I am enthralled with the thought of the states coming to the rescue of our nation. Logic would entitle the creator of a contract or association to have power over its execution and if not content therewith over its destruction. The states, for specific purposes, created a central government, all the time being wary of it possibly gaining too much authority. The delegates wrote into the pact many specific obstructions to such gain of power and believed, as they should have, that they had crossed all the Ts and dotted all the Is.

Not long after the ink had dried on the contract the three branches sought to expand their power and control over those founding states. The first bullet fired was a decision by the Supreme Court that, although there were definite boundaries between the duties and powers of each branch, there was no specific language preventing the crossing of those boundaries. Thus, the seperation of power, which effectively prevented all power from being under the control of a single branch, was sidestepped allowing exactly the kind of conflicting interests present in our government that was originally forbidden.

The second and lethal bullet was fired by Congress. Originally the two houses of Congress were different in their form and their function. The House of Representitives was just that, representitves of the common voting populace elected by the people, being apportioned according to population. The Senate, however, was to be elected by the legislatures of the states and were to be representitives of the state government to the Congress. This allowed for professional legislators to be watchdogs over the federal processes and sound the alarm if Congress attempted to create new powers or rights. They, having experience at the black art of politics, would be better able to recognize such goings on. But, in 1913, Congress passed the 17^th ammendment that gave the people the duty of electing senators and, essentially, ridding themselves of any cognizant oversight.

These two actions are, according to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, illegal at their inception and perpetually invalid. I offer as support of this Jefferson’s two resolutions written on behalf of angered state legislatures for reasons such as I have just described.

Write your state officials or send them this blog. Insist they participate in the Patrick Henry Caucus of state legislatures.

Brought about by a perception of over taxation, among other things, President Andrew "Old Hickory" Jackson and his former vice president John C. Calhoun of South Carolina came toe to toe in 1832 over the state’s rights issue.

Calhoun had been replaced as vice president with Martin Van Buren for Jackson’s second run for office. Calhoun susequently set about writing the "Exposition and Protest" over the Tariff Act of 1828. When another protective tarif was passed in 1832, the State of South Carolina decided to nullify the tariff.

They called a special convention and Calhoun wrote the "Ordinance of Nullification" claiming that not only was the tariff constitutionally un-enforceable in South Carolina, but that any attempt to enforce it by any state or federal officials would not be permitted within South Carolina. Jackson, being the People’s President, came down hard, verbally, on the state and Calhoun.

I will leave it to you to read both the ordinance and President Jackson’s own retort in support of his duty to preserve the union. Just take notice of Jackson’s purposeful mention of a single state’s rights as opposed to my belief in the rights of a majority of states passing such a resolution.

The Ordinance is short and sweet as written. But Jackson’s reply is thirteen pages. I took only minor liberties though, it is all there for your perusal while only the most pithy sections are in bold.

And whereas the said Congress, exceeding its just power to impose taxes and collect revenue for the purpose of effecting and accomplishing the specific objects and purposes which the Constitution of the United States authorizes it to effect and accomplish, hath raised and collected unnecessary revenue for objects unauthorized by the Constitution.

We, therefore, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain and it is hereby declared and ordained, that the several acts and parts of acts of the Congress of the United States, purporting to be laws for the imposing of duties and imposts on the importation of foreign commodities, and now having actual operation and effect within the United States, and, more especially, an act entitled "An act in alteration of the several acts imposing duties on imports," approved on the nineteenth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight and also an act entitled "An act to alter and amend the several acts imposing duties on imports," approved on the fourteenth day of July, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, are unauthorized by the Constitution of the United States, and violate the true meaning and intent thereof and are null, void, and no law, nor binding upon this State, its

officers or citizens; and all promises, contracts, and obligations, made or entered into, or to be made or entered into, with purpose to secure the duties imposed by said acts, and all judicial proceedings which shall be hereafter had in affirmance thereof, are and shall be held utterly null and void.

And it is further ordained, that it shall not be lawful for any of the constituted authorities, whether of this State or of the United States, to enforce the payment of duties imposed by the said acts within the limits of this State; but it shall be the duty of the legislature to adopt such measures and pass such acts as may be necessary to give full effect to this ordinance, and to prevent the enforcement and arrest the operation of the said acts and parts of acts of the Congress of the United States within the limits of this State, from and after the first day of February next, and the duties of all other constituted authorities, and of all persons residing or being within the limits of this State, and they are hereby required and enjoined to obey and give effect to this ordinance, and such acts and measures of the legislature as may be passed or adopted in obedience thereto.

And it is further ordained, that in no case of law or equity, decided in the courts of this State, wherein shall be drawn in question the authority of this ordinance, or the validity of such act or acts of the legislature as may be passed for the purpose of giving effect thereto, or the validity of the aforesaid acts of Congress, imposing duties, shall any appeal be taken or allowed to the Supreme Court of the United States, nor shall any copy of the record be permitted or allowed for that purpose; and if any such appeal shall be attempted to be taken, the courts of this State shall proceed to execute and enforce their judgments according to the laws and usages of the State, without reference to such attempted appeal, and the person or persons attempting to take such appeal may be dealt with as for a contempt of the court.

And it is further ordained, that all persons now holding any office of honor, profit, or trust, civil or military, under this State (members of the legislature excepted), shall, within such time, and in such manner as the legislature shall prescribe, take an oath well and truly to obey, execute, and enforce this ordinance, and such act or acts of the legislature as may be passed in pursuance thereof, according to the true intent and meaning of the same, and on the neglect or omission of any such person or persons so to do, his or their office or offices shall be forthwith vacated, and shall be filled up as if such person or persons were dead or had resigned; and no person hereafter elected to any office of honor, profit, or trust, civil or military (members of the legislature excepted), shall, until the legislature shall otherwise provide and direct, enter on the execution of his office, or be he any respect competent to discharge the duties thereof until he shall, in like manner, have taken a similar oath; and no juror shall be impaneled in any of the courts of this State, in any cause in which shall be in question this ordinance, or any act of the legislature passed in pursuance thereof, unless he shall first, in addition to the usual oath, have taken an oath that he will well and truly obey, execute, and enforce this ordinance, and such act or acts of the legislature as may be passed to carry the same into operation and effect, according to the true intent and meaning thereof.

And we, the people of South Carolina, to the end that it may be fully understood by the government of the United States, and the people of the co-States, that we are determined to maintain this our ordinance and declaration, at every hazard, do further declare that we will not submit to the application of force on the part of the federal government, to reduce this State to obedience, but that we will consider the passage, by Congress, of any act authorizing the employment of a military or naval force against the State of South Carolina, her constitutional authorities or citizens; or any act abolishing or closing the ports of this State, or any of them, or otherwise obstructing the free ingress and egress of vessels to and from the said ports, or any other act on the part of the federal government, to coerce the State, shut up her ports, destroy or harass her commerce or to enforce the acts hereby declared to be null and void, otherwise than through the civil tribunals of the country, as inconsistent with the longer continuance of South Carolina in the Union; and that the people of this State will henceforth hold themselves absolved from all further obligation to maintain or preserve their political connection with the people of the other States; and will forthwith proceed to organize a separate government, and do all other acts and things which sovereign and independent States may of right do.

Done in convention at Columbia, the twenty-fourth day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, and in the fifty-seventh year of the Declaration of the Independence of the United States of America.

Look for a moment to the consequence. If South Carolina considers the revenue laws unconstitutional and has a right to prevent their execution in the port of Charleston, there would be a clear constitutional objection to their collection in every other port; and no revenue could be collected anywhere, for all imposts must be equal. It is no answer to repeat that an unconstitutional law is no law so long as the question of its legality is to be decided by the state itself, for every law operating injuriously upon any local interest will be perhaps thought, and certainly represented, as unconstitutional, and, as has been shown, there is no appeal.

If this doctrine had been established at an earlier day, the Union would have been dissolved in its infancy. The excise law in Pennsylvania, the embargo and nonintercourse law in the Eastern states, the carriage tax in Virginia were all deemed unconstitutional, and were more unequal in their operation than any of the laws now complained of; but, fortunately, none of those states discovered that they had the right now claimed by South Carolina. The war into which we were forced to support the dignity of the nation and the rights of our citizens might have ended in defeat and disgrace, instead of victory and honor, if the states who supposed it a ruinous and unconstitutional measure had thought they possessed the right of nullifying the act by which it was declared and denying supplies for its prosecution. Hardly and unequally as those measures bore upon several members of the Union, to the legislatures of none did this efficient and peaceable remedy, as it is called, suggest itself. The discovery of this important feature in our Constitution was reserved to the present day. To the statesmen of South Carolina belongs the invention, and upon the citizens of that state will unfortunately fall the evils of reducing it to practice.

