The way the paper money racket works is like this:

The Constitution authorizes the federal government to emit “bills of credit,” but withholds this power to the States. “Bills of credit” are paper notes that promise “to pay the bear on demand” a certain sum of gold or silver coin. During the civil war, the federal government floated interest free treasury notes that promised to pay the bearer at some indefinite point in the future. This was money issued debt free directly by the federal government, by-passing the greedy bankers. No interest on the national debt was incurred. Uncle Sam promised to redeem the notes, but did not say when. People could accept them if they wanted, or reject them.

Later, the federal government wanted to make the notes a “legal tender.” A “legal tender” means that the creditor MUST accept them, or the debt will be extinguished. For example, if I contract with you to pay 100 ounces of gold for your building me a factory, if I tender payment in watermelons, you can reject it. I have not made a “legal” tender. A legal tender is one that meets the terms of the contract. An essential principle of contract law is that a creditor or promisee cannot reject a legal tender, and if he does the debt will be satisfied.

The effect of the federal government’s making treasury notes a legal tender was that all creditors had to accept them at penalty of their debt being extinguished as a matter of law. Thus, a contract to pay in gold or silver could suddenly be paid with treasury notes (paper) with no certainty they would ever be redeemed. Quite the boon for debtors! Imagine being able to pay off you mortgage by mailing your lender a roll of toilet paper!

Naturally, this was challenged in court as a “taking without due process.” The U.S. Supreme Court first ruled it unconstitutional. Then, through a court packing scheme and the opening up of a seat or two through the death of other sitting justices, the very next session the case was overturned! Now, suddenly the federal government had power to annul private contracts by making worthless, irredeemable paper a legal tender. (See the Legal Tender Cases.) With this precedent in place, it was only a matter of time before the “promise to pay the bearer on demand” disappeared from our money altogether. Further, by getting legislation in place giving the power of the U.S. Treasury to a private central bank (The Federal Reserve) all limit on the power of the federal government to spend, spend, spend was removed.

Now, instead of taxing us to get money, the federal government just borrows paper notes into circulation. Because they are a legal tender, people must accept them. Now, by flooding the economy with paper the relative value is reduced proportionately the more that is put in circulation. This is a principle of supply and demand, sort of like watering down the milk. Government no longer has to come to us through taxation to get real money (gold or silver) to run itself, it just prints, prints, prints away. And the banksters collect interest on the whole thing when if the Treasury was issuing the note there would be no interest at all!

This allows government to engage in out of control growth and out of control spending. There are no limits to what it can do...that is, until they flood the economy with so much money that it loses all value totally. That is were we are today. The dollar is doomed to crash and all of us with it.

Only by a Constitutional Amendment specifically prohibiting the power to declare money a legal tender and promising the people the right to coin and circulate money of their own can accountability be kept in place and an honest money system be preserved.

And the size and power of government will be restrained and freedom ring!

Patrick,

I think in terms of massive police presence and crackdown when I think of civil war..I'm not sure about the "God’s blessing and protection" statement though.. the far right has muddied those waters pretty effectively regardless of personal beliefs. My god is probebly not the same as yours, but hopefully a seceding state would be a little tolerant of of that.

I am preparing to start a campaign in my community to organize an unincorporated association creating a Community Cooperative Bank as described under Title 12, Chapter 31.

We are endowed with inalienable rights to live, liberty, and property due to New World Order influences around the globe Americans have had no opportunity to resist the take over without the benefit of their own property. I am suggesting we withdraw our deposits from these for profit institutions and deposit them in our own community cooperative banks. Fractional reserve banking has been hard on the people because it has been used against us; consider what we could do locally if we had the use of our own credit.

In our community for example we have had a brewery which has been vacant for approximately ten years now, our community lost 450 jobs, plus many business’ which supplied goods and services to the brewery.

I feel we need a new direction locally; gasoline was a waste product until the automobile was developed, and it was run on alternative fuels, hemp, and alcohol. This brewery produced 6-8 million barrels of alcohol annually. This is a commodity which could be utilized as a fuel for power generation or fuel for vehicles. The revenues generated injected into our community cooperative bank could produce credit to start other ventures locally.

I organized a not for profit cooperative in 2001 whose mission was to lower the cost of living or the cost of doing business for the community by organizing not for profit cooperatives in the areas of finance, employment, housing, transportation, child and health care.

Our temp labor hall put over 250 people to work and was run by two volunteers, and two part time paid staff. This employment model offered advocacy, training, employment, a meal, a ride to work, a higher wage, by 2006 our new office was working to develop laundry/shower services. The point is currently $120 billion is being generated in our communities by for profit temp labor halls which are costing our communities because these labor halls offer nothing other than minimum wage. At minimum wage these workers cannot support themselves, so this system requires local government to create more government to help the underemployed raising again our taxes. Utilizing our own employment cooperatives would invest this $120 billion into our local community cooperative banks providing again more credit for us to invest locally in on the ground programs driven by your local needs, not by Washington.

I say stop asking for permits, and applications from your government, unincorporated associations are our birthright, the colonies were had no unemployed or homeless they used colonial script which when us think about it is no more than we use today except FRN’s are debt based and colonial script was not. The revolution started when the colonies were ordered to use the currency of the Bank of Great Britain which the FED is modeled after.

Community Development programs are a way for the government to hinder our spirits, take back that spirit invest in yourselves a community cooperative bank whose mission is to invest your prosperity in the areas of employment, housing, transportation, child and health care would revitalize our communities and our country. Consider what we could do if our mortgages were reinvested in our own cooperative banks instead of a 30 year note from a for profit bank how about 10 from your community cooperative bank.

