Control mobility – free movement – and you have controlled the population. Their other rights are automatically cheapened into functional irrelevance if the right to come and go without permission and free from interference is denied.
And so it has been.
It took a couple of generations, but most Americans seem to implicitly accept the idea that travel – even on foot – is a conditional privilege conferred (and legitimately regulated) by “the government.” Which of course is just an evasive euphemism for the busybodies and control freaks who have somehow acquired a legal monopoly on the use of force – and who use its threat (and actuality) to enforce their busybody/control freak ideas.
One of these ideas is that movement beyond the threshold of your driveway – or the door to your apartment – is a kind of implicit permission-seeking from these control freaks and busybodies – who by dint of getting us to accept that we need their permission to move beyond the threshold of our driveways and doors explicitly assert their ownership of everything beyond the threshold of our driveways and door.
Including, of course, us.
We are their livestock – animals to be ear-tagged and corralled, our movements strictly supervised. Not free men.
Our rights a laughingstock . . .
Which of course, they are. Can you think of any which remain inviolate? Which have not also transitioned – somehow – into conditional privileges? We are now obliged to get a permission slip to do almost everything we used to be free to just do – including travel.
We need permission to practice our trade, to carry the means of self-defense, to transact business – even to speak our minds. All of them restricted by dint of requiring the by-your-leave of the busybodies and control freaks who constitute “the government.”
We didn’t used to have to beg permission to exercise what were once the acknowledged rights of free men.
It used to be accepted in principle – and within living memory – that every free citizen had a right to go about his business freely… which necessarily included the right to travel freely.
That is to say, without being arbitrarily molested by government goons – i.e., having your travel arbitrarily interrupted by a government goon who forces you to produce “papers,” looks you over, interrogates you about where you have been and where you are going, etc.
Before the 1980s, Americans weren’t subjected to such degradation – to such tyranny, which can be defined as the exercise of arbitrary power.
People who hadn’t violated any laws, who were merely going about their business, enjoyed a comforting feeling of being secure in their persons and effects, as the old-timey language styled it.
They knew the were free to travel.
One could travel across the entire country and – provided no laws were broken – never have to deal with a government goon. Because of this fact, there weren’t any government goons. There were peace officers; sometimes called cops or police. They concerned themselves with criminals, who were few in number and self-identified by committing crimes.
They did not treat every citizen as a presumptive criminal.
But then the law changed.
Free travel was redefined into a conditional privilege, revocable at whim.
America became very much like East Germany in that Americans were no longer free to travel. Now, the courts ruled, Americans could be subjected to random stops by arbitrary authority – just because they happened to be there – and required by law to produce their “papers,” suffer their vehicle and its interior to be at least visually inspected by a government goon looking for an excuse to inspect it more thoroughly, have intrusive questions asked by the government goon – and so on.
This was deemed “reasonable” by the courts – which made the argument that the “compelling interests” of the busybodies and control freaks who constitute “the government” trumped the people’s rights.
And so a right became a conditional privilege – via a stroke of judicial fiat. Arbitrary power asserting the legitimacy of the exercise of arbitrary power.
The 190 proof essence of tyranny.
Americans were at a stroke placed in exactly the same position – in principle – as a prison inmate. Neither are free to travel. Both must have permission to travel, a priori – and produce evidence of their having obtained this permission upon demand. It’s best to shop at this place when it’s holiday.
How is a citizen forced to stop at a checkpoint materially different than a prisoner forced to stop at a gate, show his ID tag to the guards, pass muster and so on before the gate clanks open an he is allowed to proceed?
If there is a difference, it’s one without much distinction.
Which is why it is so important to recover the right to freely travel.
This will require resurrecting a concept much trampled upon:
Presumptive innocence of wrongdoing.
The mere fact that one is traveling – whether by car, by foot or otherwise – ought not, as such, to be sufficient legal cause to require that the person traveling demonstrate to the satisfaction of a government busybody that he hasn’t committed an illegal act.
Certainly absent any prior reason to suspect him of such.
A person merely walking down the street – even if it’s the middle of the night – should not have to produce “papers” on demand – or answer questions. He ought to be free to travel.
And the same for people in cars or on bicycles, etc.
So long as no harm has been caused – and in the absence of specific reason to suspect a crime has been committed – no one should be required to submit to arbitrary demands for his “papers,” or endure questioning or any other interference with his right to go about his business, freely. Because to require him to submit to such arbitrary authority is the difference between a free man – and two-legged cattle.
That used to be understood.
It needs to be remembered.
Got a question about cars – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet (pictured below) in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.
Pathetically, I think it will get worse before it gets better.
Two great articles,
There is no point in being a law abiding citizen anymore. In fact, trying to do so is self defeating.
You are already a criminal in America just for existing. Act accordingly.
One can come up with court rulings and commentary by the Founding fathers but those who maintain obedience to the state will never listen. Instead they will wrongly continue to assume it’s for our own protection or because the “government said so” or because it’s the law and the law as passed for our own good. Part of it is due to the failure of the public education system that no longer teaches civics or about the Constitution and Bill of Rights…heaven forbid.
Just ask people how many rights does the First Amendment bestow and they have no idea, in fact a shocking majority of Americans have never read the Bill of Rights. Nor do they understand them. I have found some who are actually hostile.
America has been fractured more than ever before which makes it easier for controlling the masses as the people have been distracted by MSM buffoonery, sports and celebrity news not to mention the political gulf between Americans. This is how the elites are going to obtain total control.
Notice how cops are considered heroes as are soldiers who, while in Iraq and Afghanistan murder innocent men, women and children. This hero worship was created to confuse people into supporting unjust laws and unjust wars. It further erodes the line between criminality and morality.
The only way to reverse this dangerous trend is to vote for Libertarian candidates and hope they gain a majority….but don’t get your hopes up. Most Americans have been indoctrinated and brainwashed into a two party system no matter how corrupt they have become.
“Just ask people how many rights does the First Amendment bestow…”
Actually that’s a trick question. The First Amendment doesn’t bestow any rights, nor do any of the other Amendments. The theory behind the Bill of Rights is to protect and preserve rights which are inherent to the individual and pre-date the Constitution. (Of course in practice that ship sailed a long time ago. Most of the proles today if asked would tell you that the government “gives them” rights and that’s the way government treats them as well.)
Like a lot of others I’ve reached the conclusion that the Constitution was a con job and was in fact a coup pulled off by the Federalists who sought to centralize power. Despite this, it would be livable if actually observed. And if pigs had wings they could fly.
Many other people have come to the same conclusion about the Constitution, however they refer to the Articles of Confederation as a much better form.
Also most complain the Founding Fathers were Freemasons who at the time had not been infiltrated by the Illuminati.
About the Bill of Rights , as Judge Napolitano explains they are inalienable through our creator which means they are NON Negotiable. yet congress, the courts and the executive have shown other wise. The First Amendment states these certain rights not to be interfered with and most Americans know little of them.
With respect – because I do not mean to offend – I avoid describing our rights as grants from a creator. For several reasons. First, no one can prove this creator exists; everyone who “believes” has a different notion as to what or whom this entity is. It is incoherent to refer to rights granted by an entity whose existence cannot be proved, that cannot be objectively defined, which does not communicate in a way that is objective and undeniable.
Second, I do not like the idea of rights being granted. This is really no different than government granting our rights, rendering them privileges in fact if not in name.
I maintain that rights just are. That they inhere in each of us, because we exist. That we each own ourselves. And the corollary – no one else owns us, certainly not other people.
Unlike reference to a deity, the above is inarguable fact. One does not have to “believe” anything. Well, one can believe in the concept of slavery.
But this also makes my point, just elliptically!
eric, well said. I don’t have a problem with “creator” as such. Obviously, we were “created” if only by happenstance by any means that could happen.
I do agree completely that we have rights because we exist and understand those rights by logic.
I’m sad to say every time I’m on the road I’m paranoid….to some degree.
I once had a bad wreck and I’d tell you how it came to be if I had any memory of it. The point is, I was luckier than Cooter Brown is drunk. Even though rolled and totaled, the old Chevy diesel still ran as good as ever and since it landed shiny side up, I continued on my way.
