Thursday, December 20, 2012

General Welfare, Part 2

Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;.......

Now that I have a better understanding of this clause it astounds me how much we've taken it out of its literary and historical context, completely ignoring words in the text and their meanings, like "common" and "general", "duties, imposts, and excises". "General welfare", for example, means national welfare or benefit, according to the Heritage Guide to the Constitution; not local or regional benefit, but the benefit of the whole.
     To understand the concept of the whole we must understand how the Founders thought, that is, their meaning of  "United States". It may shock you to hear that the United States is not in itself a republic.The United States is a federation or corporation of fifty republics where each state is a sovereign, republican nation. A republic is a self-governing entity. The United Nations (notwithstanding its corruptness) is a federation or corporation of sovereign, self-governing nations. It is not a nation in itself but a governing body. The United States, by statute, is a federal (from the word "federation") governing body representing fifty self-governing nations. Our Constitution does not say that the United States is a Republic, as the Pledge of Allegiance indicates: "I pledge allegiance to the flag....and to the Republic (singular) for which it stands". It says....
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of  Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion, and on application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."  Article 4, Section 4

In other words, the United States, the Federal governing body, shall guarantee to each State of the Union its sovereignty, the right to govern itself. It is the nature of statehood.

Perhaps it's time to revisit the Pledge of Allegiance. According to Constitutional law, the general welfare is to be provided for by the general government only in the context of protecting the States against invasion from foreign nations and violence between themselves. Then, is social security tax under the umbrella of the general welfare? Is medicare tax? Obamacare? Welfare? Anything on that whole liberty-eroding, wealth-stealing list of federal programs?

Man, the truth really has a way of getting you pissed off, doesn't it?

Monday, December 17, 2012

The General Welfare, Part 1

  We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.       The Preamble
     The general government has for many years used the Preamble to justify its legislative intervention in the domestic affairs of American citizens. Many people have used to it to justify our welfare state. The general misinterpretation is that our government is to provide for all our needs. It is a dangerous misinterpretation. The Heritage Foundation  takes an instructive look at the Preamble of the Constitution in historical context.    

To summarize.......
1. The Preamble was placed in the Constitution as an afterthought by Gouvernour Morris, independent of the Constitutional Convention. Preambles were declarative statements and neither granted nor limited power.
2. The Preamble was created in light of its counterpart in the Articles of Confederation. It was a general declaration between the states to insure military protection and the security of religious liberty, free trade, sovereignty, etc. It was an agreement among states, not people. That is, it did not involve the private matters of individual Americans. This is what was meant by the "general welfare". 
     The Preamble reads "promote the general welfare" . Provide is not the same as promote. The general government is to  "provide for the common defense", but it is to "promote the general welfare". Promote means to encourage to exist. Provide means to furnish, supply or equip. "General welfare" is applicable to the whole rather than to particular parts. For example, to federally fund the building of a highway in Illinois is beneficial only to the people within Illinois. It has no direct benefit to any other state of the union and therefore cannot be regarded as being in the general welfare. Concerning the domestic affairs of the states and we the people of the states, the general government is simply to promote our welfare by LEAVING US ALONE. But we've been psychologically conditioned to the contrary.
     Our President is quoted as saying  the Constitution, our national law, the very compact he himself studied and swore an oath to God to uphold and protect, is "a charter of negative liberties", and uses the civil rights movement to demonstrate its "flaws". Google it and hear it for yourself. Does this not raise a giant red flag in your mind?

Friday, December 14, 2012

The Nature Of The Oath

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."  The President's Oath of Office.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that i take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will act well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter; so help me God."  The Congressional Oath of Office.

"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.  So help me God."                     
The Supreme Court Justice Oath of Office

What is an oath? An oath is more than a promise between two human beings. An oath is a covenant between a human being and God. The Latin word for oath is sacramentum from which comes the word "sacrament".
In the Hebrew swearing an oath has a strong connotation. When God’s name is called out, the oath becomes consecrated and sealed. It is broken under penalty. Therefore, to swear an oath is also to curse oneself. In the Old Testament, when one swears an oath (sacrament) and fails to live up to it, the curses of the covenant are unleashed - conquest, slavery, exile, pestilence (Deut. 28). 
     In our society, there is little awareness of the seriousness of an oath. We take God’s name in vain (a.k.a. “so help me God”) and give it not a second thought. In our swearing- in ceremonies it becomes a simple formality, a show. Not in God's eyes. But who is there to hold them accountable to their oath if the people, particularly God's people, do not know the Constitution themselves? For certain, God is not mocked. Face it people, we are experiencing the curses of violating the covenant - conquest, slavery, exile, pestilence - on a different level, in the form of the progressive loss of our individual liberties and subversion of our sovereignty. We are no longer significant. 
     They, the President, Congress, the Supreme Court, are consistently violating the Constitutional law they themselves swore to uphold and preserve and defend, and we have unknowingly let them  get away with it. They are calling it "out-of-date" only because it limits their power. Our President says it has serious flaws. For him, for his personal program, it has flaws. For the people, it protects our liberties and protects us from the constraints and conscriptions of government.and it is the law. Biblical principle undergirds it. Individuals in power simply don't like to be constrained, and they count on our lack of knowledge. Well, we haven't let them down. So the President is stamping executive decrees all over the place and right on the forehead of Congress in the name of "fairness", and "equal opportunity" and "national security", but in direct defiance of Constitutional law. And to many, he's a hero. Congress has long ago given its Constitutional control of our national currency over to the Federal Reserve which, by the way, 1) is not a federal agency, and 2) has no reserves and has never had reserves and consequently it has crippled us economically. But that's another subject.
     Is it too late for us? All I can say is, it's never too late to educate yourself and fight for what is right in God's eyes.