"If we are going to be facetious….

who did you vote for and why?. and how is it working out for you??"

You mean in the late presidential election? Neither.

No; as I said in the my initial comments to this article:

"The Constitution is the document that makes us great only if and when the People internalize its principles. An important first step in that regard, in my humble opinion, is for people to read it in conjunction with its greatest explication — The Federalist Papers."

You see, do you not, that I'm invoking above the political philosophy around which the U.S. Constitution was written; that I'm saying a free people must understand the basis of their liberties in order to secure, maintain, and perpetuate them? As has been said before, a person who is non-self-governing is like a warrior going into battle without a shield and a weapon.

Now, I personally have no qualms about being labeled a conservative or a Republican. I prefer, however, "Traditionalist Conservative" and "Republican" in the sense that the founders were republicans who established a Republican form of government. There's nothing wrong with labels anyway. How else is one to make distinctions between this governing philosophy and that governing philosophy, between this and that religious denomination, and so forth and so on?

But I'm interested in your comments about the Constitution, specifically that "it is what it is, period." Please elaborate.

Larry wrote:

"I hate to be the wet blanket on all this feel good chit chat about voting the right people in office… but folks.. you are attempting to pilot the titanic"

Well excuse us, Larry, for daring to discuss the remote possibility that we might actually be able to salvage the ship if we concentrate our efforts in the right direction and we don't abandon it too early.

The answer to your question relating to the general lack of concern eight and thirty years ago respectively, is found in none other than our very own Declaration of Independence:

"Prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes, and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind is more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves."

Your other question is also answered therein:

"But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism,..."

You see, Larry, it takes a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing the same object, etc., before people become alarmed to the point that they're willing to do what before would have seemed radical and impossible. Now, many of us have seen this coming for a long long time, but we are the exceptions, not the rule. And why does it bother you that people are (finally) waking up? They're waking up for God sakes. But I imagine our founding fathers had any number of detractors like yourself amongst them as they attempted in vain, for years prior to the revolution, to retain their liberties AND preserve their political relationship with the mother country. You can read about that too in the Declaration.

By the way, have you renounced your citizenship yet? Why?

"In a Constitutional Convention people would have little to no input and wouldn’t be able to halt adverse proceedings once begun."

I think you put way too much stock in the general sense of the modern American people. But the people needn't, nor should they have any direct input in a Constitutional convention in any event. That's what the representative principle is all about, and this isn't (or shouldn't be) a democracy afterall. But they most definitely would be able to halt adverse proceedings once begun. As I said above, three fourths of the states would have to ratify any changes or alterations recommended by the convention. The convention itself could not simply impose its will on the States and the People. Or, let's put it this way, it wouldn't be advised to attempt to do so, if you know what I mean.

Our Constitution is a unique document that was breathed into existence by God. Our founding fathers had the wisdom and took 3 days for prayer and fasting after they had meet for over 5 weeks and got nowhere. Once they had prayed and fasted our Creator gave them the wisdom to write our Constitution.

The Constitution defines the structure of our government and limits its authority by not allowing it to step on or change the “Declaration of Independents”. This first and foremost establishes that we recognize there is a Creator and He promotes Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness for all.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

I bring all this up to make one specific point that our Constitution protects us against big government.

The bigger the government the greater the poverty and less freedom for the people.

The smaller the government the greater the wealth and greater the freedom for the people.

We have an excellent example of this today. Look at differences between North Korea and South Korea.

North Korea – Big government and one of the poorest nations on earth.

South Korea – Small government and one of the richest nations on earth.

"However, these pennies add up, to the tune of trillions of dollars a week – money that is being foolishly and irresponsibly spent by those who took an oath to the Constitution."

Trillions of dollars a week! Say what?

Dear Mr. Wildmon,
Thank you for the article below (above) by Stanislav Mishin. Surely our country has reached a moment of crisis. In the words of Thomas Paine

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.”

I am nobody. But if I may be so bold as to give my opinion, I feel the time is now past for talk. It is folly to suppose Washington D.C. can be reformed or that it will abandon its present course, a course that can only end in ruin and slavery. We must petition our State Legislatures to secede from the Union. There is no alternative left. Or if there is, it can only come by a Constitutional Convention called by the States to propose Amendments radically down-sizing the federal government. Amendments proposed in a Con-con must be ratified by ¾ of the State legislatures, so there is no great danger from a Con-con. In fact, just the opposite. If we do nothing, our fate is already sealed. Thus, it comes down to a Constitutional convention to strip Washington of its power, or secession. I think we are morally obligated to try the former, but welcome the latter all the same.

I hope you will consider what I say. All else is simply folly. Washington cannot be reformed. We must go our separate ways.

God’s blessings,

My opinion is that these states rights resolutions will need some actual specific refusals and/or nullifications behind them to gain any attention from DC. My thought is to start listing state objections and then other states can add to them as they wish.

I would start with allowing state residents to reduce their federal taxes by a percentage of what the federal government is doing outside of their constitutional rights, like 1) federal bailouts; 2) owning car companies; 3) breaking contract clauses - auto’s, AIG, etc.; 4) refusing to allow banks to repay bailouts; 5) Cap & Trade; 6) national healthcare; 7) Fannie & Freddie; 8) motorcycle helmets; mandating state drinking ages; etc., etc. etc.