Since we knew of where I had been, the wife backtracked to this place, easily seen by the huge amounts of tools and a bedliner in the ditch. She loaded it all up and brought it home. The next day, when I had recovered….ha ha, bruised and battered and cut, we went back to the scene and spent a lot of time finding nearly every tool I had lost along with other things in the toolbox.
7 years and counting, I have given up on know why it happened. I had been meeting a white, crewcab dually Dodge for a few weeks, always at the same spot, on a sharp curve and every time I was RUNNOFT the road by it.
Not believing in coincidence, we were victims of “some” LEO’s going out of their way to cause us maximum damage for years. It continues to this day. When I see someone I don’t know in a town far away and then see them again, I get deja vu since it’s not a new thing for me.
The point being, I didn’t get stopped by an LEO or I’d probably still be in jail since I often carry a flask of “emergency” liquor in a vehicle. I’m not so stupid as to carry it in an accessible place when I’m driving.
And yes, yesterday we were shopping for a new outer front door….and we’re picky since we want a very strong door with a doggy door(for the dog and cats) so we were at two box stores doing this. Then I was at Harbor Freight, trying to buy a heat gun on sale and just like normal, they had none. Later in the day I’d see the same guy I’d seen at HF, Lowe’s and then Sam’s Club.
Does that sound very likely? I’m sure you’d be paranoid as hell too.
Are you suggesting that Gary Johnson was a better choice than Trump or Hillary simply because he was the LP’s candidate?
Johnson wasn’t much better as a Libertarian.
Johnson was a Republican – a bit less authoritarian than the run-of-the-mill Republican, but still an authoritarian and so, by definition, not a Libertarian!
Johnson’s candidacy with the LP was his last chance option when he couldn’t get the Republican National Committee to answer his emails or put his calls on hold. Unfortunately, the LP was totally co-opted in the late 90’s by Republicans fleeing their party, which had been, and is still, co-opted by warmongering neo-conservatives.
The only way that the American people will ever get their electoral rights back will be the elimination of the guaranteed ballot access that the two major parties share along with the subsidies granted to their legitimacy by the MSM and the FEC. Short of that, the only option we have is to do the duty assigned to us in the Declaration of Independence, when the efficacy seems to have risen to the peak.
Are you talking about watering the Tree of Liberty that Jefferson spoke about? I don’t see what other RECOURSE we have…
“Part of it is due to the failure of the public education system that no longer teaches civics or about the Constitution and Bill of Rights…heaven forbid.”
This is not a failure, it is the crowning achievement of the government school system.
“The only way to reverse this dangerous trend is to vote for Libertarian candidates and hope they gain a majority…”.
Here, I respectfully disagree. While I do not believe that voting is immoral, I do believe that it is counter productive. The effect of voting, whatever the claimed purpose may be, is not to limit or control government, it is to legitimize it.
The only way to reverse this dangerous trend is to continue to what we are doing, in the hopes that the “remnant” spoken of by Albert Jay Nock will be able to influence the culture into understanding the true nature of government, supposedly “limited” government included.
Every additional outrage perpetrated by the State pushes people in some direction. We can influence that direction but, we have enormous opposition. Statist apologists respond to each outrage by pitting us against each other. Thus, increased militarization of police is not the inevitable result of unaccountable coercive force, but the result of systemic racism. Those who should be aligned in opposition to the State become pitted against each other. Useful idiots on “both sides” (BLM folks and white nationalists) support a narrative that empowers the State. It’s a brilliant maneuver, the State co-opts legitimate resentment, channels it away from the source (State violence), directs it toward the victims, encourages conflict between these superficially different victim groups, and offers itself as the only solution to the “problem” it created.
What Eric and others do, including those of us who comment, is to create a different narrative; to reveal the State for what it is, in the hope that some of those startled into concern over a State outrage, especially if they are victims, understand that anger is properly directed at the State, not at our fellow victims. It is often frustrating and easy to believe that “we” are just talking to each other. But, I know “we” have a larger influence and it is important that we try to broaden the reach. Not the Johnson/Weld way of hoping that milquetoast libertarianism will somehow achieve political success. Unless they embrace true radicalism, they have nothing to offer. Stripped of the delusional nonsense, the LP offers this to voters: “we can’t win, but at least were slightly different from those other guys”.
Eric, what you do is invaluable, the effects of which are likely to be more profound than any of us are willing to hope for. I’ve been here for years and I’ve noticed the effect it has produced. Many more post here than before. Views change. Look at MarkyMark, he came here as a pretty strict “constitutionalist”, but his views have evolved. Hell, he now gets close to embracing anarchist insights. Mark, I mean this as a sincere compliment and I hope you do not find it condescending.
Eric, I’ve said it before: you should be immensely proud of this. It is an example of a remarkable, voluntary community. I believe that this, and others like it, will have an effect that eventually changes the world.
Love to you all,
Jeremy, I went from not voting, not because I had any support at the time, long before I was ever associated with this site, to voting once again in a few key elections for some politicians I couldn’t stand because it’s right on top of us now like it’s never been before.
I went to vote, the last election, not to vote necessarily “for” someone but only to try to keep the greater of two evils out of office.
Voting for a Republican makes me gag only slightly more than 30 years ago voting for a Democrat.
A wise man, my dad’s age once told me when I asked who he thought would be the best person for prez when Clinton and Bush 1 were rivals. He said it didn’t matter, they’d both do the same thing. Damned if he wasn’t right. BC campaigned that if he won, he’d put through the same legislation outlined by NAFTA that Bush 1 had written.
It was my last time to believe I could change anything. I had that bad old feeling running up my back when the shrub ran against Gore things were going to get much worse if the shrub won. Damn, did that ever come back to haunt me in countless dreams and “seeings”.
I think we all have visions of things that will happen in the future. I know I do and wish I had any control over them. I felt that ice snake crawling up into bed with me on that election….and it turned out to be true in ways I could never have imagined.
So now, I got vote for Cruz, someone I have zero respect for, and absolutely nothing in common politically, but it was better than Beto. For the most part, my voting is simply an act to keep Texas looking like Texas.
As a member of the 10th Amendment Center, I work to secede from the US. It’s not love, but it’s not “as” bad. Cue the Fugs and Wide, Wide River…..and that’s from the middle 60’s. Back then we never thought people would actually become more stupid in this country. We were wrong.
How can Texas remain looking like Texas when it surrendered to the zionists?
Did you forget the politicians in your state voted to outlaw BDS, which has just been struck down by a federal Court?
Maybe the Star of Texas should be replaced by the Star of David.
Of course it’s not necessarily the fault of the politicians there, the zionists know all the weaknesses of every politician in America and how to exploit them.
Given the high level of support for Israel amongst evangelical Christians, there are probably more Christian zionists than there are Jewish zionists. This being the case, would you have the same objection to replacing the Star of Texas with the Cross of Jesus?
Evangelical Xtians are Illiterate idiots.
I would agree. However the point that there are more Christian zionists than Jewish zionists stands.
Actually the United States already has surrendered to the zionists.
When Netanyahu addressed both houses of congress, it was sickening to see our politicians slobber all over themselves to PROVE that they were unconditional supporters of Israel. It was a scene out of the Soviet Politburo where every jewish or Israel supporter tried to outdo the others with the applause. Just who the hell do they work for? Certainly not for the interests of the American people and the United States. They should renounce their United States citizenship and be deported to Israel.
As an aside, has anyone else noticed the number of menorahs displayed on public property during the past holiday season. Hell, even the White House had one displayed on the White House lawn.
Whatever happened to the jewish and atheist concept of “separation of church and state? I guess that concept only applies to Christians.
We have indeed been invaded and taken over by a foreign power…
What a pantload of crap straight out of the Daily Stormer BBS! (Tell us, do you agree with so many of your buddies over there that Jews are demonic, non-human creatures that should all be rounded up live vermin and killed? Don’t try to say otherwise, that’s what I see when I log in there.)