If the doctrine of a state veto upon the laws of the Union carries with it internal evidence of its impracticable absurdity, our constitutional history will also afford abundant proof that it would have been repudiated with indignation had it been proposed to form a feature in our government. .

Under the Confederation, then, no state could legally annul a decision of the Congress or refuse to submit to its execution; but no provision was made to enforce these decisions. Congress made requisitions, but they were not complied with. The government could not operate on individuals. They had no judiciary, no means of collecting revenue.

But the defects of the Confederation need not be detailed. Under its operation we could scarcely be called a nation. We had neither prosperity at home nor consideration abroad. This state of things could not be endured, and our present happy Constitution was formed but formed in vain if this fatal doctrine prevails. It was formed for important objects that are announced in the Preamble, made in the name and by the authority of the people of the United States, whose delegates framed and whose conventions approved it. The most important among these objects-that which is placed first in rank, on which all the others rest-is "to form a more perfect union."

Now, is it possible that even if there were no express provision giving supremacy to the Constitution and laws of the United States over those of the states, can it be conceived that an instrument made for the purpose of "forming a more perfect union" than that of the Confederation could be so constructed by the assembled wisdom of our country as to substitute for that Confederation a form of government dependent for its existence on the local interest, the party spirit of a state or of a prevailing faction in a state? Even man of plain, unsophisticated understanding who hears the question will give such an answer as will preserve the Union. . . .

I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one state, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed.

After this general view of the leading principle, we must examine the particular application of it which is made in the ordinance.

The Preamble rests its justification on these grounds: It assumes as a fact that the obnoxious laws, although they purport to be laws for raising revenue, were in reality intended for the protection of manufactures, which purpose it asserts to be unconstitutional; that the operation of these laws is unequal; that the amount raised by them is greater than is required by the wants of the government; and, finally, that the proceeds are to be applied to objects unauthorized by the Constitution. These are the only causes alleged to justify an open opposition to the laws of the country and a threat of seceding from the Union if any attempt should be made to enforce them. The first virtually acknowledges that the law in question was passed under a power expressly given by the Constitution to lay and collect imposts; but its constitutionality is drawn in question from the motives of those who passed it. However apparent this purpose may he in the present case, nothing can be more dangerous than to admit the position that an unconstitutional purpose entertained by the members who assent to a law enacted under a constitutional power shall make that law void.

For how is that purpose to be ascertained? Who is to make the scrutiny? How often may bad purposes be falsely imputed, in how many cases are they concealed by false professions, in how many is no declaration of motive made? Admit this doctrine and you give to the states an uncontrolled right to decide; and every law may be annulled under this pretext. If, therefore, the absurd and dangerous doctrine should be admitted that a state may annul an unconstitutional law, or one that it deems such, it will not apply to the present case.

The next objection is that the laws in question operate unequally. This objection may be made with truth to every law that has been or can be passed. The wisdom of man never yet contrived a system of taxation that would operate with perfect equality. If the unequal operation of a law makes it unconstitutional, and if all laws of that description may be abrogated by any state for that cause, then indeed is the federal Constitution unworthy of the slightest effort for its presentation.

We have hitherto relied on it as the perpetual bond of our Union; we have received it as the work of the assembled wisdom of the nation; we have trusted to it as to the sheet anchor of our safety in the stormy times of conflict with a foreign or domestic foe; we have looked to it with sacred awe as the palladium of our liberties; and with all the solemnities of religion have pledged to each other our lives and fortunes here and our hopes of happiness hereafter in its defense and support. Were we mistaken, my countrymen, in attaching this importance to the Constitution of our country? . . .

Our Constitution does not contain the absurdity of giving power to make laws and another to resist them. The sages whose memory will always be reverenced have given us a practical and, as they hoped, a permanent constitutional compact. The father of his country did not affix his revered name to so palpable an absurdity. Nor did the states, when they severally ratified it, do so under the impression that a veto on the laws of the United States was reserved to them or that they could exercise it by implication. Search the debates in all their conventions, examine the speeches of the most zealous opposers of federal authority, look at the amendments that were proposed; they are, all silent-not a syllable uttered, not a vote given, not a motion made to correct the explicit supremacy given to the laws of the Union over those of the states, or to show that implication, as is now contended, could defeat it.

No; we have not erred. The Constitution is still the object of our reverence, the bond of our Union, our defense in danger, the source of our prosperity in peace. It shall descend, as we have received it, uncorrupted by sophistical construction, to our posterity; and the sacrifices of local interests, of state prejudices, of personal animosities that were made to bring it into existence will again be patriotically offered for its support.

The two remaining objections made by the ordinance to these laws are that the sums intended to be raised by them are greater than are required, and that the proceeds will be unconstitutionally employed. . . .

The ordinance, with the same knowledge of the future that characterizes a former objection, tells you that the proceeds of the tax will be unconstitutionally applied. If this could be ascertained with certainty, the objection would with more propriety be reserved for the law so applying the proceeds, but surely cannot be urged against the laws levying the duty.

These are the allegations contained in the ordinance. Examine them seriously, my fellow citizens; judge for yourselves. I appeal to you to determine whether they are so clear, so convincing, as to leave no doubt of their correctness; and even if you should come to this conclusion, how far they justify the reckless, destructive course which you am directed to pursue. Review these objections and the conclusions drawn from them once more. What are they? Every law, then, for raising revenue, according to the South Carolina ordinance, may be rightfully annulled unless it be so framed as no law ever will or can be framed. Congress have a right to pass laws for raising revenue and each state has a right to oppose their execution-two rights directly opposed to each other; and yet is this absurdity supposed to be contained in an instrument drawn for the express purpose of avoiding collisions between the states and the general government by an assembly of the most enlightened statesmen and purest patriots ever embodied for a similar purpose.

In vain have these sages declared that Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; in vain have they provided that they shall have power to pass laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry those powers into execution, that those laws and that Constitution shall be the "supreme law of the land, and that the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding"; in vain have the people of the several states solemnly sanctioned these provisions, made them their paramount law, and individually sworn to support them whenever they were called on to execute any office. Vain provisions! Ineffectual restrictions! Vile profanation of oaths! Miserable mockery of legislation!-if a bare majority of the voters in any one state may, on a real or supposed knowledge of the intent with which a law has been passed, declare themselves free from its operation; say, here it gives too little; there, too much, and operates unequally; here it suffers articles to be free that ought to be taxed; there it taxes those that ought to be free; in this case the proceeds are intended to be applied to purposes which we do not approve; in that, the amount raised is more than is wanted.

Congress, it is true, are invested by the Constitution with the right of deciding these questions according to their sound discretion. Congress is composed of the representatives of all the states and of all the people of all the states. But we, part of the people of one state, to whom the Constitution has given no power on the subject, from whom it has expressly taken it away; we, who have solemnly agreed that this Constitution shall be our law; we, most of whom have sworn to support it-we now abrogate this law and swear, and force others to swear, that it shall not be obeyed; and we do this not because Congress have no right to pass such laws-this we do not allege-but because they have passed them with improper views. They are unconstitutional from the motives of those who passed them, which we can never with certainty know; from their unequal operation, although it is impossible, from the nature of things, that they should be equal; and from the disposition which we presume may be made of their proceeds, although that disposition has not been declared. This is the plain meaning of the ordinance in relation to laws which it abrogates for alleged unconstitutionality.

But it does not stop there. It repeals in express terms an important part of the Constitution itself and of laws passed to give it effect which have never been alleged to be unconstitutional. The Constitution declares that the judicial powers of the United States extend to cases arising under the laws of the United States, and that such laws, the Constitution, and treaties shall be paramount to the state constitutions and laws. The judiciary act prescribes the mode by which the case may be brought before a court of the United States by appeal when a state tribunal shall decide against this provision of the Constitution. The ordinance declares there shall be no appeal-makes the state law paramount to the Constitution and laws of the United States, forces judges and jurors to swear that they will disregard their provisions, and even makes it penal in a suitor to attempt relief by appeal. It further declares that it shall not be lawful for the authorities of the United States or of that state to enforce the payment of duties imposed by the revenue laws within its limits.

Here is a law of the United States, not even pretended to be unconstitutional, repealed by the authority of a small majority of the voters of a single state. Here is a provision of the Constitution which is solemnly abrogated by the same authority.