I would also reject many of the federal programs that are ruining our country, like:
• Auto CAFÉ Standards have ruined the auto companies and now Obama’s Green Plans for new GM, Chrysler (government/ union owned) will force small, white cars on all of America. I propose for States to Reject this Government Control and hope someone builds cars, trucks we want that can be sold and purchased in that state – sales would go thru the roof.
• Does the federal government have the right to control Oil Drilling off of each State’s coasts? I think it is state/international water past the state water control, not federal. Therefore, states should reject EPA, other rules and lease out space for Oil Drilling. Also, where did the federal government get the ‘control’ to designate property as Federal Property and federal control? From oceaqncommission.gov (State Seaward Boundaries in the United States): In the 1940s, several states claimed jurisdiction over mineral and other resources off their coasts. This was overturned in 1947, when the Supreme Court determined that states had no title to, or property interest in, these resources. In response, the Submerged Lands Act was enacted in 1953 giving coastal states jurisdiction over a region extending 3 nautical miles seaward from the baseline, commonly referred to as state waters. For historical reasons, Texas and the Gulf Coast of Florida are an exception, with state waters extending to 9 nautical miles offshore. A Supreme Court ruling not based upon the Constitution.
• The federal government has no authority to setup and run Fannie Mac and Freddie May, much less AIG, GM, Etc! We need to demand that they sell these operations or close them.
• Etc., etc. What we need is for one state to forcefully apply their rights to reject a major federal policy or control and watch the other states follow.

Plus, any mandate without funds to pay for it (or even with funds if it intrusive to peoples rights) outside of the constitution.

Just my thoughts.
Jerry Christenson, jcbfrog15@cox.net

Did Gm deserve the bailout? You Ask me I would say NO.. why? When Honda and Toyota were out inventing new cars, GM was busy boasting about its pride and Showing off its hungry hungry Daughter the Hummer

People! Here is what you do next.
Look at yourselves, your lives, those in your family, don't look so far away from home for change(that has gotten us in a load of trouble lately). Get your own houses in order first.

The last time your kid got a bad grade in school from a teacher who could not teach, what did you do? Did you tell your child not to worry about it, it was the fault of the teacher, the pubilc school system or the government, or did you perhaps say to your kid that life is not fair and sometimes you just have to work harder than usual to get the job done?

When your friend (who you know takes a lot of "personal days" off at work) was laid off from her factory job and complained that it was because she was a woman, did you tell her that she shouldn't sue?

We all do things in the course of our lives that encourage the rest of society to shirk responsibility on a bigger scale to another location. If you really want to keep the Federal Government out of our lives, you need to support officials like Senator Folmer and then start at home where the roots of the grass really grow. Freedom-Choice-Consequences-Accepting Responsibility = More Freedom Teach your children well.

Patrick Henry wrote:

"A good place to get the low down on this would be lew rockwell.com "

Excellent site Patrick, thank you!

I am not an economist, but, if I understand it correctly, the way it works is not really complicated. The value of gold or silver goes up as demand increases. So, as we have growth, the value goes up proportionately. Thus, the static volume or amount of gold stays even with the economic growth by simply becoming proportionately more and more valuable.

A good place to get the low down on this would be lew rockwell.com or any one versed in the Austrain school of economics. Any way, bottomline is it is not an issue or impairment to growth.

I am all for nixing the federal reserve., but, there is only so much gold and silver world wide. wouldn't growth be limited by the amount of gold/ silver on hand? what is the true worth of our economy in Gold value?

I wonder if going to to gold Standard would force down prices because of current gold/silver inventories. there are 300 million pieces of bread in this country and only so much butter to go around...

Abolition of Federal Reserve will never happen. Entire American system has become dependent upon it. Individual ownership of gold and silver is still subject to demand, upon presentment, of one's 14th Ammendment pro rated share obligation re: all true govt. debt owed. Fatal flaw of 14th is can't challenge or question whatever is said to be owed and owing. Perhaps Ithica Hour type bartering is a viable solution to exchange goods and services. Only question is will anything be deemed not subject to the Creditor demand for full payment imposed upon Federal and State governments. One factor many never consider is when Federal Reserve returns the Congressional privilege given,whereby restoring full power over money to Congress,the Private Banks which made the Fed now have lien power against the Federal Govt and all 14th Ammenednent persons subject thereof. We've all been led to believe we must exist within the body of Govt. rather than the founding intent to live outside of it. Clear intent was seperation,with govt. acting as agents. Entire check and ballance system is predicated upon seperation. Not just seperation of powers between State and Federal but also an intended seperation between govt. and people. Foreclosing upon citizen seperation as a viable remedy forever binds one to being a debt slave, subject to the will of future Creditors lien power claim to all people's assets not just govt.'s. Having one's head buried in the 14th Ammendment sand precludes one from seeing whats outside. Effect of seperation not only changes one's position of law one occupies but also extricates oneself out of aforesaid debt. If Federal Govt. enters final stage of bankruptcy/insolvency,end result may be all 14th Amm.U.S. citizens self contracting out from under the Constitution in exchange for debt forgiveness remedy offered and becoming world citizens subject to U.N. charter.

The way the paper money racket works is like this:

The Constitution authorizes the federal government to emit “bills of credit,” but withholds this power to the States. “Bills of credit” are paper notes that promise “to pay the bear on demand” a certain sum of gold or silver coin. During the civil war, the federal government floated interest free treasury notes that promised to pay the bearer at some indefinite point in the future. This was money issued debt free directly by the federal government, by-passing the greedy bankers. No interest on the national debt was incurred. Uncle Sam promised to redeem the notes, but did not say when. People could accept them if they wanted, or reject them.