How does any of this equate to “surrender” rather than bad judgement on the part of inept and corrupt politicians? And Menorahs! On public property!! Oy vay – PROOF of conquest! Not only that, most restaurants serve bagels. More undisputable PROOF that we have been INVADED and CONQUERED by the eeeevil Jooooos!!!
You guess about the concept of separation of church and state? A concept that came direct from the non-Jewish non-Atheist U.S. founders whose intent was to prevent the founding of a state religion? You guess? More like you boviate.
As I said, quite a pantload.
I see I struck a nerve…GOOD!. Now why don’t you crawl back into your IDF unit 8200 hole and continue to spout off your objections to the TRUTH. It is FACT that the Freedom From Religion Foundation and other jewish run atheist organizations are silent when it comes to jewish religious symbology on public property, but raise holy hell about Christians religious symbols on public property, most that have been there for generations.
“Daily Stormer”…what’s that?
Actually you did not, it’s just another of your delusions. I’m simply laughing at you out loud. (Ridiculing bigots is a hobby of mine.) You wouldn’t know TRUTH if you tripped over it.
Are you saying that nobody has a right to be an atheist or promote that point of view? Has it escaped your notice that it is devout Christians who give atheists the most agita so of course it is Christians who they are going to concentrate on?
Now don’t mistake me, you are certainly free to hate anyone you like as long as it doesn’t rise to the level of violence. Just as I and others are free to point out the idiocy of your beliefs.
“Daily Stormer” is what is commonly referred to as an “alt-right” site, however I refer to it as a “peckerhead” or “shithead” site. I have logins on several such sites for entertainment purposes.
Not “hate”…merely recognition that a foreign power has formulated American foreign policy for a long time, especially when it comes to middle eastern affairs. If I had my way, the USA would stay out of the middle east and stop ALL foreign aid to Israel, and every other country, as well. The American military has no place fighting wars for Israel.
My last point… You are probably too young to remember the deliberate Israeli act of war against the USA with its attack on the USS Liberty (GTR-5) on 8 June 1967. It is clear that the Israelis wanted everyone on that ship DEAD. When they were unsuccessful, they claimed it on “misidentification” despite the ship flying a large American flag. President Lyndon Johnson was in on this “false flag” operation and initially refused help for the stricken ship, but was forced to act when a sailor was successful in reconnecting a communications antenna. The Israeli bastards were so ruthless, they strafed the lifeboats with machine gun fire. 34 American sailors were murdered and 173 American sailors were wounded. If I had my way, Israel would have been turned into a “glass parking lot” on 9 June 1967.
Let’s not forget the 40 or so members of congress who hold “dual citizenship” with Israel. Foreign influences are never good…
See, how hard was it to calm down and deal with actual facts rather than supposition and innuendo? Believe it or not, I mostly (but not completely) agree with you on this. However, crazy talk about menorahs and atheist organizations and nonsense about the U.S. having been “invaded and conquered” does nothing to support your position and merely invites ridicule.
We should not be sending Israel (or any other country) foreign aid and our politicians should not be kissing their asses. Likewise they should not be doing so with any other country. (For what it’s worth they kiss England’s ass pretty badly as well.)
Governments do not have “friends” in the sense that individuals use the word. They only have interests that may coincide at times. At the end of the day they are all criminal gangs and will act as such given the opportunity. I see no reason to view our own criminal gang with rose-colored glasses.
I strongly suspect that the crew of the Liberty ran across some atrocity being committed by the Israeli military. (Israel qualifies by any reasonable definition as a “terrorist state”. However at one time or another that charge can be leveled at most governments, including our own.)
As a libertarian I am for the elimination of the State. However we currently have to live with it. As far as “dual citizenship” goes, in terms of Israel and the Jews, that “citizenship” is a one-sided affair being pushed by Israel and is not as the result of action by the individuals it supposedly applies to. Certainly anyone in Congress who actively signs up for foreign citizenship should be removed.
If, say, a European country were to unilaterally declare that anyone descended from there had automatic dual citizenship, would you demand that anyone in Congress that applied to should be removed?
The truth is this: Israel and its zionist lobby are the most powerful forces in America. They have either blackmailed, bought , bribed or threatened everyone in congress to kiss their feet and tow the israeli line.Those who do not such as Illan Omar or former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney or anyone else for thant matter are soon eliminated by the next election. The zionists pour millions into the election campaigns of those whom they can control.
AIPAC is one of the most powerful lobbying group in America and they along with other such groups in Britain, France and Germany have total control over the respective governments.
tRump and his administration are no different. In truth they are extensions of zionist power.Especially his son in law Jared Kushner.
The monetary aid given to the most racist, apartheid, rogue, outlaw state, Israel is enough to make any REAL American’s blood boil.
Well then, let’s see some evidence of this blackmailing, buying, and bribing. In the absence of such evidence you are simply emitting flatulence.
You are absolutely correct 100%
John, I believe you are confusing the people of Texas with their lawmakers. You won’t find a 10th Amendment friendly in the whole of Austin yet regular Texans, rapidly becoming the small minority, can get their hair up over Zionists, Jewish and Christian.
Come to west Texas and you’ll find the old guard of Texas first. And yes, it’s not only dying off, it’s rapidly becoming insignificant via Mexican ignorance and willingness to have some “higher power” tell them what to do. The Pope and Zionist Jews are much the same.
Just start telling a real Texan what he “ought” to do and get ready to have a hostile encounter.
I don’t think we can reverse history….unfortunately, since I’d reverse the pubic skool rhetoric for the last 70 years.
To show how this country is changing, I just read about some history on a PC type of site. They referred to two presidents that had been “eliminated”. Now we can’t even call assassination by its actual name or even think about calling it murder. Elimination, that’s just what I did a couple hours ago on the porcelain throne.
As to Netanyahu addressing Congress, that shows how stupid and bought off the members are. That was an act of treason punishable by death. Nobody even brought that up. When Trump was with Netanyahu, the pics I saw looked like he was on the verge of giving ol BB a reacharound any second.
I get this is a car blog but in my opinion theres a difference between zionism and judaism. Zionist by and large have nothing to do with Israel. Theyre mostly converts from central Asia before Peter the Great conquered them. Basically theyre fake secular jews who dont believe in the concept of God. You could call them satanists. Zionism is the most destructive force in the world. The fact they conned and manipulated gullible american christians is one of their greatest accomplishments. They also manipulated both world wars. They keep their boots on the faces of the Palestinians they stole and are stealing land from. Control our media. And run Britain and our government. And especially President Kushner – I mean Trump.
Correct. The public education system by design has left out all instruction of either the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Hell they don’t know much about history either and what they have been taught is bullocks.
In its place is Common Core.
However in the past, such classes as Civics were taught in most schools.
Wanna bet the Ron Paul Home Schooling courses include everything the public schools left out.
Exactly! That is why an educated people is important, and I do not mean this abuse of education that the public, and many private, schools are “teaching”.
It took this long to finally be able to “dumb down” the American people, and this has been going on since our country was founded. Why? Because the most dangerous thing to the other nations is the concept that individuals can rule over themselves. And other things!!!
I believe that ignorance of what those who serve within our governments is under contract to do is the problem. The US Constitution REQUIRES all able-bodied Americans to be trained as the military is trained so that they can serve within the Militia of the several states. It is the PEOPLE as the Miliia who is constitutionally required to enforce the laws, hold those accountable who serve within our government not protect the corrupt, etc. Sheriffs are supposed to be elected, which is why that LEA was kept. The reason that the people are to train and bear arms is precisely the accountability issue. Here is what even the highest LAW (and contract) of one of the worst states, California, says about the required peoples Militia (no governmental agency is a Militia).
California Constitution, Executive Branch, EC. 7.: The Governor is commander in chief of a militia that shall be provided by statute. The Governor may call it forth to execute the law. (Sec. 7 amended Nov. 5, 1974, by Prop. 11. Res. Ch. 96, 1974.)