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

The Tangled Web Of Taxation - Part 1

     What a tangled web of ignorance we have woven on the issue of taxes. The debate is endless, as hard-working people like us sink deeper into the quicksand of poverty at the hands of the greedy few, as they assure us that raising taxes on people will solve everything. How the American tax system was meant to be is to us like a dense fog. Seems nobody really knows, especially those who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. Or they don't care to know. It's working pretty good for them just the way it is. I'd like to clear away some of that fog, if only to sacrifice the blissfulness of my own ignorance and get a good painful look at the way things were supposed to be. The truth really does hurt.
     The underlying principle within the Constitution is the sovereignty of the states in all domestic matters. The Federal government has no jurisdiction in a State of the Union and the citizens of that State. It cannot assess or collect taxes where it has no jurisdiction. It does have, however, direct taxing authority in those territories that it has purchased - District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin islands, American Samoa - and any foreign business or corporation operating within the geographical United States. These kind of taxes are called "excise" taxes. They are taxes on a privilege. The government is granting foreigners the privilege to operate a business within the states.
     Believe it or not, the government does not have the Constitutional authority to directly tax any American business owned by an American citizen. It has no authority to directly tax the wages of an American citizen. For the American citizen, operating a business and making a living is a RIGHT, not a privilege. A right cannot be taxed. Only the State has the authority to tax its citizens if it so chooses, and that in proportion to its population. The government has the authority to tax any foreigner working within any State, but not a  citizen of that State. So how do you explain the 16th Amendment?  

The Tangled Web Of Taxation - Part 2

     "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
     As of 1787 income was defined as earnings derived from earnings on land or capital, such as crop sales, rents, interest, dividends, or capital gains; that is income derived from corporate activity and asset transactions. It did not include income derived from a person's wages. The Supreme Court in Brushaber upheld this as the Constitutional directive, and it was never overturned. Just ignored over time. 
     Next, taxes "apportioned among the several States" are direct taxes. Taxes not apportioned among the several States and without regard to the population of the State are excise taxes, taxes on privileges. To whom does the Federal government grant privileges? Another question is, what privileges does the Federal government grant to American citizens? The answer is none. Because the federal government does not own the citizens of the 50 sovereign States, but the citizens of the 50 sovereign States own the Federal government. A State can grant privileges to its citizens, but the Federal government cannot.The federal government can only grant privileges to foreigners who are not American citizens, because for them to do anything in this country is a privilege. The 16th Amendment confirms Congress' taxing power limited to foreigners and foreign corporations doing business within the continental United States. It does not give Congress the authority, as we have been brainwashed to accept by blind faith, to tax the wages, to seize the private property of the citizens of the States for any well-meaning purpose.
    The 16th Amendment does not contradict any other clause relating to taxes. It only clarifies it. What is this saying? The Constitution is our law. This makes the Federal income tax illegal. Corporate taxes illegal. Any kind of direct tax by the Federal government upon the State citizen illegal. But the government has, since the inception of our Constitution, abused its power. We've allowed it to happen because of our lack of knowledge of the law. We've allowed the government to dictate how things are to be, in violation of our sacred national law.
     Yeah.... that makes me sick to my stomach, too.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

What Kind Of Faith?

When the Bible says, "Without faith it is impossible to please God" I have to wonder, what kind of faith? Now that I've been through phases of adversity and growth, I see two kinds of faith - blind faith and understanding faith. The former has caused me much trouble. And I see it on a national level. We are walking by blind faith. Whatever our leaders say, whatever the media outlets say, that's what we are to believe. We are to trust them. They know what they're talking about. Let them do our thinking for us and everything will be fine. Have the audacity to question, and you're unpatriotic. Same thing occurs in the church. "If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit." So I don't believe God is talking about just any kind of faith.
     Understanding faith, on the other hand, is what truly gives one stability and protects one from deception.  It is faith based on knowledge. And knowledge is something we have to constantly search for like hidden treasure. But who these days really want knowledge, especially the knowledge of self? Knowledge is work.