Later, the federal government wanted to make the notes a “legal tender.” A “legal tender” means that the creditor MUST accept them, or the debt will be extinguished. For example, if I contract with you to pay 100 ounces of gold for your building me a factory, if I tender payment in watermelons, you can reject it. I have not made a “legal” tender. A legal tender is one that meets the terms of the contract. An essential principle of contract law is that a creditor or promisee cannot reject a legal tender, and if he does the debt will be satisfied.

The effect of the federal government’s making treasury notes a legal tender was that all creditors had to accept them at penalty of their debt being extinguished as a matter of law. Thus, a contract to pay in gold or silver could suddenly be paid with treasury notes (paper) with no certainty they would ever be redeemed. Quite the boon for debtors! Imagine being able to pay off you mortgage by mailing your lender a roll of toilet paper!

Naturally, this was challenged in court as a “taking without due process.” The U.S. Supreme Court first ruled it unconstitutional. Then, through a court packing scheme and the opening up of a seat or two through the death of other sitting justices, the very next session the case was overturned! Now, suddenly the federal government had power to annul private contracts by making worthless, irredeemable paper a legal tender. (See the Legal Tender Cases.) With this precedent in place, it was only a matter of time before the “promise to pay the bearer on demand” disappeared from our money altogether. Further, by getting legislation in place giving the power of the U.S. Treasury to a private central bank (The Federal Reserve) all limit on the power of the federal government to spend, spend, spend was removed.

Now, instead of taxing us to get money, the federal government just borrows paper notes into circulation. Because they are a legal tender, people must accept them. Now, by flooding the economy with paper the relative value is reduced proportionately the more that is put in circulation. This is a principle of supply and demand, sort of like watering down the milk. Government no longer has to come to us through taxation to get real money (gold or silver) to run itself, it just prints, prints, prints away. And the banksters collect interest on the whole thing when if the Treasury was issuing the note there would be no interest at all!

This allows government to engage in out of control growth and out of control spending. There are no limits to what it can do...that is, until they flood the economy with so much money that it loses all value totally. That is were we are today. The dollar is doomed to crash and all of us with it.

Only by a Constitutional Amendment specifically prohibiting the power to declare money a legal tender and promising the people the right to coin and circulate money of their own can accountability be kept in place and an honest money system be preserved.

And the size and power of government will be restrained and freedom ring!

I ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I flatter myself that I ain't the dullest one either. It seems to me that the fed has involved itself in a giant ponzi scheme, which is the reason I find all of the hand-wringing over Bernard Madoff to be, well, hypocritical at best, a mob-style hit at worst.

But economics definitely ain't my forte, so I'll quit right there.

I want to encourage all TEA Partiers not to waste time focusing on issues like repealing the 16th Amendment or income tax. These things aren't going to happen. And even if they did, they would not make significant change. Even without the income tax, the federal government is taxing us indirectly through depreciation of the dollar and "print and spend" Keynesian economics. And it is this that is ruining the country.

Commodity money (gold/silver) is the only true money and since government cannot create wealth, to get real money government must levy taxes, which there is a definite limit political realities will allow. Witness California. The voters refused to be taxed more and because California cannot print money, it was forced to cut back on the size and expense of govenrment. The same is true of Washington: Shut down the printing presses and government will be returned to WE THE PEOPLE. However, once money is divorced from gold or silver, the government can do ANYTHING it wants by borrowing monetized debt into circulation. This is what has been happening in the US for decades under the Federal Reserve System, and it is this, not the income tax, that has brought our nation to the brink of ruin.

If we want to get our nation on sound financial and monetary basis, we must abolish the Federal Reserve and reinstitute a gold or silver standard, as called for by the Constitution.

"No State shall coin money, emit Bills of Credit [paper money], make nay thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts" Art. I, Sec. 9.

The federal government can emit bills of credit (sometimes a necessary evil in times on war when money and credit are tight), but to make paper money a "legal tender" unbacked by gold or silver it has no legal authority to do. Moreover, since the Federal Reserve is a consortium of private banks and not part of the government, it violates the Constitution which gives Congress alone power to "coin money and regulate the value thereof." (Notice that "money" is ultimately coin - gold & silver coin, not irredeemable paper.)

One useful thing we can all do to help this process along is to ask our Congressman to be a co-sponsor of Ron Paul's HR 1207 to audit the Federal Reserve. There are 186 co-sponsors right now from both parties. There will never be another opportunity like now to make a fundamental change in our system. Please ask your congressman to co-sponsor HR 1207.

Next, we should realize that Washington is almost certainly beyond reform. The fix is in at the top for presidential campaigns. No true conservative who is serious about restoring Constitutional government to America will ever get near the White House. The last presidential campaign was a perfect example. Out of the available candidates, not one (except Ron Paul) even talked about restoring the Constitution. Huckabee, Giuliani, Romney, McCain are all establishment, politicians who would only have continued "business as usual" in Washington: More government, more print & spend fiat money, more loss of reserved States' Rights.

Moreover, the idea that a Republican Congress can save us is pretty wishful thinking. Most republican candidates don't have a clue about economics or the printing press money. Most Republican candidates are little better than "soft" Democrats, "moderates" who would compromise principle to broaden their appeal and win control. In short, more George Bush Sr.'s and George Bush Jr.'s who together have destroyed the Republican Party and delivered the White House to a radical socialist (who does not even appear to be a Natural Born citizen of the U.S. or at least is resisting all attempts to see his long form birth certificate which alone can settle the question) - a radical socialist, we say, who only the day before yesterday declared June "Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgender Pride Month." Thanks George!