On such expositions and reasonings the ordinance grounds not only an assertion of the right to annul the laws of which it complains but to enforce it by a threat of seceding from the Union if any attempt is made to execute them.

This right to secede is deduced from the nature of the Constitution, which, they say, is a compact between sovereign states who have preserved their whole sovereignty and therefore are subject to no superior; that because they made the compact they can break it when in their opinion it has been departed from by the other states. Fallacious as this course of reasoning is, it enlists state pride and finds advocates in the honest prejudices of those who have not studied the nature of our government sufficiently to see the radical error on which it rests. . . .

The Constitution of the United States, then, forms a government, not a league; and whether it be formed by compact between the states or in any other manner, its character is the same. It is a government in which all the people are represented, which operates directly on the people individually, not upon the states; they retained all the power they did not grant. But each state, having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute, jointly with the other states, a single nation, cannot, from that period, possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league but destroys the unity of a nation; and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact but it is an offense against the whole Union.

To say that any state may at pleasure secede from the Union is to say that the United States are not a nation, because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution or incur the penalties consequent on a failure.

Because the Union was formed by a compact, it is said the parties to that compact may, when they feel themselves aggrieved, depart from it; but it is precisely because it is a compact that they cannot. A compact is an agreement or binding obligation. It may by its terms have a sanction or penalty for its breach, or it may not. If it contains no sanction, it may be broken with no other consequence than moral guilt; if it have a sanction, then the breach incurs the designated or implied penalty. A league between independent nations generally has no sanction other than a moral one; or if it should contain a penalty, as there is no common superior it cannot be enforced. A government, on the contrary, always has a sanction, express or implied; and in our case it is both necessarily implied and expressly given. An attempt by force of arms to destroy a government is an offense, by whatever means the constitutional compact may have been formed; and such government has the right by the law of self-defense to pass acts for punishing the offender, unless that right is modified, restrained, or resumed by the constitutional act. In our system, although it is modified in the case of treason, yet authority is expressly given to pass all laws necessary to carry its powers into effect, and under this grant provision has been made for punishing acts which obstruct the due administration of the laws.

It would seem superfluous to add anything to show the nature of that Union which connects us, but as erroneous opinions on this subject are the foundation of doctrines the most destructive to our peace, I must give some further development to my views on this subject. No one, fellow citizens, has a higher reverence for the reserved rights of the states than the magistrate who now addresses you. No one would make greater personal sacrifices or official exertions to defend them from violation; but equal care must be taken to prevent, on their part, an improper interference with or resumption of the rights they have vested in the nation. The line has not been so distinctly drawn as to avoid doubts in some cases of the exercise of power. Men of the best intentions and soundest views may differ in their construction of some parts of the Constitution; but there are others on which dispassionate reflection can leave no doubt.

Of this nature appears to be the assumed right of secession. It rests, as we have seen, on the alleged undivided sovereignty of the states and on their having formed in this sovereign capacity a compact which is called the Constitution, from which, because they made it, they have the right to secede. Both of these positions are erroneous, and some of the arguments to prove them so have been anticipated.

The states severally have not retained their entire sovereignty. It has been shown that in becoming parts of a nation, not members of a league, they surrendered many of their essential parts of sovereignty. The right to make treaties, declare war, levy taxes, exercise exclusive judicial and legislative powers were all of them functions of sovereign power. The states, then, for all these important purposes, were no longer sovereign. The allegiance of their citizens was transferred, in the first instance, to the government of the United States; they became American citizens and owed obedience to the Constitution of the United States and to laws made in conformity with the powers it vested in Congress. . . .

This, then, is the position in which we stand. A small majority of the citizens of one state in the Union have elected delegates to a state convention; that convention has ordained that all the revenue laws of the United States must be repealed, or that they are no longer a member of the Union. The governor of that state has recommended to the legislature the raising of an army to carry the secession into effect, and that he may be empowered to give clearances to vessels in the name of the state. No act of violent opposition to the laws has yet been committed, but such a state of things is hourly apprehended. And it is the intent of this instrument to proclaim, not only that the duty imposed on me by the Constitution "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed" shall be performed to the extent of the powers already vested in me by law, or of such others as the wisdom of Congress shall devise and intrust to me for that purpose, but to warn the citizens of South Carolina who have been deluded into an opposition to the laws of the danger they will incur by obedience to the illegal and disorganizing ordinance of the convention; to exhort those who have refused to support it to persevere in their determination to uphold the Constitution and laws of their country; and to point out to all the perilous situation into which the good people of that state have been led, and that the course they am urged to pursue is one of ruin and disgrace to the very state whose rights they affect to support. . . .

Disunion by armed force is treason. Are you really ready to incur its guilt? If you are, on the heads of the instigators of the act be the dreadful consequences; on their heads be the dishonor, but on yours may fall the punishment. On your unhappy state will inevitably fall all the evils of the conflict you force upon the government of your country. It cannot accede to the mad project of disunion, of which you would be the first victims. Its first magistrate cannot, if he would, avoid the performance of his duty. . . .

Fellow citizens of the United States, the threat of unhallowed disunion, the names of those once respected by whom it is uttered, the array of military force to support it, denote the approach of a crisis in our affairs on which the continuance of our unexampled prosperity, our political existence, and perhaps that of all free governments may depend. The conjuncture demanded a free, a full and explicit enunciation, not only of my intentions, but of my principles of action; and as the claim was asserted of a right by a state to annul the laws of the Union, and even to secede from it at pleasure, a frank exposition of my opinions in relation to the origin and form of our government and the construction I give to the instrument by which it was created seemed to be proper.

Having the fullest confidence in the justness of the legal and constitutional opinion of my duties which has been expressed, I rely with equal confidence on your undivided support in my determination to execute the laws, to preserve the Union by all constitutional means, to arrest, if possible, by moderate and firm measures the necessity of a recourse to force; and if it be the will of Heaven that the recurrence of its primeval curse on man for the shedding of a brother's blood should fall upon our land, that it be not called down by any offensive act on the part of the United States.

Fellow citizens, the momentous case is before you. On your undivided support of your government depends the decision of the great question it involves-whether your sacred Union will be preserved and the blessing it secures to us as one people shall be perpetuated.

I wrote this back in November but never wanted to make it public. Now, I don’t care anymore. If someone wants to arrest me for what’s in here, I’d get better medical services in prison.

Anyway, I was inspired to this by the Magna Carta. King Edward decided to get on the people’s good side by giving them the right to take posession of his property if he ever failed to act on their complaints. Yeah, he told them to confiscate his horses, castles, land, anything. As long as his wife and kids had food you had the right to keep his stuff until you were satisfied.

Where is ole’ Edward these days?Can you even daydream about Barack acting in such a manner?

The title, The United States of America, has been the name of our union for 230 plus years. It became so by way of the Constitution. It has always been the title of the federal government by which the states became a united confederation. Now, these states find themselves under severe attack economically and socially by that same organization, the USA, or federal government. To replace or abolish that government, we need to void the Constitution as that is the document that gives the federal government the right to exist.

As long as the states recognize the Constitution as legal, the USA still has power.

We must abandon, for a while, that document and immediately create another partnership among the states without any power for the defunct USA.

Sounds drastic, huh. Think about it. The feds get their right to exist from that paper. That’s why it was created. If we had not formed the union, it would not have been created.

The salvation of our way of life from destruction at the hands of the USA, Obama, and his gang, rests solely with the legislatures of the fifty sovereign states. As the creators of the Constitution, and thereby the USA, they are the only entity with the authority and right to abolish or replace the federal government known as United States of America.

I will send this to the Patrick Henry Caucus as my offerring for a course of action.

The legislatures of the States of America,

To the former federal government aka: the USA

Therefore, the following document has been ratified by the majority of the several state legislatures and is, thus, made law by resolve, rendering the Constitution null and void of authority and causing it to be, no more.

Our federal government has taken upon itself powers it was never authorized to have, and with that power have subjected the people of the nation to great harm, destroying the economy and the very nature of our society, causing severe diminishment of the wealth and general welfare of the people.

It has become necessary and of immediate need, to insure the survival of these sovereign states, to render the federal government non-existant and to arrest as criminals all elected and appointed members thereof.

It is only with these state legislatures that that authority rests as the creators of that government. The Constitution of the United States was the instrument that created the form and function of that new central body. Therefore, when that central organization is no longer required, or it becomes destructive, innefective, or needs to be revised or replaced, only these state legislatures have that authority. They can accomplish this in spite of any and all objection or resistance from any source, as the Constitution is no longer the law of the land.

