Politically Speaking…

I was listening to some of the political commentators on the news today, as well as some of the comments by the candidates.  It is well understood that candidates running for the number one spot will speak out against the others for the soul fact that they need that placement.  In the Iowa Caucuses the topic of interest was Ron Paul who is sitting pretty high and mighty.

Ron PaulThe main problem with the other candidates is his Foreign Policy.  One he finds it irrelevant that Iran obtains nuclear weapons and second his so-call “isolationist policy”.  First, like it or not, Iran is a sovereign nation!  For the US or any other nation to tell them they cannot have nukes is much like either Russia or China telling the US that they cannot have such weapons, it is a ludicrous idea and concept; although, I would feel much better if they didn’t have them.  Secondly, his so-called isolationist view stem from our history.  A little known man named Thomas Jefferson once stated in his First Inaugural Address, “…peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none…“, which indicates we are to trade with other nations for business but are not to permit ourselves to get into any alliances that place us into a precarious position.  The present day politics have in essence allowed us to whore ourselves out to the nations that we are in an “entangling alliance” with…and where had that gotten us?

I personally like the man as I find him refreshingly more conservative than most others.  A true conservative wants smaller government, government that has less interaction with The People’s lives, and to be rid of the Federal Reserve.  This man has forgotten more about the Constitution and Constitutional Money than I believe I will ever obtain.  However, that is probably another blog topic or two.


On the Constitutional Side…

14th Amendment

14th Amendment Part 1

I am endeavoring on a journey into the study of the US Constitution (USC), the Rights (both inalienable and conferred), Liberties, and the differences.  There will be other aspects to this study and in-depth research, as my goad is to have it published.  All too many people have no concept as to the meaning within the boundaries of the Constitution and the differences between inalienable and conferred rights.  I also ask that you bear with me as I may jump around , either within the text or the subject matter as a whole.  But I will do everything I possible can to make sense of it all by tying it all together.  I cannot explain why I have decided to start with this particular amendment to the Constitution, but I did find it fascinating.  I probably should have started from the beginning, but I got to be me!

I have always been interested in the controversy surrounding the 14th Amendment and the many arguments dredged up by lawyers wearing $2500 suits.  Claiming people they represent are protected under this amendment.  Odd, you may think I am – as many may believe the Constitution, as a whole and all her articles and amendments, apply to all people of the United States.  Well, that is not entirely true.

The 13th Amendment was ratified December, 1865 which freed the slaves from bondage, but did not confer upon them the right to any citizenship.  Earlier that year (March, 1865) the Freedmen’s Bureau Act was also ratified as a means to create a Military rule over the southern states due to the rebellion and insurrection by their people.  In essence a plan was created to confer a newly created class of citizenship upon the previously known slaves and referred to them as “citizens of the United States,” [refer to the 14th Amendment] as opposed to the original class of citizenship enjoyed by the State Citizens, which the Founding Father’s referred to as “Citizens of the United States.” [refer to the body of the US Constitution, Article I, Section 2, paragraph 2; USC, Art. II, Section 1, paragraph 5; USC, Art. IV, Section 2, paragraph 1, etc.]  The 14th Amendment also conferred citizenship upon those who were born within the jurisdiction of the United States but was not actually a state, but rather a territory.  Also, consider the Chinese who were used in the building of the railroads, they too did not have any citizenship…this amendment gave them that.  Keep in mind, what ever Congress give, Congress can take away.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was the next step conferring rights (privileges actually) upon the previously know slaves.  The Civil Rights Act of 1866 time and again had mentioned the rights given and to be enjoyed by the previously known slaves “…as is enjoyed by white citizens…”  Afterward, the Enforcement Act of 1870 was ratified as a means of enforcing the civil rights which were conferred upon the newly freed  men.  Because these acts were not granting any rights to the original class of Citizen, as they were already in possession of their “inalienable Rights.”  Inalienable Rights, as noted in the Declaration of Independence, are God-given and no one can take them away nor can you just give them away.  The conferred Rights are rights that are actually a privilege because they are given by men via a piece of paper and what is written and given on paper can also be taken away.

Congress has a list of functions that the Congress are obligated to perform [refer to USC, Article I, Section 8], which consists of only 18 obligations.  Giving citizenship was not among them.  So a plan was devised to occupy the southern states and treat them as a conquered people, create laws in the interim, and then create and ratify the necessary amending Articles to the US Constitution – thereby, making the previous laws the law of the land.  As each state is accepted into the union, they must accept the USC as the law of the land and must support and defend it.

I have read the three treatise by Dave Champion:  Constitutions, Citizenship, and 14th Amendment Clarified.  He has done far more study on the subject than I, his arguments (from the constitution, various acts, and US Supreme Court cases are very compelling.  I would highly suggest that you read the three separate treatise by Mr. Champion, they will give you quite a bit of insight. I have read them, the Freedmen’s Bureau Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the Enforcement Act of 1870.  I have done that so I may have some understanding what I am looking for in the Dredd Scott cases (1856) which was decided by the US Supreme Court and is roughly 110 pages.