No. We must demand a Constitutional Convention called by the States to propose Amendments. A Constitutional Convention cannot enact Amendments, it can only propose them. Any Amendment to the Constitution - whether proposed by Congress or by the States in a Convention - can ONLY be ratified by 3/4 of the State Legislatures. Hence there is no danger from a Convention. Just the opposite: certain ruin lies ahead if we do nothing.

We need Amendments radically down-sizing Washington DC and returning our Constitutional form of government back to the ORIGINAL INTENT of the founders, rather than the perverted thing 100-years of bad case law and federal usurpation have straddled us with. Anything less than this and we are just fooling ourselves and wasting our time.

If this doesn't work, I believe our only remaining option is to work for State Secession from the Union. We simply have no interest in Washington's agenda, its "new world order", its print & spend economics, its anti-Christian policies, its abortion on demand, its "gay pride", its trillion-dollar world empire, or its impending economic ruin and collapse.

States like Texas and others need to break away and gain their independence - for our CHILDREN'S SAKE - for it is they who will suffer most if we continue with "business as usual."

God's blessings,

Okay, but give us a chance to rid ourselves of our leftist governor in Oklahoma first. ;-) Nah...

Where you're going wrong is that the constitution does not authorize such a scenario. And I very highly doubt that a single state in this union grants that kind of power (which is really a legislative, not an executive function) to its chief executive officer.

I appreciate the work and efforts of the people at FOAVC, but we disagree on a couple of fundamental issues. For instance, the main jist of the FOAVC site is that Congress is denying the States an Article V Convention when the states have met the constitutional requirements for calling a convention on numerous occasions. Well, that is true to an extent. But if you'll look at the petitions themselves, they span decades and decades of time. There's not been a concerted effort by the states to petition Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments that is within a reasonable timeframe - say 20 years, just for the sake of argument. So, is it that Congress is actually denying to the states what the states want and demand, or, is it that Congress simply doesn't pay any attention to it because, as I said, these petitions span decades of time. The folks at FOAVC would argue (I know because I've argued with them about it) that it doesn't matter how many decades of time, nor how many generations come and go, the petitions are on record and Congress is bound by the provisions of Article V to call a convention, therefore. That's the end of the discussion as far as they're concerned.

So, in my opinion where you're going right is more important than where you're going wrong. And that is that there needs to be a concerted movement among the States within a reasonable timeframe in order to make such a thing happen. Congress would listen then, I can guarantee you.

Terry thanks for the link to Friends of Article V. It is obvious that congress will never call a convention that can only result in a reduction of their powers. It seems to me the states need to communicate via the Govenors of each state and set up a convention. It should be as simple as the Govenors each appointing a representative of their state to attend and recommend amendments that 3/4 of the states will agree upon. I say we bypass congress. Or at the least a class action suit against congress by at least the over 25 states that have made Tenth Amendment Resolutions. Where am I wrong in my thinking? One brave soul to bring the suit and get enough states to sign on would be all it should take.

I agree with Terry that the Republican Party is not "a viable vehicle for conservativism." The Bushes destroyed the Republican Party. They were NOT conservative; they were globalists. Bush Sr's speech before the joint houses of Congress to argue for the Persian Gulf war was on SEPTEMBER 11, 1990. In that speech he said "Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective -- a new world order -- can emerge." http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/war/bushsr.htm

The terroritsts who bombed the World Trade Center chose 9/11 for a reason. TIt was their way of telling the US that they did not want part of our "new world order" and were retailiating for our invasion of Arab lands. What Bush Sr started Bush Jr finished.

However, far from seeing this is bad, I now see it as good. The destruction the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama sequil has brought to the country, has also sparked the Tenth Amendment Movement; it is producing a revival of true Constitutional conservatism, and may incite State secession, which would be about the best thing that could possibly happen.

So, I say. Obama: Go for it. Ruin the nation and the dollar! Errect a socialist utopia. Destroy the free enterprise system that lays the golden egg. And may the best States secede!

Given the nature of the discussion, and the mention several times of Article V and a Constitutional Convention, I thought some of you might be interested in the website Friends of the Article V Convention.

Jeff,

Truth be told, I don't have much use for the "Republican" party. If it's not a viable vehicle for conservatism, then it's completely useless in my opinion. I think (in fact I know) there are a lot Specters in it, which is the reason all of this hand-wringing about the (official) Senate numbers is just complete nonsense. But, you know, some people apparently get their kicks being entertained like that. Personally, I've turned my attention inwardly. Which is to say that I care a lot more about what goes on in my State and my local community than what happens in Washington. People had better learn to be self-governing and self-sustaining, quick, fast, and in a hurry. That's about the best advice I can give 'em.

Before force can even be contemplated as final recourse its imperative to exhaust all nonviolent remedies and evidence the long train of abuses. Object is to characterize govt. as an organized criminal racketeer. Class Action R.I.C.O. remedy must too be fashioned and allowed to run its course. People throughout all process must maintain the standing of damaged,aggrieved,injured party. Propose too,need for 10th Ammendment standing people to vote 10th Ammendment reservation of rights to reactivate original common law Writs and remedies and give foundational authority to do what is just cause and necessity for both classes of people. This makes all action/redress from a 10th Ammendment position and makes govt. justification less tenable. When States have first run their course of remedies,followed by people exhaution of remedies,that is point in time to consider Constitutional Convention then, people seperation from 14th Ammendment, then and only then State secession. Don't advocate Convention or State secession,just aknowledging what Founding Fathers envisioned. Pledge henceforth to cease talking about accessing dormant unalienable right to vote no one ever uses or the question of; How do people reserve rights under the 10th Ammendment. Would appreciate those learned in law to answer; What right of people has ever been reserved as a 10th Ammendment right. If its limited to States,why are people even mentioned? Prisoners are denied of civil right to vote making self evident its not the true unalienable right to vote. Perhaps the vote we're all exercising is a slave vote as thats to whom the 14th Ammendment was created for. Thank you all for your time and consideration. Just trying to think ouside the box. No one wants Civil War:Part Two.