These legislatures of the several states, constituting a majority thereof, hereby declare all elected and appointed members of all branches of the Federal Government of the United States of America, to be in violation of the terms of their service, as sworn to by them, and are, hereby, terminated and removed from office as provided for in the Constitution of the United States.

With the Obama administration shredding the Constitution and stealing the wealth of the people for the next decade Americans are looking for an effective method to put a stop to the crimes before our nation is destroyed. The only entity in the US that has standing to file charges, has enough influence to pass resolutions with teeth, and whom Congress actually fears are the state legislatures. Why do the states have that power? What do they have that they aren’t using yet? It is the fact that the states are the original creators of the federal government. It was a convention of state delegates that produced the Constitution, the document that created the federal government, and in article ten the states left no doubt as to who held the ultimate power in America.

If a majority of the state legislatures were to pass identical resolutions listing specific violations of the Constitution by Congress, the SCOTUS, and the POTUS, promising to withhold all revenue due the federal government until the violations cease and their effects reversed, and promising if they persist in these violations they will pass a resolution dissolving the federal government and rendering it of no authority, being null and void, and issuing indictments in every state for the violations and warrants for the arrest of all officials, I believe that might get their attention.

Someone needs to do something SOON. There is already enough documentation of crimes serious enough to warrant such an action, any more procrastination can only allow more damage to be done, and cause the recovery period to grow by years, and the theft of the people’s wealth to grow to the tens of trillions of dollars.

Write or e-mail your state legislators and encourage them to contact the Patrick Henry Causcus, a group of state legislators started by Utah State Representitive Carl Wimmer, who are planning to bring sanctions against the government in Washington.

They have their own, and several associate web sites, all are very inspiring.

I wish to have your opinions on a subject both dear and feared to all of us. I believe the malady that afflicted voters last November is the same as what has infected the America haters, the "give me" crowd, and, especially Obama, his wife, and all of his associates, embraced or abandoned. It is as fundamental as the inalienable rights of man and that which has made America the nation she is, or was, and can still be.

America was founded on what major principal? The Declaration of Independence tells the reasons Americans set themselves apart from a king. It was in every pamphlet, editorial, letter to of from, and was the main subject when the contract for the federal government was written. In one, all encompassing word, America’s claim to fame, the fertilizer for the tree of liberty, was, and still is individualism. The inalienable rights of the individual, especially, most importantly, their right to own property and to control that property, were and are the bedrock of America’s greatness. It is the American, the head of the family, the business owner, the mom and dad worker bees, that are each individually responsible for the America of today.

But we, having been raised, mainly, as a religious people, see ourselves as faulty, no, depraved. And down through the decades we, as forthright and honest people, have had a tough time mentally squaring those two in our minds. The depraved, but exceptional and hard working individuals, having the nerve to claim theirs is a nation of values and morals, is just to much at odds to each other to seem real. It would seem that these honest, sincere folks have a point, and that it eats at them, and Obama, all their lives, promoting a putrification of the inner self resulting, eventually, in the bitterness we see, and the aching of their hearts that is so obvious.

The reasoning behind their quandary is simple. Since before all of our births, for over one hundred years and more, America has been known as the nation that acts as savior of the world, the hero of the oppressed wherever they be, the first in the space race and technology, feeding the world. When disaster hits anywhere, it’s America that floats her city on a boat up to their shores and gives all they have to those who need it. America has invented, built, exported, and given away so much, and has never even run slightly short for her own needs. Yes, America is exceptional. The shining city on the hill.

So what’s wrong with that? It isn’t wrong, in and of itself, because America is a country of Americans. But that idea, America, has come to mean sitting back and watching her rise to ever more lofty heights, and not having too much to do with it, thanks to our elected officials in Washington. America is great, but some of the people don’t feel so great. Why? Because they know that they have not been responsible for it. They can’t sit back and just watch our greatness grow and have any pride in it.

Except for those of us who were raised by the previous, patriotic generation, who have taken advantage of our opportunities, worked hard all our lives paying a mortgage, raising a family, and coming to an inner truce with God and our sinful nature. We can feel the pride in being a self provider, and feel it we do. And we make no apologies for being proud. Those who have lived on the doll, or have taken all that America is for granted, or who know nothing greater than themselves that they can put their faith in, can not perceive the reason the rest of us have for being so cocky. They are Americans, but they know nothing of indivdualism and, therefore, they are of the same mind as the proletariats of the former USSR, and can’t fathom our greatness as anything but false.

These people have lost their sense of individualism, if they ever had any, because they have failed to do anything about their own interests. It has become so easy to wait for America to do it all and not have to worry about it. This reign of inner loathing has been cheered on by the degradation of our value system, the decline of our public schools, no parental authority or even concern, and it becomes its own firestorm, creating an ever self-perpetuating downward spiral of individual achievement, and a welling up of disgust and enmity for themselves and those who have any pride in themselves or the fruited plain, or faith in anything godlike.

There are many false concepts that people have regarding the Constitution, its creation, and its effect on the United States and the people. I intend to address four of the more popular myths. Legal and historic authoritative references available by request.

The Constitution was created in a constitutional convention convened to revise the Articles of Confederation. It is said that the delegates exceeded their powers and scrapped the Art. Of Conf., created the Constitution, and forced it on the states to ratify, which was not what they were authorized to do.

The thirteen colonies decided, in a meeting of delegates in Philadelphia, 1774, that there were reasons to form an alliance between themselves that would set up rules and policies by which the states would interact with one another. Benjamin Franklin was tasked with authoring the rules, and in May of 1775, he presented his work, The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, to delegates of the several colonies of New Hampshire, and the other colonies, in general Congress in Philadelphia.

There were thirteen articles of about four pages total, that addressed such subjects as the name of the new confederation, what states were included and for what purpose, how the articles would be carried out, the duties and power that the articles created for the confederation, who would pay for the cost of implementing the articles, certain restrictions that applied to all the states, how the articles were to be revised or ammended, etc.

The Articles were voted on and were unanimously adopted by those states that were represented. The name of the new confederation was "The United Colonies of North America."

Two years later, at the request of the delegates of several of the colonies, the Articles were revised to a) change the name of the confederation to "The United States of America", b) provide more detail to the thirteen articles as they saw necessary, and c) provide for the establishment of a navy and army. The extra details were considerable in their content and increased the document by more than twice its size, to nine or ten pages, depending on the formatting. Mr. Franklin, again, produced an effective, well written revision and the new articles were, again, passed unanimously by all states.

These articles, the conventions and delegates it required, and the work it accomplished with a navy, army, post office, etc., was the extent of the central government for the next nine years. During that time, new flaws and inadequacies were discovered in the articles and documented, not being due to any defficiency by Dr. Franklin in their creation. The shortcomings were in the nature of duties required by the articles, (army, navy, etc.) were billed to the states for payment, but there was no requirement for the states to pay. Also, some of the duties required, weights and measures, embassies, treaties with Indian nations, etc., required more authority for their implementation than was given to the Confederation by the Articles.

In early 1786, in congress assembled, the confederation delegates resolved that a new committee of delegates from the states would meet in Annapolis in September of that year to determine what revisions were needed to remedy the defects in the articles.

On September 11, delegates from only five states met in Annapolis. They elected a chairman, presented their credentials to each other, and then discussed the duties that would be proper under their circumstances. A committee was selected to prepare a letter of report to be made to the legislatures of those states having delegates in attendance.

In summary, the delegates refused to undertake the duties they had been sent to perform because the representation was so inadequate that no decision made could be approved as only five of the thirteen states sent delegates.

They did offer the opinion of those delegates who attended that a) this was a very important cause and the other states should be convinced to send delegates, b) that the revisions needed were to be extensive if they were to cure the defects, and c) that the full Congress should also receive a copy of this letter so they would know the extreme gravity of the situation.

In May, 1787, the Congress convened in Philadelphia to take up this matter. It was decided by the Congress that a full constitutional convention, separate from Congress, should be called and the matter of the remedy of defects in the Confederation be their sole purpose. The convention president was to be George Washington, and was convened immediately. In September of that year they produced their proposal for the remedies sought. It took the form of the Constitution of the United States, a new document, that was sent to all the states where a convention of delegates chosen by the legislatures would consider the ratification of the new document, and when nine of the thirteen states had approved it, it would be effective.

In June, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the Constitution making it the law of the land. In March, 1789, the first Congress under the new Constitution convened in New York. In April, George Washington became the first President of the United States.