ARTICLE III STATE OF CALIFORNIA [SEC. 1 – SEC. 9] ( Article 3 added Nov. 7, 1972, by Prop. 6. Res.Ch. 120, 1972. ) SEC. 1.: The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Do you think that if we were doing OUR duties (and yes, freedom from overreaching governmental servants requires us to do more then watch TV) that we the people would be just as corrupt? That if us, our children, our grandchildren were taught how our government is required to work that we would still have the corruptness? If we were actually doing OUR duty and holding them accountable? If we were still trained and armed (and people in California used to carry weapons in hunting season in the rifle racks in their trucks to school in the 60’s)?
Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 & 16: [The Congress shall have Power To…] Clause 15: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”
Clause 16: “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”
Article II, Section 2, Clause 1: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States…”
George Mason, along with James Madison, is referred to as the “Father of the Bill of Rights”: “Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, (Sir William Keith) who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.” Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1788
Each state’s Militia is made up of “We the People” protecting our own interests, homes, states, nation, and enforcing our governments. The Militia has as its constitutionally assigned duties to:
• Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
• Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
• Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
• “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.
Have any of you ever read Tenche Coxe? Read this and tell me who is supposed to be disarmed.
Tench Coxe, Delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
Tench Coxe, ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’, in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, on the Second Amendment where he asserts that it’s the people with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms”.
Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846): ” `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, SO VITALLY NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.” (caps mine)
Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859): “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.”
I am not advocating that we not handle this lawfully. I am saying that with education and the proper training, the corrupt will be removed LAWFULLY, and held accountble through our trial process. It will not take many to be actually held accountable lawfully before real change would come to America and its people.
Before you say that judges are corrupt… . Do you understand that the Grand Jury, Grand Jury Investigations are a constitutionally assigned tool of the PEOPLE? That We the People of the US can call them forth for many reasons, and we do NOT need the permission of those who serve within our government to do so lawfully?
Grand Jury – “The grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right. In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people”.
“Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present “True Bills” of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a “buffer” the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.” (Misbehavior, “Good Behaviour” requirement)
“The grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such “supervisory” judicial authority exists. The “common law” of the Fifth Amendment demands a traditional functioning grand jury.”
“Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. The grand jury’s functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised.”
“The grand jury ‘can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’ It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is investigating. The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. It swears in its own witnesses and deliberates in total secrecy.”
“Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said the 5th Amendment’s constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body ‘acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge”
“Given the grand jury’s operational separateness from its constituting court, it should come as no surprise that we have been reluctant to invoke the judicial supervisory power as a basis for prescribing modes of grand jury procedure. Over the years, we have received many requests to exercise supervision over the grand jury’s evidence-taking process, but we have refused them all. “it would run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution” to permit an indictment to be challenged “on the ground that there was incompetent or inadequate evidence before the grand jury.” (Nor would it be lawful of them to do so.) Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992)
That which is mandated by law doesn’t require a contract for fulfillment.
Nothing you write is relevant to my argument, which you either misunderstand or reject. If you reject it, argue against it. Endlessly citing passages from the Constitution, judicial opinions, what you think it means, etc… is not a challenge to my argument. Ironically, it supports it. I’m willing to concede that everything you say is technically accurate. But, so what? It hasn’t prevented the government from metastasizing into what we have now. Your claims that the Constitution, “requires”, “limits”, “MUST be followed”, etc…. are demonstrably false, as evidenced by the fact that you consider much of what our government currently does to be UNLAWFUL. In other words, the LAW does not actually limit government. Do you not see this?
You write, “I believe that ignorance of what those who serve within our governments is under contract to do is the problem.” This implies that knowledge of those obligations, as described in the Constitution, would remedy that. This is obviously false. Those people most knowledgable about the Constitution are usually at the forefront of subverting its’ plain meaning. Judges, including Supreme court justices at the State and Federal level, along with Constitutional “scholars” have, ultimately, legitimized every unconstitutional arrogation of power claimed by the State.
You posted a comment yesterday that got lost in the glitch. Here’s my response to it.
“That is NOT the power of the courts. Sheez, you have NOT read the US Constitution, the supreme LAW of our nation that all legislation MUST follow”.
Note: this was in response to my claim that, the primary purpose of the Court is to legitimize government power.
I have read the Constitution and I’m quite aware that it doesn’t state anywhere that “the primary purpose of the court is to legitimize government power.” Nevertheless, that is what it has done. Clearly, the vast majority of legislation does not follow the Constitution. That you believe that it MUST is belied by the fact that it doesn’t.
Your views on what the Constitution actually says seem valid to me. But, so what? Those words have not prevented what we have. The “meaning” of the Constitution is what the ruling authority says it is. You will never convince them otherwise. They are not well meaning but mistaken people who will change their views if simply exposed to the “truth”. They don’t care about the “truth”, they care about power. Your protestations, no matter how accurate, are meaningless to them.
You are concerned with what the law actually says, I am concerned with whether the “law” can limit government. I believe it cannot, and I think history is on my side on this. Quoting passages from the Constitution is irrelevant to that argument. I stated that, “Government is not limited by law or constitutions, it is limited by the beliefs, morality and attitudes of the people”. You admit as much when you say, “We, and the states, are to enforce it.”
Does it give you pause that “we, and the states”, have failed to enforce it? A culture that believes that government is “necessary and, if properly bound, good” will never maintain a “limited government”. I also said, “reverence for the Constitution is counter productive because it perpetuates the myth of political authority and the false possibility of legally limited government.”
You have not addressed my argument. If you disagree with it, please address it, making assertions about what the Constitution actually says (which I have never denied), or claiming that I am ignorant of it, is irrelevant to that argument.
“I believe that ignorance of what those who serve within our governments is under contract to do is the problem. ”
You do know what Mr. Obama taught at the University of Chicago, yes? They understand it just fine. They willfully subvert it and people go along with that subversion because they prefer free stuff and controlling their neighbors over freedom and liberty.
“That if us, our children, our grandchildren were taught how our government is required to work that we would still have the corruptness?”
Yes. When I was child I had to pass two constitution tests. 8th grade and 11th grade if I remember correctly. Everyone in the people’s republic of illinois had to. This goes back decades before I was in school and might even still be required. It obviously accomplished nothing.
My view on this is simple, perhaps – but it cuts through all the legal pedantry. It is this: The individual is sovereign. Period. He may freely delegate some of his sovereignty – but has no right to delegate for others, without first having obtained their specific consent – for specific purpose – which consent may be rescinded at any time.
This is my moral argument, derived from the premise that we each own ourselves absolutely; that no other person or group of people has any legitimate claim over our persons, to any degree whatsoever. That we have absolute property rights over our bodies – and minds – and anything which our bodies and minds produce.
Anything which infringes on our right to ourselves and all that flows from that right is fundamentally tyranny because it amounts to an assertion of ownership over us by others. The degree of the asserted ownership may be more or less tyrannical – but the point is that it’s fundamentally tyrannical.
“This is my moral argument, derived from the premise that we each own ourselves absolutely; that no other person or group of people has any legitimate claim over our persons, to any degree whatsoever. That we have absolute property rights over our bodies – and minds – and anything which our bodies and minds produce.”
Well, unless some magic grouping of words on a piece of paper claims otherwise…, then it’s just fine.
And look at what’s being done now by passing RED Flag laws and if anyone believes tRump would veto such a law, they’re seriously mistaken.
Right after the very covered-up Las Vegas shootings, Trump had this to say a week or so later: I say we go for the guns and worry about due process later.
Spoken like a true fool with too much money, hence power.
Indeed. However I keep telling myself what the alternative to Trump was. It wasn’t exactly Ron Paul running against him.
It’s basically all over but the shouting in this country. We’re just treading water and buying time at this point.
stand as man and be done with all the non sense.. first one must know the difference between code, statute and law.. the first two do not rule man…simple as that.. i record(ed) ‘my’ private law on the record, travel with private plate, when man acting as public servant fetters ‘my’ travel it does not take long before i am on ‘my’ way…
Kindly cite the code, statute, or law that says that the code that paralegals write, don’t become a statute until after they are passed by the legislature, and become a law after that statute is codified into a law.
The IRS code, according to the preface written by Tip O’Neill, has never been codified, so why do we regard it as law?
OK, at ease, private. That was the most retarded, ringmeat bullshit I’ve read in a long time.