I am inclined to think that the sale of Hummer to China is part of something bigger. I think China needed a carrot to continue takng our debt. It wouldnt surprise me one bit to see China start calling in their notes. Hummer today, Sears and Robuck tomorrow.

The central banks like the Bank of England and the Fed. Reserve have in mind to destroy the value of the dollar for their own purpose which I suspect has everything to do with the debt China holds. A new world currency would give them the foothold on China's wealth that they do not presently have. Even now China is talking about the need of a Global currency so their plan is working. It will take the destruction of the dollar to make this happen and either McCain or Obama would have made this happen so to the Fed. it mattered not who was elected. The Central Banks are now and have always been the greatest threat to our Constitution and liberty. Whatever the new currency is the Central Bank will control it. Nothing less than action will change what has happened to us and that action must be against the strangle hold the Fed. has of our currency as much as against the burdensome Fed. Govt.

True, but that rationale leaves your choice to abstain from voting just as equally worthless. Just to be fair....

Larry wrote:

"the republicans logic was if you dont vote, you have cast a vote for Obama. that logic never sat well with me."

Yes; several of my friends, relatives and acquaintances (most of which are registered Democrats) used this line of reasoning with me when they learned that I would be abstaining in the presidential election. Again, it's the old absurdity that when something is repeated often enough, people begin to believe it ... and to parrot it themselves. I, of course, did not hesitate to set them straight on a few peculiarities in the way the president is elected. I don't recall what the Washington numbers actually were, but if memory serves your state was pretty solid in the Obama camp. Therefore, HOW is it that your denying the RINO McAmnesty your vote is essentially the same thing as casting your vote for Obama? On the flipside, my state was going to go McAmnesty by a two-thirds majority and I knew it (as a matter of fact I'm a little surprised that it didn't go McCain by a solid five more points given Hussein's radicalism, but I imagine others abstained like myself.).

But in any event I don't see your voting for Baldwin as pointless at all. You're getting someone's attention. Granted, it's not positive attention. But did you expect anything else? :-)

Yet another provocation: The U.S. Justice Department has announced it is opening an investigation to prosecute Roeder, the man who slew baby murderer, George Tiller. Great! The government protects men whose liviihood is to cut up defensless unborn, late term, viable babies. The government protects and promotes sodomy, lesbianism, transgenerism (whatever that is). It is even trying to get SPECIAL enhanced priority protection for homosexuals and other assorted deviants by hate crimes. And it will go after someone who slays an baby murderer, but the rest of us poor slobs, well, we are left to shift for ourselfs. Nay, rather, we are persecuted and marked as "extremists" because our concern for the supreme law of the land is being flouted. But then, seeing fed-gov is the one flouting it, I suppose it all makes too much sense!

Yet another good reason for secesion.

Yes, but with the wide-cast net of federalism, there is not enough diversity left anywhere for you to run and hide. Can you say, "Robots?"

I also did quite a bit of thinking in terms of whether I should vote for the lesser of two evils.. the republicans logic was if you dont vote, you have cast a vote for Obama. that logic never sat well with me.. My State Washington couldnt be closer to the Obama bosom, with our liberal senators Cantwell and Murray both firmly latched to the government teat.My Congressman Doc Hastings (R) is a career man, always playing it safe to ensure his re election. he conveniently abstains from voting on prickly issues that might cause conflict.. he is absolutly useless, unless special interest money is passed his way.

I Voted for Chuck Baldwin, even though he is a little to far right for me. granted the vote was pointless, and I knew this.

I am fully prepared both mentally and financially to move to any State that chooses to break ground in a new direction.

Patrick Henry Lives:

I've personally never supported the FMA (Federal Marriage Amendment). But then again, I've never supported any legislation that presupposes "federal" law trumps state law, except that which is explicitly stated in the federal constitution.

My approach to the FMA has always been that if we must have one (and all that that implies -- another federal agency, "federal" fraud, waste, and abuse, etc., etc., etc...) then let it come via an Article V, State-initiated method of amendment. Otherwise, let it die the death.

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER PRIDE MONTH, 2009
- - - - - - -
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION

Pride in unbridled, sexual lust and perversion? Pride in "transgender"???? What is next, pride in pedophilia? Pride in bestiality? If not, why not?

Another really good reason to secede.

"When the wicked rise, men hide themselves: but when they perish, the righteous increase." Prov. 28:28.

Patrick Henry Lives:

In all actuality I put a lot of thought to the question of abstaining in the general election of '08. For instance, was/is my state a "swing state?" My state being Oklahoma, the answer is obviously No. It was going to go for McCain by a margin of 65-35 (or somewhere thereabouts) irregardless. I knew this before I ever made the final decision to abstain. I also knew that most Oklahoma voters would not abstain in the presidential election. So, I would never castigate someone for voting McCain in the general election. If one lives in a swing state, and/or believes that Hussein Obama presents an existential threat to the United States, then it makes perfect sense to me that he would vote McCain ... hesitantly.

Larry:

Okay; I accept your explanation, and offer my apologies.

Patrick,

I think in terms of massive police presence and crackdown when I think of civil war..I'm not sure about the "God’s blessing and protection" statement though.. the far right has muddied those waters pretty effectively regardless of personal beliefs. My god is probebly not the same as yours, but hopefully a seceding state would be a little tolerant of of that.