The Real Meaning of United States

I've been reading the Constitution quite intently these days and discovered something interesting:

Article IV, section 4 :
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion;en reading the constitution much more intently these days and discovered something interesting.

Amendment X :
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it (the Constitution) to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Notice the distinction made between the "United States" and the "States". There is a difference! They are not the same! According to the Code of Federal Regulations, sec. 1.638, the statutory definition of the "United States" is the federal zone, any territory purchased or owned by the Federal government. When a federal territory or possession becomes a State (i.e., Illinois) it is no longer a federal territory. It is no longer subject to the legislative jurisdiction of the Federal government except in matters foreign. A State has the authority to govern itself in all matters domestic, including taxation (I'll get to that issue in another post). That is a "republican form of government". 

Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution ……..
“The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.

None of the 50 sovereign states are the property of the United States, the statutory Federal zone.  Only Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin islands, Washington, DC, and other federal territories that are not legal States are subject to the rules and regulations of the Federal government. Now do you see why this stuff was not taught in school?

Thursday, November 22, 2012

Spending Money on a Tax Cut?

Somebody, please help me out with this one. I'm clearly not the smartest person in the world, but when I heard this said in the first debate between Obama and Romney I said, "Huh?". Another one of those things that didn't make sense. ".....the money that we spend on tax cuts." How do you spend money on a tax cut? How do you spend money by allowing us to keep what's already ours? Some kind of psychological hi-jinks going on here.
     Are they trying to convince us that by allowing us to keep what is already ours anyway they are giving us something? Our wages are our private property. The Constitution, the code of Federal Regulations and the Supreme court ruled long ago that a person's wages are not to be touched. Yet by letting us keep our private property, they want us to believe they are giving us something. The way to stop spending, according to them, is to take more. Another lie. The way to stop spending is to stop borrowing and let us keep what belongs to us! Don't let anything slide, folks. Question and examine everything that comes out of their mouths.

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Don't Put It On God

Sometimes I have to question the way we Christians think. We have a very subtle, self-righteous way of weaseling out of personal responsibility. We piously ask God to put in Office whom He wants to be there. Whoever ends up there is who He put there.What of the person who ends up disregarding biblical principles? What of the person who disregards all Constitutional guidelines? Did God put that person there? Did God all of a sudden just rig the whole electoral system so that that person would supernaturally be there? Didn't he give human beings freedom of choice?
    The story of Samuel and Saul in 1 Samuel 8 tells me something about God's will. There are two sides to it:   God's perfect will and His permissive will. The last sentence in the book of Judges tells us that there was no king in Israel and every man did what was right in his own eyes. They wanted a king so they could be like the rest of the world. Having God as their king wasn't sufficient. Better politics or better government would meet their needs. In asking for a king they were rejecting the God who could meet all their needs. They rejected God's perfect will. In his permissive will, He gave them what they were stubbornly asking for.
"And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the LORD will not hear you in that day.” 
What they got according to the text was not a king who gives, but a king who takes from them. The key is, we have chosen for ourselves. Samuel warned them. God has ways of warning us about our choices. Then, in our defiance to His perfect will, He allows us to have what we want and lets us experience the harsh consequences of our choices. We cannot escape personal responsibility. Now we have a bunch of leaders who are taking from us. So don't put it on Him.

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

The Commerce Clause.

This Commerce clause thing has been knocked around a lot lot these past few months in the Obamacare wave, and the Supreme Court has even flexed its twisted muscle and said "We have the final say so in this matter. And we say it's Constitutional." Oh, really? Aren't these guys supposed to know history? I just read a quote from Martin Luther. He said, "....this life is not the dwelling place of righteousness." True that. History teaches us, when it comes to government doing the right thing for its people, we'd best  lower our expectations. At least I have. Call it cynicism. I call it reality.
     But let's be idealists for a moment, if perhaps it could give us a little comfort at least in knowing how things were meant to be. What is this Commerce clause? 

 (Article 1, Sect. 8, Clause 3)
Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.

·         “Regulate”, not “legislate”. Regulate means to make regular.
        “Among”, not “within”. Among means between the states; interstate, not intra-state.

·         U.S. Code of Federal Regulations – Title 49, Sect. 10501
          Limits Congress’ regulatory jurisdiction to commercial interstate transportation.
        Original intent - Congress given the power to resolve trade conflicts and to insure a free trade zone between the states. That's it. Congress nor the President has the authority to make any kind of domestic policy within any State of the Union, except in the realm of interstate commercial transportation, and that limited to railroad. Yes, we've been had.....for a long time.