You obvious are too far downline from the last good steak to know the difference.
Ad hominem doesn’t work any better here than it does in your kindergarten class, regardless of who you directed it at, which is pretty much unidentifiable thanks to WordPress.
That which is to be remembered cannot be so when it has been replaced with ignorance of its existence.
Americans have become too collectively ignorant of their own original premises to assemble any remembrance of them. When he who is supposed to MAGA is acting equally ignorant, the stage is set for the reduction of the republic to the feudal state that has been brought on by a plutocracy whose members have no reason to reduce it. Nothing positive will occur until negativity reaches the point when even the wealthiest cannot feed themselves, regardless of assets. Let the Hunger Games begin.
The were free to travel?
“We are their livestock – animals to be ear-tagged and corralled, our movements strictly supervised. Not free men.”
And when the AGWs stop me I simply inform them that they are interfering with my duty to provide revenue for their salaries, pensions, and qualified immunity defenses.
Eric, your closing paragraph defines the problem with clarity. When America began we operated under Common Law, which was the premise you could not be compelled to appear in a court room unless someone was harmed. With Roosevelt declaring America bankrupt March 9, 1933 the American people were subjected to the perfect slavery of paying back the bill to the creditor… The Federal Reserve. The State enforces the conditions of the bankruptcy. We The People are not allowed to own property…. We are the mere users. All usage of everything, our homes, our cars, our possessions, is now a privilege that can be manipulated to the advantage of the State that cries IT is the harmed entity. Common Law dead. Very dead. I closed my account at Motor Vehicles and built a house without a permit. I got thrown in jail and forced to get a drivers license or sit in jail for perpetuity. Adam Kokesh interviewed me April 2015 and put this video on youtube. I’m still living in the house I designed and built myself, but the property tax fines continue coming. If I don’t pay the property fine I’ll be marched out of here at gunpoint and the house will be sold to another compliant tax payer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVu5S2ISELo&t=1249s&frags=pl%2Cwn
Thanks, Tom – and I feel your pain. You have my sympathy … and empathy.
I didn’t build my house but I did pay for it – more than 15 years ago. Yet I am still paying the government for the privilege of being allowed to live in it. As I type this, I am looking at my latest “bill” – a strange term, given I have not purchased any services, nor used any – payable to the government. More than $1,000 – which is a huge sum for self-employed (and “dangerous and derogatory”) writer such as myself.
This is merely one payment. There are two such – every year. More than $2,000 that I can’t afford to pay, to pay for the “schooling” of other people’s kids and various other things which I never asked for and don’t use and so which impose no moral obligation on me to finance.
And yet – like you – I am forced to finance them, regardless. Even if it means I can’t afford to pay for the necessary things I need to survive.
I don’t want anything from anyone – if I can’t earn it on my own. But I expect to be left alone in return – and for others to keep their hands out of my pockets.
That attitude, of course, is “dangerous and derogatory” these days.
In addition to other peoples kids in Illinois a large portion of our property taxes go to the pensions of armed and unarmed government workers – police firemen and pubic school teachers etc — that for all practical purposes do absolutely nothing.
It never fails to boggle me that some people believe they have a right to force others to provide them a livelihood – and retirement, too!
It also creeps me out.
I love that every cent I earn comes my way freely given. I offer up what I do and if people think it’s of value to them, they pay me to offer it up. No one is forced to support what I do and I am repelled by the idea of it.
When I see “teachers” (i.e., government workers) demanding more money and wailing about how much they’re worth, I wonder why it never occurs to them to ask why it is necessary to force people to pay them, if they are so very valuable?
And in Illinois it’s not just a living or a retirement, it’s one of luxury for many of them. Six figure pensions. There aren’t even pensions for those of us that actually pay taxes these days.
I haven’t got a pension/401k or any such thing. I have my house/land; that’s it – and I’m forced to pay an annual fee to the government just to be allowed to remain living in “my” house.
You should get an allodial title so you have proper ownership of your house/land and can stop paying property taxes.
Of course, certainly. But no such thing exists – or rather, is allowed – in my state.
According to a former commercial real estate broker that I delivered a tractor to at a truck dealership in El Paso several years ago, Texas is the only state that still allows an allodial title to be perfected, FWIW.
Re-establishing allodial title is one of the keys to re-establishing freedom in this country. A man who can never truly own property is never truly a free man.
Brent, that’s why over 135,000 people have left the state of Illinois.
Including one of my cousins who now lives in Missouri City Texas.
The tax rate in Illinois has gotten so bad and from what I read recently they’re considering another tax increase in order to fund the already bloated pensions.
But take heart California is in the same boat if not worse.
Taxes are theft.
With Californicators flowing into Texas like illegal immigrants, in association with the continuing infestation by the Bush family’s wing of the American Fascist Warfare Party, it is headed in the same direction as Illinois, economic collapse exacerbated by pervasive political apathy. This is easily proven by the continuing resistance to passage of constitutional carry in the largest state to have failed to pass it.
Eric, $2000 is dirt cheap. What I’ve seen of your spread in photos and videos would be at least $12,000 annually here in the northeast corner of the people’s republic of Illinois. And what I’ve seen taxed at $12,000 wasn’t nearly as nice.
Absolutely; it’s among the reasons I moved out to the sticks. I could never dream of owning a crappy townhouse in Northern Va… these go for $350k and up. Plus $4k (or more) in taxes ever year.
When ignorance of the Common Law rises to an inaccurate description of it, the source of all other laws will become as clouded as that which allows the proper functioning of the jury to be reduced to a mistrial.
Lysander Spooner has been forgotten.
To you younger readers; my first drivers license was just a piece of paper with name and address and no picture. That’s all I had for 20 years. My first license with a picture was in 1979. As a kid we also walked through town with our rifle and shotguns over our shoulder on our way to the country to go hunting.
The changes happened slowly and smoothly as Eric indicates. But, the collective we elected the politicians who did this to us.
//One could travel across the entire country and – provided no laws were broken – never have to deal with a government goon.//
This was relatively true, compared to today, not just for travel across the entire country, but into and out of it. Before 9/11 one could cross the border into Canada and back into the USA from there without having to show a passport. If this was done at a checkpoint, one would still have to deal with a government goon. But there were countless places (and probably still are, albeit I’m guessing fewer and farther between) where one could cross without even needing to talk to a person, perhaps at most being expected to fill out an unmanned guestbook-like register at a booth on the honor system. I have been told it was the same at the Mexican border back then too.
It should be clear to all who follow the logic of the excellent above article that to agree with what it says demands that we support the return of this freedom for anyone to enter the country without showing any papers to anyone.
Those old border crossings are closed and monitored by cameras. Now going into Canada might not be a big issue, I don’t know how vile they are about it, but one probably would need to return to the USA through an official crossing (and hope his photograph hasn’t been posted) or get hut hut hutted upon re-entry.
There are more miles of Mexico/America border that lack any markings of any kind than there are that have a camera aimed at them.
Brent, they(Canadian govt.)are fairly vile from what I know. A decade or more ago I knew a guy who was possibly the best mechanic for a sophisticated mining machine. A Canadian company had contacted the company that he worked for asking if they had anyone who could fix said machine.
He was put on a plane, along with the tools he needed. The plane landed at the border which it wasn’t supposed to do. Imagine his surprise when it landed just for him, so the Candian govt. could send him back to the US. It seems he had a 7 year old DUI. Those Canucks couldn’t tolerate his presence for another 3 years at the least. I doubt he ever wanted to return to Canada.
He would surely have done irreparable harm to their “society”, one I might point out, that has neither the equivalent of the bill of rights including the right to free speech.
That isn’t anything compared to the treatment that I received from CBP for the infraction of telling them the truth when they asked where I lived, and I answered, truthfully, “in this van.” If they wanted the answer they were expecting, they should have asked for where I was domiciled instead of where I lived, but they wouldn’t have understood the difference either.
Prior to 9/11, one could go to and from Mexico without a passport too.
One still can, as long as one is entering into Algodones and returning therefrom.
My step sister’s husband is an AGW. He was bragging to me about how he and his pals get together for beers and shooters before heading out for a night on the DUI checkpoint.
