counter-charges between candidates, and the necessity of raising huge amounts of money for campaigning.

The Founders system of electors should be an example to the states for other offices

This unique thinking of the Founders introduces a “council” concept in choosing public office holders. Imagine how that could work on a state level. The states would each have an electoral council which would interview, investigate, and evaluate those whose names have been put forward by the respective counties. Then, on a certain day, they make their nominations by ballot and the results are sent to the state House of Representatives which follows the same procedure. Whoever has the most votes, if a majority, is chosen to that particular office. If no one has the majority then each county represented in the House has one vote in the final choice from the list of highest number of votes of the elector council.

The value of working through carefully selected councils

Notice that these councils, whether choosing national officers or choosing state officers, are composed of citizens chosen from “lower level” jurisdictions. This insures, insomuch as is humanly possible, that decisions made will be much wiser and more responsive to the real needs of the people in maintaining individual liberty and justice. These “lower jurisdictions” would also be sensitive to the possibility of factions forming, such as a clique or a political party. When this happens they can immediately dissolve the council and form a new one.

Some may wonder where the element of democracy is in this procedure. It is on the very grassroots level, where it should be, as people choose wise and honest citizens to serve on these councils. This is really democracy at its best!

Rejecting the example of the Founders has proven to be a serious mistake

The so-called progressive movement to reject the Founders' council system has nearly demolished the remnants of their marvelous formula for choosing wise leaders. For example:

•Instead of resisting the growth of political parties, state and national laws have given political parties actual political power in choosing our public officials.

•The Supreme Court decision of “one man, one vote” has destroyed the concept of the lower jurisdictions having a major influence on the direction of the higher jurisdictions. States were forced to divide into legislative districts rather than let the counties be represented in legislatures; hence, counties can no longer protect themselves from the intrusions of higher levels of government.

•The Seventeenth Amendment ripped the states right out of the federal machinery by depriving state legislators of the right to send their representatives to the senate to preserve states' rights. States can no longer protect themselves from federal intrusion.

•The movement to completely abolish what is left of the electoral system will make the nation one large democracy, reflecting the emotional will of only the swayable masses of the people.

•The concept of government by wise councils is severely damaged by initiative and recall measures in some states, where some laws and public officials are left to the decisions of the masses, which are usually influenced by money, media, emotion, and debauching tendencies of the people.

Hopefully, the reawakening that seems to be happening in America will lead the people to study and better appreciate the system the Founders gave us for choosing wise leaders. They set the example and hoped we would pick up where they left off to provide an even stronger and greater America.

Sincerely,
Earl Taylor, Jr.
http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/sep12nl.html

The Congressional Constitution Caucus regarding the recent passage of the 2012 NDAA

It brings us no pleasure in pointing out the utter failure of Congress to protect our God-given Rights in the name of national security.

Benjamin Franklin said the definition of insanity was doing the same the over and over again, expecting a different outcome. I assure you sir, that the American People are sick to their stomachs of the games being played with our freedoms each year during the Christmas season, and 2011 was no different.


Attaching unconstitutional provisions embodied in sections 1021, 1022, (and others) to the 2012 NDAA is nothing short of an 'intolerable act.'


The proverbial 'sleeping giant' still lives in America, and is awakening from a coma, during which most of our liberties have become shackled with sophisticated language crafted by wordsmiths the Devil himself would be proud of.


There are dozens and dozens of caucuses in Congress, yet only one claims to be a caucus of champions of the Constitution. We the People expect better of our public servants who boast membership in the Congressional Constitution Caucus.


That membership MUST be worth more than simple lapel-brushing value.


Many of your members are co-sponsors of H.R. 3676, Rep. Jeff Landry's bill. The 'due diligence' of Thomas Jefferson advises that this bill does nothing to protect/restore our God-given Rights being usurped by the unconstitutional provisions of the 2012 NDAA, and appears to be little more than a placebo to appease the restless natives in an election year. We the People deserve and demand better.


Thomas Jefferson said, "A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."


Giving up liberty for security has never worked, and only serves to turn the United States into a police state, ruled by despots.


Benjamin Franklin said, "A great empire, like a great cake, is most easily diminished at the edges."

The nibbling away of our God-given unalienable Rights must not only be stopped, but our Rights restored. The supreme law of the land must be upheld.

GO TO "The Intolerable Acts" NOW:  http://theintolerableacts.org/

THE PATRIOT POST ALEXANDER’S ESSAYS: The Next American Revolution--What is the Authority for Rebellion?

(PUBLISHER'S WARNING: The following essay may cause heartburn and knee-jerk reactions, especially in those who are predisposed to "give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety." But as Benjamin Franklin concluded, they "deserve neither liberty nor safety." For such feeble souls, Samuel Adams advised, "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" For those who are not cast among that faint-hearted lot, please read on.)


READ THE ESSAY HERE:  http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2011/08/04/the-next-american-revolution/

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN DAY! January 17, 2011

Today is also the birthday of another significant American leader who fought for racial equality and justice: Benjamin Franklin. Although best known as a signer of the Declaration and the Constitution, he was a also a vocal social activist and one of the earliest and strongest proponents for ending slavery and securing rights for all Americans, regardless of the color of their skin.


Franklin founded and was President of the Pennsylvania Society for the Abolition of Slavery, and he worked tirelessly in the civil rights arena throughout his life, warning that if the injustices continued in America, it would "draw down the displeasure of the great and impartial Ruler of the Universe upon our country."

Franklin's last public act was to petition Congress on February 3, 1790, to abolish slavery, urging them to "devise means for removing the inconsistency from the character of the American People" and to "promote mercy and justice toward this distressed race."

So today, in addition to remembering the contributions of the Founders, we honor the extraordinary life, achievements, and sacrifice of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in pursuing and helping fulfill the Declaration of Independence's two-century old recognition that all men were created equal and were equally entitled to an enjoyment of their God-given rights.

God Bless
David Barton
Wallbuilders
http://www.wallbuilders.com/