There was no exceeding of authority by the Annapolis committee, or the convention that produced the Constitution. The Arts. Of Conf. had been created by the states, and the states had the right to revise or replace them as they saw necessary. Also, before the Constitution became law, the states had to vote on it and nine of the thirteen were needed to adopt it. They did, and it was. All legal, within the rights and authority of the creators, and no exeeding of authority was committed.

The most notable promoter of Myth No. One is the John Birch Society who opposes the call for an Art. Five Convention for proposing ammendments by delegates from the states. Only Congress has ever ammended the Constitution, but Art Five states that delegates from the states are allowed to ammend in a convention called by Congress when enough states apply for it. Congress has ignored all applications, over 600, ever submitted by the states.

That the Constitution was created for the purpose of defining and guaranteeing the rights of the People of the USA.

The Constitution is the document that created the federal government. It replaced the inadequate Articles of Confederation and established a complete central government.

The Constitution was written by a convention of delegates from twelve of the thirteen states, (Rhode Island never attended) and was a listing of powers granted to the fed. government by the states, a listing of specific prohibitions of power not granted, the rules of how the new government would be formed, how they would conduct their business as specified, the powers of authority where it would over rule state laws and where states would retain their authority, and a statement as to why the document was being created and by whom.

It was not written as a document to the people of the USA, did not ever specifically address the people directly, but was, instead, written BY the people for the purpose of forming a more perfect union of states than the Arts. Of Conf. had been.

So, the purpose was to form the federal government. In doing that, it specifically listed the seventeen jobs the new gov’t. was to do, what powers it was given to do those jobs, stated that any power not specifically granted by the states to the fed. gov’t. were to remain the power of the states, and that the states, being the creators of the new gov’t., were the ultimate authorities in the USA and the fed gov’t. was the servant of the states and the people.

In the listing of powers granted and those which were restricted under any circumstance, the rights of the people were defined and their violation or even revision by the fed. gov’t. was strictly prohibited. The new federal government was not allowed to have any authority over the rights of the people. PERIOD!! The fed govt’s relationship was with the state governments, in service to the people, and the states were to remain the ultimate authority, except where designated in the Constitution.

That the Constitution demands there be no interaction between churches and the government, in other words, a seperation of church and state.

The words, "seperation of church and state" do not appear anywhere in the Constitution or in any legal document of the United States. The very idea of that phrase is not ever defined or implied. What is written about churches in the Cosnstitution is the prohibition of Congress to make ANY laws regarding religion or the establishment of religion.

It is illegal for the USA to have any law that has anything to do with religion. PERIOD. NO LAWS OF ANY KIND ABOUT RELIGION.

This prohibition is found in the first ammendment to the Constitution, and is just one of five rights in the first ammendment that Congress was prohibited from dealing with in any way. In other words, "Congress, you have your orders for your jobs and they do not include anything at all about these five rights. You have no authority where these matters are concerned."

In England, King Henry VIII established the Church of England, and demanded all British subjects be members thereof, and of no other church, including the Catholic Church. This was one reason some colonists left England, and they made it impossible for the new federal government to do the same in America.

But, nowhwere was there any law or suggestion that churches and religion could not influence or be officials of the federal government. In fact, John Adams said that the new government needed the wisdom and religious conviction of church members and even their ministers to influence the government in a good and Godly manner.

Religion MUST have a part in government. Government must NOT have any part in religion.

The people have a Constitutional right to privacy.

Nowhere in the Constitution or US legal documents is there a right to privacy. The only things in the Constitution that comes close are a) the Third Ammendment prohibition of the government to house soldiers in private homes and b) the Fourth Ammendment prohibition against search and seizure of homes or property without a warrant issued with probable cause by a judge.

Nowhere is there a specific, individually declared right of citizens to privacy. The right for people to be secure in their homes is implied, but against illegal searches or seizures of property. The government leaves it to the individual to provide for his own privacy, but does not guarantee him the right to that privacy. They, also, do not forbid privacy, so, they leave that subject alone, as they should all subjects except their expressed duties.

Glenn Flowers

Halliburton is thought by many to be an unscrupulous, greedy, evil company that either gouges the American people by charging exhorbitant prices or participating in evil plots for the government. I can tell you from personal experience that neither description is true. In fact, Halliburton is a very well run company with integrity that would make you proud to be an employee or associate. I know, I have had a great deal of association with Halliburton.

I have made a living the past thirty-five years designing electrical systems that control the operation of large oil refineries, chemical plants, nuclear power plants, and offshore oil platforms. The company I worked for for most of that time was the largest engineering and construction company in the world. As such, we worked for many large corporations and governments of the world including Saudi Arabia, U.S.A, Shell Oil of Malysia, Alyeska Corporation (owner of the Alaska pipeline), South Korea, Boeing, NASA, Exxon, State of Texas, etc. On many occasions the project we were hired to design and/or build was part of a much larger project, and a large number of those overall projects were managed and coordinated for the owners by Halliburton Industries.

Halliburton originated as a supplier of equipment and personnel to the petroleum industry. An excellent work ethic and a reputation for successfully handling very large and complicated jobs made Halliburton the choice of most of the industry for that purpose. Eventually Halliburton expanded and diversified into a myriad of different industries. They are a major testing contractor for NASA. They have become the US government’s choice for civil engineering such as rebuilding disaster areas and war ravaged nations, managing large military construction projects, building Veteran’s Administration Hospitals, and so forth. They excell in managing large, integrated projects that require many sub-contractors of differing disciplines. It was no wonder to me when they were given the job of putting Iraq back together without having to bid against rival companies.

The U.S. government has a universe of rules and restrictions it uses in their process of obtaining equipment and services from civilian businesses. For example, in the private fire alarm industry, a fire alarm company is free to set their own prices for labor and their alarm equipment when selling to other private companies. The alarm salesman is adept at offering systems to potential customers that can beat his competitor’s price yet still provide a decent profit to his company. If that same salesman were to pursue a contract for an alarm system in a new V.A. Hospital, he would find himself dealing with Halliburton who would be the government’s prime contractor. Halliburton would provide the salesman with a schedule of acceptable equipment and the price range allowed for it. The labor rate ranges are also set by the government. The salesman is required to provide a cost sheet showing his wholesale cost of the equipment, mark-up, and actual wages of the people who will perform the design and installation of the system. When submitted to Halliburton, the cost sheet will be analyzed for compliance with the government’s price and wage rates. If any profit margin or labor rates are above the government’s standards Halliburton will correct the costs and return it to the alarm company.

Once the project begins, the alarm company is required by the government to submit monthly status reports showing the percentage of the job they were able to complete that month, the amount of equipment shipped to the job, the equipment actually installed, the number of total labor hours performed broken down into supervisor, journeyman, and apprentice hours, and the cost of these items as a percentage of the total project price. All of this is submitted on government forms per their instructions to Halliburton. A month later, the alarm company receives a check for the previous month’s submittal. This means the alarm company must prepay a month of salaries and prepay their equipment supplier for the system. The alarm company will constantly be a month behind in their payments to labor and suppliers when dealing with the government.

For the reasons above, very few companies are willing or able to bid or contract with the government. The government has, over the years, determined which companies work within their constraints efficiently and in the cases where the work is needed in a short time period or is of a secret or hazardous nature, the process of putting these contracts out for competitive bidding is just not practical and they depend on their list of preferred contractors to do the work immediately, on time, and within the budget.

For the most part, the rules the government has for companies working for them serves to provide a good or high quality performance for a price well under what private industry can provide. There are, of course, pros and cons to this process, just as there are in private industry. But when there is mountains of paperwork to do, some of the largest and most expensive projects being done, a need to expedite equipment and labor schedules, and do it all in coordination with a multitude of other companies, Halliburton has not only perfected the process, but it has managed to become a very profitable corporation providing hundreds of thousands of jobs for the people of America.

A company must make a choice when contemplating going after government contracts. The limited profit margin requires that efficiency be among the highest of priorities of concern. In addition, a dedication of a large portion of your corporation to the government’s projects is necessary. By making the choice to become a preferred government contractor who does a lot of work for the USA, and resolving yourself to the requiement to provide a first rate product to the country for a discounted price to the taxpayers, a very good and dependable life can be made for the owners and their employees.

In closing, I have been perplexed every time I hear criticism of Halliburton, more often that not some snide criticism of Dick Cheney is in there somewhere. And, the people making those critical remarks will admit that what they "know" about Halliburton comes from the news programs and politician’s statements. It is then perfectly clear to me. The fact is, these uninformed critics actually don’t know ANTHING about Halliburton, the way government executes contracts, or even about Dick Cheney. But, I’ve learned one thing if not many, that this is standard thinking when the news media is the source of their knowledge.