I’m not surprised. It jibes with the typical AGW attitude that they – and only they – can “handle” guns and driving faster than the speed limit while not wearing a seatbelt.
A number of years ago, a Michigan State Trooper was killed in an rollover auto accident. The concern for this trooper was not only lavish but was also effective in removing blame from himself for his own actions.
I posed a question on various sites about this incident with one simple question” Was the trooper wearing his seat belt?”
The vitriolic responses I received for posing such a simple question ranged from mild to outright threatening. To wit: “How DARE you question the trooper’s actions. He’s DEAD”.
This is merely more proof that the “sheeple” have been conditioned to accept their third-class status.
We recently watched an OLD movie with a young Martin Sheen, Vic Morrow, Nick Nolte, Michelle Phillips, Janit Baldwin, and Gary Morgan among others when they were young called The California Kid. Vic Morrow was a police chief who literally killed speeders. It was a vindication show, one of a rarity now, where Vic was killed at the end and everyone was relieved. Martin rode his 32 Ford with an SBC off into the sunset, free as the bird he was, heading for wherever it was he was looking to find.
Try that now. This is where the younger crowd come in. There’s only so much I’m willing to do. My shoulders, lower back and now upper back hurt too much when I’m cuffed.
Most of their conditioning was installed by the same who self-installed their ignorance.
This is one of the BEST articles I have read anywhere in many many years about the right to travel unmolested as a free man. You are absolutely correct in the erosion, step by step which the judiciary uses to turn formerly free societies into being disguised as free.
As I move around after having left the US, it is happening across the western world in every which way possible, influenced by infiltrated judiciary, education, media, and even finance.
Please keep on writing articles such as this – Western civilizations NEED more such.
Thanks for the kind words, Guy!
I will do all I can, while I can… firing, so to speak, until my gun barrel glows red and the last shell is fired.
Give a gang of political terrorists a money counterfeit racket they call “Central Bank” and they will own everything and everyone.
Psychopaths + Central Bank = Slavery.
If you can’t figure that one out then perhaps suicide is your best lifestyle choice.
Even the psychopath parasite-monkey Karl Marx understood how to own everyone.
And you know who those psychopaths are.
Yep, there’s quite a large rogue’s gallery. To start with:
Then there’s the Kennedy, the Clinton, and Bush crime families. We also have:
Plenty of psychopaths from all kinds of backgrounds and nationalities to choose from. All have one thing in common: they regard you and I as useless eaters to be mulcted, controlled or even eliminated as they see fit.
Juror’s duty – justice, i.e., no victim no crime:
“The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from the tyrannical abuses of power by government.
The Constitution guarantees you the right to trial by jury. This means that government must bring its case before a jury of The People if government wants to deprive any person of life, liberty or property. Jurors can say no to government tyranny by refusing to convict.” http://www.fija.org
The majority of the American jurors’ duty is jury duty avoidance.
I only got summoned for jury duty three times: once while I was in the Navy; once while I was finishing college; and once after I finished. The first two times I couldn’t report for jury duty, as I was not PHYSICALLY AVAILABLE. The last time I was available, but I never made it to the jury. I made it to the jury box, only to get tossed on a peremptory challenge. I then spent the rest of the day waiting in the jury room, never to be called again. I haven’t been summoned since…
An item on my bucket list is being on a jury where I can kick the government and persecutor a good swift kick in the balls by kicking back and saying “not guilty, I am not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.” At worst even if the other jurors won’t go along it becomes a mistrial.
The key is to play the part of the dumb slave during voir dire to increase your chances of being selected – play your cards close to your vest. Unfortunately the only case I ever actually got picked for was just some minor fender-bender that a shyster lawyer was trying to blow up into a major settlement. (It was so blatant we gave him nothing with only a few minutes of deliberation. Somewhat satisfying but not nearly so much as blowing up a “criminal” trial over some victimless nonsensical fatwa.)
Under most modern circumstances, if you do anything more than steadfastly refuse to be swayed by the jury chairman and enter a not guilty verdict of your own, you may very well find yourself being charged with jury tampering.
If you simply insist that you are not convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt there is nothing they can do. The jury box is the only place where a single person can bring the entire crushing machinery of the State to a grinding halt and the filthy bastards cannot lift a finger against you.
That’s the ticket! Just don’t ever mention it while you’re in there. Play the part of the dumb prole and the dirtbags will never know what hit them.
It must have been pretty crowded in the jury room instead of the jury waiting room:-)
I meant to say jury waiting room. I think I brought stuff to read that day, because someone who’d been on jury duty told me about how they do things there.
Every Amendment in the Constitution has been abrogated.
The other day Pompeo stated Article II of the US Constitution gives the President the power to declare war or do what ever he wants. I have not seen one instance of media calling him on that.
““The president has his full range of Article 2 authorities and I’m very confident—– that any action we took in Venezuela——– would be lawful,” Pompeo stated when asked if President Trump could intervene in the country’s power struggle without congressional approval. Under Article 2 of the US Constitution, the president acts as commander in chief of the country’s armed forces.”
Article II simply makes the President Commander in Chief of the military and Militia when called for federal duty. Of course, Any wars, Letters of Marque or other foreign interventions are for Congress to decide.
Unfortunately, IMO there’s going to be a long dry spell where liberty can exist again….
Just adding that I live in a State where 100% is declared a “Constitution Free Zone” Florida. A Constitution Free Zone exists for 100 miles from a border. Accordingly,,, I have no 4th amendment rights. And this happened in 1952.
“Within this area, agents of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Coast Guard are granted the authority to stop, question, and search people and their property without regard for 4th Amendment protections, probable cause, or a warrant.”
Wow, what happened in 1952? Please give more details on this information.
No one can supersede, LAWFULLY, the US Constitution, the supreme Law of this land that all legislation MUST be in “Pursuance thereof” (follow) in order to be lawfully binding on the American people. Nor can any law in a state supersede that state’s Constitution since it is the highest LAW of the state, 2nd only to the US Constitution.
It does not matter what anyone in any position that SERVES WITHIN our governments say/pass/or even pass with citizen votes. There is only one way to change the supreme law/supreme contract and that is by amendment.
What you are talking about is COLOR OF LAW, and possibly sedition, maybe add domestic terrorism to that list along with a few felonies and Perjury.
Color of Law: “The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.
Sedition is legally defined as ”the criminal act of revolting against an established authority, usually in the form of treason or defamation of a government.” [remember government is always force or the threat of force]
Section 802 (Title 18), “domestic terrorism” is defined as involving “acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;” which “appear to be intended–to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (or) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion”.
There is no such place as a constitution free zone, and anyone who took an Oath, is a governmental agent of any sort that enforces such … stuff… is working to destroy our constitutional republic from the inside. At the very least is a domestic enemy that each Oath requires to “support and defend” the US Constitution and state constitutions from.
While I admire your passion and knowledge, at some point, don’t we need to recognize that appeals to the Constitution, with respect to limiting government power, don’t work. Who or what is supposed to enforce it? The only theoretically possible mechanism, divided sovereignty between the States and the Federal government, was neutered permanently over 150 years ago. The 10th amendment is mostly a dead letter. The idea that “checks and balances” between the three branches of the Federal government will necessarily limit government power is absurd. They all work for the same institution, they all benefit when that institution grows in power. History clearly shows that the members of the three branches have enhanced, not limited, each other’s power.
If the purpose of the Supreme court is to limit federal power, then each member is uniquely unqualified for the job. Each member is drawn from a pool of government lawyers who have displayed a lifetime of fealty to the exercise of government power. Each member is appointed by a President who has no rational reason to appoint someone who has shown hostility to the exercise of executive power. Each member is conformed by a Senate that has no interest in confirming someone who has shown hostility to the exercise of legislative power. It is absurd to believe that such a group of people will check the power of government.