Larry, I am not sure that civil war would result at all. The federal government would have to be the first aggressor, and that would be difficult to live down in this day of politically correct war where world opinion is more important than results. How could the US ever take the high ground or scold a petty dictator again when it sent the troops out on its own people? Also, God's providence may arrange things so that there are wars on too many fronts to fight to allow the fed's to take on a non-threatening seceding State. Could we really fight a war in Iraq, Afghanastan, Iran, and at home at the same time?

I say we take the high moral ground and evoke God's blessing and protection and let the chips fall where they may.

Terry,
how was I castigating people?. I insulted no one, I didnt take the tone of an alarmist.. I simply stated what I believe. I think we have candy coated a losing situation long enough.. the Country is going to hell...just how exactly does one go about telling the public this in such a way that they should be looking forward to the trip? and I doubt that the majority of the population is as nieve about it as we have been led to believe, as long as they still have American Idol to come home to, I doubt they mind.. I'm sorry if my words are a little rough on your ears.. but everyone knows you walk orderly in a fire drill.. but if the building is on fire you run like hell...there is nothing politically that can be done to reverse the course. sometimes we just have to tell it like it is.. sometimes people just have to be spared the BS and be told the cold hard facts. there isnt a party to represent us so, how the hell do you expect anything to change?

Personally, I cast a reluctant vote for McCain, but only because the alien Muslim who won't show his long form birth certificate scares me. Let's face it, the fix is in at the top in all presidential elections anyhow. Virtually all front-running contenders from both were members of the Council on Foreign Relations: McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Guiliani for Republicans, and Obama and Clinton for the Democrats. There isn't one of them from either party who would actually reduce the size of government or return power usurped from the people back to the States. There are some moral and economic issues they differ on, but by and large the same growth of government is 100% guaranteed under each. Obama will do it in terms of welfare, McCain in warfare. Either way we lose.

Another good reason to secede.

(1) Why did I abstain in the presidential election? Because it was the only principled thing to do.

(2) How is it working out for me? Well, let's put it this way: No-one can call me a hypocrite for saying one thing and turning around and doing another.

Look, people come along at their own pace. Castigating them because they haven't yet reached your particular level of disenchantedness is simply indication of an ill-temper, and an ignorance of human nature.

Patrick Henry,

I do not believe a civil war in the traditional sense will materialize. I seriously doubt our military would fire on their own people. However, I have no doubt what so ever that our domestic police force would not hesitate to march against citizens and engage them in the name of keeping the peace. I see domestic police forces turning to the federal government for support if and when any state was to attempt to break for the herd. I see quite a bit of co operation between federal and state authorities with respect to law enforcment.

Since I do not beleive the federal government can be reformed absent a Constitutional Convention, and since the States do not seem to have the moral resolution to take the matter before them in hand, it is probably true, as Terry says, that civil war will result. Emotionally, I say, Let it come and the sooner the better! To sit by and watch a whole nation's moral foundations be completely overthrown, to sit was watch what before was universally condemned as immoral become acceptible and even virtuous, to think of the waste of human lives that have been ruined and the souls of tens of millions of school age children that will be lost because a few non-elected judges what to completely overthrow the traditional values of a nation, to sit by and watch and let this happen - we dare not. Better to die and moisten the clods of our native states than to live as slaves, cringing beneath a godless, federal master.

Let it come, and the sooner the better. "For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain."

"You mean in the late presidential election? Neither"

Terri,
And the last two parts of my question???..

Patrick Henry Lives, Thanks.

I've argued for at least fifteen years that we are headed for another bloody civil war in this country. I'm more convinced now than ever. That is, afterall, the price to be paid for something as rare and valuable as liberty. But my recognition of this doesn't mean that I'm going to castigate people for finally waking up and acknowledging that we're on the very precipice as we speak, or for searching for peaceful, constitutional means to avoid the crisis. Did it ever occur to any of the naysayers here that the mere fact that people are finally awakening from their long slumber and realizing the great evils that have been perpetrated upon them is indication that they're preparing themselves for the battle that lies ahead; that a lot of soul-searching goes on in the very process?

The Tax Day TEA rallies, the tenth amendment resolution movement, the assertion of our second amendment priveleges at the state level, States enacting their own immigration laws in the very face of federal lawsuits, and so forth and so on, these are all meaningful and relevant. Do I think that any single one of them, or any combination thereof is likely to ultimately avert civil war? No; my sense is that it's more likely that these things will accelerate the movement in that direction. So again, what is the point in reacting to the discussion of the issue negatively? I just don't get it.

True, Patrick. And your observations show why we must not lose sight that states are abusers, too. Using our state legislatures to further our goal against the feds is somewhat akin to arming the Afghans against the Soviet Union. You have to wonder what the Afghans might do with all those arms when the initial cause is won.

One thing that might be added to Terry Morris' comments, above, is that Western Civilization and American in particular has embraced a traditional set of values, condmening and criminalizing homosexuality, elective abortion, etc, while simultaneously exercising the right and even duty to acknowledge God as the author of our being and our liberties, evoking His wisdom and providence upon all we do, and this from the highest levels of government to the common (public) schools. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution was ever intended to change this. Congress was prohibted to institute a national church or denomination, but there is no similar limitation placed upon the States. A usurping federal judiciary has attempted to prevent the people's right to acknowledge God at every level, even the States by turning the 1st Amendment back upon them. They have also usurped the people's right to decide for themselves questions about abortion, criminalization of sodomy, etc, etc, etc. until now at length the most important and basic questions of morals have been "federalized" and are decide for the whole nation by a tiny oligarchy of non-elected federal judges.