Glenn Flowers

I wrote another piece recently for American Thinker, a letter of amends to conservatives. In it I described why I transformed from a Berkeley leftist to a talk radio loving conservative the last 1 1/2 years. I realized the Democratic Party wasn't what I thought, that it had mutated into something mean and rough, and that I had probably been living in a fantasy world all along. I very much appreciated the outpouring of support, wisdom, and forgiveness from American Thinker readers.

Many said something to the effect of: Robin, congrats, but what in the world took you so long? So let me explain. I wasn't just your garden variety liberal who voted Democrat and that was about it. I was a true believer. A zealot. Like many leftists who had abandoned Judeo-Christian religion, I worshipped at the altar of liberalism. For instance, I never missed watching the Democratic National Convention. I watched every speech, with tissue box handy. (What kind of a freak was I anyway?) The Democratic Party symbolized hope, love, compassion, promise, everything that was good and holy in the world. I gave money, my time, my heart, my soul. I cried with joy when Democrats won; I was distraught when they lost.

I was programmed from birth to be a devout liberal. My dad, a hard working first generation Russian Jew, would lecture me on a regular basis, "The Democrats are the party of the little people. The Republicans are the party of the rich guy." He would also get a little weepy when he watched the DNC (so that must be where I got it from). One of our rare moments of bonding was reading the newspapers together on opposite ends of the couch, interrupting each other with stories about the bad Republicans and the heroic Democrats.

When I was in high school in the early 70's in New York, I wrote impassioned essays on civil rights and on feminism. In college, in the days before universities became indoctrination factories, I searched for politically left classes, and took every one I could find. I spent years in consciousness raising groups lambasting male oppression with other angry feminists, and yelled "Two Four Six Eight, Pornography is Woman Hate," at numerous marches.

When I was 26, I parked myself in the People's Republic of Berkeley, CA, the epicenter of the far left. I came as a liberal but soon morphed into a leftist as most people here do. In Berkeley, San Francisco, Oakland, and the outlying towns, there is no Republican Party. Literally. There are only Democrats running against other Democrats. I recall years ago going to vote at a time when there were separate lines for Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats' line was a mile long. The Republican's was free and clear. After we all stood there waiting for 45 minutes, a brave young man walked up to the Republican booth and quickly voted. I still recall the cackles and giggles as we pointed and stared at this odd, exotic bird that had come to perch for a brief while.

So maybe you get now how hard it was, how disorienting and destabilizing and crazy making it was, when I realized about 1 1/2 years ago that I no longer believed in liberalism. I walked around in a confused state for weeks. Being a Democrat, a liberal, a far left radical from Berkeley was a big part of my identity. So who the heck was I if I weren't a leftist? And what in the world would I do, given that my husband, all my friends, and all my psychotherapist clients were liberal and I would be public enemy #1 if I told anyone? Converting from Islam to Judaism, yet still hanging out in front of the old mosque in Kabul, probably would have been easier.

After weeks of shuffling around like a zombie, it was time to do something about it. The first step, I decided, was deprogramming myself from decades of liberal propaganda. Out went books by Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti, and various 9/11 conspiracy books. In came Mark Levin, Ben Stein, Ron Paul, and Ayn Rand. I heard something vaguely about Talk Radio, so I scanned my AM dial, and found Michael Savage. I was shocked and offended by his diatribes -- but also oddly intrigued. I found many others: Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Boortz, Medved, all of whom became my "sponsors" in recovery this last year. I found wonderfully insightful websites like American Thinker.

To my disbelief, the more I listened and read, the more these folks made sense. For instance, at first I couldn't understand why so many conservatives expressed concern about morality issues, like gay marriage. Berkeley is Lesbian Central, and I know many good hearted gay people. But the more I learned, the more I started getting the larger picture; that conservatives were not necessarily impugning the character of gay people, but they were alarmed at the breakdown of traditional values. If the basic structure of society goes, e.g., traditional marriage, religion, patriotism, common language, what remains? If everything becomes fluid, what is there to hold onto? Without any moral structure and traditions, a society descends into anarchy and mob rule, as it is clearly doing today.

As I educated myself, I started thinking and rethinking. I'd wake up in the middle of the night with the sudden realization that deeply held beliefs made no sense. Take the anti war stance of the left. Noble and sanctimonious and all that. But how easy it is to sit back and preach peace when you have an army defending you; to rail against the U.S. when you are protected by free speech laws; to demonize Israel, when you've never lived through the murderous pogroms of Tsarist Russia or the Holocaust. How hypocritical to lambast Big Business while you are making money from their stocks in your mutual fund portfolio (that is, until Obama took over). And how ludicrous to admire Chavez, Castro and all things socialist, when the closest experience you've had to standing on a bread line is queuing up for goat cheese/arugula pizza at Whole Foods.

And this love affair with Radical Islam -- what's up with that? I had previously thought of Islam as a quaint, folksy religion. But when I started actually reading about it, especially Dr. Phyllis Chesler's illuminating books and web site, I realized extremist Muslims were advocating some seriously scary stuff, like destroying Israel and the West. I had been oblivious of the horrendous treatment of women: the honor killings, beheadings, genital mutilation. It now seemed like the height of naivety, if not masochism, to embrace with open arms people who want to kill you.

While as a liberal I was socialized to believe everyone was good, all cultures were the same, and We Are The World, We Are The Children, I began to understand that evil exists. The emergence of evil always offers warnings signs, and we ignore them at our peril.

Though exhausted from lack of sleep, I also started waking up. I realized, to my utter incredulity, that conservatives made sense, and that I was one of them. I recalled Mark Twain's quip about his father: When Twain was a teenager, he thought his father was the stupidest man in the world; but when he became a young man in his 20's, his father had many intelligent things to say. Twain couldn't believe how much his father had learned in those years! Like Twain, I grew up and saw the world as it is. Yes it would be nice to save the planet, to eliminate hunger, and to make everyone good and righteous. But humans don't have the power to do that. To walk around, as I did, with utopian images that didn't match reality was to view life through the eyes of a child. An adult understands that civility matters, people need to be held accountable for their behavior, and protecting yourself and your country are moral imperatives.

So it took about a year, but my deprogramming has been successful. I'm comfortable in my own skin, feel more alive than I have in years, and am excited by all I'm learning and becoming. Now when I listen to Sean Hannity's theme song, "Let Freedom Ring," I get a little misty eyed (some things never change). I only hope and pray (yes I'm doing that more too) that the US survives when the Democrats are done "changing" it. But if this lifelong left winger from Berkeley can wake up, hopefully others will also do so before it's too late.

It is times such as these that give cause for people to fear the future and what seems to be inevitable doom and misery. Many events have been the impetus for such fear and speculation, and many have exploited the situations, however benign, for monetary rewards, fame, or just recognition. Much of the reasoning behind the prophecies and fear does not warrant or even suggest the worrisome outcomes prescribed to them. One such subject is the Mayan calendar and its supposed prophecy of the destruction of the universe on December 21, 2012.

It has been so mutated and corrupted from its true nature that the world has no idea as to its true origin, use, or meaning, and believes it to be a harbinger of the end of time. A true understanding of the Mayan calendars, and there are many, requires a great deal of research and study. I hope, with relatively few words and in a short time, to attract the attention of a few reasonable minds and plant a seed of understanding in those interested.

The Mayans had many calendars, each having a different basis and a specific purpose or meaning. Most were based on the orbital motions of the planets, including Pluto. There are, though, three calendars that were not created by them and have no basis in celestial or astronomical mechanics. These three calendars are the source of all the fables and prophecies.

Mayan history tells of a man with a white beard and white robes, descending from the clouds around 500BC. He presented them with three charts and a manuscript saying they would explain the nature of the universe and aid them in their lives, making happiness and security easier to gain. These calendars were based on momentous evolutionary advances of the universe from the beginning of time. These advances occur in the conciousness of everything, and the way that conciousness creates reality. This calendar did not reflect any physical thing, but the progression of awareness. The only physical aspect was its use of solar time to express its advancement and make it understandable in mans mind.

This "Long Count Calendar" is divided into nine epochs each having as its result a major advancement in evolution. Each epoch is a derivitive of the first, meaning that the sum of all are expressed in the first. (it will become clearer as we go) Each epoch is divided into seven "days" and six "nights". The calendar’s first epoch begins with the beginning of the universe, 16.8 billion years ago, and is named the Cellular period. Each day and each night are 1.26 billion years long each, the seventh day being all of the remaining eight epochs.