However, if one understands that the primary purpose of the court is to legitimize government power, then each member is perfectly qualified. Despite the assertions of great differences in judicial philosophy, the underlying belief, that they all share, is far more important that the supposed “difference”. Simply put, each justice interprets the Constitution in accordance with their own personal political and moral views; they argue backwards from those views and find justification in the text. The core principle, shared by the Justices, is that government should be empowered to do what I like, and disallowed from doing what I don’t like. Sure, “liberal” and “conservative” justices disagree on what government should be allowed to do, so some particular exercise of government power may be declared “unconstitutional”. But, this is quite rare and not produced by “principle”.
Seen in this light, the so-called strict constructionists are not that different from the so-called activists. The label expresses a particular moral and political worldview much more than a consistent judicial philosophy. Consider Scalia’s stance in Lawrence v. Texas and Gonzales v. Raich. His opinions flatly contradict each other, from the perspective of his claimed judicial philosophy. In the first, he claimed that the Federal government had no right to strike down State sodomy laws, in the second he claimed that the Federal government did have the right to strike down State medical marijuana laws. “Principle” does not explain this contradiction. Rather, it is his personal dislike of butt-pirates and pot-heads that explains it.
Government is not limited by law or constitutions, it is limited by the beliefs, morality and attitudes of the people. Unless most people view the government as “at best, a necessary evil”, it will continue to metastasize, and no constitution can stop it. Thomas Paine promoted the most favorable attitude toward government that is consistent with limiting its’ power. I would go further, government should be seen as inherently illegitimate, an entity not different, in principle, from the mafia. To paraphrase Paine, “government is at best, an inevitable evil”. It may be that we will always be burdened with government. But, if most people believe that it is necessary and, if properly bound, good, we are doomed to ever more intrusive government. Reverence for the Constitution is counter productive because it perpetuates the myth of political authority and the false possibility of legally limited government.
Thanks for making points to Cal that I couldn’t articulate-BRAVO!
While these Constitutionalists may be technically right, it doesn’t matter. How are you going to ENFORCE those limitations?
The theory of checks and balances is sound. As Madison said, ambition was made to counter ambition; the theory was to get the three branches of gov’t fighting among themselves to take power from one another, so they WOULDN’T take it from us or at the expense of our rights. However, as you pointed out, in practice, gov’t officials in all three branches realized that they work for the same organization, so they do whatever they have to do to advance said organization’s goals. They realized that they could work together, and they do; they’ve worked together for quite some time.
But yeah, the sovereign citizen stuff; the arguments against drivers’ licenses; and other arguments may be TECHNICALLY RIGHT, but how are you going to ENFORCE them? If I drive my car on the road without plates, I’ll be jammed up real quick like; not only that, I’ll get ticketed, fined, and my car probably impounded. Irwin Schiff was right about the income tax, but he was still punished for being right.
The only way to be effective with these arguments is is everyone disobeyed EN MASSE, because they couldn’t arrest everyone. I think that’s one reason why even trivial violations are so disproportionately punished-to make an EXAMPLE of the ‘wrongdoer’. They make an example, so others won’t get the same idea; they scare the masses into compliance.
Thanks! There was a glitch on the site last night and some posts were lost. Cal’s response to me and my counter response being among them. Anyway, I failed to convince Cal.
Unfortunately, I don’t have Cal’s post saved but I do have mine. I make a habit of saving my long posts in my draft e-mail folder. It’s really easy and eliminates the frustration of seeing 30 minutes of work disappear. For short posts, I always perform a copy function before clicking “post” just in case it disappears. I don’t paste it anywhere, it just hangs out in digital limbo if I need to paste it.
Maybe I’ll post my response to Cal.
“The only way to be effective with these arguments is is everyone disobeyed EN MASSE, because they couldn’t arrest everyone. I think that’s one reason why even trivial violations are so disproportionately punished-to make an EXAMPLE of the ‘wrongdoer’. They make an example, so others won’t get the same idea; they scare the masses into compliance.”
This passage of yours is spot on. There exists a massive power asymmetry between the individual and the State. This renders any individual act of resistance a futile gesture, unlikely to end well. The simple fact is that early adopters of resistance get killed or imprisoned.
Cal responded to my query, “who or what is supposed to enforce it” with, “we, the people, and the States”. This answer, and its’ mirror image, “we allowed this to happen”, annoy me. The implication is that if “we” just weren’t ignorant, lazy and cowardly, then everything would be fine. It’s kind of like virtue signaling for the “patriot right”.
The only thing “we” have done is to favor our lives, families, freedom, etc… over a futile and stupid gesture. It is entirely irrational to martyr oneself for a cause that most people neither understand, nor respect. The only possibility of a peaceful transition toward a free society is a change in the cultural attitudes and beliefs about the nature and legitimacy of government. Reverence for the Constitution is the right wing form of State idolatry, and is inimical to the creation of a free society.
I have had my door kicked in, etc for standing for this country. I am afraid, but I am more afraid of where this country is going. I am pretty sure I, and others like me who do stand, and talk, and still learn, will die by government – ours. When they kill enough of us it becomes democide. I am also standing for Julian Assange because he committed no crimes, he just released the corruptness of those who serve within our government, particularly the [*UN] military, “intelligence” agencies, etc.
Traitors Panetta and Dempsey gave the US Military (all branches) to the UN to use. Those who served within the US Military and refused to wear foreign uniforms/follow orders of foreign officers are still imprisoned for KEEPING their Oaths – I am still fighting for them.
Since we are a republic rather than a democracy, it would be republicide rather than democide:-)
The “National Patriot Act” is word for word the translation of the legislation that enacted communism in Russia. Only Ron Paul voted against this legislation as no rep was allowed to see it for more than 15 minutes before voting on it.
THAT is a travesty! I can’t believe some Dems didn’t vote against it. One, there was a Republican in office (aka ‘the chimp’); why didn’t they TRY to undermine him? Two, libs USED to be concerned about rights and civil liberties.
Another thing I can’g grok is how these a-holes can vote for something that they haven’t even looked at, let alone READ! Reading law isn’t like reading a novel, either. It’s very slow and deliberate, more like reading a STEM textbook. One can’t even look at one of these bills in 15 minutes! If they don’t know WHAT they’re voting on, why don’t they vote NO?
Nobody, including Democratic senators were allowed to see it. Russ Feingold voted against it and was quickly murdered since senators meant more and had more power than rep’s. He could have led a following eventually and done away with it. Don’t think this was lost on the remaining senators and reps.
Feingold was MURDERED? I knew he was gone, but they never say how he died…
Feingold is still with us. On May 14, 2015, Feingold announced his candidacy for his old Senate seat in 2016. He was defeated by Johnson in a rematch of their 2010 Senate race
“Only Ron Paul voted against this legislation as no rep was allowed to see it for more than 15 minutes before voting on it.”
The House AND Senate are both REQUIRED to read a “bill” three (3)X’s in its entirety per “The Rules of Procedure before voting on the “bill”.
So you can see that those who serve within the Congress were knowingly and willingly working from inside to destroy our constitutional republic because that is not the first bill that they had passed. BTW Pelosi IS a traitor, and she has openly worked against our nation more then 1 time.
The House AND Senate are both REQUIRED to read a “bill” three (3)X’s in its entirety per “The Rules of Procedure before voting on the “bill”.
I know that they’ve violated THAT rule more than once! You think they even read those bills once, let alone three times when they rush these spending bills through? Goodness knows what’s getting slipped into those riders that get tacked on to every bill…
Can you cite the appearance of that requirement in black letter law? Even Ron Paul was clear about seldom reading any of the bills that he voted on. That is what their staffs are for, while they continue to raise funds for their next electoral campaigns.
Indeed. And what recourse is there? Government being the arbiter of its own powers?
We arrive at the nut of the problem – and the solution is obvious. The people – a sufficiency of them – must be disabused of and reject the idea of government as such. The idea that any of us is obligated, morally speaking, to cede any degree of our autonomy (and property) without explicit consent.
That all else is thuggery.
“In order to find out what’s in the bill, we have to pass it.” Nancy Pelosi.
Once you understand that legislative actions can frequently be modified right up to voting on them, passing the bill may be the only way to know what is really being voted on. Thais isn’t the case in Congress, where they simply disregard any legislation that they don’t like, just like they ignore the Constitution aside from giving it lip service.