Friday, November 16, 2012

An Unforgettable Departure

It was the voice of one crying in the Congressional wilderness. But he didn't depart in shame. He went out with the guns of Constitutional liberty a-blazing. In his exit speech, there was no utopian rhetoric, no endorsements, no boasting about personal successes, no lofty promises that usually spew forth from the mouths of politicians. But in his voice you could discern the disappointment with his many colleagues.No, his speech was dripping with blunt realism. He made sure he left upon our minds no illusions about the present state of our nation and the world. I'm proud of him. I was one of many who wrote his name into the blank space on the ballot. I knew full well he wasn't going to win. Didn't matter. I read his books, heard him talk, observed him being disrespected and ridiculed for his stand on sound principle. He left a permanent footprint on my consciousness. He awakened me to the idea that if no one else, especially our government, embraces the principles of the Constitution, our national law, which is under-girded by the Bible itself, I still have the responsibility to know it, understand it, and even suffer for it if and when it comes to that. He said, "I can no longer participate in a government that's out of control." How's that for conscience? He is a living example of a prophet not being welcome in his own country. His unyielding stance against every liberty-destroying thing, from the Federal Reserve's destructive influence on monetary policy to our government's insatiable desire to control other countries in the name of "democracy". But it's a dangerous message, at least to those who stand to lose from such a message. So he has to be silenced. They tried, but his message got out to the people anyway. They were persistent in their attempt to silence him. They severely limited his talking time during the Republican debates. They shut him and his delegates out of the Republican National Convention. Isn't that illegal? His message was the right message, but no one wants to hear the right message, the message of real accountability.
    Well, one thing for sure. The message of Constitutional and biblical liberty will not die.There are a few Davids out there who will thoroughly educate themselves and others, and gear up to challenge, Declaration-of-Independence style, the government Goliath.
 Ron Paul's Resignation Speech

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Welcome To The Fiscal Cliff

     How many crises have been dropped on our heads in the past few years? Let's see, we have the banking crisis, the housing crisis, the auto crisis, the debt-ceiling crisis, the threat of a government shutdown.  Did I miss anything? Now we have (tada!) the "fiscal cliff!" Maybe it's just me but something smells rotten.  Especially since long-ago certain serious and unselfish individuals, like Ron Paul, have persistently given such warnings and Congress turned a deaf ear to those warnings. The President told us recently during his campaign "The private sector is doing fine." On what planet? That statement insults our intelligence.  Clear thinking Americans know we are headed to the edge of a cliff and you can't convince us otherwise. So, they decide to play a different card.  Same game different card. All of the sudden, right after the election, John Boehner is concerned about this "fiscal cliff."  Now "fiscal cliff" is being knocked around on the media tennis court. I smell a rat. Could it be another doomsday scenario manufactured by both parties to frighten the American people into accepting the theft of more of our hard-earned wealth?  Another doomsday  scenario designed to redistribute our wealth instead of doing the right thing, which is to eliminate useless, parasitic programs and departments, eliminate Federal taxes all together, and have the States take back their Constitutional authority? I'm sorry, does that sound too Jeffersonian, too out of touch with the times? This would give us enough traction to keep us from going over into the abyss.
   In fact, let me rephrase that. Ask me, we've already driven over the fiscal cliff. Having abandoned all moral principle and Constitutional guideline, trillion and trillions of dollars in debt that can never be paid back, leading to the bankruptcy of our children's future. I'd say we are already taking an "Inception-like" plunge into the abyss, unless we can grab hold of a life-saving branch on the side of the cliff by doing the aforementioned right things.But I don't really believe this is what they have in mind. They don't solicit our opinion. They don't ask our permission, even though they are supposed to. The people are sovereign. But It doesn't matter what the American people need or want. What matters is what they, the bureaucracy and the central banking gangsters, stand to gain or lose. Somebody spray in here, it stinks.

Monday, November 12, 2012

A Victory For Who?

Who really wins with this Presidential victory? Have the people won? Once again we have taken the bait of utopian rhetoric from both sides, deviating from reason, spiritual principle, discipline, Constitutional law, replacing our self-sufficiency as sovereign individuals with dependence on government to meet our every need. What happened to our national pride? What happened to our sense of history? Oh, I forgot. Times have changed. The Constitution is ancient history. It's no longer relevant. 
     God kept telling his people to "Remember..." Retain your sense of history, because this is where your true prosperity lies - spiritually, economically, educationally. We've abandoned it and settled for a counterfeit national "pride"; and for my people, a counterfeit "black pride", one fostered by an unbalanced sense of entitlement. "The world owes me everything." Our politicians and our preachers have been spoon-feeding it to us for years. We're getting what we asked for. But I'm afraid we're going to lose much more in our personal liberties than we gain in our appetites. It's those who are trying to live right who will suffer the most.
     No, this is no victory. There's a storm-a-coming.