During the Cellular period, the universe was formed from all the elements resulting in the stars, planets, and all the other bodies. The state of conciousness at that time was Action/Reaction, the result of chemical and physical laws upon matter. By the end of the Cellular Period, cellular life had formed where water and organic compounds existed, and these living cells evolved a different conciousness of Stimulus/Response, a sentient alternative to Action/Reaction.

The epoch’s names, durations (or year began), and state of conciousness are:

Cellular              16.8 billion yrs            1.26 billion yrs               Action/Reaction

Mammalian         820 million yrs           63 million yrs               Stimulus/Response

Cultural           102 thousand yrs                8000 yrs                     Reasoning

National             3115 BC                          400 yrs                      Law/Punishment

Planetary           1755 AD                           20 yrs                               Power

Galactic            1/5/1999                           360 days                            Ethics

Universal         2/10/2011                         20 days                  Concious Co-creation

Notice that each epoch is twenty times shorter than the previous one. This demostrates the increasing pace in evolution, having the same amount of change in a period twenty times less in duration. This calendar also implies that conciousness is the driving factor in the evolution of everything in the universe.

Conciousness is generally defined as the awareness of being aware. Animals are aware of their environment, but to ponder that awareness, to contemplate your own thoughts is a strictly human capability.

Calendars are the very centerpoint of any civilization. All aspects of society have two qualities in common: time and place. Time needs a calendar to set a standard day. Place requires conciousness to be aware of a commitment, and to be aware of the time of that commitment, an awareness of being aware.

This ability of conciousness has evolved through time, and is changing dramatically in the present days. The Concious Co-creation of the final epoch is thought to be a merging of man’s spirit or conciousness with the Creator to allow creation of one’s ultimate paradise, which many religions teach as an aspect of Heaven. Many other of the Mayan Calendar’s components appear to verify and elaborate on the religions and philosophies from history.

The first epoch, seven days and six nights, each day and each night being 1.26 billion years each, could explain Genesis’ account of God’s creating the Earth and all that there is in seven days. The merging of man’s conciousness with God has been the teaching of almost every religion in history. The fact that, according to the Mayan’s benefactor from the clouds, this present universe is the fifth, and a new universe will begin when this one becomes our heaven, seems to intimate at parallel universes or dimensions.

One thing that is definitely not taught, theorized, or, in any way prophisied by this Long Count Mayan Calendar is that the end of the world, doom and destruction, will be our fate on December 21, 2012. In fact, quite the opposite is the message it sends.

Glenn Flowers

Watch this video, almost 2 hours long.

All craftsmen, scientists, even writers will tell you that the tools used in their endeavors are of the utmost importance. Mechanics are of one voice when preferring a socket of the right size over an end wrench, or an offset boxend to an open end, an open end to slip joint pliers, and so forth. An orthopedic surgeon sporting a surgical kit circa 1865 will be citicized, and rightly so, by his peers using orthroscopes, lasers, and CCTV.

In some instances, the tools of decades ago are still the preferred and technically superior choice over newer, less proven devices. A 1940 era cutting torch is essential to metal workers and has not seen much improvement as none has been needed. A twenty pound sledge hammer is still the state of the art in creating reltively small holes in stucco.

It is understood that newer, more efficient tools have been created out of necessity and convenience. But when a tool is efficient, and no tool has been created that will serve the purpose as well, the original is still the state of the art and the choice of the wise.

Throughout human history, men have sought a process of governing society that would provide just what was needed, prevent what was not desired, and defended against the common enemy. In most historical episodes, a supreme ruler stepped into the vacuum caused by revolt or succession and dealt out the government he saw beneficial to himself.

Only when geographically isolated by the two great oceans, and determined to not be exploited without benefit to themselves, and with a willingness to die rather than be subjugated, did man put his mind to developing a better tool for societal needs and empower the individual to determine his own fate as he saw it given by the Universal Creator.

The result of this concentration of self determined, idealistic pooling of reason and logic was a union of self governing states, for the common purpose of defense, foreign associations, and various other common needs regulated and limited in its power by a constitutional document of agreement between those states that was so near perfection it has been and remains today, the state of the art in government. No other form of societal regulation has even come close to the immense success of every kind that the Constitution of the United States of America has proven to be.

There have been all sorts of government instituted in many ways, mostly with the proverbial divine supremist at the top, doling out that amount of individuality as seen to be appropriate. There have even been experiments in rule by majority that have failed in their lack of predictability of future influences and demands. But never, in all of recorded time has there been anything approaching the Constitution for its ability to create happiness, wealth, influence, respect, and peace for its citizens.

So why, when, after 230 plus years of unrivaled success, nothing else having been proven more efficient, do some of the citizens benefitting from that successful nation insist that they must change the tool that has served so well and experiment with forms of government that have failed, not once but everytime they were used. And not only have they proven inefficient to the point of failure, most times they have been outright destructive to incentive, personal freedom, economy, and the general well being of those governed, fomenting discontent, dissent, and rebellion of the most violent kind. Murder, usurpation, enslavement, war, and revolt have been the common product of such experimentation, the best being anarchy and, again, a supreme, divine benevolent dictator stepping in to deliver His subjects from their self inflicted misery and ignorance.

If there had been developed a simple, single step process of turning lead into gold, and no simpler method devised in a millineum, would we abandon that goose, lop off its head for roasting, and search for a better way? If immortality had been found at a fountain of cold spring thaw, would we water our fields with it while looking for a simpler way than to drink thereof? I say no, and no again. I say hell no, not on my watch!

That that law which hath raised a nation to global prominence, providing a dream for all other nations to strive for, making that nation the envy of all sentient humanity should be abandoned for the wild expectation of a more perfect perfection is blasphemy of the divinity which instilled that freedom yearning in all humanity. I say over my dead and rotting corpse if I hold any sway. And, with the promise of that constitution I, and those of same mind, do hold sway, by right of birth.

It is the flight of fancy, the false pursuit of divinity of self that causes such rabid desire in men as to inspire the wanton destruction of that which guaranteed their security and liberty to be able to dream peaceably at all. It is overwhelming greed and lack of confidence in fellow men that infests the soul of those wishing to de-evolve through the abandonement of man’s best product for the governmental process.

The truth is the Constitution is without peer, unrivaled in its efficiency, inherently successful, and in no need of improvement, arbitrary change, or major revamping. So, why not depend on it until a better device be invented. Only a fool would offer argument to that decision. Fools, we are become aware, are plentiful. Wise men, not so much.

Long live the Constitution! Long live America! God bless America.

Glenn Flowers

There is a lot of talk about the Republican Party and what it needs to do to become more effective at winning elections. There are those who say the party needs to abandon the right wing and adopt a more centered philosophy in order to attract moderates and conservative democrats and, thereby, be more competitive in campaigns.

Then again, those conservatives who are the right wing of the party know that historically, when the Republican Party runs a true Conservative and supports him, the party wins everytime.

A true Conservative believes and is defined by the following…

And …

Conservatives also are known for their fearce belief in and defense of…

Another ideal of true Conservatism is…

Essential to being a Conservative …

Elementary, as I said, and while not a complete list of Conservative ideals, it gives you a very succinct portrait of the mindset of ALL Conservatives who have ever lived. There are, of course, accompanying these already described, many other intelocking and accomodating values, limitations, and allowances that form the detailed, highly efficient set of systems and procedures known as Conservatism, Americanism, Constitutionalism, patriotism, wisdom, perfection, etc.

If anyone has any doubt in their mind about these core values, if they have questions as to their ability to support any of these, they are not a TRUE Conservative. If you find any or all of these ideas offensive, obsolete, arrogant, invalid, or impossible, you are definitely NOT a patriot, a true American, or, very smart at all. That is self-evident. Just don’t ever try to change America to what you think it should be, because it already IS what it should be, and it is not only illegal to try to change these truthful values and laws to mean something else, it can be very hazardous to your health.

These basic building blocks of the Conservative foundation existed long before anyone ever thought of calling themselves a Conservative. They and their partners in type have defined that label from its adoption. And they, with their accompanying articles, ammendments, sections, and clauses, always will be the basic platform, the defining beliefs of all true Conservatives for perpetuity. I can vow to the truth of that.

Glenn Flowers

The following resolution has been drafted by Oath Keepers and will be sent to all members of Congress and the legislatures of all of the several states. The original, reprinted here, can be found at...

http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/

 

 

[DRAFT] RESOLUTION ADDRESS OF OATH KEEPERS, APRIL 19, 2009, LEXINGTON GREEN
19 April 2009

To the honorable members of the Senate and House of Representatives, and to the honorable Secretaries of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, of the United States of America, in their separate capacities of our brothers and sisters in the public trust, of our own public servants, and of our fellow citizens, respectively, Greetings.