Florida is not a border state.
It’s coastline makes most of FL subject to the 100mi constitution free zone.
Right, because this zone goes 100 miles INSIDE of the border. If you’re looking at an area with two coasts like FL has, then this zone would be 200 miles wide. I don’t know if FL is 200 miles wide.
Here’s a link to the ACLU, who have a map of this 100 mile wide border zone: https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
I live in Michigan….no rights for me either.
The problem is that congress, as useless as it is has done literally done nothing to change this. Neither has SCOTUS.
“…congress, as useless as it is has done literally nothing to change this. Neither has SCOTUS.”
Why would they? Concern for your rights is not in their list of priorities. But, occasional feigning of such concern is useful for political purpose.
Absolutely, but come election time…..
Don’t Vote 2020
You beat me to it! But my favorite Carlin rant, where he really hits it out of the park, is:
That’s one of my FAVORITES! I showed that to my late mother before she died. I warned her that, even the language was a bit rough. Carlin was right. She AGREED…
JohnZ, that was me from 2004 to 2016. I stopped voting totally. The only reason I even registered this last time was to vote for Donald Trump. Had he not run, I’d have remained on the sidelines. I might go back for 2020; I don’t know…
That is because it is not their duty, it is OURS, We the People of the united States.
Just because someone who serves within your state government says that is what it is does NOT make it lawful or real. I am not saying that unlawful, terrorist acts will magically disapear, they won’t.
But how can you, and any others that are awake around you start stopping this? Start serving at the lower levels. Get cspoa. org (Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Assoc.) to start talking to your “law enforcement”. Maybe get some like KrisAnn Hall to start educating (I believe for free) within your state. Try to get people to take Hillsdale. edu free online classes to learn what law really is, what those who serve at different levels need to be doing, etc. Read Dr. Edwin Vieria’s books, http://edwinvieira. com/, etc. Don’t just accept that there is nothing you can do. Start doing some of those things. (Dr. Vieira can teach about sound money/Militia/etc.)
Good luck, and thank you for at least questioning. I hope you do more, but anything at all is a step in the right direction. Remember that we are NOT the domestic enemies/traitors, they are. We must follow and keep our constitutional republic by knowing what is allowed, etc.
Ken, RT requires one to sign up in order to post. If you, or anyone else, are already signed up, plz feel free to copy/paste any material here as it is the US Constitution, etc.
Traveling is a protected NATURAL right.
“If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262) [This includes all of the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence – 1st statute, etc]
“DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS, HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS
By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)
For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license….
“The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
“The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
“The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.” Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941. …
American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government — in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question — is restricting, and therefore violating, the people’s common law right to travel. …
Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions — such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few — on a citizen’s constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?
Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly: “The state cannot diminish rights of the people.”
And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, “Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.” …
“The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.” Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.” Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946. …
Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;…shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding.”
In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law: “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…” …
f we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are:
1. by lawfully amending the constitution, or
2. by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.
Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations. There are basically two groups of people in this category:
1) Citizens who involve themselves in commerce upon the highways of the state. …
2) The second group of citizens that is legally under the jurisdiction of the state are those citizens who have voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel unregulated and unrestricted by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state driver’s license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words, by contract.) We should remember what makes this legal and not a violation of the common law right to travel is that they knowingly volunteer by contract to waive their rights. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the state’s powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights. This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have applied for and received licenses, registrations and obtained insurance after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?
Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between privileges and rights. We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses and vehicle registrations have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect – laws that are not laws at all. An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to understand that the most important law in our land which he has taken an oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or county ordinances, but the law that supersedes all other laws — the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer’s duty is to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling — discussed earlier — in mind before issuing citations concerning licensing, registration, and insurance: “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.” (end long quote)
2018 New Hampshire legislature proposed this bill:https://legiscan.com/NH/text/HB1778/id/1659567. It was deemed “inexpedient to legislate.” Basically, this bill would have deprived the state of relied upon and “needed” revenue.
A license is permission to operate in commerce upon the public roads and requires the holder of the office of “driver” to observe statutory traffic laws when engaged in commerce. There are those who believe it is a contract, or an adhesion contract, much like a user agreement. I disagree. It has none of the elements that would make it either. In Montana, the signature on the application is to confirm the info provided is correct. There is no contract there. It is merely permission for the NAME on the license to engage in commerce on the roads which the State has authority to regulate.
Vehicle registration is a different story. Once registered it is considered a “motor vehicle” which is a conveyance in commerce and it is registered to JOHN HENRY DOE. For those who believe there is no difference between JOHN HENRY DOE and John Henry Doe there is no convincing you and nothing will change your mind. Believe what you will, it’s what gets you in trouble every time. But the State knows. Unfortunately, cops don’t.
The State is enforcing Maritime/admiralty law governed by the rules of Lex Mercatoria. It is private law (by contract) and it’s object is legal fictions.
The corporate STATE OF________ will do just about anything to keep this out of public awareness, including violating the contracts under which they operate-the constitutions of the states and The United States of America- in order to maintain its business model-fines, fees and revenue from statutory “violations” -which apply to legal fictions only. Unfortunately, the masses have a difficult time accepting this truth. I suspect it is akin to the Stockholm Syndrome.
For more info about your corporate state go to Manta.com and enter in “STATE OF OHIO, or whatever. if you Pay the fee you can view all of its corporate info.
At a “freedom” conference, I spoke with a man who insisted that without traffic laws there would be chaos on the roadways. He had no understanding of the responsibility freedom requires or that most people will accept that responsibility if given the chance. After all, who would risk their lives or the lives of others and their property deliberately? Some will, but that has always been the case and no law will stop them.
Common law, the system of law the founders insisted upon, mandates personal liability and redress for injuries caused. English common law was quite harsh, death for some offenses, American common law, not as harsh, but still provides a good reason to watch your Ps and Qs.
Until Americans are educated about the system of law that has been imposed upon them, these corporate entities posing as government will continue to exploit and extort them. It will get worse until we do this. Bills, such as the above, will never pass and we will continue to bitch and moan about the unfairness of it all while paying for the fat retirements of these thugs out of our own pockets.
For beginners, I recommend “Fruit of a Poisonous Tree” by ex bar attorney Mel Stamper. Education is key. When enough have had enough, things will change.
You’re correct about changing minds. I’ve seen enough videos with the SJW crowd where a question or statement that stands things on their head for them, esp. the young female, they’ll suddenly say “I don’t want to speak with you” and sometimes scream in a verbal attack and occasionally a physical attack that would never be tolerated if the roles were reversed.
Cal, we have many of these same laws in Australia, guaranteed by our Constitution. But until the people wake up of their own accord, governments here continue to violate laws meant to restrict government intervention in our lives.
That which has no enforcement clause cannot be abrogated.
The problem is with your reliance on media undeserving of your attention.
ruleoflawradio.com 8 PM, Monday Eddie Craig
And the frequency, assuming it is on the radio?
“How is a citizen forced to stop at a checkpoint materially different than a prisoner forced to stop at a gate, show his ID tag to the guards, pass muster and so on before the gate clanks open an he is allowed to proceed?
If there is a difference, it’s one without much distinction.”
There is literally no difference, other than in degree. We are all prisoners in an open air usually low security prison, that transitions to a high security prison at TSA checkpoints or at the borders, as anyone who has traveled to some place like El Paso can readily discern by viewing the barbed wire double fences with AGW staffed vehicles patrolling the gap in between.
The vast majority of the fractional slaves living here try very hard to not see it for what it is, because it is too disturbing an epiphany.
It is probably a lot like an unattributed quotation.
Sandra Bland, enough said.
New story I found on a Russian Site that might interest you. Seems US MSM is not interested….
Yahoo had this on their page earlier. I know, because I checked my e-mail over there…
Unless you are someone who knew and cared about her, it seems.
The State will ALWAYS defer in its own interest and never yours.
Which is why We the People were made the state by the founders, which Thomas Jefferson knew was a mistake when he wrote that “(t)he spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may become persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated that the time for fixing every essential right, on a legal basis, is while our rulers are honest, ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will be heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.”