This is a great source of division and civil unrest in our country. The 10th Amendment preserves these important questions for WE THE PEOPLE through our local govenrments, not some outlaw judges hell bent on forcing their political agenda upon the rest of the nation.

This one usurpation, because it touches what is most important of all, is to me sufficient cause for secession without more. Everything else is just gravy.

BK, With respect...

I think you need to spend more time studying the constitution, in conjunction with its explication as I said above.

First of all, the constitution isn't simply about individual liberty, as if to say that the constitution merely recognizes the original state of nature of mankind. It is partially about individual liberty, but that's not its sole emphasis, nor its primary one. Second, government is a word that means control, restraint; i.e., power. No government has any rights, period. It is true that we as individuals must cede to government some of our natural rights in order for it to be able to function. But that's not the same thing as "giving it rights," it is simply supplying it with the powers necessary to operate. The genius of the U.S. Constitution (as opposed to all others) is the distribution of political powers among the various branches and spheres of government, or, the great balance that it strikes. However, that balance cannot and will not be maintained by any populace that doesn't understand it.

Furthermore, liberals do not believe that the government should not be involved in this and that social issue. Liberals (right-liberals included) often repeat the phrase that we "cannot (or should not) legislate morality." My question to them has always been "then why do you do it?" What liberals actually believe is that any non-liberal morality should not be legislated. Whenever you make a distinction between right and wrong, good and evil, you've just made a moral judgment. Can you think of any law currently on the books that is not founded in a moral judgment, someone's moral judgment? How about abortion? Is it not that liberals argue in favor of a "woman's right to choose," laying their argument on the foundation of the wrongness, thus the immorality of denying this "right" to women? Again, when you make a distinction between right and wrong, good and evil, you've just made a moral judgment. As moral beings we're constantly making such distinctions. In fact, by our very natures we're incapable of not making moral judgments and distinctions. But, if you're going to argue that the central government is granted no authority in the constitution to restrain homosexual behavior, or to rule in favor or against abortion, etc., etc., then we have something to talk about.

I agree with the tone and content of Jeff Matthew's resolution. Empty words complaining about federal usurpation and asking it to "please, oh pretty please obey the law" maybe OK for a first round Petition for Redress of Grievance. The further question remains whether men possess the moral courage and resolution to assert their freedom, even if it means peacefully seceding, knowing that they may then be called upon to defend that right by meeting force with force. I suppose after all else is said and done that is really what it comes down to: Do the present circumstances - the collapse of the economy, run away debt, inflation, collapse of the dollar, expotiential growth of a centralized power with the ominous powers of the Patriot Act and Homeland Security, the continued federalization of local law and morals, the federal government's unwillingness to obey the law (Constitution) - do these and ten thousand other factors rise to a crisis level, meriting the kind of resolution Jeff has outline? A resolution that very nearly amounts to a declaration of hostilities, I might add. For when we start talking about using the state's police power to prosecute federal agents and protect citizens against federal usurpations, we have drawn a line in the sand and declared our intention and willingness to go to war.

" Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace -- but there is no peace..."

I am preparing to start a campaign in my community to organize an unincorporated association creating a Community Cooperative Bank as described under Title 12, Chapter 31.

We are endowed with inalienable rights to live, liberty, and property due to New World Order influences around the globe Americans have had no opportunity to resist the take over without the benefit of their own property. I am suggesting we withdraw our deposits from these for profit institutions and deposit them in our own community cooperative banks. Fractional reserve banking has been hard on the people because it has been used against us; consider what we could do locally if we had the use of our own credit.

In our community for example we have had a brewery which has been vacant for approximately ten years now, our community lost 450 jobs, plus many business’ which supplied goods and services to the brewery.

I feel we need a new direction locally; gasoline was a waste product until the automobile was developed, and it was run on alternative fuels, hemp, and alcohol. This brewery produced 6-8 million barrels of alcohol annually. This is a commodity which could be utilized as a fuel for power generation or fuel for vehicles. The revenues generated injected into our community cooperative bank could produce credit to start other ventures locally.

I organized a not for profit cooperative in 2001 whose mission was to lower the cost of living or the cost of doing business for the community by organizing not for profit cooperatives in the areas of finance, employment, housing, transportation, child and health care.

Our temp labor hall put over 250 people to work and was run by two volunteers, and two part time paid staff. This employment model offered advocacy, training, employment, a meal, a ride to work, a higher wage, by 2006 our new office was working to develop laundry/shower services. The point is currently $120 billion is being generated in our communities by for profit temp labor halls which are costing our communities because these labor halls offer nothing other than minimum wage. At minimum wage these workers cannot support themselves, so this system requires local government to create more government to help the underemployed raising again our taxes. Utilizing our own employment cooperatives would invest this $120 billion into our local community cooperative banks providing again more credit for us to invest locally in on the ground programs driven by your local needs, not by Washington.

I say stop asking for permits, and applications from your government, unincorporated associations are our birthright, the colonies were had no unemployed or homeless they used colonial script which when us think about it is no more than we use today except FRN’s are debt based and colonial script was not. The revolution started when the colonies were ordered to use the currency of the Bank of Great Britain which the FED is modeled after.

Community Development programs are a way for the government to hinder our spirits, take back that spirit invest in yourselves a community cooperative bank whose mission is to invest your prosperity in the areas of employment, housing, transportation, child and health care would revitalize our communities and our country. Consider what we could do if our mortgages were reinvested in our own cooperative banks instead of a 30 year note from a for profit bank how about 10 from your community cooperative bank.