We, a collection of your fellow Americans — [including active duty military service members, current serving police, veterans, and other] public servants and private citizens—, united by sworn oaths to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, having voluntarily associated under the style of Oath Keepers, are met on Lexington Green on the 234th anniversary of that fateful day when better and truer men than ourselves, by their martial exertions and by their fidelity to Law and Liberty, forever consecrated this ground.

We note with soberness that now, as then, our beloved Country confronts a profound and deepening crisis. Now, as then, that crisis is brought on chiefly by a long train of abuses and usurpations on the part of our public officers, who have come to habitually violate the oaths, on condition of which they hold their offices.

We note, however, that this long-continued and gross infidelity on the part of others is only the proximate cause of our present, common American distress. We confess that now, unlike then, we ourselves may be complicit in the official lawlessness that is becoming general in all three branches, and at both levels, of our governments. We ourselves, in the orders that we have issued or carried out—either as officers or men of the standing National Armed Forces of our Republic, or as executive officers of our several States—; or in the statutes whose passage we have furthered—as members of our respective State Legislatures—, may have too little marked the bounds set by the Constitution that we swore to uphold. Moreover, we ourselves—in our original capacity of citizens—may, with our fellow citizens, have been too little vigilant in superintending the actions of our increasingly errant public servants. If so, we acknowledge our general and particular faults before God, before our sovereign masters and fellow citizens, and before our families and posterity. Yet, bold to hope that Nature’s God is still a God of Mercy, we humbly pray for His pardon, and for time to make amends and avert the consequences of our dereliction.

We note that, at earlier times of similarly grave crisis, previous generations of Americans have mustered on Lexington Green, have pledged anew their official and private fidelity to the Constitution of the United States, and, in so doing, have rediscovered the path of escape from foreign intrigue, from domestic tyranny, and from disunion and lawlessness.

We note that, in 1798, foreign intrigue had gone far to sow mutual suspicion and discord among fellow Americans, and aimed at the dissolution of our Union, while an imperious foreign power threatened to invade our shores. In that hour of crisis, the several Brigades of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts mustered in their turns on the Green where their fathers had fought before. Their officers publicly renewed their oaths to the Constitution of the United States. They thereupon directed unanimous patriotic addresses to the President of the United States, announcing the public renewal of their oaths, and assuring him of their fidelity to their sworn duty. In his reply to the officers of the First Brigade, Third Division, Militia of Massachusetts, then President John Adams noted with grateful and confident satisfaction that:

"Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken and so solemnly repeated on that venerable spot, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government."

Unlike those ancient oath keepers, we are mustered this day in voluntary association, rather than in an official public capacity. Indeed, we confess with shame that, having with our fellow citizens utterly neglected for a century to attend to those militia institutions, for the perpetuation of which our Constitution so ably provides, and which, alone among all our constitutional institutions, it characterizes as necessary to the security of a free state, we are quite unprepared on this day to muster in our several regiments, brigades, and divisions in the particular official capacities most appropriate to the crisis at hand.

Nevertheless, we note that many of our number do now serve, on condition of oaths to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, in our several offices or stations in the Armed Forces of the United States, [as police officers], or in the executive branches or Legislatures of our respective States. Most of those among us who do not now so stand in the public trust have so served in the past, on condition of similar oaths, which, if no longer enforceable against them by explicit law, yet make their moral force felt upon their American hearts today.

We are pleased to announce to you that we have this day, on this hallowed ground and on this sacred anniversary, publicly and solemnly renewed the oaths required of us by the command of Article VI, Clause 3, of the Constitution of the United States. We have done so in the several forms which, according to our particular offices, the relevant Federal and State statutes prescribe, or, in the case of those no longer standing in the public trust, in the form of the following general oath:

I, ___________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, [pledging my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor]. So help me, God.

As a testament of the earnestness of our oaths, as evidence that, in our own hearts, at least, oaths are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations, those among us who hold executive offices or stations at the Federal or State level have in counsel together identified ten unlawful orders which either ignorant, careless, or corrupted superior officers may conceivably issue to us in the future, which we cannot, consistent with the required oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, lawfully fulfill, and which—we have mutually and publicly pledged to each other this day—while we yet hold the public trust on condition of that oath, we will not attempt or pretend to fulfill, namely:

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people.
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a "state of emergency" on a State.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any State that asserts its sovereignty.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to "keep the peace" or to "maintain control."
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

As a similar testament to the earnestness of our oaths, those among us who serve as State Legislators, on condition of an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitutions of our several States, have publicly and mutually pledged to each other this day that we will introduce and promote the passage of such legislation in our own States as shall be consistent with our national and our State Constitutions and as we shall find best calculated to discountenance, to thwart the force of, and to protect the lives, liberties, and properties of our fellow State citizens against, all manner of unlawful Federal executive, legislative, and judicial usurpation and lawlessness, that we will, by our sacred votes, attempt to prevent the further passage in our own States of such unlawful statutes as encourage or facilitate such Federal usurpation and lawlessness, and that we will, by our votes, seek to repeal in our own States such existing unlawful statutes as do now encourage or facilitate such Federal usurpation and lawlessness.

Finally, as a similar testament to the earnestness of our oaths, those among us who have resumed the stations of private citizens, have publicly and mutually pledged to each other this day that we will do all that pertains to our rightful station to more vigilantly superintend our public servants in all three branches and at both levels of our governments, to require of them that fidelity to their lawfully required oaths that is the condition of their offices, and that we will encourage our fellow citizens to likewise exercise a more vigilant and firm surperintendence of the public servants for whose lawful or lawless acts we bear, by the mutual covenant of our Constitutions, an ultimate responsibility before God, before each other, and before our posterity.

Having now publicly renewed our lawfully required oaths, and in directing to you this our unanimous patriotic address, we urge you, the honorable members of the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States of America, to return to a conscientious faithfulness to your own oaths, to desist from passing statutes that presume to usurp powers not granted to the Congress, or the exercise of which is specifically proscribed to them, by the People of the United States in their Constitution, and to begin the task of repealing, with all deliberate care, those decades of lawless statutes that now profane our statute books.

We urge you, the honorable Secretaries of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps to examine your own official acts and to pledge anew your own fidelity to the oaths, on condition of which you hold your offices. While we cannot presume to direct, we urge you, in your official capacities, in pursuance of your lawful duty to see to the lawful execution of duty by those under your authority, to challenge the uniformed members of your respective Services to publicly renew their own oaths on the anniversaries of the inception of your respective Services, on the anniversaries of signal battles, or on other appropriate occasions, and to earnestly encourage such members to acquaint themselves with the peerless genius manifest by their sovereign masters, the American People, in their Constitutional distribution of the powers of war and peace between the Executive and Legislature of their National government and between the National and State levels of their compound Republic; to study the weighty principles of justice, statecraft, and history’s wisdom that undergird this singular Constitutional architecture; to reflect on the incalculable blessings of unexampled liberty and independence that have accrued to their fathers from the lawful observance of these strictures, as well as on the incalculable losses of liberty and the dangers to their Union and Independence that, by every ambitious or careless violation of the same strictures now threaten their country and fellow citizens; to examine the fidelity which they have hitherto borne to their oaths and; to resolve on greater faithfulness to the Constitution’s commands in the future.

Brothers and Sisters in the Public Trust, Our own Public Servants, Fellow Citizens: We remind you, as we remind ourselves, of the truth that Father Jefferson spoke to similarly errant public servants in a previous day, namely, in his Summary View of the Rights of British America:

"The great principles of right and wrong are legible to every reader; to pursue them requires not the aid of many counsellors. The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest."

To be faithful to a sworn oath is but to be honest. To be less than faithful to that oath is to perjure oneself, and to invite the punishment of that God whose name one has invoked in first swearing it. We resolve to be faithful. We urge you to a like fidelity.

Adopted by unanimous consent by the OATH KEEPERS assembled on Lexington Green, Massachusetts, on the 19th of April in the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and Nine and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

 

 

 

 

Nothing further need be said by me.

Glenn Flowers

One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of the widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Congressman Davy Crockett arose and said:

"Mr. Speaker - I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this house, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please to charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the grounds that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and, if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks. "

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously as was generally supposed, and as there is no doubt it would but for that speech, it received but few votes, and of course was lost.