On a personal note, I have recently been summoned for jury duty.  This subject matter has bearing upon this, in that, the question asked by the court was “Are you a citizen of the United States?”  Anytime prior to 5, or so, years ago I would have said YES with pride.  However, that statement has a very specific legal meaning, stemming from the 14th Amendment.  From all my studies I have, in fact, determined that I was not, but rather I am, or classified as, a “Citizen of the United States,” a “Citizen of the several States,” a “Citizen of the state of Union,” or a “Citizen of Nebraska.”  I pretty much told them to take their pick and made reference to the USC.  You may think me nuts, and that is alright – no two people ever agree on everything.  But many of these arguments were gleaned from the Dredd Scott case (that is why I will read the case because I want to verify and see with my own eyes.)

Let me know what you think, I am interested.

See also  Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

Another resource I have is a book by West Publishing entitled “The American Constitution” 3rd Ed.

One of those Poetic Moments…

Child in the Womb
What I would say to my child in the womb.
I would say that even though you are not yet born,
I will love you forever!
Even though you are defenseless,
I will protect you with my life.
You are not here in my arms,
But you are in a much safer place.
I cannot wait until you arrive,
That I may hold you tight and
That I may caress your tiny, frail hands.
One day I will teach you what I know—
I pray that you grow wise from this.
It is my hope that you will grow a peaceful loving sort,
With the strength and courage to protect
Those weaker than yourself,
As I imagine myself.
It is my wish that you will be
The joy of my heart and soul.
It is my belief that I will fashion myself
As your friend and your confidant.
I tremble at the thought,
That I may exasperate you without cause,
And due to no fault of your own.
I have asked God for you
And accept the responsibility to be
Your guide throughout your childhood.
I can see clearly now,
That a day will come and you will leave,
You will start your own family
With what I have taught you,
I pray you will be prepared.
Although, I see that day—
Far off as it may be,
It will be as though my heart was
Pierced by an enemy’s blade.
Boy or girl, son or daughter—
It matters not.
As long as you grow tall, strong, and proud.
This is what I would say to my
Child in the womb.

by dM Buteau

Quotable Moments in Time…

“The right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression, if they are strong enough, either by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable.”  ~US Grant (1822-1885) 18th President

Even though US Grant spoke these words, it is apparent that his belief was that he who was stronger should win both the battle and the war.  Despite what was at stake.

In The News…

It is very disconcerting that we hear of so many underhanded things by our government through the alternative media and not by way of the mainstream (or lame-stream) media. I find these articles to be of significant importance, because it shows a pattern of behavior by our government that is very anti-American. The NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT (promoted by Sen. John McCain-AZ) has an amendment to be added to permit a person (citizen or non-citizen) to be arrested and detained (indefinitely), then handed over to the military for detainment if they are branded a terrorist. That particular label makes no bones about if there is any evidence against the person being labeled. hmmmmm? What makes matters worse is that this bill promotes a “Secret Police” similar to that of Germany’s Stazi, or the Russian KGB, etc. You think I am joking, that is fine. Read on…

It is a well established matter of law that it is an individual right to keep and bear arms (see the Heller case in which Justice Antonin Scolia wrote the decision of the majority.) But look at the recent history during the Hurricane Katrina (2005) and the point in time where the Parish County Sheriff had taken it upon himself to confiscate the weapons of law abiding citizens, with the assistance of the Army National Guard, “for the safety of the people?.” Rather strange if you ask me, because the only people protected by this action would have been the gangs and thieves of the now unprotected homes – considering the fact that 911 would not respond to a robbery in progress, as there were more pressing matters.

In 2008 there was a force of Marines detached to a suburb of Indianapolis to learn suburban fighting and disarming skills. Not all of the residents were thrilled to see them, especially for that purpose. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 in effect stated that military was not to be used on American soil; however, it is an ever present abuse these days because no one pays attention to what is going on. The John Warner Defense Act and the USA (un)Patriotic Acts (I & II) have pretty much stolen many of our rights. The government which serves and represents you has this nasty tendency to abrogate your rights by indicating that in an emergency they can do these things as it is an emergency the safety of all is their primary concern! The original protectors of the constitution and US Soil was and is the militia of the several states. The militia has not been discarded or done away with, it is just not kept up or maintained, they are still in the US Constitution, but we are not activated. Neither the military, the reserves, or the national guard are not the militia…the people are! Pay attention to your history. Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr has written many articles concerning the topic of the militia which are very informative. The big question is if the government is watching over us, who is watching over them as they have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar several times??? Unfortunatly, some with their pants down others with their shirts off, hmm.

Now with Attorney General Holder in the hot seat over Fast and Furious another matter comes to bear…he remains in office having perjured himself and misleading the senate hearings and will not step down nor fire anyone for knowingly handing and permitting weapons to fall into the hands of the Cartels in Mexico. BUT a gun family is about to loose everything because the US Attorney say the people which they sold weapons to that they “knew, or should have known” were gun traffickers for Mexican drug gangs. hmmmm? Really?

I repeat my question: WHO WILL WATCH THE WATCHERS??

Read more:






Feds go overboard to punish gun family http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=374881#ixzz1g4tCpIfL